Letting providers compete and charge whatever they think is appropriate and whatever they think the market will bear. If they want to offer prioritized service, why should some random regulatory agency say that they're not allowed to? Regulation is not "neutrality", it's just the act of telling consenting parties to a transaction that they can't have what they both want. And don't give me any crap about "important infrastructure". The internet is a commercial entity, owned by the people who own the pipes and supported by the people who pay for the bandwidth. Anything truly critical should be on its own network.
Actually I don't need the. I was hoping to get the orignal comment modded up so that people could read it, far more than I was concerned about karma. But oh well.
Re:-1 for self-contradiction, -1 for lateness
on
One Big Bang, Or Many?
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Dammit, managed to post that as anonymous. Dunno whether I whacked the button by accident or it was a proxy bug. In any case it was me and I think it's interesting stuff;)
No lo hablo perfectamente, pero no escribo una palabra si no puedo deletrearla. No hay palabra "u" ni "r" en inglés. La palabra "I" se escriben con mayúscula, al igual que palabras primeras de una frase y nombres propios.
No, rights can't be created. "Rights" can be created. Anything that can be created, granted, or anything like that isn't a right -- they're just commonly misnamed as such. Of course, organizations like the UN with their list of fictional "rights" don't improve matters any.
Those aren't the "clients", those are the "idiots". Spammers are people who send the messages. Clients are people who pay spammers to send their messages. Victims are people and ISPs who have to cope with the useless load that spam causes. Idiots are the people who get spam, think "This $5 Rolex is just what I need so that I'll always know when to take my prescription-free C,41iS" and click on the link.
Hey, you're right! It's an RTF spec. Well, maybe it is. The website says it is. But it's a Windows EXE file, so I have no idea what it actually does or contains.
RTF has no standard (other than various halfway-compatible implementations from Microsoft and open-source products), and has extremely little support for any useful formatting or metadata that you would want in an office format. Choosing RTF as your common-denominator standard format would be a lot like choosing HTML 2.0 for the same task. ODF, on the other hand, is flexible, with a complete and open spec, and one of its design goals is feature-compatibility with existing software.
So while I haven't tried this plugin, I find it entirely possible that it supports all or very nearly all Word features, allowing for open-standards interoperability without compromising the quality of the document. It also doesn't hurt that it's apparently implemented in terms of XSLT transforms -- translating OOo XML to Word XML.
One place where it is true that users change addresses constantly is dialup; PPP generally doesn't care who you are, or have any concept of a "lease", so generally speaking you'll never get the same address two connections in a row. The number of dialup users is on the way down, but it's still significant (for reference, see Slashdot). But I agree that the effect should be canceled out (or more than canceled) by the effect of NAT routing at offices, schools, libraries, and other big institutions.
How about "The Revolution will change everything"? Sounds pretty damn good to me.
I think they changed the name in order to avoid a miscconception that users wouldn't be able to plug it into their TVs -- after all, The Revolution Will Not Be Televised.
Right, Nintendo isn't selling to hardcore gamers... unfortunately hardcore gamers are the ones who would buy a system for specs or games regardless of marketing. The Nintendo market are the ones who would say "Wee? Eew."
People who complain that Java is slow, should be open-sourced, and so on have never seemed to had a clue.
Java is slow, regardless of how many times you say it's not, because Sun's implementation is a gigantic piece of shit, and because Java programmers use the pieces of Sun's implementation that make it pathetically slow. Yes, I know all about JIT. Yes, I know you can get fantastic performance from it. But no one writing a real world Java app ever has. They all take at least 2 minutes to load and are pathetically unresponsive on fast, modern systems with lots of RAM -- and the problem gets vastly worse on less-capable machines.
As to your other point (and the topic of discussion, I suppose), I want to see open-source Java, not Java open-sourced. If Sun's code never sees the light of day I won't mind. If every copy of Sun's code is wiped out in a freak accident I'll be happy. But I do want to see a free reimplementation reach the point of general-purpose usability. The VMs seem to be pretty mature now; we just need more support for projects like Classpath.
from yet another person who seems to think that you can just invent "freedoms". It doesn't mean anything, it doesn't make sense, and as long as the idea of "freedom" is abused like this it's not even worthy of discussion.
Anyone who says "this guy has the right piece of paper, he must be our man" is an idiot. But anyone who says "this guy has that piece of paper, so I'll ignore his resume" (and yes, I've heard it said in public) is an even bigger idiot. Certification is a service, and it holds a certain value. Opinions may differ as to what the value of a given cert is, but to make certification a primary factor in your decision is foolish... in this field, anyway.
You might have been the only ones not putting games on your calculators, but if you were smart you would have been the ones making money by putting games on everyone else's.:)
I really would not object to what needs to be done to defend against a clear and present danger.
"The targets represent a clear and present danger to the security of the United States." "The President said that?" "His words." "Fine. That makes it all legal. Not any less dangerous, but legal."
Re:Chinese counterfits are excellent
on
Faking a Company
·
· Score: 1
But the thing is, Wal-Mart is a company, and a company can be considered a person.
No, it can't. You can have a legal fiction saying that certain companies are "people", but to actually believe it in any sense is ridiculous, degrading to people, and bad for any sense of personal responsibility. In fact, supporting the legal fiction is ridiculous, degrading to people, and bad for any sense of personal responsibility. It just don't work.
Oh right. There weren't any examples of greed or power grabbing in 1974, 1921, 1865, the 1800s or the 1780s... nope, none at all. And by the way, way to neglect the rest of the world.
It kinda sounds like you're saying "English may have used some Latin grammar for many years, but since English is really a Germanic language, the Latin grammar is bogus and we should all stop taking it seriously."
No, more "English has never borrowed from Latin grammar in this department, and never will, but some nutballs studying Latin have decided that they can create a 'better' English by applying any Latin rule they can manage to English, regardless of whether there's any sense in it, or whether it agrees with any usage. In truth, there's very little wrong with using a preposition to end a sentence, and even less fault in ending a question with one.
As the grand-parent or so said, "why not let users submit new icon packs?" There are people out there who design sets of a few hundred icons as a hobby, and graphics are a thoroughly important part of any design. Besides, most of the existing icons just need "rescue" from improperly done shadows and antialiasing.
Slashdot Mirror
Letting providers compete and charge whatever they think is appropriate and whatever they think the market will bear. If they want to offer prioritized service, why should some random regulatory agency say that they're not allowed to? Regulation is not "neutrality", it's just the act of telling consenting parties to a transaction that they can't have what they both want. And don't give me any crap about "important infrastructure". The internet is a commercial entity, owned by the people who own the pipes and supported by the people who pay for the bandwidth. Anything truly critical should be on its own network.
Actually I don't need the. I was hoping to get the orignal comment modded up so that people could read it, far more than I was concerned about karma. But oh well.
Dammit, managed to post that as anonymous. Dunno whether I whacked the button by accident or it was a proxy bug. In any case it was me and I think it's interesting stuff ;)
No lo hablo perfectamente, pero no escribo una palabra si no puedo deletrearla. No hay palabra "u" ni "r" en inglés. La palabra "I" se escriben con mayúscula, al igual que palabras primeras de una frase y nombres propios.
No, rights can't be created. "Rights" can be created. Anything that can be created, granted, or anything like that isn't a right -- they're just commonly misnamed as such. Of course, organizations like the UN with their list of fictional "rights" don't improve matters any.
Well sorry. With spelling and grammar that bad I figured he just had to be from the US.
Those aren't the "clients", those are the "idiots". Spammers are people who send the messages. Clients are people who pay spammers to send their messages. Victims are people and ISPs who have to cope with the useless load that spam causes. Idiots are the people who get spam, think "This $5 Rolex is just what I need so that I'll always know when to take my prescription-free C,41iS" and click on the link.
What the fuck is an "irak"? Is it the latest product from Apple?
Hey, you're right! It's an RTF spec. Well, maybe it is. The website says it is. But it's a Windows EXE file, so I have no idea what it actually does or contains.
RTF has no standard (other than various halfway-compatible implementations from Microsoft and open-source products), and has extremely little support for any useful formatting or metadata that you would want in an office format. Choosing RTF as your common-denominator standard format would be a lot like choosing HTML 2.0 for the same task. ODF, on the other hand, is flexible, with a complete and open spec, and one of its design goals is feature-compatibility with existing software.
So while I haven't tried this plugin, I find it entirely possible that it supports all or very nearly all Word features, allowing for open-standards interoperability without compromising the quality of the document. It also doesn't hurt that it's apparently implemented in terms of XSLT transforms -- translating OOo XML to Word XML.
One place where it is true that users change addresses constantly is dialup; PPP generally doesn't care who you are, or have any concept of a "lease", so generally speaking you'll never get the same address two connections in a row. The number of dialup users is on the way down, but it's still significant (for reference, see Slashdot). But I agree that the effect should be canceled out (or more than canceled) by the effect of NAT routing at offices, schools, libraries, and other big institutions.
There are some of us who really liked Corporal Ima Hooker of the Empress' Own Regiment. But apparently her father was rather a cruel guy.
How about "The Revolution will change everything"? Sounds pretty damn good to me.
I think they changed the name in order to avoid a miscconception that users wouldn't be able to plug it into their TVs -- after all, The Revolution Will Not Be Televised.
Right, Nintendo isn't selling to hardcore gamers... unfortunately hardcore gamers are the ones who would buy a system for specs or games regardless of marketing. The Nintendo market are the ones who would say "Wee? Eew."
People who complain that Java is slow, should be open-sourced, and so on have never seemed to had a clue.
Java is slow, regardless of how many times you say it's not, because Sun's implementation is a gigantic piece of shit, and because Java programmers use the pieces of Sun's implementation that make it pathetically slow. Yes, I know all about JIT. Yes, I know you can get fantastic performance from it. But no one writing a real world Java app ever has. They all take at least 2 minutes to load and are pathetically unresponsive on fast, modern systems with lots of RAM -- and the problem gets vastly worse on less-capable machines.
As to your other point (and the topic of discussion, I suppose), I want to see open-source Java, not Java open-sourced. If Sun's code never sees the light of day I won't mind. If every copy of Sun's code is wiped out in a freak accident I'll be happy. But I do want to see a free reimplementation reach the point of general-purpose usability. The VMs seem to be pretty mature now; we just need more support for projects like Classpath.
from yet another person who seems to think that you can just invent "freedoms". It doesn't mean anything, it doesn't make sense, and as long as the idea of "freedom" is abused like this it's not even worthy of discussion.
Anyone who says "this guy has the right piece of paper, he must be our man" is an idiot. But anyone who says "this guy has that piece of paper, so I'll ignore his resume" (and yes, I've heard it said in public) is an even bigger idiot. Certification is a service, and it holds a certain value. Opinions may differ as to what the value of a given cert is, but to make certification a primary factor in your decision is foolish... in this field, anyway.
You might have been the only ones not putting games on your calculators, but if you were smart you would have been the ones making money by putting games on everyone else's. :)
I really would not object to what needs to be done to defend against a clear and present danger.
"The targets represent a clear and present danger to the security of the United States."
"The President said that?"
"His words."
"Fine. That makes it all legal. Not any less dangerous, but legal."
"Counterfit" is not a word.
But the thing is, Wal-Mart is a company, and a company can be considered a person.
No, it can't. You can have a legal fiction saying that certain companies are "people", but to actually believe it in any sense is ridiculous, degrading to people, and bad for any sense of personal responsibility. In fact, supporting the legal fiction is ridiculous, degrading to people, and bad for any sense of personal responsibility. It just don't work.
Oh right. There weren't any examples of greed or power grabbing in 1974, 1921, 1865, the 1800s or the 1780s... nope, none at all. And by the way, way to neglect the rest of the world.
Since when are governments interested in anything besides acquiring more money and more power?
It kinda sounds like you're saying "English may have used some Latin grammar for many years, but since English is really a Germanic language, the Latin grammar is bogus and we should all stop taking it seriously."
No, more "English has never borrowed from Latin grammar in this department, and never will, but some nutballs studying Latin have decided that they can create a 'better' English by applying any Latin rule they can manage to English, regardless of whether there's any sense in it, or whether it agrees with any usage. In truth, there's very little wrong with using a preposition to end a sentence, and even less fault in ending a question with one.
As the grand-parent or so said, "why not let users submit new icon packs?" There are people out there who design sets of a few hundred icons as a hobby, and graphics are a thoroughly important part of any design. Besides, most of the existing icons just need "rescue" from improperly done shadows and antialiasing.