They could make IT companies hire and/or keep older workers, no more
getting turned out to field when you don't know the lastest language (even
though you could learn it in a month).
What makes this a good thing? Honestly this would hurt the economy of the US in the long term. Limiting competition doesn't make the work force, economy stronger; it makes it weaker. If someone else can do my job as well for cheaper, then they deserve the job. Free market principle.
Surely you don't believe that the government should limit the number of japanese cars coming to the country just because GM can't compete with them? Look what the Japanese imports did to the automobile industry in the 70s and 80s. It vastly improved the American automobile thru competition--a good thing(tm).
Something to think about, someday you may not want to work a 70 hour
week, you may have a family, you may grey hair or be balding, do you want
to be replaced by an undercutting youngster or foreigner?
Although I think this is an extreme example, I will respond anyway. If this is your sitution it looks like you should look for a new job. If someone else is willing to do a job that you aren't willing to do--by all means let them do it. Nobody is forcing anyone to work 70 hours a week. If it is too much then resigning sounds like a good option--I probably would.
This whole situation reminds me of X10. They come up with some pretty cool hardware that appeals to geeks. They give away a starter kit for free--give away the razors, sell the blades idea. Pretty cool, a ton of geeks fork over the $5.00 S/H. X10 sells a bunch of gear.
Geeks come up with some cool implementations of this hardware. They write some software, that works with Linux (X10 hasn't released any that I know of). X10 sells a bunch more gear.
The difference is that X10 is giving away the razors and selling the blades. The Digital Convergence guys are giving away the razors and trying to sell blades that can easily be made of of normal everyday household items.
Which, isn't neccessarily a flawed business model--someone brought up the blinking 12:00 analogy.
Also, convenience is an issue: Kool-aid sells two main types--with sugar and without. They make a much better margin on the 'with sugar' ones--but they aren't quite as popular as the 20 for $1 kind. I guess I mean that people will pay a lot for value added convenience--and Digital Convergence needs to work hard to provide it.
Anyway, I don't understand why it is that they don't sell a SOHO multi-purpose barcode? Seems like a cool peripheral. Hopefully someone will see the demand for such a product and release one--perhaps even X10.
"Total cost of ownership" for a small network providing basic (and a few
other) services over the net and a LAN: ZERO.
That is a fairly bogus statement if I ever saw one. There is absolutely a cost: downtime and your own time. If you are incompetent, and you are down for 24 hours because you are trying to figure your problem out by talking to people on IRC, then you just in excess of one day's downtime. Incompetence costs money, and you can save it by having a talanted system engineer. I can understand where you are coming from--as a hacker and enthusiast. However, a company that depends on their information systems to do business can not afford to wait til 1337h4x0r on #linux gets back from lunch.
A large company like IBM SHOULD cater for the laws of Australia when
designing a website for the Australian Olympics though surely?
Why does that make sense to you? This is the internet--bound not to a single country, but virtuall all of them. As a soveriegn nation, you must be crazy to think that other nations will obide by your 'rule' because you made it. I can't believe that AU would think that they could enforce such a law. I think that if I had my way I would just DENY ALL: *.whatever government that makes such a silly rule and trys to enforce it.
As a
libertarian, you should understand the need for certain laws to protect
people's rights, or are disabled people not worth it in your opinion?
That's not the point. What the point is that I don't think that it is the responsibility of the goverment (of any nation) dictate such policy--especially of various media. But I agree that it *is* the responsibility of the goverment to protect civil rights (not take them) and provide a safe free marketplace. But I don't agree that being able to read the Olympics web site is in the constitution--and even if it was explictly, the constitution is only binding in the US.
I
suspect that some people hide behind the mantle of "libertarian" when they
actually mean "screw you, I'm busy seeking self-gratification while trampling
over everyone else."
Actually what we mean is that "screw you, I don't want the government telling me or anyone what to do/say/whatever."
Kenny Baker is 66 Years old as of last week. I imagine that scooting around in a tin can is a game for the young. The decision may have been made because Kenny Baker didn't want to do it again--it can't possibly be much fun.
What he have here is the finding that SOCOG's web sight breached one of
the law's of Australia. Hence, IBM, as part of due diligence in their bid for
designing the site, should have taken accessibility into consideration. Hence,
my opinion that the retrofit to make the site comply with the law should come
out of IBM's pocket.
I honestly don't think that this is a due dillegence issue. If the poeple who contracted IBM to do the site weren't aware of the accessability issues and laws of Australia and didn't request that it be covered by the scope of the project, then as far as I am concerned they are the ones that should be footing the bill.
The analogy to building contractors is just plain false. We're not talking about building a house. A house sits in a single jurisdiction; a website has no boundries. Say Zimbabwe has a law that says all site background colors should be, say, 'pink'. Should IBM be required to know that and implement that as part of the site? Its absurd. This is precisely the reason why laws like this shouldn't be created--becuase they can't be enforced.
But hey, I'm libertarian. I don't think that the government should tell you how to design your web site, just as I don't think they should tell you how to prepare for retirement, or what you can say, guns you can own.
And being a libertarian, I also believe that this nonsense should not settle in the courtroom but in the marketplace. If people that require accessability features (weather it be by choice or by neccessity) aren't raising their voices and voting with their dollars then what makes them think that businesses and individuals should subsidize these features? People that are complaining about not being able to surf with Lynx: what are you doing about it, besides complaining? Visually impaired people: are you letting corporations know that if they aren't going to make their site more accessible that you are going to go to their competitor? Or better yet are you funding the accessibility features of websites directly? If not, I don't even want to hear about it.
I'm not trying to be harsh on those without disibilities, but I just think that people demand a lot without sacrificing (monetarily that is) themselves. We talking about socialist information here.
Interesting note: CAST's Bobby system for evaluating web sites, etc. is funded/sponsered by IBM of all people. Check out the sponsorship page on CAST.org. Also, IBM appears to have a division just for 'Special Needs'.
It
goes without saying that changes would have
cost $0 if IBM had correctly used ALT tags the
first time around.
Well it should go without saying, because that is a completely false statement. It would cost a fortune to design a site that large with for blind accessibility--regardless of when you did it. It certainly would have been much cheaper to do it from the get-go, but it most definately would not have been no cost.
From http://www.agendacomputing.com/products/agenda_lin ux.jsp
Quicksync to PC with Rsync
Rsync is an algorithm that can determine sub-file nuances/changes to facilitate the transfering of only 'changed' data. It is also the name of an implementation of the Rsync alogorithm. So I believe that they are using Rsync to syncronize between a desktop and the PDA. I can assure you that the Rsync application/implementation works on linux--I use it every day.
I can't speak for RoadRunner in specific, but @home *does* port scan. By the same machine every time--and it has a hostname that is like 'scanner.home.com' or something like that. I am not sure what they are looking for as I have some ports (80 and 22 at least) open. They haven't taken action (although I imagine that they may if one had an abusable SMTP server) against anyone that I am aware of.
Can this be done with minimal, or *no* loss of quality?
MP3 is a lossy compression format. oog is also a Lossy compression format. It is impossible to convert from MP3->oog without a loss in quality. It may be small, but it will definately degrade. Same type of problem as editing a JPG and saving it, import it again and save it and you end up with a lower quality image.
Well, when Q3A was going to be released, I let my friends that work for Electronics Boutique that I wanted the first copy. For some reason I couldn't just preorder it like you could with the Windows version.
So on the release day they got one (1) copy in, and my friend snagged it for me. I came in and bought it. My brother wanted the next copy. 4-5 days later another copy came in and he got that one. Apparently some people had been asking for it, but because it wasn't in stock they didn't buy one. Eventually they sold a couple more but they never had more than one in stock at any time. I don't know what the EB purchaser was smoking because they could have sold many more. I was expecting at least 4 or 5 like they would get for even the crappiest windows release of a new game.
Also Amazon.com wouldn't let you preorder. THis is the way I obtain most of my cd's, dvd's, etc. I order them way in advance and usually get a decent discount. Then they just magically show up on my door. Works well. I talked to Amazon's customer support department and they just said they didn't know when they'd get it and that they wouldn't accept pre-orders. I don't know if they ever got it in. That hurt sales as Amazon has got to be the biggest software retailer.
THe funny thing is that I never play Q3 anymore... I have decided to stop playing games about 6 months before it came out, yet I put down my $40 to support commercial Linux releases. I've got a cool tin box if nothing else... the CD is still in the cellophane if memory serves. I guess I wish more of the other members of the community voted with their dollars.
Would you encourage your child to read http://kids.stormfront.org/? If they did, I'd want to know so I could at help them parse it, and realize that their new favorite game shouldn't become White Power Doom, and if it does, I want to know about it.
I certainly wouldn't encourage it. The funny thing about that site is that the only people visiting kids.stormfront.com are the media and people that *don't* agree with the content. Kids are not coming from all over the place to check it out and then suddently become racists.
You certainly can monitor what your children read/view on the internet--I think that I would setup monitoring if I had kids that were on the Internet. But I wouldn't set up filtering. But unlike other parents, I would be technically able to do it, and do it correctly.
But your point about the racist site made me think. KidBut your point about the racist site made me think. Kids below a pretty serious age (18? 22?) are still forming opinions about how they relate to others, and being exposed to hate liteature (or Christianity for that matter) has a much more significant effect on them. You will notice that Christians know to prey on younger kids--even up through college. s below a pretty serious age (18? 22?) are still forming opinions about how they relate to others, and being exposed to hate liteature (or Christianity for that matter) has a much more significant effect on them. You will notice that Christians know to prey on younger kids--even up through college.
I agree with you 100%. However, I guess I am asking (or asserting) that it isn't really anyones responsibility (except perhaps the parents if they so choose) to filter or protect a young mind from such information. It opens a big can of worms and leverages the whole system towards one idealogy. Sure racism is unpopular, even ugly, but who are we to judge? If the internet were thriving 20-30 years ago (perhaps today) there probably would be an outcry to filter sexual education related web sites due to their unpopularity. Is that a good thing? What 'mainstream' views are going to be unpopular or popular in the future? I've got a couple good examples of why I don't think unpopular speech should be blocked: japanese internment camps and the red scare. The only reason people were able to block and limit certain people's civil rights is because a) it was popular or somewhat acceptable and b) there were methods in place that allowed it to happen.
Finally, (This will probably get me a -1) I am getting REALLY tired of the typical assumption that "Parents Know Best". 90% of the time, if a kid is screwed up, it's because of the parents, and I can't remember the last time that a parent spent even a year educating themselves for the most significant task of their lives. The assumption is, aparently, having the ability to pump out children magically makes you an automatic expert.
Good point, and again, I agree. However, ultimately it is the repsonsibility of the parent, regardless of how suited they are for the job. Or at least it is not the responsibility of the government.
These kids are at the age where they can be responsible for their own actions, and where seeing pr0n probably will not scar them for life.
I have been wondering for a while what the big deal is about kids seening porn, etc. Its a theoretical question that nobody seems to ever ask. Does a child seeing a porn site or even *gasp* a racially insensitive website going to be affected at all by it?
Correct me if I am wrong but if a kid is old enough to actually go out looking for porn, they are old enough to handle it, right? Or at least they are old enough to where they will find alternative means, correct?
More obviously if a child (I'm using this term loosley) is looking for a 'racist' website aren't they old enough to be able to parse the information and make their own decisions?
And I don't buy this whole 'on accident' bit. What was the site for that "oops I was surfing for Chocolate Chip Cookies and ended up on Porn" rebuttal/contest?
I guess I don't believe that as a minor that you don't have the same rights as an Adult. I leave that up to the parents, not the government. Its a free speech issue as well as child rights. Jon Katz wrote an excellent article about, oh, 3-4 years ago in Wired on the subject of why children should have the same rights as adults. Wish I still had it.
What if someone in Amsterdam were to post an ounce of marijuana on eBay?
What if? Who cares? I wouldn't be in the least bit upset. There is absolutely nothing that you could put up for auction that I think would make me want to stop. The closest thing that I think of that would make me wobble a bit is stuff like Ivory which is difficult to legally obtain anywhere.
Along the same line of reasoning, I will say this: one thing that is nice about being a Libertarian is that you don't have to worry about a bunch of "what ifs's"? Its all the same answer: "Hands off". Its pretty easy to be consistent.
So if we try to cut out the middle man in these transactions, aren't we in fact taking money away from our fellow workers' pockets?
Honestly, I have no problem with people making money by acting as a middle man. I used to work for a Value Added Reseller as a Systems Engineer--and I continually try to get people to purchase from VARs as opposed to mail order computer companies.
The reason is that the VARs actually add value--in the form of support, etc. So basically, I don't have any problem with the middle man. The middle man can add a lot of value. But currently the only value the middle man in the music industry provides is by having the 'product' on hand, and sometimes they add direct value by reducing price. With the Internet, inventory is free and so all the music resellers are suddenly finding themselves without anything to offer their customers. Price is never that good of a value, especially when competition is greater (which is surely is on the Internet). Being the least cost provider doesn't get you very far in the long run--as there can be only one least cost provider.
Essentially MP3.com has taken a look at the problem of value add on the Internet and have done an admirable job. They have shown that you can add value to MP3s and make some money.
Now it is up to the rest of the middle men to follow suit--only they don't really want to. Like any business, they prefer their priveledged position and don't want additional competition. Bad for them, good for the consumer.
Maybe the official Libertarian stance on the issue of social welfare isn't so hypocritical, but how about the individual members themselves? I suspect almost all supporters of full-blown libertarianism are able-bodied and well off people fully capable of working and taking care of themselves, who take this fact for granted.
I am able bodied. And I have thought about this. Yet I am still of the opinion that it is not my responsibility to take care (financially or otherwise) the people of this nation. The only person that is responsible for my well being is myself. It is my responsibility to make sure that I am prepared for whatever may happen--it is my responsibility to develop my own social support. I have insurance for this reason.
But what if one day, what if, through some crippling injury (eg. auto, skiing accident, etc.) or illness (eg. Alzheimers, Parkinsons, Lou Gehrigs, etc.), your ability to work is taken away from you. Do you have enough saved up to last you through till your natural death? Or will Mom and Dad look after you till you die? Or are you willing to put a gun to your head and pull the trigger to save yourself the dishonour of collecting welfare and "robbing the taxpayer"?
I would be insured because I have made that a priority. If you haven't taken responsibility and prepared for such a situation, it was your own fault. You know what is great about the Libertarian Idealology? It is the lowest common denominator. You can still be a socialist if you want to. Except instead of being run by the govermnet it is run as a private co-op created by and for like-minded individuals. Only unlike socialism, I don't have to participate--pay in or reap the benefits.
I fully expect to not get my social security benefits when I am entitled to them. I've already written it off. Honestly I don't really want the money--just as I don't want to have to pay for it. But if it works out to where I don't get the benefits for whatever reason, you can bet that I will be holding accountable those responsible.
Do you really have the guts now?
Well, I have my support structure in place. I have my own resources, my family, etc. I *do* feel responsible for them in times of emergency, just as they do for me. I am lucky that I have a family that could help me out. But regardless of weather they were there and could help me out I would be able to sell by assets (what little I have)... I would make due. If I didn't feel that I am prepared then I would have to make neccessary precautions: purchasing insurance, what-not. Or in my aformentioned ideal case, join a co-op, etc. So in any case, your question is not really applicable to me.
My point is only this: Different groups hold different views on how best to interpret this Amendment. This does not necessarily mean they are being hypocritical. They have a different interpretation of the Constitution. The ACLU is not a libertarian institution. They are for civil liberties, but are not generally considered libertarians.
I understand where you are coming from on this, but I disagree. I don't think that the second amendment is ambiguous at all. I think that certain people want it to be ambiguous so they can justify trying to invalidate part of the constitution.
You might throw Social Security in there too (funny how conservatives and
Republicans are so frothingly anti-socialist, refusing to support universal
health care, yet supporting one of the most socialized of programs: Social
Security).
This is actually exactly the type of reason that I have become a libertarian. I was a card carring member of the Republican party (which is unusual for someone my age). One of the single greatest things about the libertarian idealogy is that it is completely non hypocritical. There is not a single conflicting belief. You pointed out a good one above. The reason why the Republicans often support the Social Security program is because it is important to many of the members of the Republican Party (mainly the baby boomers and the older generation). Its completely hypocritcal and it reminds me that people are totally self serving even if they act like they aren't.
And its not like the Liberals aren't hypocritcal either. I consider the first amendment (freedom of speech, religion, press, etc) and the second (right to bear arms) to be the exact same issue. While liberals will (rightly so) viscously protect the first amendment, they are completely against the second. It is the same issue--power of the government to control your life and actions. It is interesting that the ACLU will back you if any of your right granted in the Bill of Rights except the second ammendment.
So its bogus. The Libertarian party is the only party that has a consistent platform: less government control, period. The war on drugs, taxes, public funding for schools, socialized medicine, are all the same issue. Privitize, individually paid, to each his own. Can't argue with that.
It is interesting the number of Libertarians in high tech--its a trend I too have noticed. I consider the people in the high tech industries to be the elite of this country and the leaders of tomorrow. So I have a lot of hope for the future of the Libertarian party.
Apple does provide APIs for standard file services. The new one is Navigation Services, and the old (modal) one still works for backwards compatibility. If an developer decides to put a custom open/save interface in their application, how is that the OS vendor's fault?
I am aware that they provide the API, the problem is that nobody uses it. I don't know if anyone remembers, but back when Windows 95 first came out it was the same deal. When the vendors ported the win16 apps to windows 95 it sucked. Apple was actually one of the if not *the* worst offenders of this (on windows 95), as they ignored standard install practices and interfaces (with QT) for an obscenely long amount of time. Actually they still break from the norm).
In any case, Microsoft (bless their hearts) were trying to bring some standards to the desktop, including where to keep files, how the interface is supposed to look, etc. And to put some teeth behind it they actually required you to adhere in order to get the certified for use with Windows95(tm) logo. Best thing they ever did.
On the mac, your hot keys are consistent across all apps so they're actually usable.
I have two workstations on my desk. A Mac and a Linux workstation. I use them both about equally. What I find incredibly frusterating about the Mac is that the interface is inconsistent.
Can you describe the 'Mac File Open dialog box' for me? If you can, it will be littered with the words: sometimes, often, most, occasionally. Every app has their own 'standard' dialog boxes. Bare Bones software has probably the worst ones, followed closely (IMHO) by Adobe. Bare Bones may make a good application (BBEdit) but they are lousy when it comes to a truly effective interface (best example is the 'open several' hidden option/dialog). Adobe actually came up with their own 'explorer' that crashes on some systems--luckily they let you disable it on many apps.
It suprises me that a company that parades its 'UI' so much that they appear to not offer a sufficient API for their developers to build applications that are consistent. But they did get the hot-keys right! Oh wait. Ever try to use the recently added (I think like 8.blah or so) 'alt-tab' functionality? *Exact* copy of windows, execpt that instead of toggling to the last used application it goes through in *alphabetic order*. Which makes it 100% absolutely useless in my opinion--an implementation that utterly baffles me. I guess Apple never though anyone would need to run more than one (or two) apps at once.
Enough of my rambling. I am a Mac fan, I just don't like the UI very much. I don't like the Windows UI much either, but at least it is consistent. I don't really like the UI on my linux machine much either, but at least its my own damned fault.
Slashdot Mirror
They could make IT companies hire and/or keep older workers, no more getting turned out to field when you don't know the lastest language (even though you could learn it in a month).
What makes this a good thing? Honestly this would hurt the economy of the US in the long term. Limiting competition doesn't make the work force, economy stronger; it makes it weaker. If someone else can do my job as well for cheaper, then they deserve the job. Free market principle.
Surely you don't believe that the government should limit the number of japanese cars coming to the country just because GM can't compete with them? Look what the Japanese imports did to the automobile industry in the 70s and 80s. It vastly improved the American automobile thru competition--a good thing(tm).
Something to think about, someday you may not want to work a 70 hour week, you may have a family, you may grey hair or be balding, do you want to be replaced by an undercutting youngster or foreigner?
Although I think this is an extreme example, I will respond anyway. If this is your sitution it looks like you should look for a new job. If someone else is willing to do a job that you aren't willing to do--by all means let them do it. Nobody is forcing anyone to work 70 hours a week. If it is too much then resigning sounds like a good option--I probably would.
-k
This whole situation reminds me of X10. They come up with some pretty cool hardware that appeals to geeks. They give away a starter kit for free--give away the razors, sell the blades idea. Pretty cool, a ton of geeks fork over the $5.00 S/H. X10 sells a bunch of gear.
Geeks come up with some cool implementations of this hardware. They write some software, that works with Linux (X10 hasn't released any that I know of). X10 sells a bunch more gear.
The difference is that X10 is giving away the razors and selling the blades. The Digital Convergence guys are giving away the razors and trying to sell blades that can easily be made of of normal everyday household items.
Which, isn't neccessarily a flawed business model--someone brought up the blinking 12:00 analogy.
Also, convenience is an issue: Kool-aid sells two main types--with sugar and without. They make a much better margin on the 'with sugar' ones--but they aren't quite as popular as the 20 for $1 kind. I guess I mean that people will pay a lot for value added convenience--and Digital Convergence needs to work hard to provide it.
Anyway, I don't understand why it is that they don't sell a SOHO multi-purpose barcode? Seems like a cool peripheral. Hopefully someone will see the demand for such a product and release one--perhaps even X10.
-k
"Total cost of ownership" for a small network providing basic (and a few other) services over the net and a LAN: ZERO.
That is a fairly bogus statement if I ever saw one. There is absolutely a cost: downtime and your own time. If you are incompetent, and you are down for 24 hours because you are trying to figure your problem out by talking to people on IRC, then you just in excess of one day's downtime. Incompetence costs money, and you can save it by having a talanted system engineer. I can understand where you are coming from--as a hacker and enthusiast. However, a company that depends on their information systems to do business can not afford to wait til 1337h4x0r on #linux gets back from lunch.
-k
This is kind of interesting, something I don't usually see on a EULA:
Your Signature
____________________________________
Agreement may be sent via facsimile to
Digital:Convergence at
(214) 292-6001.
-k
A large company like IBM SHOULD cater for the laws of Australia when designing a website for the Australian Olympics though surely?
Why does that make sense to you? This is the internet--bound not to a single country, but virtuall all of them. As a soveriegn nation, you must be crazy to think that other nations will obide by your 'rule' because you made it. I can't believe that AU would think that they could enforce such a law. I think that if I had my way I would just DENY ALL: *.whatever government that makes such a silly rule and trys to enforce it.
As a libertarian, you should understand the need for certain laws to protect people's rights, or are disabled people not worth it in your opinion?
That's not the point. What the point is that I don't think that it is the responsibility of the goverment (of any nation) dictate such policy--especially of various media. But I agree that it *is* the responsibility of the goverment to protect civil rights (not take them) and provide a safe free marketplace. But I don't agree that being able to read the Olympics web site is in the constitution--and even if it was explictly, the constitution is only binding in the US.
I suspect that some people hide behind the mantle of "libertarian" when they actually mean "screw you, I'm busy seeking self-gratification while trampling over everyone else."
Actually what we mean is that "screw you, I don't want the government telling me or anyone what to do/say/whatever."
-k
Kenny Baker is 66 Years old as of last week. I imagine that scooting around in a tin can is a game for the young. The decision may have been made because Kenny Baker didn't want to do it again--it can't possibly be much fun.
-k
What he have here is the finding that SOCOG's web sight breached one of the law's of Australia. Hence, IBM, as part of due diligence in their bid for designing the site, should have taken accessibility into consideration. Hence, my opinion that the retrofit to make the site comply with the law should come out of IBM's pocket.
I honestly don't think that this is a due dillegence issue. If the poeple who contracted IBM to do the site weren't aware of the accessability issues and laws of Australia and didn't request that it be covered by the scope of the project, then as far as I am concerned they are the ones that should be footing the bill.
The analogy to building contractors is just plain false. We're not talking about building a house. A house sits in a single jurisdiction; a website has no boundries. Say Zimbabwe has a law that says all site background colors should be, say, 'pink'. Should IBM be required to know that and implement that as part of the site? Its absurd. This is precisely the reason why laws like this shouldn't be created--becuase they can't be enforced.
But hey, I'm libertarian. I don't think that the government should tell you how to design your web site, just as I don't think they should tell you how to prepare for retirement, or what you can say, guns you can own.
And being a libertarian, I also believe that this nonsense should not settle in the courtroom but in the marketplace. If people that require accessability features (weather it be by choice or by neccessity) aren't raising their voices and voting with their dollars then what makes them think that businesses and individuals should subsidize these features? People that are complaining about not being able to surf with Lynx: what are you doing about it, besides complaining? Visually impaired people: are you letting corporations know that if they aren't going to make their site more accessible that you are going to go to their competitor? Or better yet are you funding the accessibility features of websites directly? If not, I don't even want to hear about it.
I'm not trying to be harsh on those without disibilities, but I just think that people demand a lot without sacrificing (monetarily that is) themselves. We talking about socialist information here.
Interesting note: CAST's Bobby system for evaluating web sites, etc. is funded/sponsered by IBM of all people. Check out the sponsorship page on CAST.org. Also, IBM appears to have a division just for 'Special Needs'.
-k
It goes without saying that changes would have cost $0 if IBM had correctly used ALT tags the first time around.
Well it should go without saying, because that is a completely false statement. It would cost a fortune to design a site that large with for blind accessibility--regardless of when you did it. It certainly would have been much cheaper to do it from the get-go, but it most definately would not have been no cost.
-k
From http://www.agendacomputing.com/products/agenda_lin ux.jsp
Quicksync to PC with Rsync
Rsync is an algorithm that can determine sub-file nuances/changes to facilitate the transfering of only 'changed' data. It is also the name of an implementation of the Rsync alogorithm. So I believe that they are using Rsync to syncronize between a desktop and the PDA. I can assure you that the Rsync application/implementation works on linux--I use it every day.
-k
they don't probe users' systems.
I can't speak for RoadRunner in specific, but @home *does* port scan. By the same machine every time--and it has a hostname that is like 'scanner.home.com' or something like that. I am not sure what they are looking for as I have some ports (80 and 22 at least) open. They haven't taken action (although I imagine that they may if one had an abusable SMTP server) against anyone that I am aware of.
-k
This 'article' is nothing more than a press release from Great Bridge.
There may be some additional information learned by reading the results of the benchmark from
http://www.tpc.org/New_Result/TPCC_ Results.html
Although I am having a hard time finding any reference to Postgres on that page. Can anyone find any better references?
-k
Can this be done with minimal, or *no* loss of quality?
MP3 is a lossy compression format. oog is also a Lossy compression format. It is impossible to convert from MP3->oog without a loss in quality. It may be small, but it will definately degrade. Same type of problem as editing a JPG and saving it, import it again and save it and you end up with a lower quality image.
-k
Well, when Q3A was going to be released, I let my friends that work for Electronics Boutique that I wanted the first copy. For some reason I couldn't just preorder it like you could with the Windows version.
So on the release day they got one (1) copy in, and my friend snagged it for me. I came in and bought it. My brother wanted the next copy. 4-5 days later another copy came in and he got that one. Apparently some people had been asking for it, but because it wasn't in stock they didn't buy one. Eventually they sold a couple more but they never had more than one in stock at any time. I don't know what the EB purchaser was smoking because they could have sold many more. I was expecting at least 4 or 5 like they would get for even the crappiest windows release of a new game.
Also Amazon.com wouldn't let you preorder. THis is the way I obtain most of my cd's, dvd's, etc. I order them way in advance and usually get a decent discount. Then they just magically show up on my door. Works well. I talked to Amazon's customer support department and they just said they didn't know when they'd get it and that they wouldn't accept pre-orders. I don't know if they ever got it in. That hurt sales as Amazon has got to be the biggest software retailer.
THe funny thing is that I never play Q3 anymore... I have decided to stop playing games about 6 months before it came out, yet I put down my $40 to support commercial Linux releases. I've got a cool tin box if nothing else... the CD is still in the cellophane if memory serves. I guess I wish more of the other members of the community voted with their dollars.
-k
Would you encourage your child to read http://kids.stormfront.org/? If they did, I'd want to know so I could at help them parse it, and realize that their new favorite game shouldn't become White Power Doom, and if it does, I want to know about it.
I certainly wouldn't encourage it. The funny thing about that site is that the only people visiting kids.stormfront.com are the media and people that *don't* agree with the content. Kids are not coming from all over the place to check it out and then suddently become racists.
You certainly can monitor what your children read/view on the internet--I think that I would setup monitoring if I had kids that were on the Internet. But I wouldn't set up filtering. But unlike other parents, I would be technically able to do it, and do it correctly.
Love the sig.
-k
But your point about the racist site made me think. KidBut your point about the racist site made me think. Kids below a pretty serious age (18? 22?) are still forming opinions about how they relate to others, and being exposed to hate liteature (or Christianity for that matter) has a much more significant effect on them. You will notice that Christians know to prey on younger kids--even up through college. s below a pretty serious age (18? 22?) are still forming opinions about how they relate to others, and being exposed to hate liteature (or Christianity for that matter) has a much more significant effect on them. You will notice that Christians know to prey on younger kids--even up through college.
I agree with you 100%. However, I guess I am asking (or asserting) that it isn't really anyones responsibility (except perhaps the parents if they so choose) to filter or protect a young mind from such information. It opens a big can of worms and leverages the whole system towards one idealogy. Sure racism is unpopular, even ugly, but who are we to judge? If the internet were thriving 20-30 years ago (perhaps today) there probably would be an outcry to filter sexual education related web sites due to their unpopularity. Is that a good thing? What 'mainstream' views are going to be unpopular or popular in the future? I've got a couple good examples of why I don't think unpopular speech should be blocked: japanese internment camps and the red scare. The only reason people were able to block and limit certain people's civil rights is because a) it was popular or somewhat acceptable and b) there were methods in place that allowed it to happen.
Finally, (This will probably get me a -1) I am getting REALLY tired of the typical assumption that "Parents Know Best". 90% of the time, if a kid is screwed up, it's because of the parents, and I can't remember the last time that a parent spent even a year educating themselves for the most significant task of their lives. The assumption is, aparently, having the ability to pump out children magically makes you an automatic expert.
Good point, and again, I agree. However, ultimately it is the repsonsibility of the parent, regardless of how suited they are for the job. Or at least it is not the responsibility of the government.
-k
These kids are at the age where they can be responsible for their own actions, and where seeing pr0n probably will not scar them for life.
I have been wondering for a while what the big deal is about kids seening porn, etc. Its a theoretical question that nobody seems to ever ask. Does a child seeing a porn site or even *gasp* a racially insensitive website going to be affected at all by it?
Correct me if I am wrong but if a kid is old enough to actually go out looking for porn, they are old enough to handle it, right? Or at least they are old enough to where they will find alternative means, correct?
More obviously if a child (I'm using this term loosley) is looking for a 'racist' website aren't they old enough to be able to parse the information and make their own decisions?
And I don't buy this whole 'on accident' bit. What was the site for that "oops I was surfing for Chocolate Chip Cookies and ended up on Porn" rebuttal/contest?
I guess I don't believe that as a minor that you don't have the same rights as an Adult. I leave that up to the parents, not the government. Its a free speech issue as well as child rights. Jon Katz wrote an excellent article about, oh, 3-4 years ago in Wired on the subject of why children should have the same rights as adults. Wish I still had it.
-k
What if someone in Amsterdam were to post an ounce of marijuana on eBay?
What if? Who cares? I wouldn't be in the least bit upset. There is absolutely nothing that you could put up for auction that I think would make me want to stop. The closest thing that I think of that would make me wobble a bit is stuff like Ivory which is difficult to legally obtain anywhere.
Along the same line of reasoning, I will say this: one thing that is nice about being a Libertarian is that you don't have to worry about a bunch of "what ifs's"? Its all the same answer: "Hands off". Its pretty easy to be consistent.
-k
So if we try to cut out the middle man in these transactions, aren't we in fact taking money away from our fellow workers' pockets?
Honestly, I have no problem with people making money by acting as a middle man. I used to work for a Value Added Reseller as a Systems Engineer--and I continually try to get people to purchase from VARs as opposed to mail order computer companies.
The reason is that the VARs actually add value--in the form of support, etc. So basically, I don't have any problem with the middle man. The middle man can add a lot of value. But currently the only value the middle man in the music industry provides is by having the 'product' on hand, and sometimes they add direct value by reducing price. With the Internet, inventory is free and so all the music resellers are suddenly finding themselves without anything to offer their customers. Price is never that good of a value, especially when competition is greater (which is surely is on the Internet). Being the least cost provider doesn't get you very far in the long run--as there can be only one least cost provider.
Essentially MP3.com has taken a look at the problem of value add on the Internet and have done an admirable job. They have shown that you can add value to MP3s and make some money.
Now it is up to the rest of the middle men to follow suit--only they don't really want to. Like any business, they prefer their priveledged position and don't want additional competition. Bad for them, good for the consumer.
-k
Maybe the official Libertarian stance on the issue of social welfare isn't so hypocritical, but how about the individual members themselves? I suspect almost all supporters of full-blown libertarianism are able-bodied and well off people fully capable of working and taking care of themselves, who take this fact for granted.
I am able bodied. And I have thought about this. Yet I am still of the opinion that it is not my responsibility to take care (financially or otherwise) the people of this nation. The only person that is responsible for my well being is myself. It is my responsibility to make sure that I am prepared for whatever may happen--it is my responsibility to develop my own social support. I have insurance for this reason.
But what if one day, what if, through some crippling injury (eg. auto, skiing accident, etc.) or illness (eg. Alzheimers, Parkinsons, Lou Gehrigs, etc.), your ability to work is taken away from you. Do you have enough saved up to last you through till your natural death? Or will Mom and Dad look after you till you die? Or are you willing to put a gun to your head and pull the trigger to save yourself the dishonour of collecting welfare and "robbing the taxpayer"?
I would be insured because I have made that a priority. If you haven't taken responsibility and prepared for such a situation, it was your own fault. You know what is great about the Libertarian Idealology? It is the lowest common denominator. You can still be a socialist if you want to. Except instead of being run by the govermnet it is run as a private co-op created by and for like-minded individuals. Only unlike socialism, I don't have to participate--pay in or reap the benefits.
I fully expect to not get my social security benefits when I am entitled to them. I've already written it off. Honestly I don't really want the money--just as I don't want to have to pay for it. But if it works out to where I don't get the benefits for whatever reason, you can bet that I will be holding accountable those responsible.
Do you really have the guts now?
Well, I have my support structure in place. I have my own resources, my family, etc. I *do* feel responsible for them in times of emergency, just as they do for me. I am lucky that I have a family that could help me out. But regardless of weather they were there and could help me out I would be able to sell by assets (what little I have)... I would make due. If I didn't feel that I am prepared then I would have to make neccessary precautions: purchasing insurance, what-not. Or in my aformentioned ideal case, join a co-op, etc. So in any case, your question is not really applicable to me.
-k
My point is only this: Different groups hold different views on how best to interpret this Amendment. This does not necessarily mean they are being hypocritical. They have a different interpretation of the Constitution. The ACLU is not a libertarian institution. They are for civil liberties, but are not generally considered libertarians.
I understand where you are coming from on this, but I disagree. I don't think that the second amendment is ambiguous at all. I think that certain people want it to be ambiguous so they can justify trying to invalidate part of the constitution.
-k
How many slashdotters bothered to sign up to be a member?
/.
/. readers are members.
I am an at-large member, as are many of my friends that read
I would say that probably at least 10% of active
-k
You might throw Social Security in there too (funny how conservatives and Republicans are so frothingly anti-socialist, refusing to support universal health care, yet supporting one of the most socialized of programs: Social Security).
This is actually exactly the type of reason that I have become a libertarian. I was a card carring member of the Republican party (which is unusual for someone my age). One of the single greatest things about the libertarian idealogy is that it is completely non hypocritical. There is not a single conflicting belief. You pointed out a good one above. The reason why the Republicans often support the Social Security program is because it is important to many of the members of the Republican Party (mainly the baby boomers and the older generation). Its completely hypocritcal and it reminds me that people are totally self serving even if they act like they aren't.
And its not like the Liberals aren't hypocritcal either. I consider the first amendment (freedom of speech, religion, press, etc) and the second (right to bear arms) to be the exact same issue. While liberals will (rightly so) viscously protect the first amendment, they are completely against the second. It is the same issue--power of the government to control your life and actions. It is interesting that the ACLU will back you if any of your right granted in the Bill of Rights except the second ammendment.
So its bogus. The Libertarian party is the only party that has a consistent platform: less government control, period. The war on drugs, taxes, public funding for schools, socialized medicine, are all the same issue. Privitize, individually paid, to each his own. Can't argue with that.
It is interesting the number of Libertarians in high tech--its a trend I too have noticed. I consider the people in the high tech industries to be the elite of this country and the leaders of tomorrow. So I have a lot of hope for the future of the Libertarian party.
-k
From the footer on the ABC story:Fred Moody is the author of I Sing the Body Electronic: A Year with Microsoft on the Multimedia Frontier
What I find amazing is that he spent a *year* with Microsoft and still supports them!
I won't go into the reasons why I think this article is simply a troll. We all are aware of the logic of the so-called conslusion.
-k
Apple does provide APIs for standard file services. The new one is Navigation Services, and the old (modal) one still works for backwards compatibility. If an developer decides to put a custom open/save interface in their application, how is that the OS vendor's fault?
I am aware that they provide the API, the problem is that nobody uses it. I don't know if anyone remembers, but back when Windows 95 first came out it was the same deal. When the vendors ported the win16 apps to windows 95 it sucked. Apple was actually one of the if not *the* worst offenders of this (on windows 95), as they ignored standard install practices and interfaces (with QT) for an obscenely long amount of time. Actually they still break from the norm).
In any case, Microsoft (bless their hearts) were trying to bring some standards to the desktop, including where to keep files, how the interface is supposed to look, etc. And to put some teeth behind it they actually required you to adhere in order to get the certified for use with Windows95(tm) logo. Best thing they ever did.
I want apple to do the same with OSX.
-k
On the mac, your hot keys are consistent across all apps so they're actually usable.
I have two workstations on my desk. A Mac and a Linux workstation. I use them both about equally. What I find incredibly frusterating about the Mac is that the interface is inconsistent.
Can you describe the 'Mac File Open dialog box' for me? If you can, it will be littered with the words: sometimes, often, most, occasionally. Every app has their own 'standard' dialog boxes. Bare Bones software has probably the worst ones, followed closely (IMHO) by Adobe. Bare Bones may make a good application (BBEdit) but they are lousy when it comes to a truly effective interface (best example is the 'open several' hidden option/dialog). Adobe actually came up with their own 'explorer' that crashes on some systems--luckily they let you disable it on many apps.
It suprises me that a company that parades its 'UI' so much that they appear to not offer a sufficient API for their developers to build applications that are consistent. But they did get the hot-keys right! Oh wait. Ever try to use the recently added (I think like 8.blah or so) 'alt-tab' functionality? *Exact* copy of windows, execpt that instead of toggling to the last used application it goes through in *alphabetic order*. Which makes it 100% absolutely useless in my opinion--an implementation that utterly baffles me. I guess Apple never though anyone would need to run more than one (or two) apps at once.
Enough of my rambling. I am a Mac fan, I just don't like the UI very much. I don't like the Windows UI much either, but at least it is consistent. I don't really like the UI on my linux machine much either, but at least its my own damned fault.
-k