Coherent, perhaps. Consistant? No more than anybody else trying to write the English language with the Latin alphabet.
The problem is that English actually has 20 vowel sounds and we fudge quite a bit when we use the 5 written vowels to represent them. The particular choice of vowel is often arbitrary and could just as well be represented by more than one other.
Using the wrong vowel isn't a logical idiocy like asking where the "Any Key" is. It's a simple failure of having learned every possible word by rote.
I suppose all of your code compiles perfectly the first time?
". . . or a collection of pedophiles who are trying to legitimise their actions."
Believe it or not if they are truly trying to legitimise their actions ( as oppossed to excusing them) this is legitimate political dissent. The age of consent is a purely political issue define entirely within the political context. There is no clear consensus on what peadophilia even is and every jurisdiction has its own ideas on the matter.
Such ideas are debated in the local legislatures and in the federal buildings. They are part of the political process and anyone in a democratic nation has the right to both have and opinion and support it.
If they win then they are legitimized. Like it or not. That's the nature of law.
Well yes, that's their hope. If you can't store it on anything than you have keep paying for your connection and pay again every time you watch something.
The media kills your wallet with a financial death by 1000 cuts.
What's more is the fact that "on demand" viewing is a push model disguised as a pull model. They who control the pipe get to control that which is available to you for your "demand." Think Clear Channel and the pop music machine become endemic to all media.
Of course this will only work if your media is taken from you or rendered usless by force, because, of course, what you want downloadable media for in the first place is to record it to permenant media for viewing, well, on demand. Like maybe on your boat 10 miles out of sight of land or your mountain getaway cabin or wherever.
Sure people want the convienience of on demand media from home, so they can record the shit on cheap, free and open storage media.
Never underestimate the bandwidth of a cupboard full of tapes, CDs and DVDs. Not to mention the fact that such are true on demand media.
KFG
If submiter had bothered to read the article
on
Studies In Ornithopters
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
he might have noted that there are no plans to build larger versions of these things. The entire point is small "insect sized" spy drones.
Various small ornithopers have been built. You can even buy toy windup versions. In small sizes they work.
They do not scale. There is no known way to make them scale. Neither the physics nor the engineering support the idea of producing large amounts of lift be rapidly anad violently flapping around large inertial masses.
Not to mention the fact that in the large scale the problem has been solved already with the rotating wing.
I haven't a clue how thousands of pounds of rapidly flapping metal could be deemed to be potentially safer than the Osprey, particulary given the sorts of mechanisms that would be required to drive them.
"If someone modified a Segway by installing a feeding tube, so that the rider could suck a high calorie substance like gravy through the tube while simultaneously avoiding exercise, that would be a cool Segway story."
This is already a commercial product. It's called a Camelback.
Since the Segway is a high tech solution to a nonexistent low tech problem pretty much anything you could do to enhance one has already been done by the hikers, cylists and motorbike crowd.
I really can't see much on the horizen of relevant Segway "hacks" much beyond putting playing cards in the spokes and plastic streamers on the handlebars.
Neither of which would work half as well as they do on a bicycle.
Re:Looks too much like XP
on
Aethera 1.0
·
· Score: 1
The case was only settled after the judge refused to hear the main complaint about the body of code because it was already being freely distributed with source.
Whether we fully like the idea or not they have a right to enforce their patents.
But only their patents.
If their software is not patentable than no, they do not have the right to ban you from reverse engineering it, any more than someone could "ban" you from making a chair like the one they had made.
I suppose they could try to revoke your license, but by that point you'd already have a work alike, so. ..
Certainly, this is exactly what I'm suggesting and the logical way to do it since the logic of Instant Messaging is identical to the logic of email.
"Ding! You've got message."
Piece of cake and hardly expensive to implement since the server is only dealing with ASCII text transfers and doesn't have to store them. 2.2 Linux on whatever's lying around gathering dust.
My critic asks why an ISP should be responsible for this. I'd suggest for the same reason that they're responsible for providing you with email, ftp, http, and IRC services, as well as web server space.
Because that's their business; and you pay them for it.
Because software isn't a patentable good or service, it's simply a license.
Can we say "legal contradiction" boys and girls?
I knew you could.
KFG
Re:Looks too much like XP
on
Aethera 1.0
·
· Score: 3, Informative
You are neglecting the fact that AT&T UNIX was at one time open source. That's how Berkeley got ahold of the code in the first place.It was even free as in beer.
BSD UNIX is not a clone of AT&T UNIX. Through the efforts of Bill Joy and others BSD evolved directly from it.In an open manner. And they gave it away.
That's why AT&T sued BSDI for selling it. . . and lost, because the code was already open source.
And I guess the folk who eschew LFS as being for wussies and write all of their startup scripts from scratch would be like a farmer who invents dirt before he can plow it.
I knew someone was going to call me on that one as soon as I hit the submit button. It is Slashdot, after all.
I'm familiar with the long history of the internet and first came into contact with ARPANET some 30 years ago through my university.
However, when I left uni I lost access. As a private individual at that time it wasn't possible for me to get a Unix shell account.
Thus I eventually turned to Quantum Computer Services ( you call it AOL, youngster), because they catered to the home market and there was no other game in town ( for these purposes CompuServe and GEnie don't really count as they catered to the business market, and were priced accordingly). Note that at the time even they could not provide internet access. Indeed the universal adoption of the TCP/IP protocol hadn't quite been settled yet.
Given the audience I should have said they preexisted open public access to the internet.
MSN, like AOL, is not part of the internet. It is a closed and propriatary network which offers internet access to its paid subscribers.
The MS Intant Messenger protocol is a propriatary protocol of that private network.
This is the very issue, is it not?
Your ISP already knows your ip address (did you know that when you're on the net you're broadcasting your ip?) and how to send stuff from their servers to your machine. That's how you get your email.
How do you suppose web pages appear on your monitor? It isn't by magic. You send out a signal saying "here I am, give me that," and what you request gets passed hand to hand across the net until you've got it in your hot little box and all sorts of people along the way know who you are and what your ip is if they want to. My firewall tells me all sorts of people already know my ip, nor is it possible to hack a box with a plain text message ( a buggy client may be another matter).
The idea of a centralized server is antithetical to very idea of the internet. The internet is a distributed network of servers, some sitting right in people's own homes. With publicly knowable ips. Fancy that.
That's what Microsoft doesn't like, the fact that anyone can setup a mail server and resolve ip addresses, and thus they can't force a piece of every pie into their own bank accounts. That's the intended function of MSN.
It would be easy enough for MS to promote an internet standard protocol. Then every ISP could put a 486 in the corner somewhere to deal with routing the traffic. It really doesn't take much computing power, or even bandwidth, to simply pass along ASCII text without storing it.
That's what the internet is for and way it's designed to work. That's why can contract with any ISP to connect to it and recieve email from any other connected computer or view web pages made available on any connected computer.
It's free and open.
It's noncentralized by design.
"They" already know who you are or it wouldn't work.
Does this create security issues? Sure.
The alternative is a world where only AOL and MSN exist on centralized systems and duke it out for absolute control of all network traffic.
Flamebait it may or may not be, but the fact is still that MSN is simply an attempt to propriatize the internet for Microsoft's financial gain. It has no other reason for existence and no other perciavable use.
AOL, bless it's little soul, at least has the excuse that they preexisted the internet and are simply trying to hang on to life in a world that has made an end run around their bread and butter.
I think the head of MS's Office division put it rather succinctly when they went after WP and Lotus:
"We want our fair share of the market and we consider that fair share to be %100."
They feel much the same way about the internet and MSN is their overt attempt to get there.
They're kinda used to getting what they want too, by hook or crook, as it were.
What's their share of the Office Suite market these days?
Mind you that they'll find the internet a bigger piece to try to chew, but they'll give it their best shot.
Slashdot Mirror
Coherent, perhaps. Consistant? No more than anybody else trying to write the English language with the Latin alphabet.
The problem is that English actually has 20 vowel sounds and we fudge quite a bit when we use the 5 written vowels to represent them. The particular choice of vowel is often arbitrary and could just as well be represented by more than one other.
Using the wrong vowel isn't a logical idiocy like asking where the "Any Key" is. It's a simple failure of having learned every possible word by rote.
I suppose all of your code compiles perfectly the first time?
KFG
". . . or a collection of pedophiles who are trying to legitimise their actions."
Believe it or not if they are truly trying to legitimise their actions ( as oppossed to excusing them) this is legitimate political dissent. The age of consent is a purely political issue define entirely within the political context. There is no clear consensus on what peadophilia even is and every jurisdiction has its own ideas on the matter.
Such ideas are debated in the local legislatures and in the federal buildings. They are part of the political process and anyone in a democratic nation has the right to both have and opinion and support it.
If they win then they are legitimized. Like it or not. That's the nature of law.
Spammers, on the other hand, are just scum.
KFG
the need for relational databases.
Now if only someone would make one.
KFG
I thought that's why he made all that fuss about having an office with a window.
KFG
You'll also have to convice Jolt to package in a handy pouch, or cut a three inch hole in the door.
KFG
Well yes, that's their hope. If you can't store it on anything than you have keep paying for your connection and pay again every time you watch something.
The media kills your wallet with a financial death by 1000 cuts.
What's more is the fact that "on demand" viewing is a push model disguised as a pull model. They who control the pipe get to control that which is available to you for your "demand." Think Clear Channel and the pop music machine become endemic to all media.
Of course this will only work if your media is taken from you or rendered usless by force, because, of course, what you want downloadable media for in the first place is to record it to permenant media for viewing, well, on demand. Like maybe on your boat 10 miles out of sight of land or your mountain getaway cabin or wherever.
Sure people want the convienience of on demand media from home, so they can record the shit on cheap, free and open storage media.
Never underestimate the bandwidth of a cupboard full of tapes, CDs and DVDs. Not to mention the fact that such are true on demand media.
KFG
he might have noted that there are no plans to build larger versions of these things. The entire point is small "insect sized" spy drones.
Various small ornithopers have been built. You can even buy toy windup versions. In small sizes they work.
They do not scale. There is no known way to make them scale. Neither the physics nor the engineering support the idea of producing large amounts of lift be rapidly anad violently flapping around large inertial masses.
Not to mention the fact that in the large scale the problem has been solved already with the rotating wing.
I haven't a clue how thousands of pounds of rapidly flapping metal could be deemed to be potentially safer than the Osprey, particulary given the sorts of mechanisms that would be required to drive them.
KFG
"If someone modified a Segway by installing a feeding tube, so that the rider could suck a high calorie substance like gravy through the tube while simultaneously avoiding exercise, that would be a cool Segway story."
This is already a commercial product. It's called a Camelback.
Since the Segway is a high tech solution to a nonexistent low tech problem pretty much anything you could do to enhance one has already been done by the hikers, cylists and motorbike crowd.
I really can't see much on the horizen of relevant Segway "hacks" much beyond putting playing cards in the spokes and plastic streamers on the handlebars.
Neither of which would work half as well as they do on a bicycle.
KFG
That would fit nicely into something human to do.
Reason.
KFG
The case was only settled after the judge refused to hear the main complaint about the body of code because it was already being freely distributed with source.
This left only six files in dispute.
KFG
"I doubt that most buisnesses consider the effect on employment or workers morale in buisness decisions"
If a robot can do my job then giving the job to a robot would greatly improve my morale.
Yes, even if that means getting canned.
I'll go find something human to do with my life.
KFG
Whether we fully like the idea or not they have a right to enforce their patents.
.
But only their patents.
If their software is not patentable than no, they do not have the right to ban you from reverse engineering it, any more than someone could "ban" you from making a chair like the one they had made.
I suppose they could try to revoke your license, but by that point you'd already have a work alike, so. .
KFG
"Patents, copyrights and contract law are three separate issues"
Exactly, that's my point.
I read the article. I read it carefully. I even read some of the stuff the article linked to.
Some interesting stuff in there.
KFG
Certainly, this is exactly what I'm suggesting and the logical way to do it since the logic of Instant Messaging is identical to the logic of email.
"Ding! You've got message."
Piece of cake and hardly expensive to implement since the server is only dealing with ASCII text transfers and doesn't have to store them. 2.2 Linux on whatever's lying around gathering dust.
My critic asks why an ISP should be responsible for this. I'd suggest for the same reason that they're responsible for providing you with email, ftp, http, and IRC services, as well as web server space.
Because that's their business; and you pay them for it.
KFG
Because software isn't a patentable good or service, it's simply a license.
Can we say "legal contradiction" boys and girls?
I knew you could.
KFG
You are neglecting the fact that AT&T UNIX was at one time open source. That's how Berkeley got ahold of the code in the first place.It was even free as in beer.
BSD UNIX is not a clone of AT&T UNIX. Through the efforts of Bill Joy and others BSD evolved directly from it.In an open manner. And they gave it away.
That's why AT&T sued BSDI for selling it. . . and lost, because the code was already open source.
KFG
"We still can't store electricity efficiently"
But my cat seems to be distressingly good at it.
KFG
an OS to compete with Windows will be made in Finland.
Pull the other one.
KFG
Well, there's our SCO story for today.
KFG
And I guess the folk who eschew LFS as being for wussies and write all of their startup scripts from scratch would be like a farmer who invents dirt before he can plow it.
KFG
I knew someone was going to call me on that one as soon as I hit the submit button. It is Slashdot, after all.
I'm familiar with the long history of the internet and first came into contact with ARPANET some 30 years ago through my university.
However, when I left uni I lost access. As a private individual at that time it wasn't possible for me to get a Unix shell account.
Thus I eventually turned to Quantum Computer Services ( you call it AOL, youngster), because they catered to the home market and there was no other game in town ( for these purposes CompuServe and GEnie don't really count as they catered to the business market, and were priced accordingly). Note that at the time even they could not provide internet access. Indeed the universal adoption of the TCP/IP protocol hadn't quite been settled yet.
Given the audience I should have said they preexisted open public access to the internet.
KFG
MSN, like AOL, is not part of the internet. It is a closed and propriatary network which offers internet access to its paid subscribers.
The MS Intant Messenger protocol is a propriatary protocol of that private network.
This is the very issue, is it not?
Your ISP already knows your ip address (did you know that when you're on the net you're broadcasting your ip?) and how to send stuff from their servers to your machine. That's how you get your email.
How do you suppose web pages appear on your monitor? It isn't by magic. You send out a signal saying "here I am, give me that," and what you request gets passed hand to hand across the net until you've got it in your hot little box and all sorts of people along the way know who you are and what your ip is if they want to. My firewall tells me all sorts of people already know my ip, nor is it possible to hack a box with a plain text message ( a buggy client may be another matter).
The idea of a centralized server is antithetical to very idea of the internet. The internet is a distributed network of servers, some sitting right in people's own homes. With publicly knowable ips. Fancy that.
That's what Microsoft doesn't like, the fact that anyone can setup a mail server and resolve ip addresses, and thus they can't force a piece of every pie into their own bank accounts. That's the intended function of MSN.
It would be easy enough for MS to promote an internet standard protocol. Then every ISP could put a 486 in the corner somewhere to deal with routing the traffic. It really doesn't take much computing power, or even bandwidth, to simply pass along ASCII text without storing it.
That's what the internet is for and way it's designed to work. That's why can contract with any ISP to connect to it and recieve email from any other connected computer or view web pages made available on any connected computer.
It's free and open.
It's noncentralized by design.
"They" already know who you are or it wouldn't work.
Does this create security issues? Sure.
The alternative is a world where only AOL and MSN exist on centralized systems and duke it out for absolute control of all network traffic.
That's the world both of them would like to see.
For my money I think my old granny said it best:
"Fuck that shit!"
KFG
Flamebait it may or may not be, but the fact is still that MSN is simply an attempt to propriatize the internet for Microsoft's financial gain. It has no other reason for existence and no other perciavable use.
AOL, bless it's little soul, at least has the excuse that they preexisted the internet and are simply trying to hang on to life in a world that has made an end run around their bread and butter.
I think the head of MS's Office division put it rather succinctly when they went after WP and Lotus:
"We want our fair share of the market and we consider that fair share to be %100."
They feel much the same way about the internet and MSN is their overt attempt to get there.
They're kinda used to getting what they want too, by hook or crook, as it were.
What's their share of the Office Suite market these days?
Mind you that they'll find the internet a bigger piece to try to chew, but they'll give it their best shot.
KFG
". . . they don't have to be anti-competetive, business-stealing, life-destroying bastards to make money."
Unfortunately for your argument you've very succinctly described the very raison d'etre of MSN.
KFG
Please come back when you have something the least bit responsive to my post and I'll have a go at it.
KFG