quick ramble on the nature of the mac power key: it doesn't shut the computer off. It politely asks the computer to turn itself off. You press the power key and you get a dialog box asking if you want to shut down, restart or cancel. Also, it's always flat-- not sticking up out of the keyboard like other keys. so you can't push it by accidentally placing a heavy object on top of it. You have to actually use your finger. And if you do press it accidentally you just hit cancel. The other thing its there for is the reset sequence-- cntrl-appl-reset is the apple equivilent of cntrl-alt-del. Also appl-power opens up the debugger, and if you're in linuxppc then option-power kills x.
The main problem with this is that apple is too heavily reliant on the keyboard power thing-- it is literally impossible to turn on a mac without the power key. All macs have an emergency off button on the case somewhere, but not an on button. For a computer based so heavily on GUI, it's ironic that without a keyboard you can't even turn the damn thing on.
- mcc-baka my life is more meaningful than yours, because i know a lot about keyboards.
interesting point. but you wouldn't have to declare yourself an independant state-- just go into international water.
There are already companies that get people on boats, go ten miles offshore where you're no longer under the control of any one state, and then do things which would be illegal under the anti-gambling laws of the state they're located in.
I'd assume that would mean that any reverse-engineering done on a boat eleven miles offshore would be untouchable by USCITA and legal. Unless USCITA intends to make _usage_ of reverse-engineered software illegal, in which case a lot of IBM-combatible PC clones are immediately contraband.
umm.. of course it would be illegal. you missed the original posters point.
winnuking, Denial of Service attacks, and beating random people on the street with baseball bats are all illegal. Yet people do these things, either because they want to hurt the person being nuked/DOSed/beaten, or just because they can.
The point is that if there is some way that the company who made the software can disable the software, then there will always be some way for random hackers to disable the software, whether or not it's legal. And once that way is found, you'll have a thousand script kiddies disabling people's software at random without any thought for the consequenses.
Think about it. I doubt the people who made USCITA did.
i think that federal laws automatically take precedence over state laws-- i mean, it seems like if a federal law specifically states that something is legal intead of simply failing to outlaw it, that would keep a state from outlawing it?
are there any lawyer-type people reading who could elaborate?
while i'm not interested in the narrow-minded bickering of two slothful, decaying giants that make products i have no use for, i would be interested in seeing the results of this poll:
i would rather:
a. Pay $20 a month (or more for t1/t3/isdn/*dsl/cable) to an ISP.
b. pay $21.25 a month to AOL.
c. pay nothing for my internet access, but be constantly bombarded with ads.
d. get free socialized internet access paid for by microsoft as bribery.
e. i will simply continue to illegally use EarthLink accounts paid for with stolen credit cards.
f. i am amish and do not participate in such sinful things as the internet.
you're very right-- the room-based model is much more difficult to deal with than it's worth, and practically defeats the purpose of having a GUI instead of a CLI to begin with. But what i'd like to comment on is this:
Hey while we're at it, why not throw in some physics, so that when you minimize a window, the icon could bounce on the bottom or your screen as if it were made of a selected material. Or have gravity in a desired direction.
There was a control panel once for the macintosh called "momentum" that did exactly that. When you moved a window, after you let go the window would continue to slide across the screen for a litle bit or until you pressed 's', with its movement based on levels of friction, gravity, etc. that the user put in. It was totally useless but extremely fun to play with, and you could get some wierd conbinations of that and other extentions, like the one that put usable circles of "blood" or the FKEY that ripped the window in half. It was great. anyway, now i'm engulfed in a flood of happy memories of back when i used to be an extention junkie; thank you for releasing them.:)
There was, awhile back, an attempt at a 3d-based "OS" called "DPiV". It was based on apple's Quickdraw 3d, and ran as a standalone app under macos or windows.
<RAMBLE> The implementation was a very nice start but didn't go far enough. It had support for various types of objects, environments, and links between those environments. Objects could affect one another to a limited extent. It was based on the idea of different rooms that would hold your applications, web browsers, files, etc. You could drag your hard drive icon onto the window and it would display in a box, with all the icons arranged inside in a 3d manner; you could double-click on a folder to open a box with its contents. In some later versions they made it a kind of webbrowser-like app, although not quite as much in the manner of win98 as the manner of KDE; the window would display the location of the environment file you were in, and you could set that to a html or vrml file if you felt like it.
The problems: first off, they never made it enough of the whole "operating system" concept. I never saw any clear APIs for writing software that would run within their environment (i'm sure it could have been pretty easy to port the mac "3d calculator" qd3d-based program, for example), unless you count VRML 2.0 as a "program" (although they never fully supported VRML 2.0). You could have objects be URLs that would launch programs in your real OS such as MSWord, but that was it. I don't think you could write software for it, or do much of anything besides move between the rooms and go "wow". The thing that would let you browse your hard drive could have been _very_ nice if they'd spent more than ten minutes coding it; You did have the little folder-box with the icons of the hd's files arranged in 3d space, but you had no clue what those files were. No filenames were displayed until you clicked on the icon in question; then the name/filesize would display at the bottom of the window or something. If the file was a file, it would display its icon from the Finder, but if it were a folder it would always have the generic folder icon. This made HD navigation next to impossible. Eventually the web browser thing became more strongly emphasized, but at that point DPiV became nothing more than a weak-featured VRML browser. It might have been usable as a VRML app if the HTTP implentation wasn't so bad; most of the sites i tried to go to in it returned an error message, grumbling about "http 1.1 is not supported by your browser, upgrade" or something like that.
It was promising even though it didn't go anywhere, and was reasonably fast even on my POS powermac 7200/75 with no acceleration. It just didn't get enough work done on it; if it had been for linux and had had some kind of open-source community by now i'm pretty sure it would have been industry standard by now. As is i think it's already been abandoned, and i doubt the fact that Quickdraw 3D is now dead helps things much.
I can't remember the URL; it was dpiv.org or something. go look on google for yourself. It was a wonderful showcase of QD3D, although nothing else. </RAMBLE>
Oh, and a random idea: are there any x windowmanagers, maybe enlightenment, with the capability to render windows as 3d objects?not the window _contents_-- just the windows themselves. Like, instead of just a simple simulated 3d bevel, actually calculate perspective and specific light sources in such a way it looks like the windows are seperate objects in 3d space? like, make windows in the background seem to be further away, and the window borders be lighter the closer they are to the light source. But make the contents of those windows just be plain Xwindow streams. It would look cool and be a good use for those wasted 3d cards, and if you added a way to write programs that acted as if they were 3d, that could be a good start for a 3d GUI of some kind. Just a thought.
no, they did not "skip over" nine. They just planned ahead.
Mac OS nine is still planned and still going to come out sometime before mac os x. Vague rumors about it are available at www.appleinsider.com.
OS 9 was always planned as an OS that would incorporate some features of X without the new kernel and the hardware requirements. They just haven't made a big deal about it because they didn't feel like it. Mac OS X is of course what they're going to hype since OS 9 is just backward-compatibility for machines that won't be able to run OS X.
a couple of the postings have pointed out that this could turn out to be a kind of an almost-competition between linuxppc and the W2K bug-- if one gets hacked and the other doesn't, that means that that OS is more secure.
Well, if we're going to play it like that, i think linuxppc has already won-- after all, this long after the w2k challenge was posted on/., the slashdot effect had already practically taken the windows2000test box out.
So this would seem to imply that LinuxPPC is, if not more security-friendly than w2k, at least a _lot_ more reliable. Which if you ask me is more important than "security", since total security will never really happen.
Now if only it supported HFS+.. but i guess that really isn't a huge problem if you look at it in perspective. -_-
this is just proving what i've been saying all along-- that Puff Daddy isn't anything more than Wierd Al yankovic without the lyrical skillz.
Anyway, if you'll look at both www.sagabegins.com and www.thepentiums.com, you'll notice that in the part of the page that links to the other site, there is an obvious blank spot to fit in a third video/website when it comes out. So, any guesses as to what the third single will be?
motorola isn't "officially supporting" anything. Motorola had aboloutely no connection that i am aware of with the LinuxPPC project (www.linuxppc.org), which was an independant group of people developing a linux that would run on Apple-created power macintoshes. What is more, this is not the only linux distribution for PPC macs; there is also MkLinux.
Motorola does coproduce the PPC chip, but that doesn't change the fact that what you just said makes no sense.
lego has absoloutely nothing to lose by the OSS lego thing, since they don't sell software, they sell physical hardware. Even if someone has open-source lego software which lego got no money for, they still have to pay lego money for, well, legos.
Since the software is useless without the hardware (which is what costs money anwyay), why would Lego care that the software is freely available? They aren't losing anything.
It's kind of like the whole Palmpilot emulator thing. Palm doesn't try to stop emulation-- in fact they _help_ the emulators, supplying roms and stuff-- because without the hardware the software has no use.
So don't assume lego is some benevolent company helping open source. If they were somehow losing money, they'd be fighting as dirty as Nintendo is.
there are no power macintosh emulators for the PC. There are several that emulate various levels of 680X0, but there is nothing that attempts the PPC chip. This serverely limits what you can do.
well, if you want to look at it as computers being a toy or a tool, then isn't linux the biggest toy of all?
MacOS may look nice, but it works. You can, like, use it to do things, and never ever have to even think about ld.so.conf or.xinitrc or other things like that. The only thing you think about is what you're doing.
Linux, on the other hand, also works just as well, but after some tooling. However from your point of view the main thing about it seems to be the accomplishment that you forced it to work. Meaning that you would basically like playing with linux, tweaking it, making it do neat things.
So, which one is the toy and which one is the tool: the OS [linux] that you play with to make it work, or the OS [macos] you just use? (well, the OS you use until it crashes, anyway)
only two: blueberry and tangerine? i'm disappointed; i was hoping for a gray. too bad.
anyone know anything about this Airport thing? is it just a stronger IR port, or what? is it an open hardware standard, or is apple gonna make it mac-only or something?
"If the new consumer model has even a small amount of upgrade-ability (meaning more than just RAM) and if users will have more than just one OS as an option for them I would consider buying one for my niece. "
There is more than one O.S. as an option. There is LinuxPPC and there is the Mac OS. And maybe Be.
I don't see why "choice of OS" should make a difference in this case. You have about as much choice on the mac as on the PC. The only difference is that you can't run OS/2 on the macintosh. And of course you can't run windows on the mac or macos on the PC; but the PC market doesn't really have more "choice". In fact it might have less, since macintoshes can run any PC OS through emulation, although not quickly..
what worries me here is that this really won't work well without a total revisal of the DNS system.
it's ok now to have a pay-for-everything DNS system, since numeric IPs are sort-of-possible to remember and keep track of. But it will be hard to keep track of things like 3ffe:1cf8:ff01:0:0:0:0:1, especially once they get more complex.
have they thought about the usability-by-humans implications of IPv6? do they just expect everyone to pay for a domain, or do they expect a bunch of equivilents of *.ml.org to appear?
Then again, the entire DNS system will have to be revised to hold IPv6 numbers anyway, so setting a completely new system up shouldn't be too hard.. hopefully they'll do the dns thing _right_ this time.:P
i was speaking to someone at a MUG once who claimed that software liscenses were not valid in Texas, because Texas state law prohibhits contracts which do not have an expiration date. Since the software liscense does not have an expiration date, it would then be invalidated.
I'm not sure he was correct, but if he was it would seem to say some interesting things. For example, that since i'm in Texas i wouldn't have to follow the terms of the liscense agreement. I wouldn't be able to make illegal copies, since that violates copyright law, but if i tried to reverse-engineer MS Word in some way that would be legal.
Even if it wasn't true about the expiration dates, i'm sure there are lots of little similar loopholes in various places that you could use to circumvent software liscenses.
unfortunately, it is logically impossible to boycott a company that does not have any actual real products. Since you could or would not buy these products in the first place, refraining from buying them does not actually constitute something that can be described by a verb such as "boycott".
Too bad.
-mcc-baka http://home.earthlink.net/~mcclure111/cyberleary .html INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY IS THEFT
any kind of internet laws or regulations are dangerous, especially by the U.N. It sets wierd precedent, and seems to be implying that the internet is something that governments can control. Today it's something seemingly harmless like this, but tomorrow..
And if they in some way start counting e-mails sent, that sets up a system where they can do very scary things later to those same e-mails at the same time they're counted. Like read those e-mails if they aren't encrypted. How much you wanna bet that the Chineese government really likes this idea?
"bring the internet to developing countries"? Um, first maybe we should bring, like, economic systems where more than 0.001% of the population is able to afford computers?
please clarify for me: is W2K or is W2K not on the NT kernel? if it's still on the 9x kernel then you're right, but if it's on the NT kernel, that's a pretty damn big difference.
Slashdot Mirror
quick ramble on the nature of the mac power key: it doesn't shut the computer off. It politely asks the computer to turn itself off. You press the power key and you get a dialog box asking if you want to shut down, restart or cancel. Also, it's always flat-- not sticking up out of the keyboard like other keys. so you can't push it by accidentally placing a heavy object on top of it. You have to actually use your finger. And if you do press it accidentally you just hit cancel. The other thing its there for is the reset sequence-- cntrl-appl-reset is the apple equivilent of cntrl-alt-del. Also appl-power opens up the debugger, and if you're in linuxppc then option-power kills x.
The main problem with this is that apple is too heavily reliant on the keyboard power thing-- it is literally impossible to turn on a mac without the power key. All macs have an emergency off button on the case somewhere, but not an on button. For a computer based so heavily on GUI, it's ironic that without a keyboard you can't even turn the damn thing on.
- mcc-baka
my life is more meaningful than yours, because i know a lot about keyboards.
interesting point. but you wouldn't have to declare yourself an independant state-- just go into international water.
There are already companies that get people on boats, go ten miles offshore where you're no longer under the control of any one state, and then do things which would be illegal under the anti-gambling laws of the state they're located in.
I'd assume that would mean that any reverse-engineering done on a boat eleven miles offshore would be untouchable by USCITA and legal. Unless USCITA intends to make _usage_ of reverse-engineered software illegal, in which case a lot of IBM-combatible PC clones are immediately contraband.
umm.. of course it would be illegal. you missed the original posters point.
winnuking, Denial of Service attacks, and beating random people on the street with baseball bats are all illegal. Yet people do these things, either because they want to hurt the person being nuked/DOSed/beaten, or just because they can.
The point is that if there is some way that the company who made the software can disable the software, then there will always be some way for random hackers to disable the software, whether or not it's legal. And once that way is found, you'll have a thousand script kiddies disabling people's software at random without any thought for the consequenses.
Think about it. I doubt the people who made USCITA did.
- mcc-baka
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY IS THEFT
i think that federal laws automatically take precedence over state laws-- i mean, it seems like if a federal law specifically states that something is legal intead of simply failing to outlaw it, that would keep a state from outlawing it?
are there any lawyer-type people reading who could elaborate?
i want eWorld back
you're very right-- the room-based model is much more difficult to deal with than it's worth, and practically defeats the purpose of having a GUI instead of a CLI to begin with. But what i'd like to comment on is this:
:)
Hey while we're at it, why not throw in some physics, so that when you minimize a window, the icon could bounce on the bottom or your screen as if it were made of a selected material. Or have gravity in a desired direction.
There was a control panel once for the macintosh called "momentum" that did exactly that. When you moved a window, after you let go the window would continue to slide across the screen for a litle bit or until you pressed 's', with its movement based on levels of friction, gravity, etc. that the user put in. It was totally useless but extremely fun to play with, and you could get some wierd conbinations of that and other extentions, like the one that put usable circles of "blood" or the FKEY that ripped the window in half. It was great.
anyway, now i'm engulfed in a flood of happy memories of back when i used to be an extention junkie; thank you for releasing them.
There was, awhile back, an attempt at a 3d-based "OS" called "DPiV". It was based on apple's Quickdraw 3d, and ran as a standalone app under macos or windows.
<RAMBLE>
The implementation was a very nice start but didn't go far enough. It had support for various types of objects, environments, and links between those environments. Objects could affect one another to a limited extent. It was based on the idea of different rooms that would hold your applications, web browsers, files, etc. You could drag your hard drive icon onto the window and it would display in a box, with all the icons arranged inside in a 3d manner; you could double-click on a folder to open a box with its contents. In some later versions they made it a kind of webbrowser-like app, although not quite as much in the manner of win98 as the manner of KDE; the window would display the location of the environment file you were in, and you could set that to a html or vrml file if you felt like it.
The problems: first off, they never made it enough of the whole "operating system" concept. I never saw any clear APIs for writing software that would run within their environment (i'm sure it could have been pretty easy to port the mac "3d calculator" qd3d-based program, for example), unless you count VRML 2.0 as a "program" (although they never fully supported VRML 2.0). You could have objects be URLs that would launch programs in your real OS such as MSWord, but that was it. I don't think you could write software for it, or do much of anything besides move between the rooms and go "wow". The thing that would let you browse your hard drive could have been _very_ nice if they'd spent more than ten minutes coding it; You did have the little folder-box with the icons of the hd's files arranged in 3d space, but you had no clue what those files were. No filenames were displayed until you clicked on the icon in question; then the name/filesize would display at the bottom of the window or something. If the file was a file, it would display its icon from the Finder, but if it were a folder it would always have the generic folder icon. This made HD navigation next to impossible. Eventually the web browser thing became more strongly emphasized, but at that point DPiV became nothing more than a weak-featured VRML browser. It might have been usable as a VRML app if the HTTP implentation wasn't so bad; most of the sites i tried to go to in it returned an error message, grumbling about "http 1.1 is not supported by your browser, upgrade" or something like that.
It was promising even though it didn't go anywhere, and was reasonably fast even on my POS powermac 7200/75 with no acceleration. It just didn't get enough work done on it; if it had been for linux and had had some kind of open-source community by now i'm pretty sure it would have been industry standard by now. As is i think it's already been abandoned, and i doubt the fact that Quickdraw 3D is now dead helps things much.
I can't remember the URL; it was dpiv.org or something. go look on google for yourself. It was a wonderful showcase of QD3D, although nothing else.
</RAMBLE>
Oh, and a random idea: are there any x windowmanagers, maybe enlightenment, with the capability to render windows as 3d objects?not the window _contents_-- just the windows themselves. Like, instead of just a simple simulated 3d bevel, actually calculate perspective and specific light sources in such a way it looks like the windows are seperate objects in 3d space? like, make windows in the background seem to be further away, and the window borders be lighter the closer they are to the light source. But make the contents of those windows just be plain Xwindow streams. It would look cool and be a good use for those wasted 3d cards, and if you added a way to write programs that acted as if they were 3d, that could be a good start for a 3d GUI of some kind. Just a thought.
-mcc-baka
http://home.earthlink.net/~mcclure111/x.html
no, they did not "skip over" nine. They just planned ahead.
Mac OS nine is still planned and still going to come out sometime before mac os x. Vague rumors about it are available at www.appleinsider.com.
OS 9 was always planned as an OS that would incorporate some features of X without the new kernel and the hardware requirements. They just haven't made a big deal about it because they didn't feel like it. Mac OS X is of course what they're going to hype since OS 9 is just backward-compatibility for machines that won't be able to run OS X.
-mcc-baka
http://home.earthlink.net/~mcclure111/x.html
a couple of the postings have pointed out that this could turn out to be a kind of an almost-competition between linuxppc and the W2K bug-- if one gets hacked and the other doesn't, that means that that OS is more secure.
/., the slashdot effect had already practically taken the windows2000test box out.
Well, if we're going to play it like that, i think linuxppc has already won-- after all, this long after the w2k challenge was posted on
So this would seem to imply that LinuxPPC is, if not more security-friendly than w2k, at least a _lot_ more reliable. Which if you ask me is more important than "security", since total security will never really happen.
Now if only it supported HFS+.. but i guess that really isn't a huge problem if you look at it in perspective. -_-
-mcc-baka
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY IS THEFT
this is just proving what i've been saying all along-- that Puff Daddy isn't anything more than Wierd Al yankovic without the lyrical skillz.
Anyway, if you'll look at both www.sagabegins.com and www.thepentiums.com, you'll notice that in the part of the page that links to the other site, there is an obvious blank spot to fit in a third video/website when it comes out. So, any guesses as to what the third single will be?
uhh
motorola isn't "officially supporting" anything. Motorola had aboloutely no connection that i am aware of with the LinuxPPC project (www.linuxppc.org), which was an independant group of people developing a linux that would run on Apple-created power macintoshes. What is more, this is not the only linux distribution for PPC macs; there is also MkLinux.
Motorola does coproduce the PPC chip, but that doesn't change the fact that what you just said makes no sense.
lego has absoloutely nothing to lose by the OSS lego thing, since they don't sell software, they sell physical hardware. Even if someone has open-source lego software which lego got no money for, they still have to pay lego money for, well, legos.
Since the software is useless without the hardware (which is what costs money anwyay), why would Lego care that the software is freely available? They aren't losing anything.
It's kind of like the whole Palmpilot emulator thing. Palm doesn't try to stop emulation-- in fact they _help_ the emulators, supplying roms and stuff-- because without the hardware the software has no use.
So don't assume lego is some benevolent company helping open source. If they were somehow losing money, they'd be fighting as dirty as Nintendo is.
nice to finally know exactly who this shadowy "alan cox" figure who is always credited with huge chunks of the linux kernel.
but what i'm curious about is, exactly where does alan get the money to, like, pay for food and stuff?
-mcc
"k-de"? never seen that spelling before.
Canada is corrupting our children, luring them into it's propeitary hardware traps with pretty graphics, and then teaching them dirty words!!
I mean, look at this "amiga" thing! it isn't even a real OS! it's just a linux window manager and a bunch of fart jokes!!
If it's war they want, it's war they'll get!!
-mcc
if you don't get it, don't worry about it.
there are no power macintosh emulators for the PC. There are several that emulate various levels of 680X0, but there is nothing that attempts the PPC chip. This serverely limits what you can do.
well, if you want to look at it as computers being a toy or a tool, then isn't linux the biggest toy of all?
.xinitrc or other things like that. The only thing you think about is what you're doing.
MacOS may look nice, but it works. You can, like, use it to do things, and never ever have to even think about ld.so.conf or
Linux, on the other hand, also works just as well, but after some tooling. However from your point of view the main thing about it seems to be the accomplishment that you forced it to work. Meaning that you would basically like playing with linux, tweaking it, making it do neat things.
So, which one is the toy and which one is the tool: the OS [linux] that you play with to make it work, or the OS [macos] you just use? (well, the OS you use until it crashes, anyway)
only two: blueberry and tangerine?
i'm disappointed; i was hoping for a gray. too bad.
anyone know anything about this Airport thing? is it just a stronger IR port, or what? is it an open hardware standard, or is apple gonna make it mac-only or something?
"If the new consumer model has even a small amount of upgrade-ability (meaning more than just RAM) and if users will have more than just one OS as an option for them I would consider buying one for my niece. "
There is more than one O.S. as an option. There is LinuxPPC and there is the Mac OS. And maybe Be.
I don't see why "choice of OS" should make a difference in this case. You have about as much choice on the mac as on the PC. The only difference is that you can't run OS/2 on the macintosh. And of course you can't run windows on the mac or macos on the PC; but the PC market doesn't really have more "choice". In fact it might have less, since macintoshes can run any PC OS through emulation, although not quickly..
yeh.. really there's nothing to worry about, except for FEMA.
what worries me here is that this really won't work well without a total revisal of the DNS system.
:P
it's ok now to have a pay-for-everything DNS system, since numeric IPs are sort-of-possible to remember and keep track of. But it will be hard to keep track of things like 3ffe:1cf8:ff01:0:0:0:0:1, especially once they get more complex.
have they thought about the usability-by-humans implications of IPv6? do they just expect everyone to pay for a domain, or do they expect a bunch of equivilents of *.ml.org to appear?
Then again, the entire DNS system will have to be revised to hold IPv6 numbers anyway, so setting a completely new system up shouldn't be too hard.. hopefully they'll do the dns thing _right_ this time.
i was speaking to someone at a MUG once who claimed that software liscenses were not valid in Texas, because Texas state law prohibhits contracts which do not have an expiration date. Since the software liscense does not have an expiration date, it would then be invalidated.
I'm not sure he was correct, but if he was it would seem to say some interesting things. For example, that since i'm in Texas i wouldn't have to follow the terms of the liscense agreement. I wouldn't be able to make illegal copies, since that violates copyright law, but if i tried to reverse-engineer MS Word in some way that would be legal.
Even if it wasn't true about the expiration dates, i'm sure there are lots of little similar loopholes in various places that you could use to circumvent software liscenses.
unfortunately, it is logically impossible to boycott a company that does not have any actual real products. Since you could or would not buy these products in the first place, refraining from buying them does not actually constitute something that can be described by a verb such as "boycott".
y .html
Too bad.
-mcc-baka
http://home.earthlink.net/~mcclure111/cyberlear
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY IS THEFT
any kind of internet laws or regulations are dangerous, especially by the U.N. It sets wierd precedent, and seems to be implying that the internet is something that governments can control. Today it's something seemingly harmless like this, but tomorrow..
And if they in some way start counting e-mails sent, that sets up a system where they can do very scary things later to those same e-mails at the same time they're counted. Like read those e-mails if they aren't encrypted. How much you wanna bet that the Chineese government really likes this idea?
"bring the internet to developing countries"? Um, first maybe we should bring, like, economic systems where more than 0.001% of the population is able to afford computers?
please clarify for me: is W2K or is W2K not on the NT kernel? if it's still on the 9x kernel then you're right, but if it's on the NT kernel, that's a pretty damn big difference.
anyone else read the back issues of that "after y2k" comic posted yesterday?
/. pretty closely
"i should have bought canada when i had the chance"..
i guess Bill Gates must read