I disagree. I think that GWB (for all his faults) is quite right when he stresses that it is time for America to excercise a lot more humility when dealing with other nations. If he follows through with policy to back up that rhetoric, it will stand in sharp contrast to the gunboat diplomacy of the Clinton Administration, and I would consider that to be a Good Thing.
Two very funny Anonymous Coward posts in one thread. I think I should mark this on my Calendar, so in the years to come, I can raise a glass to the Day It Happened.
You are correct that it is easier in Linux, but the original post was saying it could not be done by a Mac user, which is obviously wrong. On a Mac it can be done in a few seconds. (which is more work than typing one line, but still not very much work)
When it comes to manipulating text, no platform really competes with the UNIX family... although it looks like Mac users will soon have the best of both worlds.
We had the same thought, and now it looks like only 12 posts will turn out the difference between "+1 Funny" and "-1 Redundant". (scroll down to post 57 to see what I mean)
Oh, well. My Karma has been frozen for months anyway... no sense in whoring.:)
Re: NEXTSTEP and porting
on
OS X on x86?
·
· Score: 2
The spec for OS X is a G3, not a G4... and the reason for it is the new GUI.
The "Aqua" GUI for OS X is based on vector graphics, handled by the graphics card instead of the CPU. The pre-G3 Macs did not ship with very good graphics cards (they were okay for the time, but are pathetic by today's standards). "Aqua" was written to run on ATI, nVidia, and little else.
That is why older Macs that were upgraded (like the 7500 and 9500, very popular models to drop a G3 into) are not officially supported by OS X.
Of course, somebody will probably drop a PCI video card into a 7500 and try it out before long. If they do, their result will probably show up on low end mac or somewhere like that.
Re:Why pay money for anonymous information?
on
Clever Girl Bess
·
· Score: 1
They know you are somebody interested in that site, because you're there. That information alone has value to marketing people. Data from other sites' cookies might be slightly more valuable in some situations (assuming site X's cookies contain the data in a format you can read), but even just knowing how many people show up is worthwhile, too.
In either case, it tells them nothing about your identity, at best, it tells them what sites you came from. Hardly an invasion of privacy... like they care if you were looking at goatse.cx
Re:Why pay money for anonymous information?
on
Clever Girl Bess
·
· Score: 1
It seems to me that the phrase "since struck down" argues for my case very well.
Setting aside the factual errors in your version of what happened... if the Kansas decision was a federal mandate, I doubt it would have been struck down as easilly.
Since it was done by a LOCAL, and therefore ACCOUNTABLE group, the forces of democracy were able to override it within a matter of months. Good wins, evil loses, the system works.
Hypothetical situation. You invent something. You apply for a patent. You spend thousands of dollars doing a patent search, which turns up no prior art. You go into business.
A few years later, somebody turns up with evidence of prior art that your patent search missed. Should you now be treated like some kind of thief? How long should you have continued the patent search? You say "enough" should be done, but what does that mean? Keep seaching until you find something?
It seems to me that once somebody has done a reasonable search for other pending patents, they should be allowed to go forward with their invention without fear of reprisal.
Software is another matter entirely... I don't think patents should apply to instruction language. That should be covered by copyright, exclusively. (IMHO, of course.)
Snap-On Tools is a good example of what you are talking about. The inventor had his idea stolen from Snap-On, and spent his entire adult life trying to collect from them. By he finally won his suit (for millions), he was an old man... an old man who could have been spending his life living like a king on the profits from his ideas, instead of proving to the courts that he was ripped off.
Does any of the patent "reform" that people are proposing really help inventors like him?
This contest does not damage the patent holders. All they are doing is giving a little money to people who may or may not be about to sue some patent holders for prior art.
It all ammounts to a massive PR campaign to make one of the worst villians of patent law look like one of our best heroes. (cough *Bezos* cough)
Re:I dont belive in this sort of thing
on
Clever Girl Bess
·
· Score: 1
Such was always the case. Why do you think the high-sugar cerials are advertised during Saturday Morning cartoons? Sell to the kids, and they will talk their folks into buying.
Re:Why pay money for anonymous information?
on
Clever Girl Bess
·
· Score: 1
Interesting that you should quote "The Prisoner"... If there is one point that gets across loud and clear in that show, it is that the struggle of the individual to be left alone is ultimately a losing fight. Even when Number Six "escapes" the Village, he's not really out. (Note the apartment door closing for him.)
When you say you are being careful because you don't accept web cookies, you sound like those people who fear using a Visa card on Amazon, but never ask for their carbons when using the same card at B.Dalton.
If you have a Soc. Sec. number, and address, a phone number, a family... all that information is out there. If you rent a movie, subscribe to cable, or take advantage of pretty much any service anywhere, the numbers are being counted.
Do you buy your six-pack of Coke at a convenience store or a supermarket? Coca-Cola knows. They also know what quantity the Kwik-E-Mart people like to buy vs. the Save-A-Lot crowd. If you are Kwik-E-Mart buyer, are you more likely to switch to diet? Would you like to also buy some iced tea? You are being watched.
You have a lot of rights, but the right to not be noticed is not one which is protected in our society.
Re:Why pay money for anonymous information?
on
Clever Girl Bess
·
· Score: 1
If you accept no cookies your hits are still counted. Even more, in fact, because you look like a unique and new user each time.
It used to mean you resist radical change, because revolutionary changes, even good changes, can be destructive to society. In code-geek terms, social institutions should be carefully patched, rather than deleted and rewritten.
Over the last 40 years, the term has shifted. Most people that call themselves "conservative" today fit in to one of two camps:
1. libertarians - The philosophy of conservation of government, championed by Goldwater and Reagan, and inpsired by Locke, Voltaire, and Adam Smith, is one which states that (since power corrupts) a less powerful government is likely to be less corrupt.
2. religious conservatives - The "Jesus freak" movement of the 70's reached its peak when James Earl Carter was elected president, but quickly shifted parties under the leadership of several television evangelists, and has been fighting for control of the Republican Party ever since. Just as religious "nuts" formed the Republican Party around the 1860's to fight for the abolition of slavery, the current crop of religious conservatives rally mostly around the abolishon of abortion.
George W. Bush, while carefully gathering supporters from both camps, belongs to neither. He is largely a product of the thrid wing of the Republican Party... old-school, "moderate", big-money conservatives along the lines of the pre-Goldwater GOP. He was selected by a council of Republican governors (most of whom share this same mind-set) before the primaries even began, and while other candidates (such as McCain and Forbes) had far more grass-roots support, Bush had the institutional support of the party, thanks to all those governors who astutely agreed to line up behind one guy.
If you live in a state with a Republican governor (and most of you do), then you know what GWB's brand of "conservatism" looks like.
Personally, I don't think he is the best man for the job, but after 4 years of Bush the Elder, and 8 years of Clinon, I have come to acknowledge that bad presidents can be endured, so long as the people keep them in check. Thanks to the scandals of Nixon and Clinton, nobody completely trusts any President anymore, and I see that as a Good Thing.
Re:Why pay money for anonymous information?
on
Clever Girl Bess
·
· Score: 1
Read the parent to my last post again. He is acknowledging that the data gathered by the filter is vague and anonymous, but that it might be used to place BANNERS, which, if clicked on, can get personal info.
If you were not reading in nested or threaded mode, I can see how you might have missed that point.
Re:I dont belive in this sort of thing
on
Clever Girl Bess
·
· Score: 1
I must wonder at what exactly "big business" hopes to learn by tracking schoolchildren.
They want to know where kids' eyeballs are pointing, so they know where to put their ads. They are choosing which web sites to advertise on, and would rather do so on the sites students read most. Nothing more (or less) nefarious than that.
Pretty obvious if you stop to think about it.
Re:Why pay money for anonymous information?
on
Clever Girl Bess
·
· Score: 2
Consent to be tracked in aggregate!?
You are tracked in aggregate every damned day, and there is NOTHING you can do to stop it.
I bet there's even marketing statistics available on the spending habits of kooky crypto-luddite hermits. ("17 percent of adult males who live in old woodsheds in Montana buy at least two bean-and-cheese burrito combos each week." "31 percent of people who send bombs through the mail prefer chocolate syrup in their milk over chocolate powder.")
Every time you hit a web page, every time you buy something, every step you take every move you make they'll be watching you.
...and none of them care who you are, or whether you want to be watched.
Re:Why pay money for anonymous information?
on
Clever Girl Bess
·
· Score: 1
For that to happen, a kid has to volunterilly click on a banner, just as when they are browsing at home. If you want to talk about getting rid of banners, that is a discussion we can all have, but I think the Slash employees are likely to disagree.:)
Re:Why pay money for anonymous information?
on
Clever Girl Bess
·
· Score: 1
You freely give your information to the publisher, you do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy. When you use a public computer, a reasonable amount of privacy/anonymity is expected.
Those kids are still anonymous. That is why this whole argument is a red herring.
The magazine comparason is quite valid. Here's another: If you move into a house, marketers look at data that shows "people who own houses tend to spend their money thus..." and target you accordingly. Is looking at agregate data of how home-owners spend money an invasion of privacy? Of course not. Neither is looking at agragate data of what web sites students are likely to visit, which is all that they are doing here.
If one is going to get outraged, we should be objecting to the fact that web filters are there in the first place, not because they sell marketing data, but because their software is crap and they have no accountability in place to show otherwise.
Slashdot Mirror
I disagree. I think that GWB (for all his faults) is quite right when he stresses that it is time for America to excercise a lot more humility when dealing with other nations. If he follows through with policy to back up that rhetoric, it will stand in sharp contrast to the gunboat diplomacy of the Clinton Administration, and I would consider that to be a Good Thing.
Put paper into typewriter.
Type it all over again, being careful not to make any new mistakes.
vi fuckyoukatz
:g/john/s//jon/g
Some features are worth the trouble.
Besides, most humor relies on delivery more than content.
Two very funny Anonymous Coward posts in one thread. I think I should mark this on my Calendar, so in the years to come, I can raise a glass to the Day It Happened.
When it comes to manipulating text, no platform really competes with the UNIX family... although it looks like Mac users will soon have the best of both worlds.
Thanks a lot, AC... now I have coffee in my nose from laughing too hard.
We had the same thought, and now it looks like only 12 posts will turn out the difference between "+1 Funny" and "-1 Redundant". (scroll down to post 57 to see what I mean)
Oh, well. My Karma has been frozen for months anyway... no sense in whoring. :)
That is the most valuable point I got out of the article. :P
It looks to me like a one-man rant, which uses a few quotes and paraphrases from one of the Old Prophets of the community to lend extra credibility.
I gotta remember that one.
The "Aqua" GUI for OS X is based on vector graphics, handled by the graphics card instead of the CPU. The pre-G3 Macs did not ship with very good graphics cards (they were okay for the time, but are pathetic by today's standards). "Aqua" was written to run on ATI, nVidia, and little else.
That is why older Macs that were upgraded (like the 7500 and 9500, very popular models to drop a G3 into) are not officially supported by OS X.
Of course, somebody will probably drop a PCI video card into a 7500 and try it out before long. If they do, their result will probably show up on low end mac or somewhere like that.
In either case, it tells them nothing about your identity, at best, it tells them what sites you came from. Hardly an invasion of privacy... like they care if you were looking at goatse.cx
Setting aside the factual errors in your version of what happened... if the Kansas decision was a federal mandate, I doubt it would have been struck down as easilly.
Since it was done by a LOCAL, and therefore ACCOUNTABLE group, the forces of democracy were able to override it within a matter of months. Good wins, evil loses, the system works.
A few years later, somebody turns up with evidence of prior art that your patent search missed. Should you now be treated like some kind of thief? How long should you have continued the patent search? You say "enough" should be done, but what does that mean? Keep seaching until you find something?
It seems to me that once somebody has done a reasonable search for other pending patents, they should be allowed to go forward with their invention without fear of reprisal.
Software is another matter entirely... I don't think patents should apply to instruction language. That should be covered by copyright, exclusively. (IMHO, of course.)
Does any of the patent "reform" that people are proposing really help inventors like him?
It all ammounts to a massive PR campaign to make one of the worst villians of patent law look like one of our best heroes. (cough *Bezos* cough)
Such was always the case. Why do you think the high-sugar cerials are advertised during Saturday Morning cartoons? Sell to the kids, and they will talk their folks into buying.
When you say you are being careful because you don't accept web cookies, you sound like those people who fear using a Visa card on Amazon, but never ask for their carbons when using the same card at B.Dalton.
If you have a Soc. Sec. number, and address, a phone number, a family... all that information is out there. If you rent a movie, subscribe to cable, or take advantage of pretty much any service anywhere, the numbers are being counted.
Do you buy your six-pack of Coke at a convenience store or a supermarket? Coca-Cola knows. They also know what quantity the Kwik-E-Mart people like to buy vs. the Save-A-Lot crowd. If you are Kwik-E-Mart buyer, are you more likely to switch to diet? Would you like to also buy some iced tea? You are being watched.
You have a lot of rights, but the right to not be noticed is not one which is protected in our society.
If you accept no cookies your hits are still counted. Even more, in fact, because you look like a unique and new user each time.
It used to mean you resist radical change, because revolutionary changes, even good changes, can be destructive to society. In code-geek terms, social institutions should be carefully patched, rather than deleted and rewritten.
Over the last 40 years, the term has shifted. Most people that call themselves "conservative" today fit in to one of two camps:
1. libertarians - The philosophy of conservation of government, championed by Goldwater and Reagan, and inpsired by Locke, Voltaire, and Adam Smith, is one which states that (since power corrupts) a less powerful government is likely to be less corrupt.
2. religious conservatives - The "Jesus freak" movement of the 70's reached its peak when James Earl Carter was elected president, but quickly shifted parties under the leadership of several television evangelists, and has been fighting for control of the Republican Party ever since. Just as religious "nuts" formed the Republican Party around the 1860's to fight for the abolition of slavery, the current crop of religious conservatives rally mostly around the abolishon of abortion.
George W. Bush, while carefully gathering supporters from both camps, belongs to neither. He is largely a product of the thrid wing of the Republican Party... old-school, "moderate", big-money conservatives along the lines of the pre-Goldwater GOP. He was selected by a council of Republican governors (most of whom share this same mind-set) before the primaries even began, and while other candidates (such as McCain and Forbes) had far more grass-roots support, Bush had the institutional support of the party, thanks to all those governors who astutely agreed to line up behind one guy.
If you live in a state with a Republican governor (and most of you do), then you know what GWB's brand of "conservatism" looks like.
Personally, I don't think he is the best man for the job, but after 4 years of Bush the Elder, and 8 years of Clinon, I have come to acknowledge that bad presidents can be endured, so long as the people keep them in check. Thanks to the scandals of Nixon and Clinton, nobody completely trusts any President anymore, and I see that as a Good Thing.
If you were not reading in nested or threaded mode, I can see how you might have missed that point.
They want to know where kids' eyeballs are pointing, so they know where to put their ads. They are choosing which web sites to advertise on, and would rather do so on the sites students read most. Nothing more (or less) nefarious than that.
Pretty obvious if you stop to think about it.
You are tracked in aggregate every damned day, and there is NOTHING you can do to stop it.
I bet there's even marketing statistics available on the spending habits of kooky crypto-luddite hermits. ("17 percent of adult males who live in old woodsheds in Montana buy at least two bean-and-cheese burrito combos each week." "31 percent of people who send bombs through the mail prefer chocolate syrup in their milk over chocolate powder.")
Every time you hit a web page, every time you buy something, every step you take every move you make they'll be watching you.
For that to happen, a kid has to volunterilly click on a banner, just as when they are browsing at home. If you want to talk about getting rid of banners, that is a discussion we can all have, but I think the Slash employees are likely to disagree. :)
Those kids are still anonymous. That is why this whole argument is a red herring.
The magazine comparason is quite valid. Here's another: If you move into a house, marketers look at data that shows "people who own houses tend to spend their money thus..." and target you accordingly. Is looking at agregate data of how home-owners spend money an invasion of privacy? Of course not. Neither is looking at agragate data of what web sites students are likely to visit, which is all that they are doing here.
If one is going to get outraged, we should be objecting to the fact that web filters are there in the first place, not because they sell marketing data, but because their software is crap and they have no accountability in place to show otherwise.