give us a clear answer to what Bohr's opinion had been
Yeah, but you have to wonder what Heisenberg's opinion was. He was so hard to nail down sometimes, you know - the more you pressed him on it, the more undefined his opinions were.
the ability to lay a book flat as you're typing/eating/making love to your (very) understanding wife is a huge feature in technical books.
Does O'Reilly make a "Sex In A Nutshell" technical reference?
Plus, I mean, how hard is sex to master? No pre-written config files, no functions requiring twelve parameters that are poorly documented, only a few physical bits of "syntax," and then it simply broils down to a bunch of variations on 'insert tab A into slot B (or C, or D)'.
Now, if sex were like Emacs and you could script it with Lisp...
If the product is illegal in the US, then selling access to the product from the US is also illegal.
So is buying it, then.
I guess the filing add the 50+ customer names got lost in the mail, eh?
Re:MS Windows vs. X, same hardware
on
Xfree86 4.2.0 Out
·
· Score: 1
You mean like Java?
Java is, at least, sandboxed. COM, being the aforementioned "random code" (at least in the context of this discussion), is not sandboxed and therefore has the potential of being a security nightmare.
If you think compiling a kernel even remotely approaches the complexity of building a carburetor, I want some of the crack you're smoking. The two aren't even comparable.
It's not entirely logical, because going to MacOS X requires at least two things: one, it requires you to purchase new hardware, and two, it requires you to use closed-source software (namely, Quartz et. al.).
MacOS X cannot be used on existing hardware, and the hardware required for MacOS X to be used is undeniably more expensive. (You can make arguments that it is BETTER hardware, but nonetheless it is more expensive.)
Further, while MacOS X is based on the Darwin core, which in turn is FreeBSD-derived, much of the operating system is still proprietary, closed-source software. While that may not bother some, others would be greatly opposed to using it.
NASA never found water. NASA has gobs of images of the Martian surface which/suggest/ water. Channels on the surface, etc., which look an awful lot like running water made them. There are even some features that hint at ancient oceans.
However, at the moment, these images are equivalent to ink blots. Yeah, maybe they look like something - but maybe you're just reading into them.
Odyessey seems like it's going to go a bit beyond that and actually do some surveying of the surface and subsurface for signs of actual water, as opposed to just saying, "Hey, that looks like it might've been made by water a million years ago!"
That's akin to asking, "What are the legitimate uses of a car for those who don't know how to drive?" By the very definition, people who want or need to hide things need a way to hide them - hence, encryption.
However, the implicit statement in your post is that "need to hide" = "crime". Do me a favor. Since you seem so adverse to hiding things, write your name, social security number, all of your credit card numbers, your address, phone number, the names of your children and significant other, your license plate number, and the names/dates of up to the first ten people you have had sex with on ten thousand postcards. Then attach photocopies of a dozen documents from your workplace marked "Confidential," and then send them to the first ten thousand people in your nearest phone book or yellow pages.
Don't want to? Gee, why not? Maybe you have something you want to hide. Maybe you don't want other people invading your personal privacy? Maybe you don't want other people reading documents that could give your competition a leg up on your business? Oh, wait, maybe there's a good reason for encryption. Not because I'm trying to hide any criminal wrong-doing, but because I don't want people to know more about me than they have to. Because not every Joe Blow needs to have easy access to my personal information, or the things I would like to keep as personal knowledge and not general knowledge.
When the ability to keep a secret - ANY SECRET - becomes a crime, you'll know that America has become just as bad as Afghanistan or similar countries.
You are completely wrong, this is why you PAY for an education, this is why you PAY for software, newspapers, etc.
Actually, you kind of having things mixed up.
Information is quite plentiful. You don't need to pay for an education to learn those things, nor do you need to pay for a newspaper to get the information contained within.
The caveat is that tracking down all of the equivalent information is overwhelmingly difficult and tedious. What colleges, newspapers, etc. do is compile all that information into an easily-digestible curriculum/format. When you shell out thousands of dollars for college, you aren't paying for the information they're teaching you, you're paying for the PEOPLE who teach you to do so in a clear, consise, understandable manner. Similarly, for a newspaper, you aren't paying for the information, you're paying for the medium on which it was transmitted (paper), the efforts of the people on the paper's staff who tracked down the information and consolidated it into the articles, etc.
Software is a bit more complex an analogy, but ultimately there are few things in software that are new under the sun. When you "buy" a piece of software, you aren't paying for the algorithms and UI widgets, you're paying for the collection of them, and the people that wrote it.
In that sense, I think there's a legitimate market for "proprietary" software. If you want to sell your software, feel free. Go right ahead. You took the time to put everything together into a cohesive product, so that's your right to sell it as you see fit.
If you're doing something like controlling a VCR, a sprinkler system, TV channel changer, a thermostat, a stereo, or numerous other tasks a processor like that might be a bit too powerful.
There are more powerful things than that powered by a 386-class processor.
I used to work at a company that made high-end infrared equipment - the type of stuff you see on Cops or see featured on those shows on Fox (you know, "World's Wildest Police Chases 9"). Their high-end gimbal unit, the balls that are mounted on helicopters, used 386 processors.
And these units were _certainly_ magnitudes more complex than a VCR remote or stereo.
1.) Why would Microsoft place any other browser into the API slot?
I'm not saying they would. I'm saying that they could give the customer - the consumer - the ability to choose which browser they wanted. Microsoft could ship IE as the default browser, as is their right, but if the consumer preferred the Mozilla engine, or Konqueror's engine, or any other type of engine, they could simply replace it.
2.) What would this say about Microsoft's faith in its own HTML libraries if it did?
It wouldn't say anything about Microsoft's faith in its own HTML libraries. Does the fact that I can replace a car stereo say anything about the auto manufacturer's "faith" in the default car stereo?
3.) What are the chances that the Mozilla libraries will actually *work* with all the libraries other programs use in IE?
That's the wonder of COM. Interfaces are interfaces, and as long as a particular COM control/class fully implements a particular interface, external entities (all those libraries that other programs use) that use that interface don't need to know ANYTHING about what they are calling to.
In other words, the ONLY benefit Microsoft has in not exposing the full Windows integration API for a browser is in making an artificial tie into Windows for IE. That doesn't benefit the consumer - it benefits only Microsoft.
Slashdot Mirror
give us a clear answer to what Bohr's opinion had been
Yeah, but you have to wonder what Heisenberg's opinion was. He was so hard to nail down sometimes, you know - the more you pressed him on it, the more undefined his opinions were.
;)
the ability to lay a book flat as you're typing/eating/making love to your (very) understanding wife is a huge feature in technical books.
Does O'Reilly make a "Sex In A Nutshell" technical reference?
Plus, I mean, how hard is sex to master? No pre-written config files, no functions requiring twelve parameters that are poorly documented, only a few physical bits of "syntax," and then it simply broils down to a bunch of variations on 'insert tab A into slot B (or C, or D)'.
Now, if sex were like Emacs and you could script it with Lisp...
OpenBSD.
If the product is illegal in the US, then selling access to the product from the US is also illegal.
So is buying it, then.
I guess the filing add the 50+ customer names got lost in the mail, eh?
You mean like Java?
Java is, at least, sandboxed. COM, being the aforementioned "random code" (at least in the context of this discussion), is not sandboxed and therefore has the potential of being a security nightmare.
If you think compiling a kernel even remotely approaches the complexity of building a carburetor, I want some of the crack you're smoking. The two aren't even comparable.
As I said in a different post, I interpreted the original poster's comments as targeted towards x86 Linux users.
I meant x86-based hardware. Sorry for not being specific enough.
My assumption was that the original poster that I replied to was targeting x86 Linux users in his comment.
It's not entirely logical, because going to MacOS X requires at least two things: one, it requires you to purchase new hardware, and two, it requires you to use closed-source software (namely, Quartz et. al.).
MacOS X cannot be used on existing hardware, and the hardware required for MacOS X to be used is undeniably more expensive. (You can make arguments that it is BETTER hardware, but nonetheless it is more expensive.)
Further, while MacOS X is based on the Darwin core, which in turn is FreeBSD-derived, much of the operating system is still proprietary, closed-source software. While that may not bother some, others would be greatly opposed to using it.
Was there ever a public announcement that the forums were going down, and why they were going down?
I was browsing through them a while back, took a several day hiatus, then came back and they had just disappeared.
Can you provide a URL for Fluxbox?
What do you consider the difference between "real _science_ fiction" and "psuedo-science space-soap"?
Of course, if you run the hotel, you get to say who uses the pool...
Yeah, but you can't control who pees in it.
:)
Well have plenty of crowd dodging practice by that time.
Don't forget to strafe! And definitely remember that you can do heat shots on your fellow shoppers to get through the queues faster!
What's the link to the Morpheus client? (please)
Does bringing up the Holocaust count as a Nazi reference?
:)
If so, he lost the argument.
NASA never found water. NASA has gobs of images of the Martian surface which /suggest/ water. Channels on the surface, etc., which look an awful lot like running water made them. There are even some features that hint at ancient oceans.
However, at the moment, these images are equivalent to ink blots. Yeah, maybe they look like something - but maybe you're just reading into them.
Odyessey seems like it's going to go a bit beyond that and actually do some surveying of the surface and subsurface for signs of actual water, as opposed to just saying, "Hey, that looks like it might've been made by water a million years ago!"
I'll have to add that to my dictionary file. ;)
That's akin to asking, "What are the legitimate uses of a car for those who don't know how to drive?" By the very definition, people who want or need to hide things need a way to hide them - hence, encryption.
However, the implicit statement in your post is that "need to hide" = "crime". Do me a favor. Since you seem so adverse to hiding things, write your name, social security number, all of your credit card numbers, your address, phone number, the names of your children and significant other, your license plate number, and the names/dates of up to the first ten people you have had sex with on ten thousand postcards. Then attach photocopies of a dozen documents from your workplace marked "Confidential," and then send them to the first ten thousand people in your nearest phone book or yellow pages.
Don't want to? Gee, why not? Maybe you have something you want to hide. Maybe you don't want other people invading your personal privacy? Maybe you don't want other people reading documents that could give your competition a leg up on your business? Oh, wait, maybe there's a good reason for encryption. Not because I'm trying to hide any criminal wrong-doing, but because I don't want people to know more about me than they have to. Because not every Joe Blow needs to have easy access to my personal information, or the things I would like to keep as personal knowledge and not general knowledge.
When the ability to keep a secret - ANY SECRET - becomes a crime, you'll know that America has become just as bad as Afghanistan or similar countries.
I don't recall writing, nor do I see, any claim that it was an "obvious" terrible idea.
The fact that the terrible idea has a name doesn't make it any less of a terrible idea.
From this example, I don't see your problem.
:)
It wasn't my problem, it was the problem of the poster I replied to.
You are completely wrong, this is why you PAY for an education, this is why you PAY for software, newspapers, etc.
Actually, you kind of having things mixed up.
Information is quite plentiful. You don't need to pay for an education to learn those things, nor do you need to pay for a newspaper to get the information contained within.
The caveat is that tracking down all of the equivalent information is overwhelmingly difficult and tedious. What colleges, newspapers, etc. do is compile all that information into an easily-digestible curriculum/format. When you shell out thousands of dollars for college, you aren't paying for the information they're teaching you, you're paying for the PEOPLE who teach you to do so in a clear, consise, understandable manner. Similarly, for a newspaper, you aren't paying for the information, you're paying for the medium on which it was transmitted (paper), the efforts of the people on the paper's staff who tracked down the information and consolidated it into the articles, etc.
Software is a bit more complex an analogy, but ultimately there are few things in software that are new under the sun. When you "buy" a piece of software, you aren't paying for the algorithms and UI widgets, you're paying for the collection of them, and the people that wrote it.
In that sense, I think there's a legitimate market for "proprietary" software. If you want to sell your software, feel free. Go right ahead. You took the time to put everything together into a cohesive product, so that's your right to sell it as you see fit.
But don't get me started on software patents.
If you're doing something like controlling a VCR, a sprinkler system, TV channel changer, a thermostat, a stereo, or numerous other tasks a processor like that might be a bit too powerful.
There are more powerful things than that powered by a 386-class processor.
I used to work at a company that made high-end infrared equipment - the type of stuff you see on Cops or see featured on those shows on Fox (you know, "World's Wildest Police Chases 9"). Their high-end gimbal unit, the balls that are mounted on helicopters, used 386 processors.
And these units were _certainly_ magnitudes more complex than a VCR remote or stereo.
1.) Why would Microsoft place any other browser into the API slot?
I'm not saying they would. I'm saying that they could give the customer - the consumer - the ability to choose which browser they wanted. Microsoft could ship IE as the default browser, as is their right, but if the consumer preferred the Mozilla engine, or Konqueror's engine, or any other type of engine, they could simply replace it.
2.) What would this say about Microsoft's faith in its own HTML libraries if it did?
It wouldn't say anything about Microsoft's faith in its own HTML libraries. Does the fact that I can replace a car stereo say anything about the auto manufacturer's "faith" in the default car stereo?
3.) What are the chances that the Mozilla libraries will actually *work* with all the libraries other programs use in IE?
That's the wonder of COM. Interfaces are interfaces, and as long as a particular COM control/class fully implements a particular interface, external entities (all those libraries that other programs use) that use that interface don't need to know ANYTHING about what they are calling to.
In other words, the ONLY benefit Microsoft has in not exposing the full Windows integration API for a browser is in making an artificial tie into Windows for IE. That doesn't benefit the consumer - it benefits only Microsoft.
--