Basically correct, but the DVD thing is a very bad example, because defeating the region coding on DVDs is illegal in the United States.
Suppose I wished to defeat regional coding on DVD's. I could do this by importing DVD players with different regional codings from various countries, thus giving me a "full set" of DVD players. While expensive, this is not illegal: for example, I could be building a computer in one country for re-export to another country that corresponds to that region coding. In fact, if companies wanted to stop me importing these players, they may themselves be guilty of violating free-trade laws.
There's a couple of reasons why this proposed planet is harder to detect than some of the planets outside the solar system:
The planets detected outside the solar system are all close to their parent stars. To confirm the existence of a planet, scientists must follow it for one orbit. This hypothetical planet has an orbit that takes six million years to complete. No human astronomers live that long.
The detection method for these extrasolar planets involves watching the stars for wobbles. This method cannot work with our own Sun, because we are a part of the system that we would be observing. It's like trying to touch your elbows with your hand: you can touch your right elbow with your left hand, but you cannot touch your right elbow with your right hand. Sometimes, being too close can impede detection.
The only direct way we would detect this planet would be by its reflected light. At half a light-year, the sun would be merely a very bright star, 900,000,000 times dimmer than it appears from Earth. That's not much light to illuminate the world. Then consider that the reflected light must travel back the same distance, and you will see that not much light gets back at all.
The BBC article mentioned that the object might lie in the constellation Delphinus. Although Delphinus is not far away from the ecliptic, Delphinus is not an ecliptic or zodiac constellation.
The ecliptic is defined as the plane of the Earth's orbit around the sun, and the zodiac is defined as the zone within 7 degrees of the ecliptic, roughly corresponding to Mercury's orbital inclination.
There is nothing about the ecliptic that makes it certain that all undiscovered hypothetical planets must lie within it. Pluto's orbital inclination is about 17 degrees, and it is not uncommon for comets to have highly inclined orbits. Our Northern Hemisphere friends were fortunate in that two bright comets (Hale-Bopp, Hayutake) passed really close to the North Celestial Pole recently.
One thing to note is that Pluto and comets are relatively distant members of the Solar System. They would feel less of a gravitational influence from other planets such as Jupiter than inner planets. It therefore makes sense that a hypothetical distant planet, particularly if captured and half a light-year away, would only be in the ecliptic by chance, and not because of any immutable cosmic law.
Millenium 2000: The misinformed who believe that the second millenium consists of all the years that start with "1" (1000 - 1999) realise their folly when they realise that the second millenium must therefore also consist of all of the centuries that start with "1" (10th to 19th), and therefore the second millenium probably ended on December 31, 1899.
Quantum computing 2012: The introduction of quantum computing makes old encryption methods obsolete. New quantum encryption methods are invented to cover this need. To the NSA's great annoyance, these new methods prove to be easy to use, provide good encryption, and cannot be tapped without the tapping being detected. The NSA and other espionage organisations, perceiving the new technology as a threat, try to strangle the emerging technology in the cradle, in the same way the record industry did with Digital Audiotape in the 1980's. They fail, and Quantum Encryption gains rapid acceptance in the market.
Genetics 2034: Studies show that due to advanced lifesaving medical methods and infertility treatments, the human gene pool is being dramatically weakened as individuals who would have surely died even a century before are instead being permitted to live and raise many children. A new and highly controversial international treaty is signed that outlaws infertility treatments and compels hospitals to sterilise anyone who is admitted for life-threatening conditions. One unexpected side-effect is the complete elimination of all of the inbred aristocratic class worldwide within forty years.
One problem with the Imperial system is that the inch is the smallest unit of length. Once you go smaller than the inch, there's no true standard about how to subdivide the inch. An Imperial socket set is probably calibrated in 1/32 inch steps. The standard separation in computer parts is 1/10 inch - for example, TTL chips. Printers print out documents with 1/300 inch precision (300 dpi). With Metric, there's a firm standard about subdividing the unit.
One contributor has pointed out that Metric uses multiples of ten, and not many numbers divide into 10 easily. One uses Metric to measure things, not to divide numbers. I prefer to remember multiples of 10 rather than the seemingly random measures of the Imperial system. The numbers 2, 3, 4, 5+1/2, 8, 12, 14 and 20 all find a home in some Imperial units: 2 pints = 1 quart, 3 feet = 1 yard, 4 quarts = 1 gallon, 5+1/2 yards = 1 rod/pole/perch, 8 furlongs = 1 mile, 12 inches = 1 foot, 14 pounds = 1 stone, 20 fluid ounces = 1 U.S. pint.
Americans, who were one of the first countries to use a decimal currency system and who have successfully attempted some spelling reform of the English language, should have little trouble adapting to the Metric system when it is eventually introduced. If Americans wish to "go Metric" in the future, I would advise them to study how Metric was introduced in other countries to see what methods worked and what didn't.
If I could change one thing in the world, I would make the inch equal 25.6 millimetres instead of 25.4 millimetres. Then: 1/2 inch would be 12.8 mm 1/4 inch would be 6.4 mm 1/8 inch would be 3.2 mm 1/16 inch would be 1.6 mm 1/32 inch would be 0.8 mm and so forth. One wouldn't need to buy a new set of wrenches then!
The first thing to remember about the Imperial system of measurements is that the U.S. and U.K. did NOT use the same system of measurements. As an example: how many fluid ounces are there in a pint? If you're in the U.K. the answer is different to the answer you would get in the U.S.
Here in Australia, the Metric system was introduced gradually over about 10 years starting in about 1968. The first thing to be changed was Fahrenheit to Celsius, then other units were introduced over time.
Even now though, some Imperial measures are still in colloquial use here in Australia. Inches and feet are still understood by many people. Babies are seven pounds when they're born. People are about six feet tall. You might weigh 12 stone. Your house might sit on a quarter-acre block. But you don't hear people speaking in terms of gallons of petrol, pounds of butter, quarts of milk, or miles to the nearest city. This is probably similar to other recently-metricated countries.
I agree, proper PNG support is crucial. We all know how PNG is technically superior to GIF and does not have unacceptable patent restrictions.
I use the (ick) Windows version of Netscape 4.6, and one thing that I have discovered is that PNG files with transparent areas are not rendered properly: the transparent areas appear as black. It looks horrible on a web page with a light background.
I hate to say this, but I may have to change to Internet Explorer very soon unless Netscape fixes various unresolved issues, including the following:
The basic CSS bugs, such as some styles being ignored after a table appears on a page (when the table ends, many styles are not restored and are lost);
Proper PNG support such as recognition of transparency;
Resolving stability problems, so that Netscape doesn't crash frequently (yes, it happens on the Windows version, too, and has nothing to do with Windows itself);
Fixing the Java/Javascript bug where disabling Java or Javascript also disables style sheets.
It is unacceptable for a software house with a large percentage of the market share to have such bad quality control, particularly in a market where other companies have competing products. If Netscape does not get its act together and soon, Netscape web browsers will soon go the way of OS/2.
I will be evaluating the latest version of Netscape to see if these issues have been addressed. I hope they have, because there's really no excuse if they haven't been addressed.
Firearm stockpiling: 200-1 that more firearms are sold in the US in December 1999 than December 1998.
They're kidding, right? Surely it's likely that firearms sales would increase?
Given:
Firearm manufacturers, like any other profitable company, like seeing increased sales growth on an annual basis; and
The brisk trade in many different classes of goods perceived as being of assistance in averting a Y2K meltdown (such as agricultural implements, canned goods, grain and so forth)
I thought it would be very likely that firearm sales would increase, as those who are prepared for Y2K take steps to defend themselves and their property from panicky ill-prepared hordes.
I would estimate the odds of firearms sales growth without Y2K at 60%, and the odds of firearms being perceived as vital to Y2K preparations by ill-informed people at 50%. Combine the two, and you get a figure at 80%, or almost certain.
I think the 200-1 is good odds, and that's where I would place my money.
In summary, I forsee the death of labels within the next 15 years, and that's pretty damn conservative.
Many businesses seem to operate on the principle that because they were in business yesterday, and they're in business today, that this gives them an absolute right to be in business tomorrow. But that's false. Businesses have a limited lifetime, and businesses do die, just like people.
This attitude of fierce resistance to new technological developments that threaten the survival of one's business has been around for years. When the electric light was invented, it was fiercely opposed by gaslight companies because the electric light threatened their existence.
Businesses have an alternative to dying because of technological change, and that is to adapt to the new technology. IBM originally manufactured typewriters, and they adapted to new technology as it was released.
Therefore, Sony and other recording labels have a clear choice for the future: adapt or die. If they attempt to suppress the rise of Internet music publishing, they will at best postpone the inevitable, and at worst hasten their own demise.
This is just another example of a big business armed with a bunch of lawyers drawing up legal contracts that heavily favour the business. The recording artists usually cannot afford to hire lawyers to vet the contract before signing it, and would probably not understand all of the contract before signing it.
Sony are probably pushing this as a "standard contract" and may refuse to negotiate with the artist on the terms of the contract, despite the fact that contract law in many countries gives the artist the right to do so.
What scares me even more would be if existing Sony contracts have a clause in them that allows Sony to change the terms of the contract at any time. Such a clause might read as follows: "Sony reserves the right to alter the terms and conditions of the contract at any time..." (despite the fact that amending the contract after it is signed is clearly a privilege and not a right) thus allowing Sony to retroactively amend all contracts to contain this contentious URL clause.
Although I am not familiar with the details of the American political process (I live in Australia), I can make general comments with respect to Internet voting. There are several problems that I can see with a democracy allowing its citizens to cast votes via the Internet.
It would be very difficult to ensure that the ballot was fair and not rigged in any way.
Anonymity would be difficult to implement in such a manner as to prevent voters voting more than once.
There is an accessibility problem, because Internet access is not universal.
Ensuring theat the ballot is honest, and anonymity have been covered by other posters, and I will not repeat their points here.
The accessibility problem arises because the Internet is not freely available to all. Disadvantaged citizens of all kinds find it difficult to get Internet access: the geographically isolated, the poor, the computer illiterate, and so forth. Allowing people to vote by the Internet would be like setting up extra polling stations in rich neighbourhoods, thus swaying the vote in favour of political parties that favour the rich.
It is a worthy idea, but the time is not yet right for its implementation. Only when Internet access is as universal as access to running water may we consider such an option without risking the fairness of the political process.
I have filtering technology installed on my computer at home. It blocks access to some web pages and images when I surf the net. It's called Netscape Navigator, and its page and image blocking technology is called "caching".
Hee hee hee....
To those who seem to like using this really stupid censorship law as an excuse to make comments on Australia's recent gun law revisions as being a "loss of freedom": have YOU ever been less than a mile from the scene of a major gun massacre at the time it happened?
I have. Twice. It's scary.
So for this reason I take a dim view of uninformed foreigners who feel that the Australian community would prefer the presence of crazy maniacs running around shooting innocent victims. I would prefer not to be shot at, thank you.
Re:Software and hardware designers are the stupid
on
Computer Stupidities
·
· Score: 1
Computers have come a long way since they were first invented half a century ago. Someone (probably head of IBM many years ago) once estimated that the total number of computers the UK would ever have would be about six, because there weren't enough qualified mathematicians in the country to run more than that.
In the old days, computers ran with punch cards, punch tape, programmers booking time at 4 am, and so forth. Computers these days are much easier to use than they were 40 years ago. Sure, they're still daunting if you are not familiar with them, but they're still evolving technology. In ten years, computers will probably be as easy to set up and use as a video recorder. Perhaps your computer will be the same device as your video recorder, microwave, television, refrigerator, stereo system and washine machine, and all of them will be running Linux...
I work for a small software company. One thing that we have been asked to do is to write new (Linux) software to run an old communications protocol. The protocol lacks documentation, so we must reverse-engineer the protocol by watching every byte transmitted and received. We have successfully implemented the protocol by using RE in this manner.
If this proposed law passes, then we would no longer be legally able to implement an old, undocumented protocol in the future as we can do today.
On a similar topic, the most disturbing thing I have noticed is that here in Australia, it is very difficult to read the licence of computer software before purchase. To read the licence, you have to buy and open the shrink-wrapped box, but once the box has been opened, the software retailers refuse to give you a refund. You therefore have no choice but to accept the agreement, or be out of pocket. This is a classic catch-22.
It should be a legal requirement to give prospective purchasers of software every opportunity to read the software agreement before any money changes hands. (It probably is already, under standard contract law.)
Here's a better refinement of the "fake e-mail address" idea I mentioned earlier.
Instead of filling the spam lists with random "chaff" addresses, use this method to put "canary" e-mail addresses on to the spam lists instead. "Canary" e-mail addresses are designed to catch spams, and serve only to receive spam. Automated software attached to the "canary" can then filter spam based on what the "canary" receives. The canary idea is not new, of course.
A more evil idea would be to attach to the address of the "canary" some software (similar to that found on the web site spamcop.net) that traces the e-mail back to the spammer by examining the "Received:" headers. If done in real-time, one could potentially alert an ISP to a spammer's activity in time for them to disconnect a spammer while they were still sending spam.
The best part is that we use the spammers' own resources (collections of e-mail addresses) to fight spam.
---
The only SPAM I like: www.spam.com (The home page of the canned meat)
<EVIL-GENIUS-MODE> Even the legal agreement can be worked around if you're clever enough:
1. Pay through the mail by check. 2. On the back of the check, write additional terms and conditions for the contract with NSI. Such terms and conditions may look like this:
(1)These terms and conditions are additional terms and conditions between (company) and NSI. If these terms and conditions conflict with any that already exist between (company) and NSI, these additional terms and conditions shall take precedence.
(2)NSI agrees not to send bulk commercial e-mail to (company) for any purpose. [insert more terms and conditions here, or modify this one to suit. Include a concise definition of "bulk commercial e-mail"].
(3)Cashing this check indicates acceptance of these terms and conditions.
If the software license agreements I've seen from the U.S. are anything to go by, you might need to include an opt-out clause:
(4)If NSI does not accept these additional terms and conditions, then (company) is unwilling to do business with NSI. If this is the case, NSI must not cash the check, but instead [include an appropriate action here, probably along the lines of "return the check"].
If you're lucky, they'll cash the check without looking at the back first.
Of course, you'll probably have to write on the back of the check in very small writing, or make the check very large in physical size...:)
A few years ago, someone here in Australia used this method of payment to opt out of snail mail junk mail from a company, and when the company sent him junk mail anyway, he successfully sued the company. (He had included a "damage" clause that stated that sending junk mail would damage him, and included a penalty of $10,000 if he was damaged in this way. This is what he won in court.)
Both parties to a contract have the right to negotiate on the terms and conditions of the contract. You don't have to accept the standard contract that a large company wants you to sign - these are drawn up by highly-paid lawyers and are heavily biased in favour of the large company (such as long lists of your "obligations" and their "rights").
I hope that NSI get blacklisted. They are attempting to justify that their sending of unsolicited bulk commercial e-mail to all their customers is legitimate because they have done business with their customers before.
Sorry, NSI. This is called "acquaintance spam" and is viewed as spam. If NSI had serious competition, then NSI would lose customers in droves. Few people like being spammed.
---
Here is a method that I've just thought up to make spamming less effective: fill up the spammers' e-mail address lists with as much chaff as possible, thus reducing or destroying their usefulness as a resource for the spammer. We already do this in a passive way by "spam-proofing" our e-mail addresses in various ways, so that spambots find these instead of our real address. We should take a more active role to destroy spam lists as a resource.
* If you like spam-proofing your e-mail address to avoid being spammed, make the address look almost right. For example, spambots might have filters to filter out addresses that lack "." and "@" characters.
* Change the spam-proofed address regularly. This introduces more "chaff" addresses for spambots to find.
* Some spammers use "remove" addresses in their spams to verify that a particular address is a real address that can be spammed again. Naive spammers may trust the addresses that they receive at these addresses and add them to spam lists, on the assumption that most people have nothing to hide and don't conceal their e-mail address. We could reply to these addresses with an assortment of fake addresses, thus filling spam lists with chaff. This tactic is perhaps highly questionable and is probably illegal in some jurisdictions, but is a spammer really going to sue you?
Let's not forget the international co-operation that is currently building the space station. American shuttles are placing components built by America (NASA), Europe (ESA), Russia (RSA) and Japan into orbit.
It is likely that we will see an increase in international co-operation on space missions, and less emphasis on national programs. To perform more science on less money, duplication of effort such as many missions doing the same thing needs to be reduced.
The prospect of NASA funding cuts threatens the existence of the proposed mission to explore Pluto. What must be remembered is that Pluto is relatively close to the sun right now - it reached perihelion in 1989 and between 1979 and February 1999 was closer to the sun than Neptune. Pluto will not be as close to the sun again as it is now until about the year 2225. If distance from the sun is a major factor in the cost of space missions, then Pluto must be explored now. Over the next century, Pluto's distance from the sun will increase by an amount almost as great as Uranus' distance from the sun - a great distance indeed. How much more will it cost to send a probe to Pluto when it's at aphelion?
NASA lost a chance to explore Pluto in the late 1970's when it decided to send Voyager 1 out of the ecliptic plane after encountering Saturn instead of sending it on to Pluto. Now NASA has another chance to explore Pluto. Let's hope that this chance is not also lost by the cancellation of the Pluto mission.
Here's one curious thing I have noticed about R2D2, C3PO and droids in general. Droids appear to be very common (the tiny Naboo ship had at least three of them). There's probably thousands of worlds, hundreds of thousands of ships and perhaps hundreds of millions of droids in the Star Wars galaxy.
So why is R2D2's serial number so short?
If we assume that a droid's serial number can consist of any combination of four letters and/or numbers, then there are only 36 ^ 4 combinations, or 1,679,616 different serial numbers, which would barely cover the number of droids found on a small, backwater world such as Tattoine.
On the plus side, R2D2, as always, has a lot of hack value. He is also clearly running Linux: R2D2 did not bluescreen once in the whole of the Star Wars series. The only times R2D2 failed that I can recall were hardware failures such as an external electrical overload (Jawas, Endor) or being shot in the Death Star trench.
There's one curious thing I have noticed about R2D2, C3PO and droids in general. Droids appear to be very common (the tiny Naboo ship had at least three of them). There's probably thousands of worlds, hundreds of thousands of ships and perhaps hundreds of millions of droids in the Star Wars galaxy.
So why is R2D2's serial number so short?
If we assume that a droid's serial number can consist of any combination of four letters and/or numbers, then there are only 36 ^ 4 combinations, or 1,679,616 different serial numbers, which would barely cover the number of droids found on a small, backwater world such as Tattoine.
On the plus side, R2D2, as always, has a lot of hack value. He is also clearly running Linux: R2D2 did not bluescreen once in the whole of the Star Wars series. The only times R2D2 failed that I can recall were hardware failures such as an external electrical overload (Jawas, Endor) or being shot in the Death Star trench.
It is worth pointing out here that although the Internet was originally created in America, the Internet is now international. Do not make the mistake of assuming "United States == Whole World". I regret to say that Americans are notorious for making this error: consider World Series Baseball and the World Wrestling Federation: both are domestic American sporting organisations.
If you are going to debate such issues as jurisdiction, you must consider the Internet as an international resource, and consider the matter from the viewpoint of international law. Local laws with respect to the Internet are largely meaningless, and only help to fragment the Internet into a hodgepodge of chaotic regulation.
The world desperately needs uniform international law with respect to the Internet. We already have such laws with respect to such international items as international shipping, international air traffic and so forth. We should push for the Internet to be regulated internationally in the same manner.
Funny you should mention that. Scientists have actually MADE mice that glow in the dark by giving them the jellyfish gene for the light-emitting protein. The mice that were used were hairless mice, so those that took up the gene glowed in the dark with an eerie green glow.
Slashdot Mirror
Basically correct, but the DVD thing is a very bad example, because defeating the region coding on DVDs is illegal in the United States.
Suppose I wished to defeat regional coding on DVD's. I could do this by importing DVD players with different regional codings from various countries, thus giving me a "full set" of DVD players. While expensive, this is not illegal: for example, I could be building a computer in one country for re-export to another country that corresponds to that region coding. In fact, if companies wanted to stop me importing these players, they may themselves be guilty of violating free-trade laws.
The BBC article mentioned that the object might lie in the constellation Delphinus. Although Delphinus is not far away from the ecliptic, Delphinus is not an ecliptic or zodiac constellation.
The ecliptic is defined as the plane of the Earth's orbit around the sun, and the zodiac is defined as the zone within 7 degrees of the ecliptic, roughly corresponding to Mercury's orbital inclination.
There is nothing about the ecliptic that makes it certain that all undiscovered hypothetical planets must lie within it. Pluto's orbital inclination is about 17 degrees, and it is not uncommon for comets to have highly inclined orbits. Our Northern Hemisphere friends were fortunate in that two bright comets (Hale-Bopp, Hayutake) passed really close to the North Celestial Pole recently.
One thing to note is that Pluto and comets are relatively distant members of the Solar System. They would feel less of a gravitational influence from other planets such as Jupiter than inner planets. It therefore makes sense that a hypothetical distant planet, particularly if captured and half a light-year away, would only be in the ecliptic by chance, and not because of any immutable cosmic law.
Millenium
2000: The misinformed who believe that the second millenium consists of all the years that start with "1" (1000 - 1999) realise their folly when they realise that the second millenium must therefore also consist of all of the centuries that start with "1" (10th to 19th), and therefore the second millenium probably ended on December 31, 1899.
Quantum computing
2012: The introduction of quantum computing makes old encryption methods obsolete. New quantum encryption methods are invented to cover this need. To the NSA's great annoyance, these new methods prove to be easy to use, provide good encryption, and cannot be tapped without the tapping being detected. The NSA and other espionage organisations, perceiving the new technology as a threat, try to strangle the emerging technology in the cradle, in the same way the record industry did with Digital Audiotape in the 1980's. They fail, and Quantum Encryption gains rapid acceptance in the market.
Genetics
2034: Studies show that due to advanced lifesaving medical methods and infertility treatments, the human gene pool is being dramatically weakened as individuals who would have surely died even a century before are instead being permitted to live and raise many children. A new and highly controversial international treaty is signed that outlaws infertility treatments and compels hospitals to sterilise anyone who is admitted for life-threatening conditions. One unexpected side-effect is the complete elimination of all of the inbred aristocratic class worldwide within forty years.
One problem with the Imperial system is that the inch is the smallest unit of length. Once you go smaller than the inch, there's no true standard about how to subdivide the inch. An Imperial socket set is probably calibrated in 1/32 inch steps. The standard separation in computer parts is 1/10 inch - for example, TTL chips. Printers print out documents with 1/300 inch precision (300 dpi). With Metric, there's a firm standard about subdividing the unit.
One contributor has pointed out that Metric uses multiples of ten, and not many numbers divide into 10 easily. One uses Metric to measure things, not to divide numbers. I prefer to remember multiples of 10 rather than the seemingly random measures of the Imperial system. The numbers 2, 3, 4, 5+1/2, 8, 12, 14 and 20 all find a home in some Imperial units: 2 pints = 1 quart, 3 feet = 1 yard, 4 quarts = 1 gallon, 5+1/2 yards = 1 rod/pole/perch, 8 furlongs = 1 mile, 12 inches = 1 foot, 14 pounds = 1 stone, 20 fluid ounces = 1 U.S. pint.
Americans, who were one of the first countries to use a decimal currency system and who have successfully attempted some spelling reform of the English language, should have little trouble adapting to the Metric system when it is eventually introduced. If Americans wish to "go Metric" in the future, I would advise them to study how Metric was introduced in other countries to see what methods worked and what didn't.
If I could change one thing in the world, I would make the inch equal 25.6 millimetres instead of 25.4 millimetres. Then:
1/2 inch would be 12.8 mm
1/4 inch would be 6.4 mm
1/8 inch would be 3.2 mm
1/16 inch would be 1.6 mm
1/32 inch would be 0.8 mm
and so forth. One wouldn't need to buy a new set of wrenches then!
The first thing to remember about the Imperial system of measurements is that the U.S. and U.K. did NOT use the same system of measurements. As an example: how many fluid ounces are there in a pint? If you're in the U.K. the answer is different to the answer you would get in the U.S.
Here in Australia, the Metric system was introduced gradually over about 10 years starting in about 1968. The first thing to be changed was Fahrenheit to Celsius, then other units were introduced over time.
Even now though, some Imperial measures are still in colloquial use here in Australia. Inches and feet are still understood by many people. Babies are seven pounds when they're born. People are about six feet tall. You might weigh 12 stone. Your house might sit on a quarter-acre block. But you don't hear people speaking in terms of gallons of petrol, pounds of butter, quarts of milk, or miles to the nearest city. This is probably similar to other recently-metricated countries.
I use the (ick) Windows version of Netscape 4.6, and one thing that I have discovered is that PNG files with transparent areas are not rendered properly: the transparent areas appear as black. It looks horrible on a web page with a light background.
I hate to say this, but I may have to change to Internet Explorer very soon unless Netscape fixes various unresolved issues, including the following:
It is unacceptable for a software house with a large percentage of the market share to have such bad quality control, particularly in a market where other companies have competing products. If Netscape does not get its act together and soon, Netscape web browsers will soon go the way of OS/2.
I will be evaluating the latest version of Netscape to see if these issues have been addressed. I hope they have, because there's really no excuse if they haven't been addressed.
They're kidding, right? Surely it's likely that firearms sales would increase?
Given:
I thought it would be very likely that firearm sales would increase, as those who are prepared for Y2K take steps to defend themselves and their property from panicky ill-prepared hordes.
I would estimate the odds of firearms sales growth without Y2K at 60%, and the odds of firearms being perceived as vital to Y2K preparations by ill-informed people at 50%. Combine the two, and you get a figure at 80%, or almost certain.
I think the 200-1 is good odds, and that's where I would place my money.
Now if I only had some money....
In summary, I forsee the death of labels within the next 15 years, and that's pretty damn conservative.
Many businesses seem to operate on the principle that because they were in business yesterday, and they're in business today, that this gives them an absolute right to be in business tomorrow. But that's false. Businesses have a limited lifetime, and businesses do die, just like people.
This attitude of fierce resistance to new technological developments that threaten the survival of one's business has been around for years. When the electric light was invented, it was fiercely opposed by gaslight companies because the electric light threatened their existence.
Businesses have an alternative to dying because of technological change, and that is to adapt to the new technology. IBM originally manufactured typewriters, and they adapted to new technology as it was released.
Therefore, Sony and other recording labels have a clear choice for the future: adapt or die. If they attempt to suppress the rise of Internet music publishing, they will at best postpone the inevitable, and at worst hasten their own demise.
This is just another example of a big business armed with a bunch of lawyers drawing up legal contracts that heavily favour the business. The recording artists usually cannot afford to hire lawyers to vet the contract before signing it, and would probably not understand all of the contract before signing it.
Sony are probably pushing this as a "standard contract" and may refuse to negotiate with the artist on the terms of the contract, despite the fact that contract law in many countries gives the artist the right to do so.
What scares me even more would be if existing Sony contracts have a clause in them that allows Sony to change the terms of the contract at any time. Such a clause might read as follows: "Sony reserves the right to alter the terms and conditions of the contract at any time..." (despite the fact that amending the contract after it is signed is clearly a privilege and not a right) thus allowing Sony to retroactively amend all contracts to contain this contentious URL clause.
Ensuring theat the ballot is honest, and anonymity have been covered by other posters, and I will not repeat their points here.
The accessibility problem arises because the Internet is not freely available to all. Disadvantaged citizens of all kinds find it difficult to get Internet access: the geographically isolated, the poor, the computer illiterate, and so forth. Allowing people to vote by the Internet would be like setting up extra polling stations in rich neighbourhoods, thus swaying the vote in favour of political parties that favour the rich.
It is a worthy idea, but the time is not yet right for its implementation. Only when Internet access is as universal as access to running water may we consider such an option without risking the fairness of the political process.
I have filtering technology installed on my computer at home. It blocks access to some web pages and images when I surf the net. It's called Netscape Navigator, and its page and image blocking technology is called "caching".
Hee hee hee....
To those who seem to like using this really stupid censorship law as an excuse to make comments on Australia's recent gun law revisions as being a "loss of freedom": have YOU ever been less than a mile from the scene of a major gun massacre at the time it happened?
I have. Twice. It's scary.
So for this reason I take a dim view of uninformed foreigners who feel that the Australian community would prefer the presence of crazy maniacs running around shooting innocent victims. I would prefer not to be shot at, thank you.
Computers have come a long way since they were first invented half a century ago. Someone (probably head of IBM many years ago) once estimated that the total number of computers the UK would ever have would be about six, because there weren't enough qualified mathematicians in the country to run more than that.
In the old days, computers ran with punch cards, punch tape, programmers booking time at 4 am, and so forth. Computers these days are much easier to use than they were 40 years ago. Sure, they're still daunting if you are not familiar with them, but they're still evolving technology. In ten years, computers will probably be as easy to set up and use as a video recorder. Perhaps your computer will be the same device as your video recorder, microwave, television, refrigerator, stereo system and washine machine, and all of them will be running Linux...
login: washingmachine
Password:
% wash -gentle
% spin
% logout
This microsoft-typo site re-directs you to www.linux.org ... :)
www.microsfot.com
www.linux.org
I work for a small software company. One thing that we have been asked to do is to write new (Linux) software to run an old communications protocol. The protocol lacks documentation, so we must reverse-engineer the protocol by watching every byte transmitted and received. We have successfully implemented the protocol by using RE in this manner.
If this proposed law passes, then we would no longer be legally able to implement an old, undocumented protocol in the future as we can do today.
On a similar topic, the most disturbing thing I have noticed is that here in Australia, it is very difficult to read the licence of computer software before purchase. To read the licence, you have to buy and open the shrink-wrapped box, but once the box has been opened, the software retailers refuse to give you a refund. You therefore have no choice but to accept the agreement, or be out of pocket. This is a classic catch-22.
It should be a legal requirement to give prospective purchasers of software every opportunity to read the software agreement before any money changes hands. (It probably is already, under standard contract law.)
Here's a better refinement of the "fake e-mail address" idea I mentioned earlier.
Instead of filling the spam lists with random "chaff" addresses, use this method to put "canary" e-mail addresses on to the spam lists instead. "Canary" e-mail addresses are designed to catch spams, and serve only to receive spam. Automated software attached to the "canary" can then filter spam based on what the "canary" receives. The canary idea is not new, of course.
A more evil idea would be to attach to the address of the "canary" some software (similar to that found on the web site spamcop.net) that traces the e-mail back to the spammer by examining the "Received:" headers. If done in real-time, one could potentially alert an ISP to a spammer's activity in time for them to disconnect a spammer while they were still sending spam.
The best part is that we use the spammers' own resources (collections of e-mail addresses) to fight spam.
---
The only SPAM I like: www.spam.com (The home page of the canned meat)
<EVIL-GENIUS-MODE>
:)
Even the legal agreement can be worked around if you're clever enough:
1. Pay through the mail by check.
2. On the back of the check, write additional terms and conditions for the contract with NSI. Such terms and conditions may look like this:
(1)These terms and conditions are additional terms and conditions between (company) and NSI. If these terms and conditions conflict with any that already exist between (company) and NSI, these additional terms and conditions shall take precedence.
(2)NSI agrees not to send bulk commercial e-mail to (company) for any purpose. [insert more terms and conditions here, or modify this one to suit. Include a concise definition of "bulk commercial e-mail"].
(3)Cashing this check indicates acceptance of these terms and conditions.
If the software license agreements I've seen from the U.S. are anything to go by, you might need to include an opt-out clause:
(4)If NSI does not accept these additional terms and conditions, then (company) is unwilling to do business with NSI. If this is the case, NSI must not cash the check, but instead [include an appropriate action here, probably along the lines of "return the check"].
If you're lucky, they'll cash the check without looking at the back first.
Of course, you'll probably have to write on the back of the check in very small writing, or make the check very large in physical size...
A few years ago, someone here in Australia used this method of payment to opt out of snail mail junk mail from a company, and when the company sent him junk mail anyway, he successfully sued the company. (He had included a "damage" clause that stated that sending junk mail would damage him, and included a penalty of $10,000 if he was damaged in this way. This is what he won in court.)
Both parties to a contract have the right to negotiate on the terms and conditions of the contract. You don't have to accept the standard contract that a large company wants you to sign - these are drawn up by highly-paid lawyers and are heavily biased in favour of the large company (such as long lists of your "obligations" and their "rights").
</EVIL-GENIUS-MODE>
I hope that NSI get blacklisted. They are attempting to justify that their sending of unsolicited bulk commercial e-mail to all their customers is legitimate because they have done business with their customers before.
Sorry, NSI. This is called "acquaintance spam" and is viewed as spam. If NSI had serious competition, then NSI would lose customers in droves. Few people like being spammed.
---
Here is a method that I've just thought up to make spamming less effective: fill up the spammers' e-mail address lists with as much chaff as possible, thus reducing or destroying their usefulness as a resource for the spammer. We already do this in a passive way by "spam-proofing" our e-mail addresses in various ways, so that spambots find these instead of our real address. We should take a more active role to destroy spam lists as a resource.
* If you like spam-proofing your e-mail address to avoid being spammed, make the address look almost right. For example, spambots might have filters to filter out addresses that lack "." and "@" characters.
* Change the spam-proofed address regularly. This introduces more "chaff" addresses for spambots to find.
* Some spammers use "remove" addresses in their spams to verify that a particular address is a real address that can be spammed again. Naive spammers may trust the addresses that they receive at these addresses and add them to spam lists, on the assumption that most people have nothing to hide and don't conceal their e-mail address. We could reply to these addresses with an assortment of fake addresses, thus filling spam lists with chaff. This tactic is perhaps highly questionable and is probably illegal in some jurisdictions, but is a spammer really going to sue you?
Let's not forget the international co-operation that is currently building the space station. American shuttles are placing components built by America (NASA), Europe (ESA), Russia (RSA) and Japan into orbit.
It is likely that we will see an increase in international co-operation on space missions, and less emphasis on national programs. To perform more science on less money, duplication of effort such as many missions doing the same thing needs to be reduced.
The prospect of NASA funding cuts threatens the existence of the proposed mission to explore Pluto. What must be remembered is that Pluto is relatively close to the sun right now - it reached perihelion in 1989 and between 1979 and February 1999 was closer to the sun than Neptune. Pluto will not be as close to the sun again as it is now until about the year 2225. If distance from the sun is a major factor in the cost of space missions, then Pluto must be explored now. Over the next century, Pluto's distance from the sun will increase by an amount almost as great as Uranus' distance from the sun - a great distance indeed. How much more will it cost to send a probe to Pluto when it's at aphelion?
NASA lost a chance to explore Pluto in the late 1970's when it decided to send Voyager 1 out of the ecliptic plane after encountering Saturn instead of sending it on to Pluto. Now NASA has another chance to explore Pluto. Let's hope that this chance is not also lost by the cancellation of the Pluto mission.
My Question:
Is Linux year-2000 compliant?
The 8-ball's answer:
IT IS CERTAIN
The 8-ball truly knows all.
Oops ... posted in the wrong place ...
Here's one curious thing I have noticed about R2D2, C3PO and droids in general. Droids appear to be very common (the tiny Naboo ship had at least three of them). There's probably thousands of worlds, hundreds of thousands of ships and perhaps hundreds of millions of droids in the Star Wars galaxy.
So why is R2D2's serial number so short?
If we assume that a droid's serial number can consist of any combination of four letters and/or numbers, then there are only 36 ^ 4 combinations, or 1,679,616 different serial numbers, which would barely cover the number of droids found on a small, backwater world such as Tattoine.
On the plus side, R2D2, as always, has a lot of hack value. He is also clearly running Linux: R2D2 did not bluescreen once in the whole of the Star Wars series. The only times R2D2 failed that I can recall were hardware failures such as an external electrical overload (Jawas, Endor) or being shot in the Death Star trench.
There's one curious thing I have noticed about R2D2, C3PO and droids in general. Droids appear to be very common (the tiny Naboo ship had at least three of them). There's probably thousands of worlds, hundreds of thousands of ships and perhaps hundreds of millions of droids in the Star Wars galaxy.
So why is R2D2's serial number so short?
If we assume that a droid's serial number can consist of any combination of four letters and/or numbers, then there are only 36 ^ 4 combinations, or 1,679,616 different serial numbers, which would barely cover the number of droids found on a small, backwater world such as Tattoine.
On the plus side, R2D2, as always, has a lot of hack value. He is also clearly running Linux: R2D2 did not bluescreen once in the whole of the Star Wars series. The only times R2D2 failed that I can recall were hardware failures such as an external electrical overload (Jawas, Endor) or being shot in the Death Star trench.
It is worth pointing out here that although the Internet was originally created in America, the Internet is now international. Do not make the mistake of assuming "United States == Whole World". I regret to say that Americans are notorious for making this error: consider World Series Baseball and the World Wrestling Federation: both are domestic American sporting organisations.
If you are going to debate such issues as jurisdiction, you must consider the Internet as an international resource, and consider the matter from the viewpoint of international law. Local laws with respect to the Internet are largely meaningless, and only help to fragment the Internet into a hodgepodge of chaotic regulation.
The world desperately needs uniform international law with respect to the Internet. We already have such laws with respect to such international items as international shipping, international air traffic and so forth. We should push for the Internet to be regulated internationally in the same manner.
Moral: be wary of mice which glow in the dark
Funny you should mention that. Scientists have actually MADE mice that glow in the dark by giving them the jellyfish gene for the light-emitting protein. The mice that were used were hairless mice, so those that took up the gene glowed in the dark with an eerie green glow.