Strange thing is that it works fine (completely fine) if you just tamper with the identity string on firefox. They just don't support it, because the people who delivered the software don't guarantee that it works.
More like a crippled DAT hooked up to a digital tuner with an Internet connection. You couldn't exactly tell your tape recorder to only record such and such a show on this, this, and that station without manual intervention. You also wouldn't exactly have digital audio.
Well, that's what the 21st century equivalent is all about. He didn't claim they had created the exact equivalent, did he?
Neutral Point of View is an important idea. It means presenting ideas, facts, and opinions without making a judgement to which one is correct or incorrect. It means that the writer or speaker must present all views fairly.
My point is not being "there is no theoretical neutral point of view", only "who is going to decide on what is?". Your theories are probably fun to discuss, but this is not about theories. It is about how you in practice make people take a neutral point of view. And no, I don't think that would be possible in describing a war. If you think it is possible, may I please get your neutral viewpoint on the ongoing^H^H^H^H^H^H^H finished war in Iraq.
What you are suggesting is that there is no objective truth.
Jeez. I am saying that a political system should not consider something true and something not true, because that interferes with freedom of speech (you are free to say anything, as long as our courts believe it to be true).
In politics, we should not allow or disallow anyone because they disagree with established truths. They just might be false. Like whether the world is flat or round.
I do not personally believe that there are no true and false statements in the world. I merely believe that in politics, we have no adequate way of defining true and false. Therefore, we should not rely upon it.
>You have no way to know whether someone else's interpretation is better than your own.
That's right. Which is why we should in fact just flip a coin between candidates, because in the end, no one's interpretation of one set of results is better than anyone eles's.
Idiot. You are doing exactly what Michael Moore is accused of, misquoting me. I have never said that no things are better than others. I said you should not, in a system, qualify or disqualify an opinion because any other system or person believes it to be true or not true. But the beauty of democracy is that you vote for the reasoning you believe is most likely to be correct.
But personally or in a political system, you have no way to test wether an interpretation of facts are more correct than others, only which one is more probable.
Example: If A tells me lower taxes will make things better for the poor because more businesses means more jobs means more paychecks means less poverty, while B tells me higher taxes will make things better for the poor because higher taxes means more money to spend on the poor, you would be quite famous when you finally find the truth there.
When Michael Moore says in his documentary that Bush and the bin Laden family has tight connections and that is because of economic advantages Bush gets from that, and that maybe this war is all about control over oil, that is also a possible interpretation of the facts we know.
Actually, my knowledge of the subject comes from a speech made by a researcher in the Norwegian Nobel Institute, and she mentioned Tolstoj's description of the Chechnian people's view on the Russians. It was terrible. Tolstoj describes it in strong words, "they look upon the Russians as nothing more than rats" and so on. This was, according to Tolstoj and my speaking researcher, due to heavy use of violence from the Russians during the wars of those times.
According to the speech I heard, that conflict didn't start out because of religion, but the differing religious beliefs of the two peoples got pulled into it. Nowadays, the same thing is being done, and the Chechnian post-Soviet leaders used these historic wars against Russia in their campaigns to muster the people to war for independence.
And as such, history has indeed repeated itself. By using excessive violence, the Chechnians actually gain a real reason for claiming the Russians are brutal. But Chechnia is a war district with terrible crime, and the fundamentalists are gaining ground every day. Therefore it could be outright dangerous for Putin to give this nation its independence. As it seems, it is pretty dangerous to not change course as well, as they at the moment are militant and desperate.
I wonder why Putin does not parley with the leaders of the Chechnians, for instance the relatively moderate nationalists. The moderate forces would gain ground if they could tell the Chechnians that they can make a deal with the Russians giving Chechnia (partly) independence.
The speaker I heard speak on the subject said that the wars of the later years in Chechnia (1993->) started out with a secular nationalist group. But of course, this has a longer history, only suspended by the Soviet union. (OTOH, the Soviet government deported Chechnians en masse to Kazakstan. So the Soviets weren't particularily popular either.)
Understanding the world in terms of Christianity/Islam isn't going to get you anywhere. The Chechnian rebels are now Islamic, but they used to be secular - non-religious. They are Islamic now, but they are obviously different from Al-Qaeda. They have territorial claims, Al-Qaeda has not.
Actually, the way the Russians have treated the Chechnian people makes quite good soil for fundamentalism. Just like the US and Iraq, I suppose.
If a movie (book, article) presents strictly one side of the view, tries to piece together facts into tenuous conspiracy theoris (yes, Mr Moore, everyone know everyone else in the big bussiness world, if not personaly then they certainly have a common acquintance) then it is, by definition, propaganda.
If Michael Moore had of presented his film with neutral point of view, would most people agree with his conclusions presented seperately?
That's funny. A neutral point of view. What on earth is that? Is it Fox' point of view? Bush's point of view? Saddam's point of view? Kerry's point of view?
An important aspect of any reasonable political system is to acknowledge that there are no truths (except in math and physics). All political systems have to, therefore, be quite open to anyone's interpretation of what has happened. You have no way to know whether someone else's interpretation is better than your own.
Since his movie is no documentary, it must be considered a political statement.
This is, as far as I'm concerned, the most illogical and biased statement I've seen since kindergarden.
First: illogical. So, you are going to let a court decide what is a documentary and what is not? I take it you believe quite strongly in right and wrong, black and white, true and false. Well, the world ain't boolean.
Moore's movie, no matter if it is a documentary or not, is obviously a statement. Any human being who is trying to depict anything will add some subjective bias to it. By explicitly saying so, or by subconciously (sorry my spelling, I'm Norwegian) being selective about which parts of reality you focus on.
Because of this, everyone who opens their mouth on national TV is subjective. Journalists are the best example: the way the editors depict the candidates on the election day has a really huge potential for subjectivity. A smiling, strong-looking Bush first, and then a shorter clip of Kerry, looking worried. That, my friend, is really effective means of making a few votes for your personal favourite.
As such, Michael Moore is a lot more clean-cut. If you watch Moore's film, you know you're going to get flooded with arguments for not choosing Bush. Hardly anyone in the US do not know who Michael Moore wants you to vote for.
My point is: you can't be objective about this. One man's objective truth is another man's outright lie. Fox' coverage of the election is different from ABC's (I'm not too familiar with your TV stations, but I've understood that Fox is rather conservative). And what is the right way to depict anything?
I find the rule that political parties can't advertize on election day quite all right. It treats everyone equally. But that is quite far from having some kind of censoring that decides what is political and what is not. Maybe the only way to do this would be to outlaw mass media until the elections are over?
Many large companies out there are running Windows on the desktop and connecting them to Linux servers. I think when Longhorn is released they may not have any choice about what server software to use anymore.
Well, my university has got only unix/linux backend servers, and mostly windows 2K/XP clients. If Longhorn won't play well with the Samba/IMAP solution on the unix servers, they aren't going to upgrade to Longhorn.
I doubt MS will put themselves in this position. A _lot_ of major businesses will simply choose to not upgrade. They are concerned with getting stuff that works - in the cheapest possible way. Longhorn would have to include some _really_ powerful effectivity-producing functions if businesses are going to change their entire server system just to get it.
And by the way, universities and colleges are probably really important to Microsoft, because they need young people to learn their products. Most universities (at least in Europe) use unix servers for everything. MS isn't likely to upset them too much. Universities have clever sysadmins who know damn well how to set up *nix graphical clients as well.
After all, an atomic timekeeper is just that: atomic. It only needs to measure the radiation of a cesium atom. So the core of the clock is simple to make. All the measuring equipment, OTOH, has been huge.
But it's only natural that this becomes smaller. Give the rich part of the world ten years, and we're all spending our time wearing atomic _and_ digital watches.
Interestingly, this could affect our lifestyle. The more synchronized timepieces become, doing stuff in sync and on time gets more feasible. But that also lowers the acceptance for being late and inaccurate. And I know that I always come a few minutes late to every appointment.
Will people start yelling at me for coming only seconds late? Will the unspoken five-minute courtesy time ("the meeting starts at 2pm" really means "2:05pm") disappear? Will I become more stressful because of all this accuracy?
So, while this seems to be a step forward for mankind, it does not necessarily create more happiness. Just like an entire host of new inventions.
What bothers me with this is that it is not really useful in a wristwatch (Yes I know - they aren't making it for wristwatches yet - but just wait!). But because everyone else has one, I'll be forced to get one as well. Just like the cellular phone. And then it starts affecting my life. Scary.
>> $500,000+/year global support contract with Microsoft
> Half a million? No wonder Bill Gates has billions.
But after all, it's a contract which supports the entire globe. That costs. After all, more people should be supportive of this planet.
Re:Oh no! more memory wastage...
on
Enlightenment Lives
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
You seem to have a problem with what the rest of us call 'progress'. Memory requirements increase. Deal with it. I'm not sanctioning the need for PCs running any more than 256MB, which is dirt-cheap these days, and ( as I've already pointed out ) is the minimum you can get a PC with these days.
This is true, obviously, but doesn't add to your conclusion. He argues that code should not be _unnecessarily_ bloat, not that you shouldn't make new features for new computers. He argues for elegance and efficiency, you argue for non-elegance and non-efficiency because that doesn't stop new computers.
Well, when these new computers are three years old, and Enlightenment 20 comes, the owners of those computers might have been able to run it if it was more efficient.
On the other hand, efficiency is a huge sales trick for open source software: Norwegian schools are now joining the Skolelinux project, not because it provides cheaper software (Windows school licenses are dirt-cheap anyway), but because it works on their legacy hardware.
Innovation should not compromise with the idea of saving resources. Far too many times have humanity made that mistake. Computer cycles are also resources, at least as long as 95% (yes, it's true!) of the world's population hasn't even got a computer.
There is a way (a kit, actually) to develop "Installable Filesystems" for Windows. However, this kit costs real money, and noone seems to think it is important enough to do this.
There has been a few attempts to develop a native ext2 filesystem driver for Windows, but it didn't work/was extremely unstable.
Filesystem support is not, AFAIK, in kernel32.dll, but in some other.dll. So, it is "insertable" into the kernel, like kernel modules (only less secure and stable).
North Korea is undeveloped, and therefore has no lights to turn on at night
North Korea has a strong government and little energy, therefore making it illegal to have lights on at night
North Korea is paranoid, and keep blending all lights at night to make bombing more difficult
Nort Korea is _really_ paranoid, and sofisticated, and have made a super hi-tech light stopping shield around them
But seriously, I think the poverty of North Korea forces the government and the people to save energy by turning off lights at night. Maybe more of us should do that?
Could this be the result of the ordinary platforms for businesses getting better, to the extent that software companies making tailored solutions simply are of no use any more?
I mean, when computers were running MS-DOS or were unix CLI terminals, making a payroll program must have been a challenge. Nowadays, a pre-bundled spreadsheet program will do it for you. An in-house database-and-html-proficient sysadmin may make quite a lot of that intranet solution all by himself.
If so, this is good, but ironic. Programmers, hired for software companies, have become so cunning that they have competed themselves out of business.
It is good, though. It shows that computing is making progress - quite simply some "admin friendliness" in addition to all this "user friendliness". And it is thoroughly reassuring to know that the open source world has come as far as it has before the cathedrals go bankrupt. If only Microsoft was left, I would have been afraid of what's to come.
And Hamas is far from just a terrorist group. They provide a lot of "social services" to the people. The government, on the other hand, fails to do so. No wonder Hamas gains ground among the people.
So it's no big wonder that people get slightly pissed off (yes, that was an understatement) when the Israelis decide to slaughter Hamas leaders. And what is the result? Hamas gains more ground. Killing people is seldom the end to violence.
Probably because there is a clause in the contract regulating the transfer of control (from ICANN to company X.tex.us) which gives the company a certain amount of courtesy time to fix problems before ICANN can terminate the contract prematurely.
At least I would have wanted such a clause, so I wouldn't go bankrupt overnight. On the other hand, ICANN should probably have seen this problem coming earlier.
Look guys, the head of the Helix project is straight-talking, follows the/. discussion, is supporting Linux, and is a subscriber. What else can you ask for?
Yes, there are security vulnerabilities in Microsoft's products, but there are also many vulnerabilities in various versions of Samba, OpenSSH, Bind, Sendmail, and many other software packages that are installed on Linux systems.
[snip]
Linux is no more secure than Windows. I'm sure if you added up all the vulnerabilities in Windows 2000 and compared them to a list of vulnerabilities in all the software on a standard Linux distribution of the same age, Linux would have at least as many as Windows.
Now, that's one hell of a compare function. We are comparing the number of seucrity holes in the Windows 2000 distibution with an _entire_ GNU/Linux distribution?
Well, I'm sure the crime level in the US is as high as in Iraq, if you measure it in an absolute number of crimes. It doesn't really make sense, bur sure.
You might argue that a standard distribution of Linux runs Samba, OpenSSH, bind and sendmail per default. I have never found one that does run all those. Quite a few run samba and openssh. None that I know of run bind, and most have switched sendmail for something more reasonable like postfix or exim.
We could of course compare the number of security holes in Windows 2000 + some sort of standard suite of daemons to linux with some sort of standard suite of daemons running. While interesting, it would be impossible to draw any conclusion. What is a standard suite of daemons? What is standard setup of those? And so on...
Slashdot Mirror
But if you do recount them, you wouldn't pick one if this was statistics, right? You would pick the average.
http://www.betonbet.com/, a great betting market (be your own bookmaker!)
Strange thing is that it works fine (completely fine) if you just tamper with the identity string on firefox. They just don't support it, because the people who delivered the software don't guarantee that it works.
Well, that's what the 21st century equivalent is all about. He didn't claim they had created the exact equivalent, did he?
Neutral Point of View is an important idea. It means presenting ideas, facts, and opinions without making a judgement to which one is correct or incorrect. It means that the writer or speaker must present all views fairly.
My point is not being "there is no theoretical neutral point of view", only "who is going to decide on what is?". Your theories are probably fun to discuss, but this is not about theories. It is about how you in practice make people take a neutral point of view. And no, I don't think that would be possible in describing a war. If you think it is possible, may I please get your neutral viewpoint on the ongoing^H^H^H^H^H^H^H finished war in Iraq.
What you are suggesting is that there is no objective truth.
Jeez. I am saying that a political system should not consider something true and something not true, because that interferes with freedom of speech (you are free to say anything, as long as our courts believe it to be true).
In politics, we should not allow or disallow anyone because they disagree with established truths. They just might be false. Like whether the world is flat or round.
I do not personally believe that there are no true and false statements in the world. I merely believe that in politics, we have no adequate way of defining true and false. Therefore, we should not rely upon it.
>You have no way to know whether someone else's interpretation is better than your own.
That's right. Which is why we should in fact just flip a coin between candidates, because in the end, no one's interpretation of one set of results is better than anyone eles's.
Idiot. You are doing exactly what Michael Moore is accused of, misquoting me. I have never said that no things are better than others. I said you should not, in a system, qualify or disqualify an opinion because any other system or person believes it to be true or not true. But the beauty of democracy is that you vote for the reasoning you believe is most likely to be correct.
But personally or in a political system, you have no way to test wether an interpretation of facts are more correct than others, only which one is more probable.
Example: If A tells me lower taxes will make things better for the poor because more businesses means more jobs means more paychecks means less poverty, while B tells me higher taxes will make things better for the poor because higher taxes means more money to spend on the poor, you would be quite famous when you finally find the truth there.
When Michael Moore says in his documentary that Bush and the bin Laden family has tight connections and that is because of economic advantages Bush gets from that, and that maybe this war is all about control over oil, that is also a possible interpretation of the facts we know.
Totally false.
Tolstoy
Actually, my knowledge of the subject comes from a speech made by a researcher in the Norwegian Nobel Institute, and she mentioned Tolstoj's description of the Chechnian people's view on the Russians. It was terrible. Tolstoj describes it in strong words, "they look upon the Russians as nothing more than rats" and so on. This was, according to Tolstoj and my speaking researcher, due to heavy use of violence from the Russians during the wars of those times.
According to the speech I heard, that conflict didn't start out because of religion, but the differing religious beliefs of the two peoples got pulled into it. Nowadays, the same thing is being done, and the Chechnian post-Soviet leaders used these historic wars against Russia in their campaigns to muster the people to war for independence.
And as such, history has indeed repeated itself. By using excessive violence, the Chechnians actually gain a real reason for claiming the Russians are brutal. But Chechnia is a war district with terrible crime, and the fundamentalists are gaining ground every day. Therefore it could be outright dangerous for Putin to give this nation its independence. As it seems, it is pretty dangerous to not change course as well, as they at the moment are militant and desperate.
I wonder why Putin does not parley with the leaders of the Chechnians, for instance the relatively moderate nationalists. The moderate forces would gain ground if they could tell the Chechnians that they can make a deal with the Russians giving Chechnia (partly) independence.
The speaker I heard speak on the subject said that the wars of the later years in Chechnia (1993->) started out with a secular nationalist group. But of course, this has a longer history, only suspended by the Soviet union. (OTOH, the Soviet government deported Chechnians en masse to Kazakstan. So the Soviets weren't particularily popular either.)
Chechnian rebels are also Islamic fundamentalists
Understanding the world in terms of Christianity/Islam isn't going to get you anywhere. The Chechnian rebels are now Islamic, but they used to be secular - non-religious. They are Islamic now, but they are obviously different from Al-Qaeda. They have territorial claims, Al-Qaeda has not.
Actually, the way the Russians have treated the Chechnian people makes quite good soil for fundamentalism. Just like the US and Iraq, I suppose.
If a movie (book, article) presents strictly one side of the view, tries to piece together facts into tenuous conspiracy theoris (yes, Mr Moore, everyone know everyone else in the big bussiness world, if not personaly then they certainly have a common acquintance) then it is, by definition, propaganda.
...and your post: even more so.
For Japan, Germany, Canada, Australia, the UK, etc. I chose the lowest number out of all 10, and for the USA, I chose the highest number.
Then, my friend, you would be correct.
Oh, you didn't mean the highest number among the ten countries?
If Michael Moore had of presented his film with neutral point of view, would most people agree with his conclusions presented seperately?
That's funny. A neutral point of view. What on earth is that? Is it Fox' point of view? Bush's point of view? Saddam's point of view? Kerry's point of view?
An important aspect of any reasonable political system is to acknowledge that there are no truths (except in math and physics). All political systems have to, therefore, be quite open to anyone's interpretation of what has happened. You have no way to know whether someone else's interpretation is better than your own.
Since his movie is no documentary, it must be considered a political statement.
This is, as far as I'm concerned, the most illogical and biased statement I've seen since kindergarden.
First: illogical. So, you are going to let a court decide what is a documentary and what is not? I take it you believe quite strongly in right and wrong, black and white, true and false. Well, the world ain't boolean.
Moore's movie, no matter if it is a documentary or not, is obviously a statement. Any human being who is trying to depict anything will add some subjective bias to it. By explicitly saying so, or by subconciously (sorry my spelling, I'm Norwegian) being selective about which parts of reality you focus on.
Because of this, everyone who opens their mouth on national TV is subjective. Journalists are the best example: the way the editors depict the candidates on the election day has a really huge potential for subjectivity. A smiling, strong-looking Bush first, and then a shorter clip of Kerry, looking worried. That, my friend, is really effective means of making a few votes for your personal favourite.
As such, Michael Moore is a lot more clean-cut. If you watch Moore's film, you know you're going to get flooded with arguments for not choosing Bush. Hardly anyone in the US do not know who Michael Moore wants you to vote for.
My point is: you can't be objective about this. One man's objective truth is another man's outright lie. Fox' coverage of the election is different from ABC's (I'm not too familiar with your TV stations, but I've understood that Fox is rather conservative). And what is the right way to depict anything?
I find the rule that political parties can't advertize on election day quite all right. It treats everyone equally. But that is quite far from having some kind of censoring that decides what is political and what is not. Maybe the only way to do this would be to outlaw mass media until the elections are over?
But it's only natural that this becomes smaller. Give the rich part of the world ten years, and we're all spending our time wearing atomic _and_ digital watches.
Interestingly, this could affect our lifestyle. The more synchronized timepieces become, doing stuff in sync and on time gets more feasible. But that also lowers the acceptance for being late and inaccurate. And I know that I always come a few minutes late to every appointment.
Will people start yelling at me for coming only seconds late? Will the unspoken five-minute courtesy time ("the meeting starts at 2pm" really means "2:05pm") disappear? Will I become more stressful because of all this accuracy?
So, while this seems to be a step forward for mankind, it does not necessarily create more happiness. Just like an entire host of new inventions.
What bothers me with this is that it is not really useful in a wristwatch (Yes I know - they aren't making it for wristwatches yet - but just wait!). But because everyone else has one, I'll be forced to get one as well. Just like the cellular phone. And then it starts affecting my life. Scary.
> Half a million? No wonder Bill Gates has billions.
But after all, it's a contract which supports the entire globe. That costs. After all, more people should be supportive of this planet.
This is true, obviously, but doesn't add to your conclusion. He argues that code should not be _unnecessarily_ bloat, not that you shouldn't make new features for new computers. He argues for elegance and efficiency, you argue for non-elegance and non-efficiency because that doesn't stop new computers.
Well, when these new computers are three years old, and Enlightenment 20 comes, the owners of those computers might have been able to run it if it was more efficient.
On the other hand, efficiency is a huge sales trick for open source software: Norwegian schools are now joining the Skolelinux project, not because it provides cheaper software (Windows school licenses are dirt-cheap anyway), but because it works on their legacy hardware.
Innovation should not compromise with the idea of saving resources. Far too many times have humanity made that mistake. Computer cycles are also resources, at least as long as 95% (yes, it's true!) of the world's population hasn't even got a computer.
There has been a few attempts to develop a native ext2 filesystem driver for Windows, but it didn't work/was extremely unstable.
Filesystem support is not, AFAIK, in kernel32.dll, but in some other .dll. So, it is "insertable" into the kernel, like kernel modules (only less secure and stable).
Anyway, that resembles the russian pronounciation a lot more.
But seriously, I think the poverty of North Korea forces the government and the people to save energy by turning off lights at night. Maybe more of us should do that?
I mean, when computers were running MS-DOS or were unix CLI terminals, making a payroll program must have been a challenge. Nowadays, a pre-bundled spreadsheet program will do it for you. An in-house database-and-html-proficient sysadmin may make quite a lot of that intranet solution all by himself.
If so, this is good, but ironic. Programmers, hired for software companies, have become so cunning that they have competed themselves out of business.
It is good, though. It shows that computing is making progress - quite simply some "admin friendliness" in addition to all this "user friendliness". And it is thoroughly reassuring to know that the open source world has come as far as it has before the cathedrals go bankrupt. If only Microsoft was left, I would have been afraid of what's to come.
Then I guess puppet.gov and foreign.mil and propaganda.edu are going to be registered soon.
So it's no big wonder that people get slightly pissed off (yes, that was an understatement) when the Israelis decide to slaughter Hamas leaders. And what is the result? Hamas gains more ground. Killing people is seldom the end to violence.
At least I would have wanted such a clause, so I wouldn't go bankrupt overnight. On the other hand, ICANN should probably have seen this problem coming earlier.
A job?
Now, that's one hell of a compare function. We are comparing the number of seucrity holes in the Windows 2000 distibution with an _entire_ GNU/Linux distribution?
Well, I'm sure the crime level in the US is as high as in Iraq, if you measure it in an absolute number of crimes. It doesn't really make sense, bur sure.
You might argue that a standard distribution of Linux runs Samba, OpenSSH, bind and sendmail per default. I have never found one that does run all those. Quite a few run samba and openssh. None that I know of run bind, and most have switched sendmail for something more reasonable like postfix or exim.
We could of course compare the number of security holes in Windows 2000 + some sort of standard suite of daemons to linux with some sort of standard suite of daemons running. While interesting, it would be impossible to draw any conclusion. What is a standard suite of daemons? What is standard setup of those? And so on...
This is not a DOS attack.
Considering he didn't make Linux - just stole it from Santa and the Tooth Fairy?