What is this "internet time" you speak of? Is it related to the "new economy"? As far as I'm concerned the phrase "internet time" simply means "pushing the latest gizmos out the door as fast as possible while cutting back on innovation and quality assurance as much as necessary to keep up with artificial deadlines".
Yes, but the question isn't necessarily so simple. After all, who's to say that an unsecured, wide-open network like this can legitimately be consider to be the target of "unathorized" acceess? After all, if I hang a sign over my unlocked front door that says "Open", how successful do you think I'll be in prosecuting trespassers?
Well, try following the link to Sharp in the article. I got something decidedly not about electronics and more about health-care. Then have fun when you go to sharpelectronics.com and are told that you must upgrade your browser even though you are running Netscape 6.1.
In fact, why bother trying to sneak anything bigger than a compact disposable lighter and a $20 bill onto the plane? The $20 buys a few of those little bottles of high-proof vodka and you can figure out the rest from there...
I'm not certain, but I recall reading somewhere that if you get something for free, that certain warranty rights are not binding. Here is some support for that idea: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/15/2302.html. This posting is not legal advice, and is for entertainment purposes only.
As I finished my previous post, the thought occurred to me that arguing with audiofiles about the relative merits of any sound system, or the expense associated with such sound systems was about as much use as trying to convince a Free Software zealot that certain proprietary software is okay because company X, Y, or Z is "really cool". Me personally, as long as I can't hear too much tape hiss or noticable artifacts of compression, would never be able to tell you the difference between "high quality" components and run of the mill stuff. If I have problems with the system, my first impulse is just to turn it up a little (or a lot if I really like the tune). Beyond that, if I want "realistic" sound quality, I'll just go wreck my ears by seeing the band play live.
We probably haven't heard the last of this case yet. Poring over the ruling, I have to ask some questions that didn't seem to get raised.
Why isn't Johansen's status as a minor the key factor in his inability to agree to the Xing EULA? Who cares about Norwegian law on this matter, if Johansen lived in CA, he could not be held to such a contract because he is a minor. Can 15 year olds sign binding contracts in Norway?
Anyone else notice the slashdot.org plug right there in the ruling? That is some awesome free advertising.:)
By the way, we should note that this case does not appear to have had any impact on the DMCA, but on a CA trade secret law. So we are not out of the woods yet with the federal law.
How great can the audio be? It's mp3. And since the mp3s have to come from somewhere, why wouldn't I just listen to my orignal CDs/LPs/8-tracks/whatever?
For $1000 I can buy a used P/166, a huge HD or two (40gb? Please. I can get a CD changer that holds 100 CDs at a time, you need to come with more than 40gb to beat that), install a console linux, buy an old used LCD monitor and a keyboard and still have enough left over to build another one.
You're right, I don't really want this computer in my living room, but it's better than wasting $1000 on something a lot less versatile. Heck, my machine plays Ogg Vorbis too.:)
Who knows? Maybe they'll get it right quickly. The primary people writing Perl 6 are experienced programmers. I would guess they're a lot smarter than to think they need to recode each little piece from scratch when there is so much source code from Perl 5 that can probably be re-used or re-factored. But from what I gather the changes in Perl 6 require some major architectural shifts as far as the interpreter is concerned. Hopefully they won't go too hog wild on the language itself, otherwise they might as well call it something other than Perl. I don't want Perl 6 to compare to Perl 5 the way Visual Basic compares to, oh, Apple II BASIC.
I would support a ban on cookies that don't come from the server of the main page I am looking at. That is, no more cookies from the site serving up the banner ad. Bye Bye Doubleclick.
On the other hand, cookie handling in browsers like Konqueror is both efficient and offers fine-grained control. I've never once found it inconvenient to manage my "privacy" manually that way. (hmmm. I think I'll leave that unintentional pun in, just because it's a full moon tonight).
How exactly does "tabbed browsing" differ from simply doing "open link in new window"? From the name it sounds like it simply provide a single window interface to multiple pages.
I will gladly pay for software. I'd even gladly contribute towards porting costs. But if the software is not Free Software, what's the point? Unless I get lucky, my distribution or architecture may well not be supported (or not supported well), then I'm no better off than I was starting out, and my only hope of getting support is to convince, cajole, or convert the developer to offer that support. Given the history of luck this ex-Mac-zealot had getting stuff for Mac OS (pre-X), I'm not going to hold my breath.
I may be biased because I have a youngster the exact age to enjoy both of these movies, but I think they look like they'll be great movies even for adults. Maybe a little heavy on the "good, clean fun" angle, but still a nice 1.5 hours escape. Disney films are usually quite enjoyable, and Harry Potter is, well, a movie of Harry Potter (and the books are a good read-- I know lots of adults who've read them).
However, I wish CmdrTaco would evince a little ambivalence, since just running out to see these films is just what the MPAA would love for us all to do! That way they can easily finance their continued war against freedom of speech.
Now, so that I'm not off-topic, what I don't understand is how a *trailer* gets this much attention. Sheesh. Based on the last Star Wars, I'm having a hard time caring if they even come out with this next one.
I don't know if you consider them mainstream or not, but they do get radio play, and they recorded a theme song for a recent James Bond film. Garbage's latest release "beautifulgarbage" is available on vinyl from cdnow.com. Of course, this is not a common practice. And sadly, they are on an RIAA affiliated label, so I can't recommend buying the album, no matter what format it comes on.
Thanks for the article, I am not partial to either Gore or Bush, but my own bias is that Bush did not win according to the rules of the game. But since the article quotes the people who would tabulate the count as not having tabulated the count (having already completed the ballot inspections), but saying they don't understand why they wouldn't go ahead since they are all set to do so and this step is trivial... well, someone is putting some pressure somewhere on this one. I'd hate to be on their staff-- wondering what that black van out front is all about.
Let's see. It's unpublished, yet you know that it shows Gore to have won. Care to illuminate the rest of us on how you came by this information? Did they come out and say, "We are not going to publish our research because Al Gore won." I mean, can you imagine how many people would drop their subs to NYTimes instantaneously upon hearing such a statement from the paper? Suddenly, because someone attacked New York, New York is filled with millions of changed people? They suddenly love GW Bush enough to care not one whit about whether or not he really should be president?
Okay, and this touches the valid points in the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, you grow up speaking a language and while you are still learning your native tongue your brain still actually growing-- and for all we know: as your brain grows it builds itself slightly differently to adapt to your usage of the language, hence culture and language may be strongly entwined (but not inseparable).
As to the idea that somehow all native speakers of Portuguese of homesickness that is so radically different from a native English speaker that it cannot be explained in a simple English sentence is more (in my opinion) a cultural issue than a special linguistic matter. If the English simply needed a word for the concept, you could borrow the Portuguese word and then define it as needed. However, if you need a whole host of cultural baggage to really share the understanding of the word, the issue is not the word itself.
The salient point in all this is that you have to catch people at birth and immerse them in the language for it to have this effect. As long as we have Eminem on the radio, I don't think we're in any real danger of Microsoft being able to de-offensify the English language.:)
Well, you can still call him an "unintelligent person" or even "stupid person" as they missed "stupid" which has a few decent synonyms listed (at least it does in the copy of Word 2000 work thinks I'm using instead of emacs for Windows). But considering that they've removed both "gay" and "homosexual" from their dictionary, I'd say they can go [make the beast of two backs with] themselves.
Note: anti-trust/antitrust, not there (was it ever?), monopoly, there, with relevant suggestions.
Well, considering that 1984 is a work of fiction, as a result of it being written "we do know" nothing. What the book does, in a way, is extend the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis stating that grammar and vocabulary influence thought-- which seems obvious enough. Except that it is ludicrous. At some point all thoughts were original and at some point there were no words (unless you believe in some creation myth and the attendant notion that language is a natural gift of humankind). It naturally follows that words, over time, gained an association with hard objects and then actions. Then with ephemeral matters such as ideas and feelings.
But at some point, some words had to be invented specifically to describe things that had never been described before. And the resulting word also needed a definition, probably mostly consisting of other, previously existing words-- an exception would be inventions, where the truest definition for the new word would be the invention itself, barring that a description of the invention.
While the lack of certain grammatical forms or vocabulary items may discourage their use, since they will be tagged as incorrect regardless of their actual correctness, there is no empirical evidence to support the idea that this will limit thought and the creation of ways to express this thought. More likely, as with politically-correct-speak, the result may only be slight discoloration of the thoughts.
Your associates who are too stupid to form grammatically correct sentences and spell words from memory do not use the spelling and grammar tools to formulate their ideas. They merely use them to alter their hasty or incompetent presentation of them so that they don't look like morons. The thesaurus is almost never a good tool to do anything but replace repeat occurrences of the same word with a couple of different words to liven up the text-- standard "Elements of Style" approach.
None of this should be construed as a defense of Microsoft. I find that their behavior in this regard and in many others to be highly objectionable-- and their products to be avoided if at all possible. If I'm paying for the tool to check my grammar and spelling, it should do it accurately and to accepted standards. Removing words is simply making your tool less apt for the job I have at hand... and it is for this reason that I would avoid this tool. It's expensive and it doesn't work? Forget them.
Not that I've ever tried to get someone else's credit report, but I bet it's dang easy. Landlords and employers do it all the time-- as well as many other prospective "lenders" (how else would I suddenly be deluged with "pre-qualified" home equity offers?). Now maybe I'm supposed to have you sign a form authorizing me to look at this information, but I highly doubt anyone is checking for such a form at the credit agency.
Besides one credit agency can do whatever the other have decided to do-- and as a group, they can all do pretty much whatever they want. Who's going to stop them? The idea that large corporations don't have an immense amount of control over legislation and regulation that affects them, well, is silly. The regulations are more like codified standards than anything else.
The only thing keeping corporations in check is the fact that the people who work there are actual people themselves-- with ethical concerns and families and friends and stuff like that.
And more importantly, if you spend $1000 on a guitar, find you really don't want it, you can probably sell it again for nearly what you paid for it (assuming you weren't ripped off in the first place, it's still in good condition, etc)-- the only way you'll ever get your money out of your.NET investment is to sell software. Good luck, what with Microsoft including anything they can into the OS.
Slashdot Mirror
Hmmm. This reminds of the combination digital-watch/calculator/auto-racing-game I had when I was 14. :)
What is this "internet time" you speak of? Is it related to the "new economy"? As far as I'm concerned the phrase "internet time" simply means "pushing the latest gizmos out the door as fast as possible while cutting back on innovation and quality assurance as much as necessary to keep up with artificial deadlines".
Yes, but the question isn't necessarily so simple. After all, who's to say that an unsecured, wide-open network like this can legitimately be consider to be the target of "unathorized" acceess? After all, if I hang a sign over my unlocked front door that says "Open", how successful do you think I'll be in prosecuting trespassers?
Well, try following the link to Sharp in the article. I got something decidedly not about electronics and more about health-care. Then have fun when you go to sharpelectronics.com and are told that you must upgrade your browser even though you are running Netscape 6.1.
In fact, why bother trying to sneak anything bigger than a compact disposable lighter and a $20 bill onto the plane? The $20 buys a few of those little bottles of high-proof vodka and you can figure out the rest from there...
Wouldn't it have been on the back burner as IBM tried to push OS/2 and Warp?
I'm not certain, but I recall reading somewhere that if you get something for free, that certain warranty rights are not binding. Here is some support for that idea: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/15/2302.html. This posting is not legal advice, and is for entertainment purposes only.
As I finished my previous post, the thought occurred to me that arguing with audiofiles about the relative merits of any sound system, or the expense associated with such sound systems was about as much use as trying to convince a Free Software zealot that certain proprietary software is okay because company X, Y, or Z is "really cool". Me personally, as long as I can't hear too much tape hiss or noticable artifacts of compression, would never be able to tell you the difference between "high quality" components and run of the mill stuff. If I have problems with the system, my first impulse is just to turn it up a little (or a lot if I really like the tune). Beyond that, if I want "realistic" sound quality, I'll just go wreck my ears by seeing the band play live.
We probably haven't heard the last of this case yet. Poring over the ruling, I have to ask some questions that didn't seem to get raised.
:)
Why isn't Johansen's status as a minor the key factor in his inability to agree to the Xing EULA? Who cares about Norwegian law on this matter, if Johansen lived in CA, he could not be held to such a contract because he is a minor. Can 15 year olds sign binding contracts in Norway?
Anyone else notice the slashdot.org plug right there in the ruling? That is some awesome free advertising.
By the way, we should note that this case does not appear to have had any impact on the DMCA, but on a CA trade secret law. So we are not out of the woods yet with the federal law.
How great can the audio be? It's mp3. And since the mp3s have to come from somewhere, why wouldn't I just listen to my orignal CDs/LPs/8-tracks/whatever?
For $1000 I can buy a used P/166, a huge HD or two (40gb? Please. I can get a CD changer that holds 100 CDs at a time, you need to come with more than 40gb to beat that), install a console linux, buy an old used LCD monitor and a keyboard and still have enough left over to build another one.
:)
You're right, I don't really want this computer in my living room, but it's better than wasting $1000 on something a lot less versatile. Heck, my machine plays Ogg Vorbis too.
Who knows? Maybe they'll get it right quickly. The primary people writing Perl 6 are experienced programmers. I would guess they're a lot smarter than to think they need to recode each little piece from scratch when there is so much source code from Perl 5 that can probably be re-used or re-factored. But from what I gather the changes in Perl 6 require some major architectural shifts as far as the interpreter is concerned. Hopefully they won't go too hog wild on the language itself, otherwise they might as well call it something other than Perl. I don't want Perl 6 to compare to Perl 5 the way Visual Basic compares to, oh, Apple II BASIC.
I would support a ban on cookies that don't come from the server of the main page I am looking at. That is, no more cookies from the site serving up the banner ad. Bye Bye Doubleclick.
On the other hand, cookie handling in browsers like Konqueror is both efficient and offers fine-grained control. I've never once found it inconvenient to manage my "privacy" manually that way. (hmmm. I think I'll leave that unintentional pun in, just because it's a full moon tonight).
How exactly does "tabbed browsing" differ from simply doing "open link in new window"? From the name it sounds like it simply provide a single window interface to multiple pages.
I will gladly pay for software. I'd even gladly contribute towards porting costs. But if the software is not Free Software, what's the point? Unless I get lucky, my distribution or architecture may well not be supported (or not supported well), then I'm no better off than I was starting out, and my only hope of getting support is to convince, cajole, or convert the developer to offer that support. Given the history of luck this ex-Mac-zealot had getting stuff for Mac OS (pre-X), I'm not going to hold my breath.
I may be biased because I have a youngster the exact age to enjoy both of these movies, but I think they look like they'll be great movies even for adults. Maybe a little heavy on the "good, clean fun" angle, but still a nice 1.5 hours escape. Disney films are usually quite enjoyable, and Harry Potter is, well, a movie of Harry Potter (and the books are a good read-- I know lots of adults who've read them).
However, I wish CmdrTaco would evince a little ambivalence, since just running out to see these films is just what the MPAA would love for us all to do! That way they can easily finance their continued war against freedom of speech.
Now, so that I'm not off-topic, what I don't understand is how a *trailer* gets this much attention. Sheesh. Based on the last Star Wars, I'm having a hard time caring if they even come out with this next one.
I don't know if you consider them mainstream or not, but they do get radio play, and they recorded a theme song for a recent James Bond film. Garbage's latest release "beautifulgarbage" is available on vinyl from cdnow.com. Of course, this is not a common practice. And sadly, they are on an RIAA affiliated label, so I can't recommend buying the album, no matter what format it comes on.
Thanks for the article, I am not partial to either Gore or Bush, but my own bias is that Bush did not win according to the rules of the game. But since the article quotes the people who would tabulate the count as not having tabulated the count (having already completed the ballot inspections), but saying they don't understand why they wouldn't go ahead since they are all set to do so and this step is trivial... well, someone is putting some pressure somewhere on this one. I'd hate to be on their staff-- wondering what that black van out front is all about.
Let's see. It's unpublished, yet you know that it shows Gore to have won. Care to illuminate the rest of us on how you came by this information? Did they come out and say, "We are not going to publish our research because Al Gore won." I mean, can you imagine how many people would drop their subs to NYTimes instantaneously upon hearing such a statement from the paper? Suddenly, because someone attacked New York, New York is filled with millions of changed people? They suddenly love GW Bush enough to care not one whit about whether or not he really should be president?
Okay, and this touches the valid points in the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, you grow up speaking a language and while you are still learning your native tongue your brain still actually growing-- and for all we know: as your brain grows it builds itself slightly differently to adapt to your usage of the language, hence culture and language may be strongly entwined (but not inseparable).
:)
As to the idea that somehow all native speakers of Portuguese of homesickness that is so radically different from a native English speaker that it cannot be explained in a simple English sentence is more (in my opinion) a cultural issue than a special linguistic matter. If the English simply needed a word for the concept, you could borrow the Portuguese word and then define it as needed. However, if you need a whole host of cultural baggage to really share the understanding of the word, the issue is not the word itself.
The salient point in all this is that you have to catch people at birth and immerse them in the language for it to have this effect. As long as we have Eminem on the radio, I don't think we're in any real danger of Microsoft being able to de-offensify the English language.
correction: "gay" and "homosexual" (or any sexual language at all) I did not find in the thesaurus. They may still occur in the dictionary.
Well, you can still call him an "unintelligent person" or even "stupid person" as they missed "stupid" which has a few decent synonyms listed (at least it does in the copy of Word 2000 work thinks I'm using instead of emacs for Windows). But considering that they've removed both "gay" and "homosexual" from their dictionary, I'd say they can go [make the beast of two backs with] themselves.
Note: anti-trust/antitrust, not there (was it ever?), monopoly, there, with relevant suggestions.
Well, considering that 1984 is a work of fiction, as a result of it being written "we do know" nothing. What the book does, in a way, is extend the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis stating that grammar and vocabulary influence thought-- which seems obvious enough. Except that it is ludicrous. At some point all thoughts were original and at some point there were no words (unless you believe in some creation myth and the attendant notion that language is a natural gift of humankind). It naturally follows that words, over time, gained an association with hard objects and then actions. Then with ephemeral matters such as ideas and feelings.
But at some point, some words had to be invented specifically to describe things that had never been described before. And the resulting word also needed a definition, probably mostly consisting of other, previously existing words-- an exception would be inventions, where the truest definition for the new word would be the invention itself, barring that a description of the invention.
While the lack of certain grammatical forms or vocabulary items may discourage their use, since they will be tagged as incorrect regardless of their actual correctness, there is no empirical evidence to support the idea that this will limit thought and the creation of ways to express this thought. More likely, as with politically-correct-speak, the result may only be slight discoloration of the thoughts.
Your associates who are too stupid to form grammatically correct sentences and spell words from memory do not use the spelling and grammar tools to formulate their ideas. They merely use them to alter their hasty or incompetent presentation of them so that they don't look like morons. The thesaurus is almost never a good tool to do anything but replace repeat occurrences of the same word with a couple of different words to liven up the text-- standard "Elements of Style" approach.
None of this should be construed as a defense of Microsoft. I find that their behavior in this regard and in many others to be highly objectionable-- and their products to be avoided if at all possible. If I'm paying for the tool to check my grammar and spelling, it should do it accurately and to accepted standards. Removing words is simply making your tool less apt for the job I have at hand... and it is for this reason that I would avoid this tool. It's expensive and it doesn't work? Forget them.
A great deal of government restriction? Huh?
Not that I've ever tried to get someone else's credit report, but I bet it's dang easy. Landlords and employers do it all the time-- as well as many other prospective "lenders" (how else would I suddenly be deluged with "pre-qualified" home equity offers?). Now maybe I'm supposed to have you sign a form authorizing me to look at this information, but I highly doubt anyone is checking for such a form at the credit agency.
Besides one credit agency can do whatever the other have decided to do-- and as a group, they can all do pretty much whatever they want. Who's going to stop them? The idea that large corporations don't have an immense amount of control over legislation and regulation that affects them, well, is silly. The regulations are more like codified standards than anything else.
The only thing keeping corporations in check is the fact that the people who work there are actual people themselves-- with ethical concerns and families and friends and stuff like that.
And more importantly, if you spend $1000 on a guitar, find you really don't want it, you can probably sell it again for nearly what you paid for it (assuming you weren't ripped off in the first place, it's still in good condition, etc)-- the only way you'll ever get your money out of your .NET investment is to sell software. Good luck, what with Microsoft including anything they can into the OS.