First there was ed. Ed was a line oriented editor but people wanted to extend ed and then was born ex. Ex was better, but people wanted a visual mode to ex so was created the vi editor command. The visual mode became primary and ex was made secondary and thus was born vi. Vi was powerful, but people wanted to improve vi and so was born vim. Vim was vi improved, but...
It means that businesses and people will not be using.Net until these security issues are taken care of. You can not have Internet security problems and then say "Trust us with your credit card numbers." People will not listen. They will go somewhere else. If Microsoft is betting the farm on.Net, they need to get these security problems taken care of. Otherwise they are toast.
Brothers Hildebrand definitely came the closest to what I imagine the Middle Earth to look like. They IMHO are the best.
I wonder about the movies. I may not like them because their visual images may be very different from my imagination. Though I loved the BBC radio drama. They did a good job.
The moral issue is the tone of the article--the obvious belief of the writer that families have been injured by having their children.
Agreed! The problem I have is that people don't see that these "less than perfect" children can have a wonderful life and a life that positively affects those around them. These children are no less valuable. Let us not make "quality of life" judgements, rather let us value life.
The way to hit Microsoft hard is not to break it up rather it is take away its leverage without having too much government involvement. The solution is to
(1) open up the API and allow companies to sue if some undisclosed API is found and force MS to take any product off the shelves that has that undisclosed API. That would level the playing field and keep the government involvement at a minimum.
(2) Also not having OEMs have these aggreements were they can not add value to Windows, but rather must install an untouched Windows OS with no third party applications.
(3) And one price for Windows to all OEMs.
(4) And finally some fine levied against MS would be appropriate since they did "play dirty" with Netscape.
Those 4 items would be my punishment (in order of importance).
Hoyle's arguments on this topic are indistinguishable from standard Creationist spiel, and it's profoundly disappointing to see a scientist of his accomplishment sink down into irrational morass in his later years.
That is unfair. I think you are not open to any ideas that point out problems with the current theory of evolution. I think he brings some valid points that need to be considered. He did and found current theory lacking. I am not certain that there was enough time even "on the order of femtoseconds", especially when you consider proper conditions, the bonds breaking after forming, possible moving of the amino acid complex out of the formation pool and the right-handedness and left-handedness of the molecules.
There are many unique characteristics that make up earth and it's location. Hugh Ross, an astrophysicist, has calculated the probability that earth exists with all its characteristics at 10^53. He also says that the maximum possible number of planets in the universe is about 10^23. Now I don't know what the error bars on these figures would look like, but I think it is fairly safe to say that earth is quite the unique planet in a quite unique location in the universe.
I got these numbers from his book "The Creator and the Cosmos". I should also say that Hugh Ross is an "Old Earth Creationist". (That is he believes the universe is 14-17 billion years old and that there was a creator.) He puts together a good argument in favor of some creator fine tuning the universe for life on earth.
It seems like a lot of the posters are in denial. The backbones and ISPs can be controlled. The Internet can be controlled. 100% controlled, No, but the vast majority of the Internet can be controlled. Those trying to step outside of the "Law" will have to go to greater lengths to share those files. It may mean having to build your own computer to avoid the limitting hardware. It may mean having to connect via phone to secret BBSs instead of having a fast broadband connection. The article has a point, and the question you should ask is what needs to be done so that the clamps are not too restrictive.
Just thinking back to the wars between distributions, Red Hat, who invented Linux and brought it to the marketplace,
has their own proprietary code contained within the source, and they're not in any hurry to distribute it. Why do you
think that they give pre-compiled kernels? Red Hat doesn't want to give its secrets to Debian, or SuSe, or anybody else.
Where did this come from? With all the falsehoods in this statement, I am surprised it was mod'ed up. Red Hat did NOT invent linux. It was not even the first to market it, but it has done good job of marketing it in the U.S.A. I don't know of any "proprietary code" code in Red Hat Kernel. What a troll!
It does not take much space to save some of your system directories. Since you have to install the software, copy system directories and then afterwards compare the before and after directories. Admittedly this is not the ideal solution, but at least you know what has changed.
Another idea that may work is to create an account that uses chroot and then install over your copied directories and then compare before installing in the real/usr.
Groove Networks is a P2P company that is all about providing secure exchange of information. They are aimed primarily at businesses. Ray Ozzie of Lotus Notes fame founded the company. Check out their web site http://www.groove.net.
Intellectual Property is important for economic growth. The open source internet has made possible a lot of economic growth. Microsoft has benefited from the internet. Would Microsoft be where it is today if a company patented HTML and had the browser, a killer application, running only on Apples?
Though Microsoft can not use GPL software it can look at the code. Can Microsoft look at Sun's program code? No! But Microsoft can get ideas from GPL software. They are free to use those ideas, and benefit from even GPL software.
It is amazing how in 10 years WWW has changed business and society. In
many ways everything is the same but in other ways this has been a true
revolution. WWW is now a common place for many of us. (I even say WWW or
Web instead of World Wide Web.) I am amazed at how fast it caught on and
became a part of society.
I remember in 1993 (I think) viewing a web site with Mosaic of this
Library of Congress Exhibit that University of North Carolina had put
together. I was very impressed and thought it was way cool. What also
was cool is that there was already weather info on the web. (I am a meteorologist.) I think it was
Weather Underground that University of Wisconsin(?) was running. (Weather
Underground was also on gopher at that time and had several gopher
sites at a variety of universities. Weather Underground is still the
place I go for forcasts (www.wunderground.com) though it is no longer
connected with a university. Gopher died because it was half way between
ftp and WWW.)
I was definitely caught up with WWW. I played a few beta versions of
Netscape before Netscape 1.0. And always I got the latest Netscape. I
think that was true of alot of people. So perhaps it is understandable
that Microsoft (with web-like ideas of its own) was taken by surprise with
WWW and Netscape. I am amazed at how fast Microsoft was able to turn
itself around. Funny thing is Sun has always had this statement that "The
network is the computer" and it has turn out to be true today though it is
Microsoft, not Sun and Netscape, that has made it a reality and is pushing
it the hardest today.
It is nice to almost be in on the ground floor of the WWW. (Same is true
of Linux, but it is not quite the revolution that WWW is. In fact in
September Linux will be 10 years old. I remember the usenet posting to
the Minux newsgroup, announcing Linux.)
To think in 1988 when my department got connected I was unhappy about
having to learn new things like telnet, ftp, and email. What a wonderful
thing the Internet turned out to be.
I wish he had not fleed to Canada. Was he fearing for his life? This case needs to be appealed and overturned, but can it be done with him in Canada? It does not look good with him in Canada. I guess the word is to be careful when flaming powerful organizations who are sensitive.
I too am a tad bit confused by Microsoft's actions. I wonder if it is Microsoft thinking we need to keep the cash rolling in and since we are a monopoly this is how we can do it. They don't recognize the danger of losing their monopoly.
CmdrTaco loves to be entertained
on
Surround Lights
·
· Score: 1
I have noticed that Rob posts the articles that deal with entertainment. It looks like to me that entertainment must be a big part of his life. Anybody else noticed this?
Interesting article, but I don't find it unbiased.
It definitely seems to me to slant the data. For instance it says
"Crime and physical violence have substantially increased over the past decade in the United States. According to FBI statistics, both murder and aggravated assault increased 53 percent between 1967 and 1972, while forcible rape rose 70 percent."
The article then places the blame on the suppression of sexual movies while allowing violent movies. The violent movies may have something to do with the rise, but what was ignored was that that was the era of "Free Love". Could it be that selfish males with the impression of new found freedom decided that they could rape their date? That has always been a problem, and with the social moral imperatives removed the rape statistics went up.
Interestingly the article quotes selected Bible passages while ignoring others. They seem to be taken out of context. Ignored was Deut. 22:25 where the penality for rape was death. Instead the story of Sodom and Gomorrah was held up falsely as an example of Biblical morals. You can find plenty of stories that can be used falsely to promote wrong ideas. One must keep scripture passages in context with other scripture. Not a word was mentioned about an entire book of the Bible, Song of Songs, which is a love poem with plenty of sexual references. Also totally out of context are Romans 8 passages. They are talking about the sinful nature of humans. In fact in the NIV translation, which is very popular in America, the phrase "the flesh" was translated as "the sinful nature". (Mortification of the flesh occured in the Middle Ages when the Christian Church was about as far from its biblical foundation than it ever was.)
Well I skimmed that article so I am certain I missed a lot, but the above problems with the article is what stood out for me. Loving care and concern to one's children is very important. One's experences do color how one sees the world. But I do believe that deep down inside of everyone is a selfish core that no upbringing can change. As a Christian I do believe that God can change us, and he has been changing me over time to become less self-centered.
Will building "communities" solve our problems? I think not. Corporations are "communities" who exist to create a profit for their owners (stock holders). Capitalism works well because it is built on a basic human desire greed, which is found in self-centeredness. Human nature looks out for number one, me. And as we form "communities" we make them self-centered too.
Be careful about putting too much faith in science for, even though it does well in describing much of the reality as we see it, answers the question how and not the question why. Religious belief attempts to answer the why question.
Nothing in the future can solve this. The Internet is a great communications device, but the problem is people. Plain and simple the problem is human nature. We form groups and then it becomes us versus them. This occurs at all levels of life. Nation-states are just big groups of people. If you shrink the groups down to the size of one, then you are at the root of the problem: self-centeredness. This is not going to be solved.
To put it in religious terms, we are sinful, and need to be changed at our deepest levels. (Check out the Christian Faith.)
It seems like to me that we are reaping the fruits of the culture shift in values. Right and wrong are now relative. "What is right for me may not be right for you" is what the majority of people believe today. There is no longer any universal truths. The result of this is life is no longer valued like it use to be. You see this in other areas of the Western culture. Teenagers are just more likely to express these new values (or lack of values) in more extreme ways.
In many ways the article says nothing new. We have known that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has been increasing for a long time. The "Greenhouse Effect" has been known theoretically for a long time and the CO2 effect is easy to show. What these scientists have shown is an obvious conclusion. They are just the first to show that it has happen on a global scale though global surface observations made it a foregone conclusion.
We don't know exactly how that will affect our climate here on the earth, but is more and more atmospheric CO2 something we want? We are changing the atmospheric makeup. Is that a good thing? Do we want to take the chance that the increased CO2 does not significantly affect us or will we regret it?
I think of David Brin's book,Earth, where there was no privacy what so ever. I think the rich and powerful should ask if that is the world they want to live in, where it is very hard to keep secrets. Do those corporations want everyone to know everything about their plans?
I think not. Rather they should consider that what makes it easy for them in the short run, may have dire consequences for them in the long haul.
Most people will not want to know my health history and DNA, but Bill Gates' health history and DNA would be news. How much would he have to pay to keep his and his family's health facts secrect?
Slashdot Mirror
First there was ed. Ed was a line oriented editor but people wanted to extend ed and then was born ex. Ex was better, but people wanted a visual mode to ex so was created the vi editor command. The visual mode became primary and ex was made secondary and thus was born vi. Vi was powerful, but people wanted to improve vi and so was born vim. Vim was vi improved, but ...
It means that businesses and people will not be using .Net until these security issues are taken care of. You can not have Internet security problems and then say "Trust us with your credit card numbers." People will not listen. They will go somewhere else. If Microsoft is betting the farm on .Net, they need to get these security problems taken care of. Otherwise they are toast.
Brothers Hildebrand definitely came the closest to what I imagine the Middle Earth to look like. They IMHO are the best.
I wonder about the movies. I may not like them because their visual images may be very different from my imagination. Though I loved the BBC radio drama. They did a good job.
Agreed! The problem I have is that people don't see that these "less than perfect" children can have a wonderful life and a life that positively affects those around them. These children are no less valuable. Let us not make "quality of life" judgements, rather let us value life.
The way to hit Microsoft hard is not to break it up rather it is take away its leverage without having too much government involvement. The solution is to
(1) open up the API and allow companies to sue if some undisclosed API is found and force MS to take any product off the shelves that has that undisclosed API. That would level the playing field and keep the government involvement at a minimum.
(2) Also not having OEMs have these aggreements were they can not add value to Windows, but rather must install an untouched Windows OS with no third party applications.
(3) And one price for Windows to all OEMs.
(4) And finally some fine levied against MS would be appropriate since they did "play dirty" with Netscape.
Those 4 items would be my punishment (in order of importance).
That is unfair. I think you are not open to any ideas that point out problems with the current theory of evolution. I think he brings some valid points that need to be considered. He did and found current theory lacking. I am not certain that there was enough time even "on the order of femtoseconds", especially when you consider proper conditions, the bonds breaking after forming, possible moving of the amino acid complex out of the formation pool and the right-handedness and left-handedness of the molecules.
I got these numbers from his book "The Creator and the Cosmos". I should also say that Hugh Ross is an "Old Earth Creationist". (That is he believes the universe is 14-17 billion years old and that there was a creator.) He puts together a good argument in favor of some creator fine tuning the universe for life on earth.
It seems like a lot of the posters are in denial. The backbones and ISPs can be controlled. The Internet can be controlled. 100% controlled, No, but the vast majority of the Internet can be controlled. Those trying to step outside of the "Law" will have to go to greater lengths to share those files. It may mean having to build your own computer to avoid the limitting hardware. It may mean having to connect via phone to secret BBSs instead of having a fast broadband connection. The article has a point, and the question you should ask is what needs to be done so that the clamps are not too restrictive.
Slashcode 2.0.0 came out on May 9, 2001. It can be found here.
Where did this come from? With all the falsehoods in this statement, I am surprised it was mod'ed up. Red Hat did NOT invent linux. It was not even the first to market it, but it has done good job of marketing it in the U.S.A. I don't know of any "proprietary code" code in Red Hat Kernel. What a troll!
Another idea that may work is to create an account that uses chroot and then install over your copied directories and then compare before installing in the real /usr.
Groove Networks is a P2P company that is all about providing secure exchange of information. They are aimed primarily at businesses. Ray Ozzie of Lotus Notes fame founded the company. Check out their web site http://www.groove.net.
Though Microsoft can not use GPL software it can look at the code. Can Microsoft look at Sun's program code? No! But Microsoft can get ideas from GPL software. They are free to use those ideas, and benefit from even GPL software.
I remember in 1993 (I think) viewing a web site with Mosaic of this Library of Congress Exhibit that University of North Carolina had put together. I was very impressed and thought it was way cool. What also was cool is that there was already weather info on the web. (I am a meteorologist.) I think it was Weather Underground that University of Wisconsin(?) was running. (Weather Underground was also on gopher at that time and had several gopher sites at a variety of universities. Weather Underground is still the place I go for forcasts (www.wunderground.com) though it is no longer connected with a university. Gopher died because it was half way between ftp and WWW.)
I was definitely caught up with WWW. I played a few beta versions of Netscape before Netscape 1.0. And always I got the latest Netscape. I think that was true of alot of people. So perhaps it is understandable that Microsoft (with web-like ideas of its own) was taken by surprise with WWW and Netscape. I am amazed at how fast Microsoft was able to turn itself around. Funny thing is Sun has always had this statement that "The network is the computer" and it has turn out to be true today though it is Microsoft, not Sun and Netscape, that has made it a reality and is pushing it the hardest today.
It is nice to almost be in on the ground floor of the WWW. (Same is true of Linux, but it is not quite the revolution that WWW is. In fact in September Linux will be 10 years old. I remember the usenet posting to the Minux newsgroup, announcing Linux.)
To think in 1988 when my department got connected I was unhappy about having to learn new things like telnet, ftp, and email. What a wonderful thing the Internet turned out to be.
I wish he had not fleed to Canada. Was he fearing for his life? This case needs to be appealed and overturned, but can it be done with him in Canada? It does not look good with him in Canada. I guess the word is to be careful when flaming powerful organizations who are sensitive.
I too am a tad bit confused by Microsoft's actions. I wonder if it is Microsoft thinking we need to keep the cash rolling in and since we are a monopoly this is how we can do it. They don't recognize the danger of losing their monopoly.
I have noticed that Rob posts the articles that deal with entertainment. It looks like to me that entertainment must be a big part of his life. Anybody else noticed this?
"Crime and physical violence have substantially increased over the past decade in the United States. According to FBI statistics, both murder and aggravated assault increased 53 percent between 1967 and 1972, while forcible rape rose 70 percent."
The article then places the blame on the suppression of sexual movies while allowing violent movies. The violent movies may have something to do with the rise, but what was ignored was that that was the era of "Free Love". Could it be that selfish males with the impression of new found freedom decided that they could rape their date? That has always been a problem, and with the social moral imperatives removed the rape statistics went up.
Interestingly the article quotes selected Bible passages while ignoring others. They seem to be taken out of context. Ignored was Deut. 22:25 where the penality for rape was death. Instead the story of Sodom and Gomorrah was held up falsely as an example of Biblical morals. You can find plenty of stories that can be used falsely to promote wrong ideas. One must keep scripture passages in context with other scripture. Not a word was mentioned about an entire book of the Bible, Song of Songs, which is a love poem with plenty of sexual references. Also totally out of context are Romans 8 passages. They are talking about the sinful nature of humans. In fact in the NIV translation, which is very popular in America, the phrase "the flesh" was translated as "the sinful nature". (Mortification of the flesh occured in the Middle Ages when the Christian Church was about as far from its biblical foundation than it ever was.)
Well I skimmed that article so I am certain I missed a lot, but the above problems with the article is what stood out for me. Loving care and concern to one's children is very important. One's experences do color how one sees the world. But I do believe that deep down inside of everyone is a selfish core that no upbringing can change. As a Christian I do believe that God can change us, and he has been changing me over time to become less self-centered.
Be careful about putting too much faith in science for, even though it does well in describing much of the reality as we see it, answers the question how and not the question why. Religious belief attempts to answer the why question.
The enemy is us!
To put it in religious terms, we are sinful, and need to be changed at our deepest levels. (Check out the Christian Faith.)
The Enemy is us!
A name like ImageMesa might make one think of Mesa and then OpenGL.
It seems like to me that we are reaping the fruits of the culture shift in values. Right and wrong are now relative. "What is right for me may not be right for you" is what the majority of people believe today. There is no longer any universal truths. The result of this is life is no longer valued like it use to be. You see this in other areas of the Western culture. Teenagers are just more likely to express these new values (or lack of values) in more extreme ways.
We don't know exactly how that will affect our climate here on the earth, but is more and more atmospheric CO2 something we want? We are changing the atmospheric makeup. Is that a good thing? Do we want to take the chance that the increased CO2 does not significantly affect us or will we regret it?
I think not. Rather they should consider that what makes it easy for them in the short run, may have dire consequences for them in the long haul.
Most people will not want to know my health history and DNA, but Bill Gates' health history and DNA would be news. How much would he have to pay to keep his and his family's health facts secrect?
Information wants to be free.
Two wrongs don't make it right