MS then came out with the Active Desktop, showing that IE was just absolutely, completely technically required for the latest OS release - I recall dimly that it was Win2k.
Windows 98.
If you installed IE 4(?) into Windows 95, you essentially got Windows 98.
Maybe they like being ripped off in the US or something. It seems to me using a system like that you might as well set fire to your money
you don't get it.
Craigslist isn't a place to buy stuff. It's a place to FIND stuff. You don't trust the #@$#!ing craigslist ad; you make a contact with a real person, and go from there.
ebay's kinda a joke --> used electronics, scams, and crap, all peddled by folks who only care about thin numbers that give themselves a veneer of respectability.
Craigslist tosses that, and the fees, and just connects the buyers and the sellers. It's the internet in its purest, and most open, form.
UN doesn't enter into it. Japan is still essentially a protectorate of the United States of America -- nuking Japan would be legally equivalent to nuking Hawaii in international law, and the response would be just as swift.
But the thing is, you have to take the man at his word, and I think he really that naive. I really think he does believe that the world is like Star Trek, where you can have a meeting with someone that totally hates you, and suddenly love breaks out. There's nothing that tells me that he believes otherwise.
You're drinking too much right-wing cool-aid.
No, you can't sit down with someone who hates you and your way of life and suddenly change their mind. But you can sit down with someone who APPERARS to hate you and change their mind -- quite easily, actually.
The key is to find out WHAT exactly they hate, and then see where you can find a compromise. Many times, it's as easy as convincing them that we're not what they hate, and are in fact what they admire.
OTOH, sometimes that's just not feasible for mere mortals. But if Barack Obama and Adolf Hilter could sit down with God as a judge and witness, they could come to an accord.
Obama could introduce legislation eliminating the US military, instituting nationwide communism, and ceeding all defensive power over to an international black-helicopter squad ran by terrorists and he wouldn't be criminal.
The POTUS can advocate any policy position he wants, and he's constitutionally immune from any such prosecution. Heck, he can almost point at a random citizen, tell the military to kill that citizen, and STILL not be criminal. (Almost.)
if someone is mature enough at 15 to commit a crime in the mind-set of an adult, why shouldn't they face adult consequences?
Because we wanted to pick a hard number that can be applied to everyone, without having to give a fuzzy profile to every criminal.
We picked 18. At 18 you can vote, you can marry, and you are liable for the entirety of your own actions. We could have picked 16, or 25, or 30, but we picked 18.
Oh, and punnishment IS based on mind-set and maturity. Even if you're a minor, you can be tried as an adult for especially henious crimes. And if you're over 18 and mentally undeveloped, well, then you're essentially treated like a child.
So, in summary, UK law prevents a poster from making libelous claims on the web. I didn't think the right to free speech came with the right to defame; even in the US.
You might think that, you [insert crazy libel here]. But think it through.
In the US, you have an absolute right to state your honest opinion, or your honestly believed facts. So, if I believed that, oh, the local priest molested little boys, I could stand out and say that without being sued. If I thought he'd molested a friend of mine, I could picket in front of his house, until the police finally came and did something about it.
But in the UK?
As soon as I started picketing, I could be charged with slander*. (Or libel, if I did so through publication.) The church would take me to court, where I would have to prove my claims. If I can't -- because, for example, my friend isn't allowed to testify -- then I could lose my car, house, and the $20 in my pocket.
The bad part that the summary went into -- the really, REALLY bad part -- is that if I put up a website in the USA, talking about how a priest in Mexico molests children, that priest can go to the United Kingdom and sue me there.
And there's no way in hell I can afford to fly to the UK just to defend the rights my forefathers fought to give me. Nor should I.
Not that the American system has ever really allowed an option other than the two party system
America has a three party system. Democrats, Republicans, and everybody else.
Only that third one isn't a party, and is filled with a lot of small "parties" that have less organization than a freshman congressman's first primary run.
how long has it been since such primitive weapons as promoted by the NRA has actually really defended a country..... The Israeli's depend on missiles
Take away the Israel's rifles, and I guarantee that the terrorists will stop resorting to bombs. They'll just get the rifles, and make sort work of anyone who gets in their way.
A rifle is used EVERY DAY to defend a country. It's only one tool in the box, but it's an important one. I wager that, still, more battles were won by rifles in Iraq or Afghanistan than were won by missile strikes.
You will never, ever even attempt to show any evidence that 3E or 4E isn't the same
Actually, 3e introduced a focus on skills and "kit"ing that changed the focus of the game in a subtle, and unexpected direction. Rules that had been largely ignored in 2e because they were frankly bad were written to be in line with everything else, and so got used -- leading to less "role" playing, and more "roll" playing, by accident of good design.
I'd have to scratch my head and read books I've largely stopped playing by, but I think there were even a few things that were actually added into 3e that weren't in 2e, that indeed made it easier to just "roll-play" what in 2e was an entirely social encounter.
(Off the top of my head: the search skill)
Re:I think you jumped the gun a little.
on
Watchmen Watched
·
· Score: 1
If history show us anything, it's that the Exploiter tribe
Stop.
Human Intelligence is fungible. The same smarts that let you create a 400 mpg car, or a $50 desktop computer, can equally let you dominate the market for two-year-old cars, or sell everyone and their brother a new PC every other month.
The "tribal" division doesn't work the way you think it does. Our tribes are a few million strong each, and contain makers and "exploiters" and drones and all the rest. The tribes that best allow human intelligence to go where it will go are the ones that proposer, and those that form artificial oligarchies and plutocracies are the ones that will suffer.
If it isn't good enough to be on "a Top 100 books of all time list like it says on the cover" why is it?
Because it was written in a medium that had, at the times of its writing, been largely thought of as incapable of serious storytelling.
Nowadays you can walk into any comic shop in the country, and see a gamut from children's books, to mainstream "adult" books, to artsy "serious" books that aren't worth the cover price.
Watchmen will, as time goes on, go the way of "Heavy Metal."
The whole reason for copyright isn't to make money forever no matter how the publishing corporations want to spin it. It is to enhance the public domain
Wrong.
The reason for copyright is to attach value to the creation of art. Specifically, if anyone is going to make money off of "Snowcrash", it should be Neal Stephenson or someone with his permission. Not a random publisher that decides to just print it and "save" money by not paying Neal a dime.
Copyright exists precisely to limit the public domain, not "enhance" it.
Looking at it from the other end, how do you protect from such an eventuality without shutting off the plugin?
Same way you protect the client -- disable.xls binary files.
OTOH, Sharepoint's Excel Web Services is a bitch to get anything to run, even when you're trying to. If you're using SharePoint in lieu of client-side Excel, it should effectively immuninize you from this bug, same as if you used OpenOffice on the client.
I say that, simply because, @ least in the workplace, where folks use Excel spreadsheets for daily accounting purposes (& other uses too)? It's NOT going to "go over well" @ all- Especially since I am certain those people will probably NEED to access said spreadsheets to some degree (in the timeframe it takes MS to make up a binary patch for Excel)
*ahem*
1: Excel 2007 has seperate file types for "yes macro XML", "no macro XML", and "old crappy binary" formats..xlsx,.xlsm, and.xls, respectively. The first,.xlsx, is immune to trojan hacks the same way a.txt file in notepad is immune to them.
2: Excel 2003 has a COMPLETELY FREE UPDATE that lets it write and read.xlsx files.
3: Anyone who isn't using 2007 or 2003 can use OpenOffice, which, again, is highly resistant (immune?) to this bug. And can save to.xlsx.
Anyone using Excel probably needs it--but the few of us who use Excel and need macros, well, we should be smart enough to avoid viruses. Users who aren't can stick to.xlsx, and they'll be all set.
If we can develop fusion, global warming is solved and we dont have to worry about it anymore. Then why are we not doing it
We are doing it.
Fusion in a "make H fuse into He" sense is fairly easy. Build a bomb, set it off, and presto - fusion.
Fusion as in a "make atoms fuse in a controlled setting" is harder, but still done on a fairly regular basis.
Fusion as in "create a fusion reaction that produces more energy that you spend creating the reaction" is fucking hard. Which is why we do #2 at all, and why you don't have unmetered power.
(Oh, and if all you care about is global warming, nuclear fission's perfectly suitable. Hell, if you don't mind the risk of making weapons-grade plutonium, you can even do it with minimal waste)
Nooo...computers are running at exactly the same speed
Car analogy time.
A "computer" is a car. The CPU is the engine.
Windows is the transmission, wind speed, tire size, et cetera.
Your ENGINE is going at the same RPMs, but you're actually doing stuff -- moving the car -- faster.
Sheesh. Next thing you'll claim that all programming is done in binary. (it isn't, any more than language is done in phonemes, or writing in little black lines.)
What we're discussing here requires prescriptive socialistic behavior to avoid (or solve belatedly); there is no economic benefit for doing this (that I can perceive)
If there's no economic benefit to doing a thing, that means that, truly, THERE IS NO BENEFIT TO DOING THAT THING.
You're doing exactly the right thing -- keep a local copy of anything you give two shits about. IF you want to go one better, poney up some money for preservation of things -- donate to archive.org or something.
You want it done? Put your money up. Aren't willing to pay for it? Then you don't really want it done.
it won't encourage sales of new cars... The demand for used cars will skyrocket
People buy used widgets because they are cheaper than new widgets. The added value of "new" is not sufficient incentive for these buyers to pay the extra dollars for new.
Each buyer has a different price they will pay to get "new" instead of "old." One person might pay $10,000 more, another might pay only $100. (That is, if you offered someone who's buying a $5000 car the new car equivalent for $5100, they'd pay it.)
Now increase the demand for used cars. What happens? The price of used cars begins to rise. And as a the price begins to rise, more and more people will find that a "new" car is relatively cheap enough to buy.
OR, in other words, "increasing the demand for used cars will encourage the sale of new cars."
Slashdot Mirror
MS then came out with the Active Desktop, showing that IE was just absolutely, completely technically required for the latest OS release - I recall dimly that it was Win2k.
Windows 98.
If you installed IE 4(?) into Windows 95, you essentially got Windows 98.
other hand theres a heck of a lot of difference between NetZero, Time-Warner, Generic local ISP (which are a rarity these days), and Comcast.
No, there isn't. There are different tiers, but the internet you get from Time Warner, NetZero, AT&T, Comcast, or any others is the SAME INTERNET.
And if you think the power grid doesn't have the same market variety that the internet has, you've never held a job.
Maybe they like being ripped off in the US or something. It seems to me using a system like that you might as well set fire to your money
you don't get it.
Craigslist isn't a place to buy stuff. It's a place to FIND stuff. You don't trust the #@$#!ing craigslist ad; you make a contact with a real person, and go from there.
ebay's kinda a joke --> used electronics, scams, and crap, all peddled by folks who only care about thin numbers that give themselves a veneer of respectability.
Craigslist tosses that, and the fees, and just connects the buyers and the sellers. It's the internet in its purest, and most open, form.
You have more faith in the UN than I do.
UN doesn't enter into it. Japan is still essentially a protectorate of the United States of America -- nuking Japan would be legally equivalent to nuking Hawaii in international law, and the response would be just as swift.
even if MS hates OO they can't kill it.
Shame, really. Because if ever there was an open-source project that deserved to die, OOo is it.
But the thing is, you have to take the man at his word, and I think he really that naive. I really think he does believe that the world is like Star Trek, where you can have a meeting with someone that totally hates you, and suddenly love breaks out. There's nothing that tells me that he believes otherwise.
You're drinking too much right-wing cool-aid.
No, you can't sit down with someone who hates you and your way of life and suddenly change their mind. But you can sit down with someone who APPERARS to hate you and change their mind -- quite easily, actually.
The key is to find out WHAT exactly they hate, and then see where you can find a compromise. Many times, it's as easy as convincing them that we're not what they hate, and are in fact what they admire.
OTOH, sometimes that's just not feasible for mere mortals. But if Barack Obama and Adolf Hilter could sit down with God as a judge and witness, they could come to an accord.
Obama is a criminal
Obama could introduce legislation eliminating the US military, instituting nationwide communism, and ceeding all defensive power over to an international black-helicopter squad ran by terrorists and he wouldn't be criminal.
The POTUS can advocate any policy position he wants, and he's constitutionally immune from any such prosecution. Heck, he can almost point at a random citizen, tell the military to kill that citizen, and STILL not be criminal. (Almost.)
If you don't live in the UK, and don't have any assets there, you can probably ignore any claims in the English courts.
Sure. Until said mexican priest takes his UK court-ordered judgment and comes to the USA, and sues me for collection of said debt.
if someone is mature enough at 15 to commit a crime in the mind-set of an adult, why shouldn't they face adult consequences?
Because we wanted to pick a hard number that can be applied to everyone, without having to give a fuzzy profile to every criminal.
We picked 18. At 18 you can vote, you can marry, and you are liable for the entirety of your own actions. We could have picked 16, or 25, or 30, but we picked 18.
Oh, and punnishment IS based on mind-set and maturity. Even if you're a minor, you can be tried as an adult for especially henious crimes. And if you're over 18 and mentally undeveloped, well, then you're essentially treated like a child.
So, in summary, UK law prevents a poster from making libelous claims on the web. I didn't think the right to free speech came with the right to defame; even in the US.
You might think that, you [insert crazy libel here]. But think it through.
In the US, you have an absolute right to state your honest opinion, or your honestly believed facts. So, if I believed that, oh, the local priest molested little boys, I could stand out and say that without being sued. If I thought he'd molested a friend of mine, I could picket in front of his house, until the police finally came and did something about it.
But in the UK?
As soon as I started picketing, I could be charged with slander*. (Or libel, if I did so through publication.) The church would take me to court, where I would have to prove my claims. If I can't -- because, for example, my friend isn't allowed to testify -- then I could lose my car, house, and the $20 in my pocket.
The bad part that the summary went into -- the really, REALLY bad part -- is that if I put up a website in the USA, talking about how a priest in Mexico molests children, that priest can go to the United Kingdom and sue me there.
And there's no way in hell I can afford to fly to the UK just to defend the rights my forefathers fought to give me. Nor should I.
Not that the American system has ever really allowed an option other than the two party system
America has a three party system. Democrats, Republicans, and everybody else.
Only that third one isn't a party, and is filled with a lot of small "parties" that have less organization than a freshman congressman's first primary run.
how long has it been since such primitive weapons as promoted by the NRA has actually really defended a country. .... The Israeli's depend on missiles
Take away the Israel's rifles, and I guarantee that the terrorists will stop resorting to bombs. They'll just get the rifles, and make sort work of anyone who gets in their way.
A rifle is used EVERY DAY to defend a country. It's only one tool in the box, but it's an important one. I wager that, still, more battles were won by rifles in Iraq or Afghanistan than were won by missile strikes.
Since Mozilla is a non-profit organisation, nobody at Mozilla actually gets any of it.
Not entirely true.
Mozilla itself cannot make a profit for its "owners", but it can have revenue to pay for expenses -- like the salaries of programmers.
Not-for-profit means "no money" for owners (or as a colloqialism), not "you work for free."
It's rather hard to stick with what you love when the core rulebooks go out of print as soon as the new ones come out.
How can you be on SLASHDOT and not know about this?
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20/article/srdarchive
D&D 3.5 and d20 Modern, less a VERY small subest of the rules, free and copyleft for your geeky enjoyment. Yes, copyleft. Same principle as the GPL.
(Why is 4e SO different from 3e? So they could break the OGL.)
You will never, ever even attempt to show any evidence that 3E or 4E isn't the same
Actually, 3e introduced a focus on skills and "kit"ing that changed the focus of the game in a subtle, and unexpected direction. Rules that had been largely ignored in 2e because they were frankly bad were written to be in line with everything else, and so got used -- leading to less "role" playing, and more "roll" playing, by accident of good design.
I'd have to scratch my head and read books I've largely stopped playing by, but I think there were even a few things that were actually added into 3e that weren't in 2e, that indeed made it easier to just "roll-play" what in 2e was an entirely social encounter.
(Off the top of my head: the search skill)
If history show us anything, it's that the Exploiter tribe
Stop.
Human Intelligence is fungible. The same smarts that let you create a 400 mpg car, or a $50 desktop computer, can equally let you dominate the market for two-year-old cars, or sell everyone and their brother a new PC every other month.
The "tribal" division doesn't work the way you think it does. Our tribes are a few million strong each, and contain makers and "exploiters" and drones and all the rest. The tribes that best allow human intelligence to go where it will go are the ones that proposer, and those that form artificial oligarchies and plutocracies are the ones that will suffer.
Sheesh.
If it isn't good enough to be on "a Top 100 books of all time list like it says on the cover" why is it?
Because it was written in a medium that had, at the times of its writing, been largely thought of as incapable of serious storytelling.
Nowadays you can walk into any comic shop in the country, and see a gamut from children's books, to mainstream "adult" books, to artsy "serious" books that aren't worth the cover price.
Watchmen will, as time goes on, go the way of "Heavy Metal."
The whole reason for copyright isn't to make money forever no matter how the publishing corporations want to spin it. It is to enhance the public domain
Wrong.
The reason for copyright is to attach value to the creation of art. Specifically, if anyone is going to make money off of "Snowcrash", it should be Neal Stephenson or someone with his permission. Not a random publisher that decides to just print it and "save" money by not paying Neal a dime.
Copyright exists precisely to limit the public domain, not "enhance" it.
Looking at it from the other end, how do you protect from such an eventuality without shutting off the plugin?
Same way you protect the client -- disable .xls binary files.
OTOH, Sharepoint's Excel Web Services is a bitch to get anything to run, even when you're trying to. If you're using SharePoint in lieu of client-side Excel, it should effectively immuninize you from this bug, same as if you used OpenOffice on the client.
I say that, simply because, @ least in the workplace, where folks use Excel spreadsheets for daily accounting purposes (& other uses too)? It's NOT going to "go over well" @ all- Especially since I am certain those people will probably NEED to access said spreadsheets to some degree (in the timeframe it takes MS to make up a binary patch for Excel)
*ahem*
1: Excel 2007 has seperate file types for "yes macro XML", "no macro XML", and "old crappy binary" formats. .xlsx, .xlsm, and .xls, respectively. The first, .xlsx, is immune to trojan hacks the same way a .txt file in notepad is immune to them.
2: Excel 2003 has a COMPLETELY FREE UPDATE that lets it write and read .xlsx files.
3: Anyone who isn't using 2007 or 2003 can use OpenOffice, which, again, is highly resistant (immune?) to this bug. And can save to .xlsx.
Anyone using Excel probably needs it--but the few of us who use Excel and need macros, well, we should be smart enough to avoid viruses. Users who aren't can stick to .xlsx, and they'll be all set.
If we can develop fusion, global warming is solved and we dont have to worry about it anymore. Then why are we not doing it
We are doing it.
Fusion in a "make H fuse into He" sense is fairly easy. Build a bomb, set it off, and presto - fusion.
Fusion as in a "make atoms fuse in a controlled setting" is harder, but still done on a fairly regular basis.
Fusion as in "create a fusion reaction that produces more energy that you spend creating the reaction" is fucking hard. Which is why we do #2 at all, and why you don't have unmetered power.
(Oh, and if all you care about is global warming, nuclear fission's perfectly suitable. Hell, if you don't mind the risk of making weapons-grade plutonium, you can even do it with minimal waste)
Nooo...computers are running at exactly the same speed
Car analogy time.
A "computer" is a car. The CPU is the engine.
Windows is the transmission, wind speed, tire size, et cetera.
Your ENGINE is going at the same RPMs, but you're actually doing stuff -- moving the car -- faster.
Sheesh. Next thing you'll claim that all programming is done in binary. (it isn't, any more than language is done in phonemes, or writing in little black lines.)
What we're discussing here requires prescriptive socialistic behavior to avoid (or solve belatedly); there is no economic benefit for doing this (that I can perceive)
If there's no economic benefit to doing a thing, that means that, truly, THERE IS NO BENEFIT TO DOING THAT THING.
You're doing exactly the right thing -- keep a local copy of anything you give two shits about. IF you want to go one better, poney up some money for preservation of things -- donate to archive.org or something.
You want it done? Put your money up. Aren't willing to pay for it? Then you don't really want it done.
Most of the culture of the 20th century is unavailable....
Like what?
Most of the culture of the 20th century isn't FREE. But a hell of a lot of it is AVAILABLE.
As for the random stuff that nobody pays for -- well, I hate to break it to you, but that's not our culture. That's just random pulp.
it won't encourage sales of new cars ... The demand for used cars will skyrocket
People buy used widgets because they are cheaper than new widgets. The added value of "new" is not sufficient incentive for these buyers to pay the extra dollars for new.
Each buyer has a different price they will pay to get "new" instead of "old." One person might pay $10,000 more, another might pay only $100. (That is, if you offered someone who's buying a $5000 car the new car equivalent for $5100, they'd pay it.)
Now increase the demand for used cars. What happens? The price of used cars begins to rise. And as a the price begins to rise, more and more people will find that a "new" car is relatively cheap enough to buy.
OR, in other words, "increasing the demand for used cars will encourage the sale of new cars."