Maybe the reason for this is that current multicast sucks. If we have a truly globally routable network where everything has an address it won't suck so much any more.
If they do try, they will fail miserably. The lack of scarcity of addresses will destroy any central control of the address space. Without scarcity the commodity of IP addresses has no value. Basic economics there.
Electromagnetic radiation does travel at the speed of light and you're correct that they couldn't warn them against that. However, ionized particle radiation such as that from coronal mass ejections does NOT travel at the speed of light. It is much slower and hence ground controllers would be able to forecast when those particles would reach the Mars-bound spacecraft with decent accuracy and enough leadtime for the warning to be effective.
I found that mine worked virtually everywhere. It was a Visa one though. If your card is PLUS or Visa I think it'll work in virtually any ATM in Japan; if it's only compatible with one of the smaller ATM networks in the US then it probably won't.
Weird. I used my US debit card quite extensively in Japan this spring and I never got charged all those fees you are talking about. Granted, I was mostly using government-run ATM machines while there that I believe do not charge fees even if you are not a customer. But my bank sure didn't charge me any "disloyalty" or any of those currency exchange fees you are talking about. I was getting a pretty competitive exchange rate too (I was monitoring the amount actually debited from my account using Internet banking).
In Japan people seem to be a lot more considerate of others when using cellphones than here in the US. Most of the time people don't have audible ringers on when they are in a crowded space, or they use headphones plugged into their phones. Maybe it's not consideration for others so much as a different social norm, but it's very refreshing compared to here. When I've seen people in Japan playing games on their phones it was usually someone doing that silently on a train.
Granted, I'm sure that when this techonology finally makes it to the US in about 2 years we can count on American rudeness to make your scenario come true.
Yes...usually the time you see this is when they are talking about something like a place or person's name. That is by no means possible to clear up from context. Fortunately, it doesn't matter very often in regular conversation. If you're talking about a place or person that one person is unfamiliar with it's definitely necessary to write it down or point out which kanji it is if you want to be able to read it though. There are many many kanji for common names.
Yes, but that's a problem with the solution being proposed more than it's a problem with the entire concept of adding non-English domain names. I agree that this solution sucks but only because it's a sloppy fix to the overall problem. Domain names should definitely have full Unicode/UTF-8 support so that they are equally usable for everyone. And that should be done now so that the problem doesn't become worse to fix in the future as these "local" workarounds proliferate. And they will proliferate, because people do not like to have to learn a foreign language just to use the Internet.
Internationalization issues like this are going to be more and more of problem unless global fixes get applied. All computers should have the ability to input/display arbitrary human languages in my opinion.
Yes, it is. Because it's not just a few "umlauts". When you're talking about Asian or other non-Romanized languages then the Romanization may be totally incomprehensible to even some speakers of that language. It's one thing to lose a few accent marks and such but it's quite another to translate your language into a totally incomprehensible and unrelated format. In fact in kanji based languages at the very least Romanization actually LOSES information. It's not just a matter of transcribing the sounds into another format because the kanji carry additional meaning not present in just the phonetic lanaguage. If you've ever seen two native Chinese or Japanese speakers talk to each other they frequently will "write" kanji in the air or on the palm of the other person's hand with their fingers because their spoken language is imprecise.These changes are very necessary for the Internet to become a truly international phenomenon
I believe that spammers can tell whether you are reading their emails if they have images in them since the images usually load from a script that logs what email it was from. With the Mozilla spam filters I never read their emails and I think this eventually gets you off their list since they don't get a response. Spammers assume your address is inactive, and remove it.
Anyone else notice that if you put in a very general search term it claims to only produce 999 hits? Searches for both "Linux" and "Windows" produce this number.
Why the artificial limit? Or is this just another case of wildly inaccurate statistics on the first page of results like the regular MSN search?
On a side note, while the site looks a lot like Google News, it doesn't seem too bad to me. Maybe MS is getting the hint that impartiality of search results is the only way they will compete successfully with Google.
Your argument is much weaker than your parent post on several points.
First, I don't buy your argument that someone shouldn't have to contribute all their usage of GPL code if the usage is "trivial". If it was so trivial, why couldn't they write it themself? Obviously the fact that they are using the GPL code means that it was important to their project/was not something they could do themself.
Second, no one is "extorting" your work from you if you choose to use their GPL code. YOU chose to use that code, which is someone else's property. As such, if you have any respect for property rights, you must abide by the terms the owner attached to its use and distribution. If your argument held, then it would be perfectly okay for me to ignore whatever is in a proprietary EULA. Or is it just that you think businesses shouldn't have to give away their code, but that everyone else who contributes to open source should have to serve as unpaid labor for them?
The open source drivers also suck. As in, 10% of the performance of the (closed source) Windows drivers on the same machine. So I question the level of ATI's support for open source drivers.
You actually benefit in this case because Microsoft continues to have viable competition. If they don't, they will just stop improving their product. Look at how much development of IE has stagnated now that it has a massive market share. They haven't added a meaningful feature in a year or more!
Microsoft products only improve if they have competition. So it's in your interest to make sure competition continues to exist.
Portage already does everything you just mentioned. Portage has stable and unstable "profiles" which will automatically update all your software to either the newest stable version or the newest version overall respectively. You can change which profile you are in at any time, or you can stick to stable and emerge individual packages from the unstable profile. Usually I stick to the stable tree for libraries and things like that that contribute to overall system stability and then manually install some unstable versions of specific applications that I am especially familiar with like Mozilla. Portage copes with this mixture just fine.
Also, you do NOT have to recompile your whole system whenever a new glibc or gcc or glib is installed. Portage, through a feature called SLOTS, allows you to have multiple versions of these packages installed side by side. Old versions will remain if you still have apps linked against them. You also do have the option to recompile everything if you want it all to use the new toolchain. In practice this is almost never necessary and has only been required once in the 1.5 years I've used Gentoo Linux (and then only for the GCC 2.x -> 3.x move). Even then it wasn't required but was recommended to ensure binary compatibility.
My car (a 2001 Camry with conventional fuel) can easily make that trip without refilling. I live about 300 miles from my college and my car makes the trip with more than half a tank remaining. Very nice for me considering that the place I live (Charleston, SC) has among the lowest gasoline prices in the nation due to location and low taxes. Nice to drive to school and then drive around for quite a long time without buying gas at higher prices in North Carolina.
Re:I don't mean to be a troll..
on
Aethera 1.0
·
· Score: 1
They appear to render fine for me in Mozilla 1.4 under Windows and Linux.
First off, I don't think I disagree with you on this issue as much as you think I do. I don't deny that Israel is easily the most democratic country in the Middle East or that they have long been aligned with US interests. I'm not really arguing that Israel is evil or has acted badly with regard to their foreign policy. I don't have a serious problem with the Israeli government other than the nuclear weapons issue, and I certainly don't have a problem with Jews. I just think that it's unnecessary and dangerous for Israel to have such inhumane weapons.
Of course Israel will be aligned with the US and provide us with intelligence assistance. They are on the receiving end of a huge amount of US aid. Countries that we give large amounts of aid to generally like us. My question is, why can't that policy be extended beyond Israel? Why can't we give equal amounts of aid and protection to everyone involved and thus foster more good will rather than just one-sided anger and jealousy?
I don't consider the US to be any better than Israel on any of these issues and I certainly don't support the US deployment of nuclear weapons throughout the world. My problem is not so much with Israel as it is with US policy towards Israel and its neighbors.
Not knowing you, I don't know whether I'm more or less informed about the history of the Middle East in the twentieth century than you, so I won't argue that with you. I wouldn't consider myself too uninformed to talk about it or form opinions about it. I'm not getting my information just from the media - I've personally known several people from Israel, both Israeli and Palestinian. I based most of what I said on conversations with those people and things I've read. If you want to correct my facts feel free - I'm open to changing my mind. My father visited the West Bank several years ago as part of an international medical aid organization and told me quite a bit about his first hand experiences. For the most part he saw incredible poverty and heavily armed, arrogant Israelis. He actually changed his opinion to become more anti-Israel after returning from there. Comments from Israeli soldiers like "Why are you helping that scum?" didn't help.
Yes, I agree with you on that. They certainly could take over all their neighbors without resorting to the nuclear option. I don't think Israel is going to be using nuclear weapons anytime soon, and I don't think the current Israeli government is too inclined towards expansionism beyond the West Bank. But it's a fact that many Israelis hate Arabs just as much as the Arabs hate them. That makes the situation dangerous IMHO.
The other thing that worries me about Israeli nuclear weapons is the element of religious involvment in the region's politics. Israel currently controls a lot of small, concentrated sites that have a lot of emotion and religious sentiment wrapped up in them (like the Dome of the Rock/Wailing Wall area). Incidents involving those sorts of places make people behave in irrational ways. It's scary to me to think that some fanatic on either side could go demolish either of those sites with a homemade bomb and touch off a nuclear war.
Moral: religious fanatics of any religion scare me, and nuclear-armed states that are strongly influenced by religion scare me even more. I'm not against Jews or Muslims or Christians or anybody else, but I'm against any of those groups having the power to use nuclear weapons against those with clashing views. I don't care if you're Syria or Israel or whoever - no one in the Middle East should be playing with that fire.
Ever think that the reason so many people in the Middle East dislike Israel might have something to do with the huge nuclear arsenal pointed at each and every one of their cities? Or the fact that the US has been selectively supporting Israel through direct aid and diplomacy for decades?
It's amazing to me that anyone can dismiss Israel's WMD as inconsequential or justified. The US is tacitly approving of Israel's development of those weapons, and yet we invade and topple the government of an Arab nation that was merely suspected of possessing nuclear technology. That just might have something to do with the hatred for Israel.
Like it or not, suicide bombing is what got the Palestinians whatever weak bargaining position they have today. They can't fight against a modern military supported by billions in US aid and armed with nuclear weapons, so they do the only thing they can do to preserve the very existance of their own rights and freedoms. Palestinians support suicide bombing because without it Israelis would totally and completely smash their hopes for a state. It's their only bargaining chip and one that they can't give up if they don't want to see all their homes bulldozed for "settlements".
By that logic, the US should arm all the Arab nations with nuclear weapons too and give billions of dollars in military hardware to them. Because they "deserve" them just as much as the Israelis do. The reason why Israel shouldn't have nuclear weapons is because they are sitting in the most religously charged spot on earth, and because it hurts US interests to allow such an imbalanced foreign policy. And because nuclear weapons are bad and inhumane and we want to stop their proliferation. I can't even imagine the consequences of what would happen if the crazies in Israel used the Bomb on all their pesky neighbors.
I'm sure you've read this already, but for those who haven't, there is an excellent history of the Israeli nuclear program available here: http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/nuke/f arr.htm
If that's true that more people complained about the enforcement of the ratings than about the prior lack of enforcement, why didn't you just revert to the original policy?
Not to criticize you personally as I'm sure your hands were tied by higher-ups, but I think the big reason this vocal minority succeeds in all this crap is that people aren't willing to stand up to them even when the majority of the public disagrees with what's going on. Are business owners so scared of these people that they would rather just let them trample the rights of everyone else? They should just tell them (politely) to go to hell.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe the reason for this is that current multicast sucks. If we have a truly globally routable network where everything has an address it won't suck so much any more.
If they do try, they will fail miserably. The lack of scarcity of addresses will destroy any central control of the address space. Without scarcity the commodity of IP addresses has no value. Basic economics there.
Electromagnetic radiation does travel at the speed of light and you're correct that they couldn't warn them against that. However, ionized particle radiation such as that from coronal mass ejections does NOT travel at the speed of light. It is much slower and hence ground controllers would be able to forecast when those particles would reach the Mars-bound spacecraft with decent accuracy and enough leadtime for the warning to be effective.
I found that mine worked virtually everywhere. It was a Visa one though. If your card is PLUS or Visa I think it'll work in virtually any ATM in Japan; if it's only compatible with one of the smaller ATM networks in the US then it probably won't.
Weird. I used my US debit card quite extensively in Japan this spring and I never got charged all those fees you are talking about. Granted, I was mostly using government-run ATM machines while there that I believe do not charge fees even if you are not a customer. But my bank sure didn't charge me any "disloyalty" or any of those currency exchange fees you are talking about. I was getting a pretty competitive exchange rate too (I was monitoring the amount actually debited from my account using Internet banking).
In Japan people seem to be a lot more considerate of others when using cellphones than here in the US. Most of the time people don't have audible ringers on when they are in a crowded space, or they use headphones plugged into their phones. Maybe it's not consideration for others so much as a different social norm, but it's very refreshing compared to here. When I've seen people in Japan playing games on their phones it was usually someone doing that silently on a train.
Granted, I'm sure that when this techonology finally makes it to the US in about 2 years we can count on American rudeness to make your scenario come true.
Yes...usually the time you see this is when they are talking about something like a place or person's name. That is by no means possible to clear up from context. Fortunately, it doesn't matter very often in regular conversation. If you're talking about a place or person that one person is unfamiliar with it's definitely necessary to write it down or point out which kanji it is if you want to be able to read it though. There are many many kanji for common names.
I also lived in Japan for about 6 months.
Yes, but that's a problem with the solution being proposed more than it's a problem with the entire concept of adding non-English domain names. I agree that this solution sucks but only because it's a sloppy fix to the overall problem. Domain names should definitely have full Unicode/UTF-8 support so that they are equally usable for everyone. And that should be done now so that the problem doesn't become worse to fix in the future as these "local" workarounds proliferate. And they will proliferate, because people do not like to have to learn a foreign language just to use the Internet.
Internationalization issues like this are going to be more and more of problem unless global fixes get applied. All computers should have the ability to input/display arbitrary human languages in my opinion.
Yes, it is. Because it's not just a few "umlauts". When you're talking about Asian or other non-Romanized languages then the Romanization may be totally incomprehensible to even some speakers of that language. It's one thing to lose a few accent marks and such but it's quite another to translate your language into a totally incomprehensible and unrelated format. In fact in kanji based languages at the very least Romanization actually LOSES information. It's not just a matter of transcribing the sounds into another format because the kanji carry additional meaning not present in just the phonetic lanaguage. If you've ever seen two native Chinese or Japanese speakers talk to each other they frequently will "write" kanji in the air or on the palm of the other person's hand with their fingers because their spoken language is imprecise.These changes are very necessary for the Internet to become a truly international phenomenon
I believe that spammers can tell whether you are reading their emails if they have images in them since the images usually load from a script that logs what email it was from. With the Mozilla spam filters I never read their emails and I think this eventually gets you off their list since they don't get a response. Spammers assume your address is inactive, and remove it.
Anyone else notice that if you put in a very general search term it claims to only produce 999 hits? Searches for both "Linux" and "Windows" produce this number.
Why the artificial limit? Or is this just another case of wildly inaccurate statistics on the first page of results like the regular MSN search?
On a side note, while the site looks a lot like Google News, it doesn't seem too bad to me. Maybe MS is getting the hint that impartiality of search results is the only way they will compete successfully with Google.
doh, sorry, my reply was intended for drsmithy's post.
Your argument is much weaker than your parent post on several points.
First, I don't buy your argument that someone shouldn't have to contribute all their usage of GPL code if the usage is "trivial". If it was so trivial, why couldn't they write it themself? Obviously the fact that they are using the GPL code means that it was important to their project/was not something they could do themself.
Second, no one is "extorting" your work from you if you choose to use their GPL code. YOU chose to use that code, which is someone else's property. As such, if you have any respect for property rights, you must abide by the terms the owner attached to its use and distribution. If your argument held, then it would be perfectly okay for me to ignore whatever is in a proprietary EULA. Or is it just that you think businesses shouldn't have to give away their code, but that everyone else who contributes to open source should have to serve as unpaid labor for them?
The open source drivers also suck. As in, 10% of the performance of the (closed source) Windows drivers on the same machine. So I question the level of ATI's support for open source drivers.
You actually benefit in this case because Microsoft continues to have viable competition. If they don't, they will just stop improving their product. Look at how much development of IE has stagnated now that it has a massive market share. They haven't added a meaningful feature in a year or more!
Microsoft products only improve if they have competition. So it's in your interest to make sure competition continues to exist.
Portage already does everything you just mentioned. Portage has stable and unstable "profiles" which will automatically update all your software to either the newest stable version or the newest version overall respectively. You can change which profile you are in at any time, or you can stick to stable and emerge individual packages from the unstable profile. Usually I stick to the stable tree for libraries and things like that that contribute to overall system stability and then manually install some unstable versions of specific applications that I am especially familiar with like Mozilla. Portage copes with this mixture just fine.
Also, you do NOT have to recompile your whole system whenever a new glibc or gcc or glib is installed. Portage, through a feature called SLOTS, allows you to have multiple versions of these packages installed side by side. Old versions will remain if you still have apps linked against them. You also do have the option to recompile everything if you want it all to use the new toolchain. In practice this is almost never necessary and has only been required once in the 1.5 years I've used Gentoo Linux (and then only for the GCC 2.x -> 3.x move). Even then it wasn't required but was recommended to ensure binary compatibility.
Gentoo's Portage is not exactly "based" on Ports. The code is entirely original and not an adaptation of BSD code. Inspired, yes; based on, no.
My car (a 2001 Camry with conventional fuel) can easily make that trip without refilling. I live about 300 miles from my college and my car makes the trip with more than half a tank remaining. Very nice for me considering that the place I live (Charleston, SC) has among the lowest gasoline prices in the nation due to location and low taxes. Nice to drive to school and then drive around for quite a long time without buying gas at higher prices in North Carolina.
They appear to render fine for me in Mozilla 1.4 under Windows and Linux.
First off, I don't think I disagree with you on this issue as much as you think I do. I don't deny that Israel is easily the most democratic country in the Middle East or that they have long been aligned with US interests. I'm not really arguing that Israel is evil or has acted badly with regard to their foreign policy. I don't have a serious problem with the Israeli government other than the nuclear weapons issue, and I certainly don't have a problem with Jews. I just think that it's unnecessary and dangerous for Israel to have such inhumane weapons.
Of course Israel will be aligned with the US and provide us with intelligence assistance. They are on the receiving end of a huge amount of US aid. Countries that we give large amounts of aid to generally like us. My question is, why can't that policy be extended beyond Israel? Why can't we give equal amounts of aid and protection to everyone involved and thus foster more good will rather than just one-sided anger and jealousy?
I don't consider the US to be any better than Israel on any of these issues and I certainly don't support the US deployment of nuclear weapons throughout the world. My problem is not so much with Israel as it is with US policy towards Israel and its neighbors.
Not knowing you, I don't know whether I'm more or less informed about the history of the Middle East in the twentieth century than you, so I won't argue that with you. I wouldn't consider myself too uninformed to talk about it or form opinions about it. I'm not getting my information just from the media - I've personally known several people from Israel, both Israeli and Palestinian. I based most of what I said on conversations with those people and things I've read. If you want to correct my facts feel free - I'm open to changing my mind. My father visited the West Bank several years ago as part of an international medical aid organization and told me quite a bit about his first hand experiences. For the most part he saw incredible poverty and heavily armed, arrogant Israelis. He actually changed his opinion to become more anti-Israel after returning from there. Comments from Israeli soldiers like "Why are you helping that scum?" didn't help.
Yes, I agree with you on that. They certainly could take over all their neighbors without resorting to the nuclear option. I don't think Israel is going to be using nuclear weapons anytime soon, and I don't think the current Israeli government is too inclined towards expansionism beyond the West Bank. But it's a fact that many Israelis hate Arabs just as much as the Arabs hate them. That makes the situation dangerous IMHO.
The other thing that worries me about Israeli nuclear weapons is the element of religious involvment in the region's politics. Israel currently controls a lot of small, concentrated sites that have a lot of emotion and religious sentiment wrapped up in them (like the Dome of the Rock/Wailing Wall area). Incidents involving those sorts of places make people behave in irrational ways. It's scary to me to think that some fanatic on either side could go demolish either of those sites with a homemade bomb and touch off a nuclear war.
Moral: religious fanatics of any religion scare me, and nuclear-armed states that are strongly influenced by religion scare me even more. I'm not against Jews or Muslims or Christians or anybody else, but I'm against any of those groups having the power to use nuclear weapons against those with clashing views. I don't care if you're Syria or Israel or whoever - no one in the Middle East should be playing with that fire.
Ever think that the reason so many people in the Middle East dislike Israel might have something to do with the huge nuclear arsenal pointed at each and every one of their cities? Or the fact that the US has been selectively supporting Israel through direct aid and diplomacy for decades?
It's amazing to me that anyone can dismiss Israel's WMD as inconsequential or justified. The US is tacitly approving of Israel's development of those weapons, and yet we invade and topple the government of an Arab nation that was merely suspected of possessing nuclear technology. That just might have something to do with the hatred for Israel.
Like it or not, suicide bombing is what got the Palestinians whatever weak bargaining position they have today. They can't fight against a modern military supported by billions in US aid and armed with nuclear weapons, so they do the only thing they can do to preserve the very existance of their own rights and freedoms. Palestinians support suicide bombing because without it Israelis would totally and completely smash their hopes for a state. It's their only bargaining chip and one that they can't give up if they don't want to see all their homes bulldozed for "settlements".
By that logic, the US should arm all the Arab nations with nuclear weapons too and give billions of dollars in military hardware to them. Because they "deserve" them just as much as the Israelis do. The reason why Israel shouldn't have nuclear weapons is because they are sitting in the most religously charged spot on earth, and because it hurts US interests to allow such an imbalanced foreign policy. And because nuclear weapons are bad and inhumane and we want to stop their proliferation. I can't even imagine the consequences of what would happen if the crazies in Israel used the Bomb on all their pesky neighbors.
I'm sure you've read this already, but for those who haven't, there is an excellent history of the Israeli nuclear program available here:f arr.htm
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/nuke/
If that's true that more people complained about the enforcement of the ratings than about the prior lack of enforcement, why didn't you just revert to the original policy?
Not to criticize you personally as I'm sure your hands were tied by higher-ups, but I think the big reason this vocal minority succeeds in all this crap is that people aren't willing to stand up to them even when the majority of the public disagrees with what's going on. Are business owners so scared of these people that they would rather just let them trample the rights of everyone else? They should just tell them (politely) to go to hell.