X needs to strip out everything it previously ever considered about Cut & Paste and get back to the design board, fast.
Fine. Fork it and do it your way. If X stops doing mouse select, I stop upgrading. I use it continuously. I used it to paste URLs into the Netscape window, and now I use it to paste URLs into Mozilla.
Sure, it takes a little to get used to, but its a power-user tool, allowing a user to short circuit the (frankly stupid) keyboard presses and work faster, and removing it will be telling the power users to bend over and take one for the newbies and grannies just like they do on PastelOS XP.
Yes. For instance, when giving presentations, it is not always possible to try out the projector ahead of time.
Yeah, that always pisses me off, I mean, I lug around my computer with its UPS squealing for half an hour just so that I don't have to restart X, and when I get to the podium, I discover that the projector won't accept a 90Hz signal and I've gotta restart X.
Man, that just ruins my day.
Seriously, though, XFree86 >4.0 detects the proper refresh rates for modern monitors on modern video cards that support pnp (forgot the actual protocol). Not only that, but you have always been able to adjust the refresh rates on the fly with xvidtune (not that that helps you if you can't see the screen, but what would you do on That Other OS if you can't see the screen? Reboot in safe mode? And thats better than X how?)
The way I see it, always-on tracking means using your receiver to find today's victim.
Sure, having a phone that knows where it is is a good thing. Telling everyone in the world that 555-1212 has been standing at the bus stop for 15 minutes, and that all the other cell phones in the area have moved on to somewhere else is most certainly not good. Not even close. And if they're going to let the restaurant down the street know where 555-1212 is, they're most certainly not aiming at the privacy I'd want for MY kids whereabouts. (I suppose I could teach my kid to say "no" to the cell phone tracking message when it comes up for everyone but me, if they really do implement that feature of letting people choose)
No, if I was going to give this to my kid, it would have to be on demand, with a password. I call 1800findkid, enter the cellphone number, enter my pin, and then it contacts the cellphone, some form of challenge authentication against the pin I had entered directly into the cellphone and the cellphone responds with its location.
I have almost 50hrs on that game off of two rentals.
I broke 200 a while ago, Laharl is now powerful enough to take on anyone but Prinny-Baal by himself. level 100 ultimate equipment loaded with specialists. Around then the game got kinda boring though. I'll put it back in some day and try for more endings, but right now I've got a couple of months worth of games I haven't been playing...
The fact is that for the last 40 years we have been under attack by dark skinned, funny speaking terrorists.
Wow. So you HAVE forgotten about McVeigh. And the beltway snipers (who may have been funny speaking but weren't Arabic, they were Jamaican) who terrorized part of our country in the past few years. And the Americans in Texas who were recently arrested for a poison gas plot.
So yeah, you can sit there on the shores of our country and point your finger overseas... but don't turn back around, it might just be that nothing is left behind you.
While the "politically correct" thing is to forbid profiling, it's the only way to focus law enforcement resources to the people that really need attention.
Except that profiling has spectacular failures.
Timothy McVeigh? Has he already been forgotten? Are all our terrorists now dark skinned and speak with an accent? If profiling foreigners is where law enforcement's attentions are focused, then we're in deep trouble.
OK, lets say we built a stronger building (as many others already pointed out to you, the building was designed to withstand the impact of a plane... and did, for long enough for a good number of people to escape with their lives.)
In the event of a terrorist attack, if successful, the building doesn't collapse. If it fails, the building collapses. If no special strenghening is done, the building collapses. Thus, the worst case is no worse than doing nothing (except in money spent).
Now, lets take a look at these automated anti-pilot measures. If they work, they prevent the terrorists from ramming buildings which are important enough to be on the list of "dont hit me" objects. However, there are many many ways of failure of software of this complexity. What if terrorists just had to fly N+1 planes (or model rockets, or jamming signals that look like a plane to the computer system) near the target to cause the software to flip out when it expected avoidance for only N planes at a time? What if terrorists jam the GPS signal (from inside the plane or outside the plane? I expect either way would be difficult but possible with a strong enough transmitter, perhaps fashioned out of metal bits from smashing up a flight attendant's food cart)? Then the plane would happily fly into the building on the way to jamaica or wherever it thinks its going.
Above I mentioned a "dont hit me" list, assuming that such a list exists. If instead the plane gets its list of no-fly-zones externally, what happens when you have a no fly zone above you, to the left of you, and to the right of you, and the software kicks in? Does the pilot get to stare in horror as the software decides down is the best way to go?
All of the above are potential successful terrorist actions. But wait! There could also be bugs in the software. 5 mile no-fly-zone for the goose 20 feet ahead of you! Dive! Dive! Just one failure due to these causing a crash without terrorist intervention would cause more damage than the "do nothing" case.
This also doesn't take into account the fact that the "do nothing" case has been successful. Whats a terrorist to do when a hard-working sociopath can't even light his shoe on a plane? Time has shown that nobody is going to allow terrorists in the passenger compartment to do anything. Now, someone mentioned that terrorist pilots would be stymied by this, but pilots would know the best way around it. If you leave Kansas City with a flight plan to New York, and the "dont hit me" list is downloaded based on your flight plan, well, I wasn't that interested in ever seeing Topeka anyway. Truthfully, if terrorists try to blow up airplanes again, they're going to do it from the outside or from the cargo hold. They'd time it so the wreckage fell on some big city.
Face it. This technology is more dangerous than safe. Most people wouldn't want to be the guinea pigs for insert_random_drug_research here, especially if they weren't told that they were part of a test group. And yet, thats almost certainly what people who fly in these will be. I think I'll stay on the ground until these planes pass beta testing after a few years of use. (I can see it now, after the first plane crashes near a no-fly zone: "Gee, thats not what the simulator said it would do.")
What is good and what is evil? This very topic is explored by some of the deeper anime series and movies out there (IE, not pokemon or pokemon-clones). In many good shows, nobody carries a sign announcing their intentions either way. Take Princess Mononoke, for instance: Are the industrialists who are destroying the forests and the native peoples' way of life evil? Are the natives who are fighting back evil? And then there are the shows that don't operate on the same concepts of conflict that American shows do, such as Haibane Renmei or Niea Under 7, both of which illustrate caste systems and racism in interesting ways.
But this thought-provoking nature is what draws me to these shows. Take the time to watch a "good" show (hint: if its on tv, its aimed at the mass market and is typically not so good. Watch a few episodes yourself, and if its got more flashing lights than an ambulance, its mass market kiddy fare). After you've seen it yourself and feel you're comfortable with the subject, watch it with your children and open the floor for discussion.
If your children are later-middle-school or high-school aged, you should pick up His and Her Circumstances, a romantic comedy/drama that shows that peer pressure and worrying about one's appearance is pretty constant anywhere in the world. If you want your children to become tree-hugging vegans, there's also Arjuna (seriously. Don't watch this if you are the least bit squeamish or offended by environmentalists). Rurouni Kenshin might satisfy your a desire for action, while starring a hero who believes above all else that killing is wrong and who goes to extraordinary lengths to avoid doing so to his enemies (not to say that killing and blood and gore does not happen... the enemies, and even his friends don't share the same morality).
Remember above all else, life is rated PG. If parents weren't required, children would simply pop into existance on their own. Take some time with your children to let them know you disapprove of the shows they are watching, take some time to explain why. Decide if you believe your children are mature enough to seperate what they see on tv from reality, and if they don't, offer some alternatives, whether they be different shows, or reading a book, or heck, go out and throw a frisbee or a ball or something.
Except its not anonymous once you've paid for it. Sure you could pay cash, but when the cops come around to see about whatever you're doing that requires anonymity, what are you going to do when you're known as the only person who paid in cash?
As for whether its worth $10/hour, thats for the marketplace to decide. If enoug buisnessmen come in who need to check their email before visiting a client; log in to update an important presentation, or have another need that worth $10/hour then they'll lower their price.
HAHAHA have you seen the drooling zombies that pass for businesspeople these days? Supply and Demand whatsits? If it doesn't sell for $10/hour then obviously nobody wants wifi. They'll just can it and spend the money to rip the access points back out. The beancounters are too busy trying to find their jaw after kicking it under the desk while shuffling around to think "gee, if we charged less, more people would use it." They probably look at the 3 or 4 people who use the service a day per shop, and call that the supply/demand curve maximum, regardless of whether it is or isn't.
No, whats really needed is for the hardware developers to GROW UP and realize this isn't the Ad Lib generation anymore.
Once upon a time back in the bad old days, there was this company we'll call "Creative". They produced a card called the "Soundblaster" and released the specs for it so that companies could produce games that used this "Soundblaster". Back then, drivers were a rare breed, and the "Soundblaster" enjoyed its market position of being the only sound card to work with many games.
For a few months. Then other hardware companies used the specs to produce "Soundblaster-compatible" clones, and ruined Creative's market position.
But then, "Windows" came about. Part of the function of a Real operating system is to provide an abstraction layer between software and hardware, and "Drivers" are one way to do that. Now, games were written to use Windows, and automatically used whatever soundcard was available. Soundcard competition moved from the monopolistic "My card is the only one supported" to a feature and quality based competition.
And things were good.
But some companies are still afraid of releasing their specs. They don't realize that thanks to the wonder of modern operating systems, any card could replace theirs, specifications or not.
The car isn't made of people. A corporation is made of people.
True, but just because they form a corporation does not transfer their individual rights to the corporation. 100 people forming a company does not create a group that can (legally) cast 101 votes, unless you're diebold.
An attack on "Corporate Rights" is actually an attack on the indiviual rights of the human beings who own the Corporation.
Explain to me how the corporation "inherits" these rights from its owner. Be sure to use an example illustrating this process, such as how I would give the car I own the right to free speech.
I seem to have been misunderstood. I'm not referring to protection as in minimum wage or environmental standards or exploitation...
The US (and other) governments collect tariffs on certain things from other countries to raise their prices and protect the higher prices being charged by American farmers, manufacturers, etc.
However, if a company chooses to have labor from another country, not only is there no tariff, but the company is not responsible for US taxes on their salaries (which is probably more than India would charge, though being an American, I only know what I pay in taxes.) These charges would raise the costs of labor outside of the country, "protecting" the rates within the country.
Thats the protection that I'm referring to, and right now we (be "we" textile workers, programmers, factory employees, or whatever else is leaving the country today) have none.
The current situation is just broken, and benefits nobody in the long run. Foriegners whore themselves out for less cash than they're worth, Americans don't see the results of this competition in the prices they pay.
Why do you think an American deserves a job more than some hard-working, enterprising person in Bangalore [or wherever]? (PS: I'm american.)
Why do you think a corporation deserves market protection from cheap foreign goods if they're exploiting the lack of labor protection?
If companies want to play the "global market" game, then either A) labor should have tarrifs or B) goods should not. Make it fair for everyone involved. Joe Normal will be able to afford to continue his lifestyle after being laid off in favor of people from Esbotsunania who do a quarter of the work for a tenth of the pay. At hourly wages, he'd probably even be able to buy more DVDs at hong kong prices, more toys for his kids imported direct from china without all those brand names. And afford cheap software written in India by the independent programmers who are not owned by American corporations (or those who defect from their outsourcing agreement and set up a competing shop).
If I send out a request for "myfavoritesong.mp3" and then other nodes on the network start sending me packets.
Ah, but as part of the network, you would be receiving and forwarding other peoples' responses too (unless you're abusing the network, in which case you deserve to be tracked down;) So, just because packets come to you doesn't mean they were part of your request.
Something like this could be easily turned into a freenet with less secrecy and more privacy by establishing a mesh of nodes, each with the keys of their neighbors, and each with a three-part request table. Node X encrypts Request #12531324 to each of its neighbor nodes sends it and records "I made Request #12531324". Neighbor Node Y decrypts the request, checks to see if it can answer it, then encrypts the request with each of its neighbor nodes, records "I got #12531324 from Node X". This step is repeated until it reaches Node Z, who can respond to the request (for brevity, we'll assume that the next node is Z). It responds with Response #19591531 to Request #12531324. This response isn't the data of the file, just a "this file exists here". Node Y gets the response, looks in the request table, and finds that it got request #12531324 from node X. It makes an entry in the table saying "I got Response #19591531 from Node Z".
Finally, the user at Node X sits back down after grabbing a drink and sees that responses have started coming back for his search for "Scream*avi". Looking through the list of choices, he finds that scream 2 encode he's been missing to complete his collection. He clicks on Response #19591531, and Node X sends a message to Y saying "Fulfill Response #19591531". Node Y knows this response came from Z, so it forwards it to Z. Z sends data to Y, Y sends data to X. Loops are identified and terminated when a node handling a request finds that it already has handled that request in its table.
So, now unlike freenet any particular node can determine whats being forwarded through it (since it decrypts every bit of data to pass it on to the next node). However, privacy is maintained: If node MPAA requests scream 3, it receives only data from neighbor-nodes, with only information about those neighbor-nodes. If Node MPAA receives a request from Node X, MPAA does not know whether X itself made the request or if X is forwarding that request from someone else. If Node MPAA responds to a request, it only talks to the Node that gave it the request in the first place.
In order to compromise this privacy, MPAA would need to either a) read the request table of every node between and including X and Z, or b) BE every node in the network, except for X and Z, so that they know the request could not have come from anywhere other than X and gone to anywhere other than Z.
Other things to improve usability (possibly at the risk of allowing users to cripple the network): Request and Response nodes could bear a "max_bandwidth" field, which could be lowered by a slow node but never raised, and used by Node X when determining which response to accept. Node Z could wait a random amount of time to formulate the Response (if MPAA requests foo from Z and Z answers immediately, then Z is a likely candidate for being the host of the file).
Part of the reason for "secrecy" though, where nobody but Z and Y knows *what* is in the data, is that if Node MPAA receives Scream 2 from Node Z, even though Z may or may not be hosting it themselves, the MPAA may get to sue them for helping whoever hosted it give it to whoever requested it.
Whatever happened to the concept of a free market economy?
Silly consumer, the global "free" market is only for companies looking to get cheap labor elsewhere! Mere humans are not permitted to participate in this so called "global economy".
Well, if the chrome page existed before May 20, 1998 then it can be introduced as prior art (as long as that covers the actual claims in the patent). Patents in the US are granted from the date of filing, and it is assumed that the invention was invented up to a year prior to that. (This assumption comes from the fact that you cannot patent something that has been in use for more than a year.)
Depending on your distribution its either crypt or MD5 hashing. Most modern distributions give you a choice: MD5 hash for long password support and security, crypt for supporting legacy applications that don't use standard calls for checking the password in whatever format.
I understand that way back at the Dawn of Time, Creative published the soundblaster specs and interface so that game creators could produce games that worked with it. And the result was dozens of "knockoff" cards that were produced far cheaper than the soundblaster, and could boast compatibility, which was important because back in those days there was no such thing as "abstraction layers" and barely anything you could call an "operating system".
However, in these days, why do companies continue to do this? Unlike back then when games only used a soundblaster, applications now use the operating system and library calls to produce output of whatever kind. Arguing that revealing the driver or the interface to the card would allow people to clone their card is rather silly. Sure, someone could spend a lot of money to develop a card that operates exactly like your card, and therefore skip the driver development step, but is there a savings in that? And would the hardware operate sufficiently alike to make it a "drop-in" replacement (especially in these days of complex graphics hardware).
So not releasing your source because "someone will develop a drop-in replacement for our hardware and drive us out of the market" is no longer a valid excuse, because thanks to the wonders of drivers in the first place, all hardware became drop-in replacements for other hardware. Does anyone have another excuse?
Slashdot Mirror
X needs to strip out everything it previously ever considered about Cut & Paste and get back to the design board, fast.
Fine. Fork it and do it your way. If X stops doing mouse select, I stop upgrading. I use it continuously. I used it to paste URLs into the Netscape window, and now I use it to paste URLs into Mozilla.
Sure, it takes a little to get used to, but its a power-user tool, allowing a user to short circuit the (frankly stupid) keyboard presses and work faster, and removing it will be telling the power users to bend over and take one for the newbies and grannies just like they do on PastelOS XP.
Yes. For instance, when giving presentations, it is not always possible to try out the projector ahead of time.
Yeah, that always pisses me off, I mean, I lug around my computer with its UPS squealing for half an hour just so that I don't have to restart X, and when I get to the podium, I discover that the projector won't accept a 90Hz signal and I've gotta restart X.
Man, that just ruins my day.
Seriously, though, XFree86 >4.0 detects the proper refresh rates for modern monitors on modern video cards that support pnp (forgot the actual protocol). Not only that, but you have always been able to adjust the refresh rates on the fly with xvidtune (not that that helps you if you can't see the screen, but what would you do on That Other OS if you can't see the screen? Reboot in safe mode? And thats better than X how?)
The way I see it, always-on tracking means using your receiver to find today's victim.
Sure, having a phone that knows where it is is a good thing. Telling everyone in the world that 555-1212 has been standing at the bus stop for 15 minutes, and that all the other cell phones in the area have moved on to somewhere else is most certainly not good. Not even close. And if they're going to let the restaurant down the street know where 555-1212 is, they're most certainly not aiming at the privacy I'd want for MY kids whereabouts. (I suppose I could teach my kid to say "no" to the cell phone tracking message when it comes up for everyone but me, if they really do implement that feature of letting people choose)
No, if I was going to give this to my kid, it would have to be on demand, with a password. I call 1800findkid, enter the cellphone number, enter my pin, and then it contacts the cellphone, some form of challenge authentication against the pin I had entered directly into the cellphone and the cellphone responds with its location.
I have almost 50hrs on that game off of two rentals.
I broke 200 a while ago, Laharl is now powerful enough to take on anyone but Prinny-Baal by himself. level 100 ultimate equipment loaded with specialists. Around then the game got kinda boring though. I'll put it back in some day and try for more endings, but right now I've got a couple of months worth of games I haven't been playing...
The fact is that for the last 40 years we have been under attack by dark skinned, funny speaking terrorists.
Wow. So you HAVE forgotten about McVeigh. And the beltway snipers (who may have been funny speaking but weren't Arabic, they were Jamaican) who terrorized part of our country in the past few years. And the Americans in Texas who were recently arrested for a poison gas plot.
So yeah, you can sit there on the shores of our country and point your finger overseas... but don't turn back around, it might just be that nothing is left behind you.
While the "politically correct" thing is to forbid profiling, it's the only way to focus law enforcement resources to the people that really need attention.
Except that profiling has spectacular failures.
Timothy McVeigh? Has he already been forgotten? Are all our terrorists now dark skinned and speak with an accent? If profiling foreigners is where law enforcement's attentions are focused, then we're in deep trouble.
Just remember, when wardriving, don't surf for child porn pantsless while driving the wrong way on a one way street.
OK, lets say we built a stronger building (as many others already pointed out to you, the building was designed to withstand the impact of a plane... and did, for long enough for a good number of people to escape with their lives.)
In the event of a terrorist attack, if successful, the building doesn't collapse. If it fails, the building collapses. If no special strenghening is done, the building collapses. Thus, the worst case is no worse than doing nothing (except in money spent).
Now, lets take a look at these automated anti-pilot measures. If they work, they prevent the terrorists from ramming buildings which are important enough to be on the list of "dont hit me" objects. However, there are many many ways of failure of software of this complexity. What if terrorists just had to fly N+1 planes (or model rockets, or jamming signals that look like a plane to the computer system) near the target to cause the software to flip out when it expected avoidance for only N planes at a time? What if terrorists jam the GPS signal (from inside the plane or outside the plane? I expect either way would be difficult but possible with a strong enough transmitter, perhaps fashioned out of metal bits from smashing up a flight attendant's food cart)? Then the plane would happily fly into the building on the way to jamaica or wherever it thinks its going.
Above I mentioned a "dont hit me" list, assuming that such a list exists. If instead the plane gets its list of no-fly-zones externally, what happens when you have a no fly zone above you, to the left of you, and to the right of you, and the software kicks in? Does the pilot get to stare in horror as the software decides down is the best way to go?
All of the above are potential successful terrorist actions. But wait! There could also be bugs in the software. 5 mile no-fly-zone for the goose 20 feet ahead of you! Dive! Dive! Just one failure due to these causing a crash without terrorist intervention would cause more damage than the "do nothing" case.
This also doesn't take into account the fact that the "do nothing" case has been successful. Whats a terrorist to do when a hard-working sociopath can't even light his shoe on a plane? Time has shown that nobody is going to allow terrorists in the passenger compartment to do anything. Now, someone mentioned that terrorist pilots would be stymied by this, but pilots would know the best way around it. If you leave Kansas City with a flight plan to New York, and the "dont hit me" list is downloaded based on your flight plan, well, I wasn't that interested in ever seeing Topeka anyway. Truthfully, if terrorists try to blow up airplanes again, they're going to do it from the outside or from the cargo hold. They'd time it so the wreckage fell on some big city.
Face it. This technology is more dangerous than safe. Most people wouldn't want to be the guinea pigs for insert_random_drug_research here, especially if they weren't told that they were part of a test group. And yet, thats almost certainly what people who fly in these will be. I think I'll stay on the ground until these planes pass beta testing after a few years of use. (I can see it now, after the first plane crashes near a no-fly zone: "Gee, thats not what the simulator said it would do.")
It is extremely reliable.
Maybe not as reliable as they thought?
What is good and what is evil? This very topic is explored by some of the deeper anime series and movies out there (IE, not pokemon or pokemon-clones). In many good shows, nobody carries a sign announcing their intentions either way. Take Princess Mononoke, for instance: Are the industrialists who are destroying the forests and the native peoples' way of life evil? Are the natives who are fighting back evil? And then there are the shows that don't operate on the same concepts of conflict that American shows do, such as Haibane Renmei or Niea Under 7, both of which illustrate caste systems and racism in interesting ways.
But this thought-provoking nature is what draws me to these shows. Take the time to watch a "good" show (hint: if its on tv, its aimed at the mass market and is typically not so good. Watch a few episodes yourself, and if its got more flashing lights than an ambulance, its mass market kiddy fare). After you've seen it yourself and feel you're comfortable with the subject, watch it with your children and open the floor for discussion.
If your children are later-middle-school or high-school aged, you should pick up His and Her Circumstances, a romantic comedy/drama that shows that peer pressure and worrying about one's appearance is pretty constant anywhere in the world. If you want your children to become tree-hugging vegans, there's also Arjuna (seriously. Don't watch this if you are the least bit squeamish or offended by environmentalists). Rurouni Kenshin might satisfy your a desire for action, while starring a hero who believes above all else that killing is wrong and who goes to extraordinary lengths to avoid doing so to his enemies (not to say that killing and blood and gore does not happen... the enemies, and even his friends don't share the same morality).
Remember above all else, life is rated PG. If parents weren't required, children would simply pop into existance on their own. Take some time with your children to let them know you disapprove of the shows they are watching, take some time to explain why. Decide if you believe your children are mature enough to seperate what they see on tv from reality, and if they don't, offer some alternatives, whether they be different shows, or reading a book, or heck, go out and throw a frisbee or a ball or something.
a $10 investment in anonymous access is a steal!
Except its not anonymous once you've paid for it. Sure you could pay cash, but when the cops come around to see about whatever you're doing that requires anonymity, what are you going to do when you're known as the only person who paid in cash?
As for whether its worth $10/hour, thats for the marketplace to decide. If enoug buisnessmen come in who need to check their email before visiting a client; log in to update an important presentation, or have another need that worth $10/hour then they'll lower their price.
HAHAHA have you seen the drooling zombies that pass for businesspeople these days? Supply and Demand whatsits? If it doesn't sell for $10/hour then obviously nobody wants wifi. They'll just can it and spend the money to rip the access points back out. The beancounters are too busy trying to find their jaw after kicking it under the desk while shuffling around to think "gee, if we charged less, more people would use it." They probably look at the 3 or 4 people who use the service a day per shop, and call that the supply/demand curve maximum, regardless of whether it is or isn't.
Man, mine has been spinning around and spitting out pea soup. I wish it had been leaking radiation, there'd be nothing to clean up...
No, whats really needed is for the hardware developers to GROW UP and realize this isn't the Ad Lib generation anymore.
Once upon a time back in the bad old days, there was this company we'll call "Creative". They produced a card called the "Soundblaster" and released the specs for it so that companies could produce games that used this "Soundblaster". Back then, drivers were a rare breed, and the "Soundblaster" enjoyed its market position of being the only sound card to work with many games.
For a few months. Then other hardware companies used the specs to produce "Soundblaster-compatible" clones, and ruined Creative's market position.
But then, "Windows" came about. Part of the function of a Real operating system is to provide an abstraction layer between software and hardware, and "Drivers" are one way to do that. Now, games were written to use Windows, and automatically used whatever soundcard was available. Soundcard competition moved from the monopolistic "My card is the only one supported" to a feature and quality based competition.
And things were good.
But some companies are still afraid of releasing their specs. They don't realize that thanks to the wonder of modern operating systems, any card could replace theirs, specifications or not.
The car isn't made of people. A corporation is made of people.
True, but just because they form a corporation does not transfer their individual rights to the corporation. 100 people forming a company does not create a group that can (legally) cast 101 votes, unless you're diebold.
An attack on "Corporate Rights" is actually an attack on the indiviual rights of the human beings who own the Corporation.
Explain to me how the corporation "inherits" these rights from its owner. Be sure to use an example illustrating this process, such as how I would give the car I own the right to free speech.
I seem to have been misunderstood. I'm not referring to protection as in minimum wage or environmental standards or exploitation...
The US (and other) governments collect tariffs on certain things from other countries to raise their prices and protect the higher prices being charged by American farmers, manufacturers, etc.
However, if a company chooses to have labor from another country, not only is there no tariff, but the company is not responsible for US taxes on their salaries (which is probably more than India would charge, though being an American, I only know what I pay in taxes.) These charges would raise the costs of labor outside of the country, "protecting" the rates within the country.
Thats the protection that I'm referring to, and right now we (be "we" textile workers, programmers, factory employees, or whatever else is leaving the country today) have none.
The current situation is just broken, and benefits nobody in the long run. Foriegners whore themselves out for less cash than they're worth, Americans don't see the results of this competition in the prices they pay.
And yes, I hold Clinton responsible - completely.
I hold the Democrats responsible for causing it, and the Republicans responsible for continuing it.
Why do you think an American deserves a job more than some hard-working, enterprising person in Bangalore [or wherever]? (PS: I'm american.)
Why do you think a corporation deserves market protection from cheap foreign goods if they're exploiting the lack of labor protection?
If companies want to play the "global market" game, then either A) labor should have tarrifs or B) goods should not. Make it fair for everyone involved. Joe Normal will be able to afford to continue his lifestyle after being laid off in favor of people from Esbotsunania who do a quarter of the work for a tenth of the pay. At hourly wages, he'd probably even be able to buy more DVDs at hong kong prices, more toys for his kids imported direct from china without all those brand names. And afford cheap software written in India by the independent programmers who are not owned by American corporations (or those who defect from their outsourcing agreement and set up a competing shop).
what the heck is twee?
If I send out a request for "myfavoritesong.mp3" and then other nodes on the network start sending me packets.
;) So, just because packets come to you doesn't mean they were part of your request.
Ah, but as part of the network, you would be receiving and forwarding other peoples' responses too (unless you're abusing the network, in which case you deserve to be tracked down
Something like this could be easily turned into a freenet with less secrecy and more privacy by establishing a mesh of nodes, each with the keys of their neighbors, and each with a three-part request table. Node X encrypts Request #12531324 to each of its neighbor nodes sends it and records "I made Request #12531324". Neighbor Node Y decrypts the request, checks to see if it can answer it, then encrypts the request with each of its neighbor nodes, records "I got #12531324 from Node X". This step is repeated until it reaches Node Z, who can respond to the request (for brevity, we'll assume that the next node is Z). It responds with Response #19591531 to Request #12531324. This response isn't the data of the file, just a "this file exists here". Node Y gets the response, looks in the request table, and finds that it got request #12531324 from node X. It makes an entry in the table saying "I got Response #19591531 from Node Z".
Finally, the user at Node X sits back down after grabbing a drink and sees that responses have started coming back for his search for "Scream*avi". Looking through the list of choices, he finds that scream 2 encode he's been missing to complete his collection. He clicks on Response #19591531, and Node X sends a message to Y saying "Fulfill Response #19591531". Node Y knows this response came from Z, so it forwards it to Z. Z sends data to Y, Y sends data to X. Loops are identified and terminated when a node handling a request finds that it already has handled that request in its table.
So, now unlike freenet any particular node can determine whats being forwarded through it (since it decrypts every bit of data to pass it on to the next node). However, privacy is maintained: If node MPAA requests scream 3, it receives only data from neighbor-nodes, with only information about those neighbor-nodes. If Node MPAA receives a request from Node X, MPAA does not know whether X itself made the request or if X is forwarding that request from someone else. If Node MPAA responds to a request, it only talks to the Node that gave it the request in the first place.
In order to compromise this privacy, MPAA would need to either a) read the request table of every node between and including X and Z, or b) BE every node in the network, except for X and Z, so that they know the request could not have come from anywhere other than X and gone to anywhere other than Z.
Other things to improve usability (possibly at the risk of allowing users to cripple the network): Request and Response nodes could bear a "max_bandwidth" field, which could be lowered by a slow node but never raised, and used by Node X when determining which response to accept. Node Z could wait a random amount of time to formulate the Response (if MPAA requests foo from Z and Z answers immediately, then Z is a likely candidate for being the host of the file).
Part of the reason for "secrecy" though, where nobody but Z and Y knows *what* is in the data, is that if Node MPAA receives Scream 2 from Node Z, even though Z may or may not be hosting it themselves, the MPAA may get to sue them for helping whoever hosted it give it to whoever requested it.
Whatever happened to the concept of a free market economy?
Silly consumer, the global "free" market is only for companies looking to get cheap labor elsewhere! Mere humans are not permitted to participate in this so called "global economy".
Well, if the chrome page existed before May 20, 1998 then it can be introduced as prior art (as long as that covers the actual claims in the patent). Patents in the US are granted from the date of filing, and it is assumed that the invention was invented up to a year prior to that. (This assumption comes from the fact that you cannot patent something that has been in use for more than a year.)
The US uses a first-to-file method for solving disputes, not first-to-invent. This is how Elisha Gray lost the title of inventor of the telephone by a matter of hours.
Depending on your distribution its either crypt or MD5 hashing. Most modern distributions give you a choice: MD5 hash for long password support and security, crypt for supporting legacy applications that don't use standard calls for checking the password in whatever format.
I understand that way back at the Dawn of Time, Creative published the soundblaster specs and interface so that game creators could produce games that worked with it. And the result was dozens of "knockoff" cards that were produced far cheaper than the soundblaster, and could boast compatibility, which was important because back in those days there was no such thing as "abstraction layers" and barely anything you could call an "operating system".
However, in these days, why do companies continue to do this? Unlike back then when games only used a soundblaster, applications now use the operating system and library calls to produce output of whatever kind. Arguing that revealing the driver or the interface to the card would allow people to clone their card is rather silly. Sure, someone could spend a lot of money to develop a card that operates exactly like your card, and therefore skip the driver development step, but is there a savings in that? And would the hardware operate sufficiently alike to make it a "drop-in" replacement (especially in these days of complex graphics hardware).
So not releasing your source because "someone will develop a drop-in replacement for our hardware and drive us out of the market" is no longer a valid excuse, because thanks to the wonders of drivers in the first place, all hardware became drop-in replacements for other hardware. Does anyone have another excuse?