Microsoft is incorporating features into its operating system that they have taken copious amounts of flak for not having over the years.
I don't think MS is being taken to task for not incorporating software like AV scanners, they're taking flak for making them so very necessary to begin with./Analogy Alert
MS is in the business of building foundations. The ground shifts, foundations crack, leak and become less stable. Many companies exist that provide pump systems to drain leakage, patches for fixing cracks, anti-fungus/mildew companies, etc.
I don't want MS to get into any of those businesses and "bundle" it with the foundation. I want MS to focus on building a better foundation to begin with. Yes, bundling those services may seem beneficial at first, but then when you're making gobs of cash on those auxillary businesses, where's the incentive to make better foundations? What happens to the quality of service when those other businesses disappear?
So I take MS to task for not focusing more on its foundation, the OS, and including all the other stuff as a shortcut or bandage to fix a serious problem.
So what you're saying is if we add more thrusters, so the vehicle could leave the ground and rotate, it might work?
Seriously though, I disagree with your assessment. The car should be much simpler tor the very reason you state -fewer degrees of freedom in the movement. You only need to worry about lert/right and forward/back, not up/down and rotation (those are pretty well fixed for cars on a road).
I knew something didn't look right -Thanks. OTOH, its/., if I spelled everything correctly I'd really look out of place.
WRT the rest, I'm somewhat surprised people do this other than just to "mess around". I guess its one of those cases where if it matters, it really matters.
Users in demanding fields such as biosciences or meteorology do hack OS kernels to slim them down, alter the balance between throughput and computing, and to open them to the resources of a massive grid.
Sounds pretty useful to sophisticated OS X users to me!
I saw that part, and my first thought was, is that really true? Many hack the OS as a whole, but not the kernal. Is there a single example of someone hacking the kernal in a "production" system?
"Faced with opposition from conservative groups and some pornography web sites" (emphasis mine).
Many seem to miss that last part. AFAIK, nobody actually liked the idea. Not liberals, not conservatives, not the porn industry. Who's idea was this anyway?
IMO "legitimate" porn sites would want to be in the.xxx domain. Because anyone looking to spend some money on porn would start by looking there.
By "legitimate" I mean porn sites that clearly want to exchange the viewing of porn for hard cash. Not the ones that are essentially scam sites. They also tend not to worry too much about being blocked, because their customers are adults looking to do business with them. Not kiddies looking for a quick freebie from the school media center.
And who would decide what exactly constitutes a 'red light business'?
It may be a naive view, but IMO the web sites themselves should decide.
My first assumption is that porn sites are in it for the money.
My second assumption is that anyone looking to spend some money on porn would start in the xxx domain if available.
Thus the "red light" district would develop on the internet just like it does anywhere else. Everyone looking for that "certain something" knows where to look. So if you're selling a "certain something" you know where you need to be. OTOH, if you're not looking, you know where not to be -though that doesn't guarantee you won't run into it, it reduces your chances.
As for not wanting to give up an established.com address? Don't need to. Just point it to (or run it through) a.xxx address and the filters will work fine.
Yes, everyone seems to forget that people across the political spectrum were against this. Seen from the right, is was a tool for propogating porn. Seen from the left, it was a tool for censorship. Seen from the middle, who cares one way or the other?
Considering the breed of animal they're using, I think they'd have better luck with this than the RIAA at training its "breed" to detect only pirated music on the internet.
Maybe if the RIAA used Snausages in their training too, they'd have better luck.
Yeah. "Hacked military computers" could be the ones made available for military personal and their families to web surf or send email home. When using that phrase though, it always makes it sound like top secret, holds the codes for the US nuclear arsenal type of break-in.
Is there a loss - monetary, security - directly attributed to this action?
Yes. If you are a US taxpayer, you foot the bill for a very expensive investigation. This was treated as a hostile attack, even if in the end it proves not to be.
I suppose the "I was just looking for aliens" defense will be used by everyone found breaking into government computers now. Obviously you're innocent if you say you're just looking for aliens...
It might also make sense to push screen reader support to the API or OS level. Any text API's should be written with this kind of support built in IMO.
Don't bother hunting for a download. It's not available. The ODF Plugin came out of testing last week. I wish i could say we did this last night, but it's been at least a year in development.
Above quote from message posted by Gary Edwards, one of the principles at OpenDocument Foundation.
It bugs me, it makes me believe him more than a casually dismissive sentence would. What did he see? Why do they want to gag him so bad?
OTOH it is the way the legal system works -he gets charged with everything they think they may have enough evidence to convict on. That not only "covers all the bases", but it makes it easier to get a confession for lesser charges which may seem more in-line with the crimes (and also makes for bigger headlines). So I'm not sure you can really infer any kind of ulterior motive beyond that (not that there may not be some).
Personally, I think we have enough to deal with in the US. Let the UK deal with the trial, etc. if they're willing to do it. Having said that, I have to wonder what type of punishment he could be facing in the UK if convicted there? I haven't seen that reported either.
Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft is incorporating features into its operating system that they have taken copious amounts of flak for not having over the years.
/Analogy Alert
I don't think MS is being taken to task for not incorporating software like AV scanners, they're taking flak for making them so very necessary to begin with.
MS is in the business of building foundations. The ground shifts, foundations crack, leak and become less stable. Many companies exist that provide pump systems to drain leakage, patches for fixing cracks, anti-fungus/mildew companies, etc.
I don't want MS to get into any of those businesses and "bundle" it with the foundation. I want MS to focus on building a better foundation to begin with. Yes, bundling those services may seem beneficial at first, but then when you're making gobs of cash on those auxillary businesses, where's the incentive to make better foundations? What happens to the quality of service when those other businesses disappear?
So I take MS to task for not focusing more on its foundation, the OS, and including all the other stuff as a shortcut or bandage to fix a serious problem.
So what you're saying is if we add more thrusters, so the vehicle could leave the ground and rotate, it might work?
Seriously though, I disagree with your assessment. The car should be much simpler tor the very reason you state -fewer degrees of freedom in the movement. You only need to worry about lert/right and forward/back, not up/down and rotation (those are pretty well fixed for cars on a road).
Btw, its kernel, not kernal.
/., if I spelled everything correctly I'd really look out of place.
I knew something didn't look right -Thanks. OTOH, its
WRT the rest, I'm somewhat surprised people do this other than just to "mess around". I guess its one of those cases where if it matters, it really matters.
Perhaps you missed this part of the article:
Users in demanding fields such as biosciences or meteorology do hack OS kernels to slim them down, alter the balance between throughput and computing, and to open them to the resources of a massive grid.
Sounds pretty useful to sophisticated OS X users to me!
I saw that part, and my first thought was, is that really true? Many hack the OS as a whole, but not the kernal. Is there a single example of someone hacking the kernal in a "production" system?
So you really do believe that open source software should be viral in that anyone who uses it should be forced to open up all their code?
Not that there's anything wrong with that -there are good arguments in favor of that view. The problem is that corporate reality sucks sometimes.
And everything you said only verifies that apple "did a better job of making stuff people want".
People don't want "technically better at this" and "technically better at that". They want, "Its cool and works great."
That's what Apple sold, because that's what people want.
That's when the patent was granted. I believe protection goes back to when the application was submitted, often several years prior.
*sigh*
.xxx domain.
No, everyone has to do what the left-wing free-speech supporters say is right.
Or do we have to do what the porn industry says is right?
Because those groups were just as intense about their opposition to a
But yes, if you don't like something, feel free to blame "right-wing Christian US politicians". They surely had something to do with it.
As I said ealier, IMO the only good reason for having the .xxx domain is if there are people and/or companies who want to use it -let them use it.
Creating the domain with the goal of "pushing" content there is a seriously flawed idea.
I'd just like to quote,
"Faced with opposition from conservative groups and some pornography web sites" (emphasis mine).
Many seem to miss that last part. AFAIK, nobody actually liked the idea. Not liberals, not conservatives, not the porn industry. Who's idea was this anyway?
Sucks that the Internet is under the control of these religious fundermentalists...
You mean the ones in the porn industry who opposed this?
Or the liberal religious fundamentalists who saw this heading down the road to censorship?
I'm left wondering, who actually wanted this in the first place???
IMO "legitimate" porn sites would want to be in the .xxx domain. Because anyone looking to spend some money on porn would start by looking there.
By "legitimate" I mean porn sites that clearly want to exchange the viewing of porn for hard cash. Not the ones that are essentially scam sites. They also tend not to worry too much about being blocked, because their customers are adults looking to do business with them. Not kiddies looking for a quick freebie from the school media center.
And who would decide what exactly constitutes a 'red light business'?
.com address? Don't need to. Just point it to (or run it through) a .xxx address and the filters will work fine.
It may be a naive view, but IMO the web sites themselves should decide.
My first assumption is that porn sites are in it for the money.
My second assumption is that anyone looking to spend some money on porn would start in the xxx domain if available.
Thus the "red light" district would develop on the internet just like it does anywhere else. Everyone looking for that "certain something" knows where to look. So if you're selling a "certain something" you know where you need to be. OTOH, if you're not looking, you know where not to be -though that doesn't guarantee you won't run into it, it reduces your chances.
As for not wanting to give up an established
Well, it seems that there is no solid ground for most arguments for or against.
I agree. IMO the only solid reason for having it is it there are people/companies who want to use it, not because people want to filter it.
Yes, everyone seems to forget that people across the political spectrum were against this. Seen from the right, is was a tool for propogating porn. Seen from the left, it was a tool for censorship. Seen from the middle, who cares one way or the other?
Considering the breed of animal they're using, I think they'd have better luck with this than the RIAA at training its "breed" to detect only pirated music on the internet.
Maybe if the RIAA used Snausages in their training too, they'd have better luck.
Yeah. "Hacked military computers" could be the ones made available for military personal and their families to web surf or send email home. When using that phrase though, it always makes it sound like top secret, holds the codes for the US nuclear arsenal type of break-in.
and if I may...
D) What is the potential sentence if tried and convicted in the UK?
Is there a loss - monetary, security - directly attributed to this action?
Yes. If you are a US taxpayer, you foot the bill for a very expensive investigation. This was treated as a hostile attack, even if in the end it proves not to be.
I suppose the "I was just looking for aliens" defense will be used by everyone found breaking into government computers now. Obviously you're innocent if you say you're just looking for aliens...
IOW, we ship them to France.
Wonder if they've been tried or released yet.
And no article I've read seems to want to say what penalty he faces if tried in the UK instead. For all I know he could face a harsher sentence there.
AFAIK even if conviceted in the US he could be released on parole if no real criminal intent was involved.
It might also make sense to push screen reader support to the API or OS level. Any text API's should be written with this kind of support built in IMO.
Don't bother hunting for a download. It's not available. The ODF Plugin came
out of testing last week. I wish i could say we did this last night, but it's
been at least a year in development.
Above quote from message posted by Gary Edwards, one of the principles at OpenDocument Foundation.
It bugs me, it makes me believe him more than a casually dismissive sentence would. What did he see? Why do they want to gag him so bad?
OTOH it is the way the legal system works -he gets charged with everything they think they may have enough evidence to convict on. That not only "covers all the bases", but it makes it easier to get a confession for lesser charges which may seem more in-line with the crimes (and also makes for bigger headlines). So I'm not sure you can really infer any kind of ulterior motive beyond that (not that there may not be some).
Personally, I think we have enough to deal with in the US. Let the UK deal with the trial, etc. if they're willing to do it. Having said that, I have to wonder what type of punishment he could be facing in the UK if convicted there? I haven't seen that reported either.
Harmless Nutter != Terrorist
True.
But how do you know he's only a "Harmless Nutter"? Because that's the way he's been presented?
And how does anyone know "!= a Terrorist" until the purpetrator is found and after an extensive investigation?
His actions are still costing money and causing problems for the US and UK alike. "Harmless"???