Well: *if* marketshare really is a factor than only a idiot would go out and buy into Windows; it would be like painting a bulls eye on your back.
IMHO *any* software with a install base above 30% is dangerous for just that fact... and only a yogurt would buy in to it after that or stay with it. Only a fool would argue that it must be beter because of it's market share, big market share is always a liability and never not a guarantee.
Monoculture is the real evil and should be rooted out. For all the arguments in favor of monoculture are also the reasons why worm's and viruses like monoculture: They are one trick pony's and this makes it all so much more easy.
Code has bugs; Apple's code, MS's code, Linuses code all have bugs and they will be resolved sooner or later of become irrelevant (abandon ware).
MS Windows has however a great deal of really bad design choices in it, not the code is flawed but the design. And that is a much bigger problem for them.
They provide a breeding ground for really easy to write and stupid worms, like Apple's QT once did, and refuse to plug the hole, unlike Apple did. This is just wrong.
Maybe now we can all jump tot a alternative non-hierachical dns structure? Dns is by designnot hierachical; It's peer to peer. That it has any root at all... well, that's just a historic misfeature...
What about people who were unplugged from the matrix? They would know about cranes and other such things.
Fair. However; they would most likely be very few in number. Also, most of them will be very young when they are unpluged.
Also: would you trust the matrix simulation to depict reality as it really was? Would you trust the enemy's version of the past?
However. Your right of cause, it could all be symbolic and I think we, as the human race, are indeed this evil and intollerant -- we care too much about the here and now and almost never look beyond a few years in the future.
Was it not called "The Second Renaissance"? Also. Morphius said in part one that they, Zion, did not know exactly what happend, only some bits and pieces.
"Renaissance" was a projection of events as understood by the people of Zion. Take the scene where the robots slave like the ancient egyptians? Clearly this is an error; but it's very likely that the survivers are not the people in the developed world, are not the people who dwel in megacities. Maybe no survivor knew about cranes, catapilars, etc. Maybe they took (bruned, damaged, partial) books and movies as depictions of reality.
Aproximation of the german is "A open operating system has not only advantages". And I believe is point to the fact that where are many distibutions of Linux. Which is a good thing as far as I care.
I use Freebsd for the gateway, fileservers and other servers, Openbsd for the tranparent bridging firewalls, MacOSX for the Desktops en, soon, Linux for the settops (pvr/jukebox).
I'm sorry, I should have put that in a imho context. I believe that people should not feed their minds with fantasies and illusions, porn is imho 100% fantasy.
As you point out correctly, I consider all porn to be damaging for the consumer's mental health. Which does not mean that they are turned in to a rapist or worse and which does not mean that I want laws againt porn in general. Which only means that it is not good, it is not making you beter.
Also note that I did pointed out that it is not the images which makes it porn, but the state of mind of the consumer.
I wonder however how much of the internet exists today thanks to porn...
Regretably most people do not create anything which has enough value to share. P2P is therefore mostly used to share the works of others. I however hope that this will not continue to be this way, I hope that people will in time become prosumers, and then P2P will be a great system...
For now, people cheat. They use the work of others to help them selfs to some positive karma points by shareing it with friends. I believe this is a development stage, in time we will out grow it.
Internet and such will kill the superstar, the whole idear of a superstar. Imho it is not good for people to have idols. There will nolonger be a massculture, except if you look at it as a metaculture of diversity. But without the superstar, whos work will you share?
Basicly the problem I see is that in the production of KP, childeren are being hurt. In the distribution there is no one who gets hurt. The comsuption of porn will damage the user (addict) more then they already are, and they will loose every sense of reality.
Think of it: Images only becomes porn if someone uses it in that way. A bitmap is no more then a collection of numbers. -- one day you can make a tool the could generate the image you wanted -- No one got hurt in the process. Would you then still object to the images? (I would object to you wanting to make these images...)
Regretably there are to many people in the world who enjoy looking at KP, imho they should be locked away for a very very long time. Regretably there are people how do anything for a buck, even rape childeren, imho they should be executed.
However: The only way to get ride of KP has nothing to do with distibution. The only solution is that we need beter people. People who value life, truth and people more then money or there own selfish impulses. Who would not think of childeren in that way...
Therefore: if this has nothing to do with distribution, then it has nothing to do with Freenet.
Isn't the internet developed in much the same way? If they had included strong encryption from the begining it would all have made it all cost a lot more, and it would have invited regulation by the goverment as well. That would have been worse IMHO.
Encryption needs (by all logic and practical usage) be done at application level. Anywhere else and it would add overhead to every ip transmitted, even the once which do not need encryption. Applications that need to ensure privacy need to offer encryption. It they do not, you don't get the privacy you may want, my advice: look for a other application.
Finally, only at application level do you know the things you need to know to do digital signatures and such. Ssl is nice but it's a p2p secure line from one box to the next. It's linked to the computer and not to a person. Only application level encryption could make sure that it gets delivered to the person.
If people would now please start using encryption in their email this would in fact make sure that the email you recieve is send by the person who signed it, and not by a virus on her computer. Also, would it make sure for the sender that only the addressee would receive the email...
This is maybe the problem why most companies don't use encryption: BOFH wants to be able to read your email.
Given the end-to-end argument is it much more important that we start to use OpenPGP, even if some one discovers our userid/password the encrypted email will be only readable by the addressee, and no one else.
This IMHO also put a end to the discusion that WEP is weak. Why shouldn't be? If it was strong it would be even more expensive, and regulated, and it would have been overkill for most applications. If a application needs encryption, like email, the application should provide encryption and not the lower protocols.
Why there are still mail clients with out openpgp surport I really do not understand, email is as privat as a postcard... Is nobody telling users that?
This has to do with the 'idear' (say: concept) that in MacOSX every document has a window and that every application has a menubar. closing a window means closing a document, not quit application.
In some OSes(like WinXP) this is done differently by showing a application window and inside this window many more windows for the documents... closing a inner windows closes a document, closing the outer most window will close the application. Basicly there is not much difference between the two, except that in (without any application window) MacOSX the two different 'commands' have different methodes, while with a thay are nearly the same under WinXP and others.
I guess this is up to preference: To be Tool Orientated(TO) or Document Orientated(DO). However, I think that apple uses the metalic look when there is no document view to giv, because the use is TO. Safari would have to open a new window every time you visit a new webpage to be DO hence the TO style and metalic look.
Question one: why is this on the front page? Question two: why does nearly nobody care enough to comment?
Rendezvous (zeroconf) is really cool technology imho but most likely too cutting edge for most linux users. This will most likely change as soon a it becomes a formal accepted rfc.
Apple is just early with this and as long as people don't understand what the posibilities are, haven't experienced the advantages, this will not draw much replies.
To bad, maybe/. isn't the place to talk about new technology. I hope that I am wrong.
If the point is to 'filter' data over the internet, how in hell would it be posible to make a DRM that could filter out copyrighted material out of shh-like incrypted/compressed data lines?
The only way they would be able to do so is by outlawing encryption (and any kind of privat communication) and any kind of unlicenced (criminal) creativity (ban on programing, writing, etc).
Basicly the only kind of goverments that want this to happen are shortshighted dictatorships.
Please remember this:
"We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness -- That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
More over: This is the same problem as with the war on terrorisme: the only way to 'win' is if the goverments crushes anyone that has a hope for a beter world, a beter world then this.
A freedom fighter and a terrorist are the same, only one was lucky enough that he won, the other one lost.
The difference between a hero, a villan, or an idiot is the public.
And no, it's not good enough if the people may choose who their dictator will be: that is not a reasonable choice.
That does not work... webdesign software used by many people and even some people them selfs give the image files names like: icon~1.gif, icon-2.gif,or something simular.
A well crafted website is writen in (real, plain) html. Html files are just stuctured text files with external references(uris) to other webpages, images and more.
The origional webbrowser (WWW) could not show inline images (which is a good thing if you really use images to explain things and not just to hide the lack of content in your text.)
The problem that TBL wanted to solve was the lack of platform independant information exchange: people send emails to eachother explaining that file 'blaat' is located on the server(protocol x) at x.y.z. If your platform did not surport protocol x or you did not know how to use the client tool for it... not data!
That basicly sucked.
The solution was (and is) the url. Now people could just tell you it was at ftp://x.y.z/blaat (pre-http, people!) and WWW would fetch it and render it. the 'index.html' really was just a index then...
[A few days ago someone pointed me to a website, told me to click here, then there and then do this... etc. I asked: "Why don't you give me the url?". He did not understand... I've look at the site and it uses frames (therfore all the content has only one url) and the frames themselfs use urls that are basicly "http://site.tld/32 digit hex number/32 digit hex number". I ask you: Why not human readable urls? A url ought to be (1) short no more then 70 chars, (2) readable (over the phone), (3) 'out-figure-able', (4) permanent.]
This is all ancient history now.
The way we are going now is the same as before WWW: most idiots that 'design' websites believe it's some kind of virtual paper and they want to control every pixel shown (onepixel.gif?). When will they understand that it's not paper?
A webpage is just a formated bytestream and that the control over the way it is displayed *must* be with on the clientside because on the serverside you don't know what platform the client is. This was the solution to the problem of incompatible formats.
Why people just fail to get it? Easy: a formated bytestream is abstract, much to abstract for most people. Graphicdesigners don't get that, they don't design texts, they design 'looks'. Which became posible in some browsers: they rendered it as if it was virtual newspaper. Somewhere in the netscape/explorer war we forgot that this was only one optional methode to render a webpage (btw: a good idear if you want to print it).
However, there is hope. Webbloggers begin to understand it. They begin to understand the problems because they hit the wall themselfs often enough. It has most likely to do with experience.
People who are new to the web expect WYSIWYG, then when they discover javascript/vbscript they hack their MSIE-only-pages and after a few years they find that "less is more" and then they see the light.
Graphicdesigners on the other hand begin to discover css and begin to understand the concept of abstract formated text and then a 'skin'-like (eg. css) render hints if the client wants such a thing.
At the university we sometime need it the other way around... linux password has to be converted to Windows passwords.
It works like this: the program asks for you password, which it then validates/authenicates with the yppasswordd if approved (this means that the string just typed is indeed the one and only true password) it asks a windowsNT box to associate know username to new password.
Don't know if this could also be done in reverse however. Platform independant accounts would be a great plus. Anyone else having a idear?
However, copyright means that the autor has the sole right to decide what will happen with his creation. This right is limited for the common good.This right can also be transfered to others, let's say: to you.
The question therefor is this: Have you asked the copyright owner if you may copy this work? Did they give you this right? If yes, then you have nothing to worry about.
The problem is this: just because you can do something does not make it right to do so. Just because you can shoot someone does not give you the right to do so.
Not wearing a bullet proof vest does not mean a invitation to be killed, just as a lack of copy protection does not give you the right to copy it.
Finally: if you believe that the law should be changed then you can try to do that, lobby, run for office, etc.
Fundamentalism mostly is used for groups which are violently intollerant of people outside their own group.
It used to be used for a movement in 20th century Protestantism emphasizing the literally interpreted Bible as fundamental to Christian life and teaching, however just as the word "hacker" has been (ab)used lately, so has the word "fundamentalism".
Given the context in which he used it, I believe that most people would read it as something negative. In the news people often hear terrorist and fundamentalist in one breath... this does influence their perception of the word.
For more information about the role JW have had in the protection and extension of freedoms in USA see http://www.kansaspress.ku.edu/petjud.html. In Canada see http://www.utpjournals.com/product/chr/752/freed om 07.html .
Well, you really do have to offer them something to work with... Apple didn't do that untill about the time they began selling MacOSX.
This is a very diffrent senario. Now people (students) really have a choice and it's free and powerful on the one hand, and nothing much on the other... Just wait and see, in 5 years Microsoft is going to drop XP and they will migrate to WindowsUX (Now with bash!). Guess they will always continue to copy Apple;->
Maybe *because* somewhere someone stated that tumbnails are not a violation of copyright, that someone else got the idear that therefor everything else must be a violation.
Also wouldn't it be enough to just use the way the origional browser (www) did it: images in popup windows and not inline?
(<a href="JavaScript:show('imagefile','credits?','widt h=X,height=Y')">image</a>)
I believe it only means that a tumbnail is the eq. of a text quote...
I'm European.... Not that I believe that you could realy call anyone really European.But we have had the Romans, the Spanish (cathaolic) inqusition, the Nazis we have had our share of extremist and selfrightious groups... However many of us are also childeren of the people who where the Romans, the Spanish (cathaolic) Inqusition, or the Nazis.
It hard to be hardlined and see the world in black and white only if you have so much history to deal with.
Also things tent to move more slowly and being dutch with much more communication... Nothing is really deside anymore, we agree upon a common plan and that is it then. It's just to hard to agree on religious and political and other dogmatic idears so in most cases we make a exception for those.
This is however not really european, it's dutch. I mean in Greace and in France many religious groups are restricted just because the officials are of another group. That is just bad, and de european courts agree, but nothing much happens. This is a very sad time to be an European.
Americans seem to use to be irrational. The current president thinks very much in black and white. We on this side don't have the luxery of ignorence anymore, everything is and are shades of grey now.
My view is that microevolution is working.
Also: God created the universe and de planet earth a long long time ago, a really long time ago. Then God made the planet in 6 periodes like it is, and right now we are living in the 7th periode (I guess a creation day is a bit longer then 24hours)... and by the time the 7th day ends God will have restored the world to what would have been had Adam not sined. Humans will be perfect and life forver in peace and happyness... Just think of the progress that would be posible then!
Also I think that God created the species after their kind. However, Mozes defines a specie as follows: Two individuals are of the same kind/specie if and only if they share a common ancestor. Evolutionist do not see it that way;->
That is the whole point, science is about what finding your own model of reality and checking it against reality. In fact that is kind of an evolution to let go of idear that do not match reality and accept with out bias reality as it is.
Don't be a fundamentalist or an extremist,
"You will know reality and it will set you free [from dogma]!"
Sure, ever heard of progress? You seem to want to return to the darkages where any alternative point of view is evil and anyone who believes not in The Official Dogma is a heretic.
Guess what? Science survived them, it sure as hell will survive your limited view of the world.
Scientist once where sure that the universe allways has existed, some religions sugested that God gave is a start... untill the discovery of expansion and the bigbang science had it wrong... This is not bad, it's just the way science works.
(and the best religions as well in my opinion)
The point is that too many people think just because a theory is scientific it's true for ever and always. It's not.Dogma is the believe that an authority is Right, sometimes Science has become this authority because of our weakness.
All theories that are a good enough match with reality are viable untill someone asks the right question and proves the theory wrong, and makes a new one that is a beter match.
Science is not in the business of giving answers, it's about asking questions!
Try asking your self why a theory does not work, think of experiments which can falsify your theory. Think of an experiment that shows that God did not create, think of an experiment that shows that macro-evolution could not produce what we see. Anything else is dogma and nothing more then retoric. Like this article.
Slashdot Mirror
Well: *if* marketshare really is a factor than only a idiot would go out and buy into Windows; it would be like painting a bulls eye on your back.
IMHO *any* software with a install base above 30% is dangerous for just that fact... and only a yogurt would buy in to it after that or stay with it. Only a fool would argue that it must be beter because of it's market share, big market share is always a liability and never not a guarantee.
Monoculture is the real evil and should be rooted out. For all the arguments in favor of monoculture are also the reasons why worm's and viruses like monoculture: They are one trick pony's and this makes it all so much more easy.
Code has bugs; Apple's code, MS's code, Linuses code all have bugs and they will be resolved sooner or later of become irrelevant (abandon ware).
MS Windows has however a great deal of really bad design choices in it, not the code is flawed but the design. And that is a much bigger problem for them.
They provide a breeding ground for really easy to write and stupid worms, like Apple's QT once did, and refuse to plug the hole, unlike Apple did. This is just wrong.
I know it's a bit offtopic but did anyone notice that she is wearing a iPod? How about that for rewriting history? :)
http://www.apple.com/hardware/ads/1984/
(No, this is edited -- I've checked)
Maybe now we can all jump tot a alternative non-hierachical dns structure? Dns is by design not hierachical; It's peer to peer. That it has any root at all... well, that's just a historic misfeature...
One alternative is OpenNic.
Fair. However; they would most likely be very few in number. Also, most of them will be very young when they are unpluged.
Also: would you trust the matrix simulation to depict reality as it really was? Would you trust the enemy's version of the past?
However. Your right of cause, it could all be symbolic and I think we, as the human race, are indeed this evil and intollerant -- we care too much about the here and now and almost never look beyond a few years in the future.
Was it not called "The Second Renaissance"? Also. Morphius said in part one that they, Zion, did not know exactly what happend, only some bits and pieces.
"Renaissance" was a projection of events as understood by the people of Zion. Take the scene where the robots slave like the ancient egyptians? Clearly this is an error; but it's very likely that the survivers are not the people in the developed world, are not the people who dwel in megacities. Maybe no survivor knew about cranes, catapilars, etc. Maybe they took (bruned, damaged, partial) books and movies as depictions of reality.
Aproximation of the german is "A open operating system has not only advantages". And I believe is point to the fact that where are many distibutions of Linux. Which is a good thing as far as I care.
I use Freebsd for the gateway, fileservers and other servers, Openbsd for the tranparent bridging firewalls, MacOSX for the Desktops en, soon, Linux for the settops (pvr/jukebox).
I'm sorry, I should have put that in a imho context.
I believe that people should not feed their minds with fantasies and illusions, porn is imho 100% fantasy.
As you point out correctly, I consider all porn to be damaging for the consumer's mental health. Which does not mean that they are turned in to a rapist or worse and which does not mean that I want laws againt porn in general. Which only means that it is not good, it is not making you beter.
Also note that I did pointed out that it is not the images which makes it porn, but the state of mind of the consumer.
I wonder however how much of the internet exists today thanks to porn...
Regretably most people do not create anything which has enough value to share. P2P is therefore mostly used to share the works of others. I however hope that this will not continue to be this way, I hope that people will in time become prosumers, and then P2P will be a great system...
For now, people cheat. They use the work of others to help them selfs to some positive karma points by shareing it with friends. I believe this is a development stage, in time we will out grow it.
Internet and such will kill the superstar, the whole idear of a superstar. Imho it is not good for people to have idols. There will nolonger be a massculture, except if you look at it as a metaculture of diversity. But without the superstar, whos work will you share?
Basicly the problem I see is that in the production of KP, childeren are being hurt.
In the distribution there is no one who gets hurt. The comsuption of porn will damage the user (addict) more then they already are, and they will loose every sense of reality.
Think of it: Images only becomes porn if someone uses it in that way. A bitmap is no more then a collection of numbers. -- one day you can make a tool the could generate the image you wanted -- No one got hurt in the process. Would you then still object to the images?
(I would object to you wanting to make these images...)
Regretably there are to many people in the world who enjoy looking at KP, imho they should be locked away for a very very long time. Regretably there are people how do anything for a buck, even rape childeren, imho they should be executed.
However: The only way to get ride of KP has nothing to do with distibution. The only solution is that we need beter people. People who value life, truth and people more then money or there own selfish impulses. Who would not think of childeren in that way...
Therefore: if this has nothing to do with distribution, then it has nothing to do with Freenet.
Isn't the internet developed in much the same way? If they had included strong encryption from the begining it would all have made it all cost a lot more, and it would have invited regulation by the goverment as well. That would have been worse IMHO.
Encryption needs (by all logic and practical usage) be done at application level. Anywhere else and it would add overhead to every ip transmitted, even the once which do not need encryption. Applications that need to ensure privacy need to offer encryption. It they do not, you don't get the privacy you may want, my advice: look for a other application.
Finally, only at application level do you know the things you need to know to do digital signatures and such. Ssl is nice but it's a p2p secure line from one box to the next. It's linked to the computer and not to a person. Only application level encryption could make sure that it gets delivered to the person.
If people would now please start using encryption in their email this would in fact make sure that the email you recieve is send by the person who signed it, and not by a virus on her computer. Also, would it make sure for the sender that only the addressee would receive the email...
This is maybe the problem why most companies don't use encryption: BOFH wants to be able to read your email.
Given the end-to-end argument is it much more important that we start to use OpenPGP, even if some one discovers our userid/password the encrypted email will be only readable by the addressee, and no one else.
This IMHO also put a end to the discusion that WEP is weak. Why shouldn't be? If it was strong it would be even more expensive, and regulated, and it would have been overkill for most applications. If a application needs encryption, like email, the application should provide encryption and not the lower protocols.
Why there are still mail clients with out openpgp surport I really do not understand, email is as privat as a postcard... Is nobody telling users that?
This has to do with the 'idear' (say: concept) that in MacOSX every document has a window and that every application has a menubar. closing a window means closing a document, not quit application.
In some OSes(like WinXP) this is done differently by showing a application window and inside this window many more windows for the documents... closing a inner windows closes a document, closing the outer most window will close the application. Basicly there is not much difference between the two, except that in (without any application window) MacOSX the two different 'commands' have different methodes, while with a thay are nearly the same under WinXP and others.
I guess this is up to preference: To be Tool Orientated(TO) or Document Orientated(DO). However, I think that apple uses the metalic look when there is no document view to giv, because the use is TO. Safari would have to open a new window every time you visit a new webpage to be DO hence the TO style and metalic look.
But I find the choice not always logical
Question one: why is this on the front page?
/. isn't the place to talk about new technology. I hope that I am wrong.
Question two: why does nearly nobody care enough to comment?
Rendezvous (zeroconf) is really cool technology imho but most likely too cutting edge for most linux users. This will most likely change as soon a it becomes a formal accepted rfc.
Apple is just early with this and as long as people don't understand what the posibilities are, haven't experienced the advantages, this will not draw much replies.
To bad, maybe
If the point is to 'filter' data over the internet, how in hell would it be posible to make a DRM that could filter out copyrighted material out of shh-like incrypted/compressed data lines?
The only way they would be able to do so is by outlawing encryption (and any kind of privat communication) and any kind of unlicenced (criminal) creativity (ban on programing, writing, etc).
Basicly the only kind of goverments that want this to happen are shortshighted dictatorships.
Please remember this:
"We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness -- That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
More over: This is the same problem as with the war on terrorisme: the only way to 'win' is if the goverments crushes anyone that has a hope for a beter world, a beter world then this.
A freedom fighter and a terrorist are the same, only one was lucky enough that he won, the other one lost.
The difference between a hero, a villan, or an idiot is the public.
And no, it's not good enough if the people may choose who their dictator will be: that is not a reasonable choice.
The future will not be democratic.
That does not work... webdesign software used by many people and even some people them selfs give the image files names like: icon~1.gif, icon-2.gif,or something simular.
A well crafted website is writen in (real, plain) html. Html files are just stuctured text files with external references(uris) to other webpages, images and more.
The origional webbrowser (WWW) could not show inline images (which is a good thing if you really use images to explain things and not just to hide the lack of content in your text.)
The problem that TBL wanted to solve was the lack of platform independant information exchange: people send emails to eachother explaining that file 'blaat' is located on the server(protocol x) at x.y.z. If your platform did not surport protocol x or you did not know how to use the client tool for it... not data!
That basicly sucked.
The solution was (and is) the url. Now people could just tell you it was at ftp://x.y.z/blaat (pre-http, people!) and WWW would fetch it and render it. the 'index.html' really was just a index then...
[A few days ago someone pointed me to a website, told me to click here, then there and then do this... etc. I asked: "Why don't you give me the url?". He did not understand... I've look at the site and it uses frames (therfore all the content has only one url) and the frames themselfs use urls that are basicly "http://site.tld/32 digit hex number/32 digit hex number". I ask you: Why not human readable urls? A url ought to be (1) short no more then 70 chars, (2) readable (over the phone), (3) 'out-figure-able', (4) permanent.]
This is all ancient history now.
The way we are going now is the same as before WWW: most idiots that 'design' websites believe it's some kind of virtual paper and they want to control every pixel shown (onepixel.gif?). When will they understand that it's not paper?
A webpage is just a formated bytestream and that the control over the way it is displayed *must* be with on the clientside because on the serverside you don't know what platform the client is. This was the solution to the problem of incompatible formats.
Why people just fail to get it? Easy: a formated bytestream is abstract, much to abstract for most people. Graphicdesigners don't get that, they don't design texts, they design 'looks'. Which became posible in some browsers: they rendered it as if it was virtual newspaper. Somewhere in the netscape/explorer war we forgot that this was only one optional methode to render a webpage (btw: a good idear if you want to print it).
However, there is hope. Webbloggers begin to understand it. They begin to understand the problems because they hit the wall themselfs often enough. It has most likely to do with experience.
People who are new to the web expect WYSIWYG, then when they discover javascript/vbscript they hack their MSIE-only-pages and after a few years they find that "less is more" and then they see the light.
Graphicdesigners on the other hand begin to discover css and begin to understand the concept of abstract formated text and then a 'skin'-like (eg. css) render hints if the client wants such a thing.
Remember: "The truth points to it self."
At the university we sometime need it the other way around... linux password has to be converted to Windows passwords.
It works like this: the program asks for you password, which it then validates/authenicates
with the yppasswordd if approved (this means that the string just typed is indeed the one and only true password) it asks a windowsNT box to associate know username to new password.
Don't know if this could also be done in reverse however. Platform independant accounts would be a great plus. Anyone else having a idear?
You are right...
However, copyright means that the autor has the sole right to decide what will happen with his creation. This right is limited for the common good.This right can also be transfered to others, let's say: to you.
The question therefor is this: Have you asked the copyright owner if you may copy this work? Did they give you this right? If yes, then you have nothing to worry about.
The problem is this: just because you can do something does not make it right to do so. Just because you can shoot someone does not give you the right to do so.
Not wearing a bullet proof vest does not mean a invitation to be killed, just as a lack of copy protection does not give you the right to copy it.
Finally: if you believe that the law should be changed then you can try to do that, lobby, run for office, etc.
Fundamentalism mostly is used for groups which are violently intollerant of people outside their own group.
d om 07.html
.
t orical_development.htm
It used to be used for a movement in 20th century Protestantism emphasizing the literally interpreted Bible as fundamental to Christian life and teaching, however just as the word "hacker" has been (ab)used lately, so has the word "fundamentalism".
Given the context in which he used it, I believe that most people would read it as something negative. In the news people often hear terrorist and fundamentalist in one breath... this does influence their perception of the word.
For more information about the role JW have had in the protection and extension of freedoms in USA see http://www.kansaspress.ku.edu/petjud.html.
In Canada see
http://www.utpjournals.com/product/chr/752/free
Or from there own website:
http://www.watchtower.org/library/g/1996/7/22/his
"...it could be true..."
;->
Does that apply to the idears of the Jehovah's Witnesses about evolution as well?
Or am I now inferring to much for your reply?
"Fundamentalist" is also a very cheap sneer at a otherwise peaceable group. You will not see them hijack planes or drop bombs now would you.
Also: They did more for freedom (as in freedom of speech) then any other group in history, so please give them some credit.
Grow up!
Well, you really do have to offer them something to work with... Apple didn't do that untill about the time they began selling MacOSX.
;->
This is a very diffrent senario. Now people (students) really have a choice and it's free and powerful on the one hand, and nothing much on the other... Just wait and see, in 5 years Microsoft is going to drop XP and they will migrate to WindowsUX (Now with bash!). Guess they will always continue to copy Apple
Maybe *because* somewhere someone stated that tumbnails are not a violation of copyright, that someone else got the idear that therefor everything else must be a violation.
t h=X,height=Y')">image</a>)
Also wouldn't it be enough to just use the way the origional browser (www) did it: images in popup windows and not inline?
(<a href="JavaScript:show('imagefile','credits?','wid
I believe it only means that a tumbnail is the eq. of a text quote...
I'm European.... Not that I believe that you could realy call anyone really European.But we have had the Romans, the Spanish (cathaolic) inqusition, the Nazis we have had our share of extremist and selfrightious groups... However many of us are also childeren of the people who where the Romans, the Spanish (cathaolic) Inqusition, or the Nazis.
;->
It hard to be hardlined and see the world in black and white only if you have so much history to deal with.
Also things tent to move more slowly and being dutch with much more communication... Nothing is really deside anymore, we agree upon a common plan and that is it then. It's just to hard to agree on religious and political and other dogmatic idears so in most cases we make a exception for those.
This is however not really european, it's dutch. I mean in Greace and in France many religious groups are restricted just because the officials are of another group. That is just bad, and de european courts agree, but nothing much happens. This is a very sad time to be an European.
Americans seem to use to be irrational. The current president thinks very much in black and white. We on this side don't have the luxery of ignorence anymore, everything is and are shades of grey now.
My view is that microevolution is working.
Also: God created the universe and de planet earth a long long time ago, a really long time ago. Then God made the planet in 6 periodes like it is, and right now we are living in the 7th periode (I guess a creation day is a bit longer then 24hours)... and by the time the 7th day ends God will have restored the world to what would have been had Adam not sined. Humans will be perfect and life forver in peace and happyness... Just think of the progress that would be posible then!
Also I think that God created the species after their kind. However, Mozes defines a specie as follows: Two individuals are of the same kind/specie if and only if they share a common ancestor. Evolutionist do not see it that way
That is the whole point, science is about what finding your own model of reality and checking it against reality. In fact that is kind of an evolution to let go of idear that do not match reality and accept with out bias reality as it is.
Don't be a fundamentalist or an extremist,
"You will know reality and it will set you free [from dogma]!"
Sure, ever heard of progress? You seem to want to return to the darkages where any alternative point of view is evil and anyone who believes not in The Official Dogma is a heretic.
Guess what? Science survived them, it sure as hell will survive your limited view of the world.
Scientist once where sure that the universe allways has existed, some religions sugested that God gave is a start... untill the discovery of expansion and the bigbang science had it wrong... This is not bad, it's just the way science works.
(and the best religions as well in my opinion)
The point is that too many people think just because a theory is scientific it's true for ever and always. It's not.Dogma is the believe that an authority is Right, sometimes Science has become this authority because of our weakness.
All theories that are a good enough match with reality are viable untill someone asks the right question and proves the theory wrong, and makes a new one that is a beter match.
Science is not in the business of giving answers, it's about asking questions!
Try asking your self why a theory does not work, think of experiments which can falsify your theory. Think of an experiment that shows that God did not create, think of an experiment that shows that macro-evolution could not produce what we see. Anything else is dogma and nothing more then retoric. Like this article.