All we need to solve this problem is to convince China to broadcast Dallas reruns as a method of showing how decadent the American lifestyle is. Hey, it worked for Romania, didn't it?;-)
More seriously, an AC a bit higher up had a good point. China is a sovereign nation and has full rights to what goes on inside their borders. We in the US may not *like* it, but their laws are their laws. No such laws exist to _allow_ for free speech. Now If the citizens decided to overthrow their government, then I'm sure you'd see the US right there to support them.
What about the part that lets anyone censor material by sending a takedown notice to an ISP, web site, BBS, or other "service provider"?
Which happily ignores the fact that the DMCA is also protecting those ISPs against responsibility.
The part that allows you to be censored for 14 days with no recourse, no method of cancellation, and no liability for the "mistaken" parties?
What makes you think that there's no liability for the mistaken party? This clause is intended to provide a expedient means of stopping illegal distribution before it becomes irrelevant. *IF* the takedown request was in error, both your ISP and the mistaken party could be liable for a great deal of damages. On the part of your ISP, they could be liable for failing to verify that the notice was legitimate. (There are *very* specific requirements for such a request.) On the part of the mistaken party, he may be liable for perjury, acting in bad faith, and expenses incurred by you. (Which may be substantial in cases where the material was critical. e.g. A business website.)
It is actually in your ISP's interest to check with you before executing the takedown as they may still be protected without a takedown under the CDA. Remember, this is far better than the pre-DMCA laws which potentially made an ISP liable for illegal activity on their service.
As I said, the DMCA didn't bring much new to the table (other than formalizing many procedures) but it did create a lot of loopholes for lawsuits that didn't previously exist.
Ah yes, journalisitc integrity takes another nose dive. The correct headline should be "Most Americans Want the Government to Do Their Job".
If you read the article, you'll find that the survey was about the FTC and FBI executing the same sort of fraud prosecution that they do with brick and mortar businesses. This is a good thing (obviously) because someone must uphold the laws under which companies do business. Failing to enforce laws just because a company "is on the internet" is silly, stupid, and would lead to economic ruin for all involved.
The survey, to be released Wednesday, said 71 percent of people believe Congress needs to pass new laws to keep the Internet safe. But Kurtz said Congress and the Bush administration should do a better job enforcing existing Internet laws against hackers, thieves and vandals and offer incentives for companies to improve security.
The problem with surveys like this is that 95% of people never even read a single law. They are completely unaware of what laws exist to protect them and how those laws may be enforced. Coupled with poor enforcement (up until recently, enforcements agencies didn't understand the internet environment) and you've got a wide open door for bad laws like the DMCA. Which, BTW, isn't that bad of a law itself, but it really didn't bring anything new to the table and created more loopholes for civil and criminal suits.
In the case of Microtel, they make money off of the machine they sell you. They probably still have to pay to load Xandros or Linspire on it, but nowhere near as much as Windows. And Linspire makes additional money through software purchases made on their online software store.
Putting aside the fanboy comment, I have to say I laughed out loud at Linus's comment. Not because of anything technical, or because Linus came across as a "classy guy", but because it betrays a lot about their respective personalities and how they interact.
De Raadt says BSD could have become the world's most popular open source operating system, except that a lawsuit over BSD scared away developers, who went off to work on Linux and stayed there even after BSD was deemed legal.
This is the only useful comment that Forbes printed. The unfortunate part is that it's both true and sad. Back in the early 90's, BSD was changing the world one machine at a time. BSD 4.3 derivitives such as 386BSD (later BSD/OS, now defunct) were taking the world by storm. Unfortunately, they got a little too caught up in themselves and invited AT&T's wrath with their whole "It's Unix!" campaign. (Including the phone number 1-800-ITS-UNIX!) One has to wonder if BSD could have better weathered the storm if it has been delayed until BSD reached the sort of popularity that Linux had when SCO came knocking.
I have an alternate solution (change the style on mouseover/mouseout), but it vexes me that the hover somehow works for you. Not a huge deal, but I can't figure out how you did it!:-)
Whoops, guess I should have paid closer attention.:-P
One last question for you, though. How do you get those icons to highlight like that? I tried replicating your "hover" code, and it simply refuses to work without an anchor tag and href! Any insight?
*sigh* If you'd read the five hundred posts before you, you'd know that this environment has no network caps. So it's only useful for terminals where users want to run VI. Sorry, please drive through.
Corroborates the recent AJAX fad: establishes a very flashy metric illustrating some degree of robustness of JavaScript.
Well, it *would* corroborate AJAX if it actually accessed a server. Which it doesn't. *shrug*
This is really nothing new. As I said, WebOS did this half a decade ago with Internet Explorer. It's just that computers are finally getting powerful enough, browsers stable enough, and enough standards are being followed to make these cute apps work in most instances.:-)
FYI, the comment is in param.c, and is quite explicitly referring to the performance of the system clock, not the CPU clock. The amusing part about his statement is that modern OS X machines actually produce a hires clock signal in the nanosecond range, although I'm unsure about the actual precision of that clock. It's quite possible that Macs use a capacitor sub-clock to produce a more accurate (but less precise) signal.
What's this fascination with dirty words in the code? I can't say that I've even considered writing such a thing in commercial code that I write. Unlike OSS code, other coworkers *will* be reading my comments and may not think they're that funny. (Although I love messing with test data. Batman, Picard, Superman, Professor X, Dylan Hunt, etc. are all game. Unfortunately, they all share a phone number with Jenny. Must be one of those antiquated shared lines.;-))
Perhaps the most telling part of the article is that it's the Open Source code that has the foul language. Which isn't too surprising. If there are no repercussions for such behavior, why wouldn't developers engage in it? But in a straight-laced commerical environment? Unlikely. (Or at least uncommon.)
You're welcome. BTW, most VNC servers now come with an optional Java applet interface. If you enable the applet and two tunnels (one for HTTP and one for VNC) you should be able to punch through your machine's security, no problem.
Also, a great trick for rewriting the restrictions in the registry (use at your own risk!) is to download a freeware registry editor such as Registry Commander. The file can be run without installation, so you can happily open the registry and delete restrictions to your heart's content.
Just beware! I don't know the situation in your IT department, but that may be a terminatable offsene in your company. Ususally when I pull a stunt like that it's because my machine is configured as a standard user desktop, I need developer permissions, and I don't want to bug IT. (Faster to do it myself.) If they *intend* for you to have those restrictions, though, they may not appreciate you breaking them.:-)
Just so you're aware, this only emulates the Unix shell, not the entire Unix OS. So you can see a file system in memory, run vi, cat, ls, etc, but you can't actually interact with any environments.
The MirrorDot mirror is here so that you can try for yourself.:-)
It's a shell and an in-memory file system running in the browser. As a result, it's able to present working versions of most Unix utilities (e.g. vi, cd, ls, cat, etc.) but doesn't actually let you *do* anything to interact with other environments.:-)
That's kind of neat, but I am having some difficulty in deciding what it's useful for. Perhaps teaching Unix to new users? It is, after all, a "fake" environment that looks like the real thing.
Related to this (but much cooler), there used to be a site at WebOS.com where the site lauched a full-screen browser window and allowed you to interact with an entirely HTML desktop. Even the applications were downloaded on the fly, and the files were saved on the server.
I still think you're framing things wrong. It's mostly an issue of convenience that you seem to be attacking,
Which is mostly what a Desktop user wants. A traditional Unix user is not going to be scared off by resolving some dependencies, or doing a compile or two. (Although the combination of those two is getting out of control!) Grandma, OTOH, will not be happy if she has to do these things. She just wants to download and run the program.
As to your notes, they also seem to be work 'in progress'
Indeed they are. However, the current article parts are on topic for this subject, which is why I mentioned them.
I could throw in my $0.02 about some of the topics you raised, but with the current market I can't guarantee my comments would actually add so much value.
I'm not quite certain what you mean about "the current market," but I always appreciate intelligent comments.
I wouldn't give up just yet. Sci-Fi picked up both Sliders and Stargate SG-1, and poured quite a bit of development money into both. Plus, the amount of money they spent of Battlestar Galactica and the Farscapre Mini-Series (another cancellend show, remember?) shows that the Sci-Fi channel will most certainly make new episodes if they smell money.
So everyone with a Neilson device, make sure you turn on every episode of FireFly! We need to make Sci-Fi think that FireFly is the hottest show since the original Star Trek got cancelled!;-)
Well, Farscape was picked up for a mini-series after the Fans pushed it, and now FireFly is going to the Theaters. I'd say there's a reasonable chance that we might have a revival of Star Trek proportions on our hands.:-)
Do you even realize why this is wrong? DLL hell rings a bell?
Do you even realize why your response is wrong? Does Dependency Hell ring a bell?
Look, the guy I was fighting with was obviously trolling. He wasn't at all interested in an intelligent discussion. I, however, *am* intersted in finding a method for improving Linux on the Desktop. So instead of complaining here, read my articles on this, and comment there.
And I'm suggesting you actually try a contemporary "home desktop focused" distributions so you will, perhaps, have an inkling of what you are talking about.
Been there, done that, if you paid attention you'd know, and you're just trolling. Good day to you, sir.
Slashdot Mirror
All we need to solve this problem is to convince China to broadcast Dallas reruns as a method of showing how decadent the American lifestyle is. Hey, it worked for Romania, didn't it? ;-)
More seriously, an AC a bit higher up had a good point. China is a sovereign nation and has full rights to what goes on inside their borders. We in the US may not *like* it, but their laws are their laws. No such laws exist to _allow_ for free speech. Now If the citizens decided to overthrow their government, then I'm sure you'd see the US right there to support them.
What about the part that lets anyone censor material by sending a takedown notice to an ISP, web site, BBS, or other "service provider"?
Which happily ignores the fact that the DMCA is also protecting those ISPs against responsibility.
The part that allows you to be censored for 14 days with no recourse, no method of cancellation, and no liability for the "mistaken" parties?
What makes you think that there's no liability for the mistaken party? This clause is intended to provide a expedient means of stopping illegal distribution before it becomes irrelevant. *IF* the takedown request was in error, both your ISP and the mistaken party could be liable for a great deal of damages. On the part of your ISP, they could be liable for failing to verify that the notice was legitimate. (There are *very* specific requirements for such a request.) On the part of the mistaken party, he may be liable for perjury, acting in bad faith, and expenses incurred by you. (Which may be substantial in cases where the material was critical. e.g. A business website.)
It is actually in your ISP's interest to check with you before executing the takedown as they may still be protected without a takedown under the CDA. Remember, this is far better than the pre-DMCA laws which potentially made an ISP liable for illegal activity on their service.
As I said, the DMCA didn't bring much new to the table (other than formalizing many procedures) but it did create a lot of loopholes for lawsuits that didn't previously exist.
Ah yes, journalisitc integrity takes another nose dive. The correct headline should be "Most Americans Want the Government to Do Their Job".
If you read the article, you'll find that the survey was about the FTC and FBI executing the same sort of fraud prosecution that they do with brick and mortar businesses. This is a good thing (obviously) because someone must uphold the laws under which companies do business. Failing to enforce laws just because a company "is on the internet" is silly, stupid, and would lead to economic ruin for all involved.
The survey, to be released Wednesday, said 71 percent of people believe Congress needs to pass new laws to keep the Internet safe. But Kurtz said Congress and the Bush administration should do a better job enforcing existing Internet laws against hackers, thieves and vandals and offer incentives for companies to improve security.
The problem with surveys like this is that 95% of people never even read a single law. They are completely unaware of what laws exist to protect them and how those laws may be enforced. Coupled with poor enforcement (up until recently, enforcements agencies didn't understand the internet environment) and you've got a wide open door for bad laws like the DMCA. Which, BTW, isn't that bad of a law itself, but it really didn't bring anything new to the table and created more loopholes for civil and criminal suits.
Volume!
In the case of Microtel, they make money off of the machine they sell you. They probably still have to pay to load Xandros or Linspire on it, but nowhere near as much as Windows. And Linspire makes additional money through software purchases made on their online software store.
Putting aside the fanboy comment, I have to say I laughed out loud at Linus's comment. Not because of anything technical, or because Linus came across as a "classy guy", but because it betrays a lot about their respective personalities and how they interact.
De Raadt says BSD could have become the world's most popular open source operating system, except that a lawsuit over BSD scared away developers, who went off to work on Linux and stayed there even after BSD was deemed legal.
This is the only useful comment that Forbes printed. The unfortunate part is that it's both true and sad. Back in the early 90's, BSD was changing the world one machine at a time. BSD 4.3 derivitives such as 386BSD (later BSD/OS, now defunct) were taking the world by storm. Unfortunately, they got a little too caught up in themselves and invited AT&T's wrath with their whole "It's Unix!" campaign. (Including the phone number 1-800-ITS-UNIX!) One has to wonder if BSD could have better weathered the storm if it has been delayed until BSD reached the sort of popularity that Linux had when SCO came knocking.
Linky
Whoops, guess I should have paid closer attention. :-P
One last question for you, though. How do you get those icons to highlight like that? I tried replicating your "hover" code, and it simply refuses to work without an anchor tag and href! Any insight?
*sigh* If you'd read the five hundred posts before you, you'd know that this environment has no network caps. So it's only useful for terminals where users want to run VI. Sorry, please drive through.
Corroborates the recent AJAX fad: establishes a very flashy metric illustrating some degree of robustness of JavaScript.
:-)
Well, it *would* corroborate AJAX if it actually accessed a server. Which it doesn't. *shrug*
This is really nothing new. As I said, WebOS did this half a decade ago with Internet Explorer. It's just that computers are finally getting powerful enough, browsers stable enough, and enough standards are being followed to make these cute apps work in most instances.
I love it! That's a great interface! Can I ask you a question, though? Where did you get the icons?
FYI, the comment is in param.c, and is quite explicitly referring to the performance of the system clock, not the CPU clock. The amusing part about his statement is that modern OS X machines actually produce a hires clock signal in the nanosecond range, although I'm unsure about the actual precision of that clock. It's quite possible that Macs use a capacitor sub-clock to produce a more accurate (but less precise) signal.
What's this fascination with dirty words in the code? I can't say that I've even considered writing such a thing in commercial code that I write. Unlike OSS code, other coworkers *will* be reading my comments and may not think they're that funny. (Although I love messing with test data. Batman, Picard, Superman, Professor X, Dylan Hunt, etc. are all game. Unfortunately, they all share a phone number with Jenny. Must be one of those antiquated shared lines. ;-))
Perhaps the most telling part of the article is that it's the Open Source code that has the foul language. Which isn't too surprising. If there are no repercussions for such behavior, why wouldn't developers engage in it? But in a straight-laced commerical environment? Unlikely. (Or at least uncommon.)
You're welcome. BTW, most VNC servers now come with an optional Java applet interface. If you enable the applet and two tunnels (one for HTTP and one for VNC) you should be able to punch through your machine's security, no problem.
:-)
Also, a great trick for rewriting the restrictions in the registry (use at your own risk!) is to download a freeware registry editor such as Registry Commander. The file can be run without installation, so you can happily open the registry and delete restrictions to your heart's content.
Just beware! I don't know the situation in your IT department, but that may be a terminatable offsene in your company. Ususally when I pull a stunt like that it's because my machine is configured as a standard user desktop, I need developer permissions, and I don't want to bug IT. (Faster to do it myself.) If they *intend* for you to have those restrictions, though, they may not appreciate you breaking them.
Just so you're aware, this only emulates the Unix shell, not the entire Unix OS. So you can see a file system in memory, run vi, cat, ls, etc, but you can't actually interact with any environments.
:-)
The MirrorDot mirror is here so that you can try for yourself.
I imagine it would be useful for doing things that are blocked at work ;oP
:-P
Umm... like what? Using vi? Cause those vi hackers are pretty evil, you know.
It's a shell and an in-memory file system running in the browser. As a result, it's able to present working versions of most Unix utilities (e.g. vi, cd, ls, cat, etc.) but doesn't actually let you *do* anything to interact with other environments. :-)
No, but it might be the first OS web-hosted!
;-)
Technically speaking, it's a web hosted *shell*. The full OS is what you're using right now.
That's kind of neat, but I am having some difficulty in deciding what it's useful for. Perhaps teaching Unix to new users? It is, after all, a "fake" environment that looks like the real thing.
Related to this (but much cooler), there used to be a site at WebOS.com where the site lauched a full-screen browser window and allowed you to interact with an entirely HTML desktop. Even the applications were downloaded on the fly, and the files were saved on the server.
I still think you're framing things wrong. It's mostly an issue of convenience that you seem to be attacking,
Which is mostly what a Desktop user wants. A traditional Unix user is not going to be scared off by resolving some dependencies, or doing a compile or two. (Although the combination of those two is getting out of control!) Grandma, OTOH, will not be happy if she has to do these things. She just wants to download and run the program.
As to your notes, they also seem to be work 'in progress'
Indeed they are. However, the current article parts are on topic for this subject, which is why I mentioned them.
I could throw in my $0.02 about some of the topics you raised, but with the current market I can't guarantee my comments would actually add so much value.
I'm not quite certain what you mean about "the current market," but I always appreciate intelligent comments.
It did not, however, preclude additional feature films.
;-)
If that's true, then FireFly's return really WILL be of Star Trek proportions!
I wouldn't give up just yet. Sci-Fi picked up both Sliders and Stargate SG-1, and poured quite a bit of development money into both. Plus, the amount of money they spent of Battlestar Galactica and the Farscapre Mini-Series (another cancellend show, remember?) shows that the Sci-Fi channel will most certainly make new episodes if they smell money.
;-)
So everyone with a Neilson device, make sure you turn on every episode of FireFly! We need to make Sci-Fi think that FireFly is the hottest show since the original Star Trek got cancelled!
Will there be more episodes?
:-)
Well, Farscape was picked up for a mini-series after the Fans pushed it, and now FireFly is going to the Theaters. I'd say there's a reasonable chance that we might have a revival of Star Trek proportions on our hands.
Do you even realize why this is wrong? DLL hell rings a bell?
Do you even realize why your response is wrong? Does Dependency Hell ring a bell?
Look, the guy I was fighting with was obviously trolling. He wasn't at all interested in an intelligent discussion. I, however, *am* intersted in finding a method for improving Linux on the Desktop. So instead of complaining here, read my articles on this, and comment there.
And I'm suggesting you actually try a contemporary "home desktop focused" distributions so you will, perhaps, have an inkling of what you are talking about.
Been there, done that, if you paid attention you'd know, and you're just trolling. Good day to you, sir.