India is communist? Leaving aside whether you can legitimately continue to call China "communist" given their adoption of a free market economy since the 1980s (China today is better refered to as Fascist), since when has India ever been communist in any shape or form?
India is a thriving, democratic, capitalist country. And has been since independence.
Re:Jef Raskin's involvement with the Macintosh
on
Jef Raskin On The Mac
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
You're defining a GUI as a WIMP interface; actually a WIMP interface is a subset of GUI interfaces. At its rawest, a GUI is just that - a graphical user interface, an interface that uses imagery rather than just text to be used. The only other characteristic, other than being graphical, that seems to be common to all GUIs is a desire to make them as non-modal as possible.
My Nokia Communicator phones (9000, 9290) have GUIs, but they do not have mice or other pointing devices. They use "ATM buttons" on the sides to make menu choices, and have other dedicated keys. But just look at them and you can see that they're graphical.
Re:Jef Raskin's involvement with the Macintosh
on
Jef Raskin On The Mac
·
· Score: 4, Informative
The closest widely-marketed computer to Jef Raskin's vision of How Computing Should Be was the Commodore Plus/4.
From what I've read, the closest would probably be those Royale PDAs. He was proposing a simple to use machine that run a small, fixed, set of applications.
Where did you read he was against a GUI? He was against a mouse, but everything I've read has implied the interface would, nonetheless, be graphical:
Jef did not want to incorporate what became the two most definitive aspects of Macintosh technology - the Motorola 68000 microprocessor and the mouse pointing device. Jef preferred the 6809, a cheaper but weaker processor which only had 16 bits of address space and would have been obsolete in just a year or two, since it couldn't address more than 64Kbytes. He was dead set against the mouse as well, preferring dedicated meta-keys called "leap keys" to do the pointing. He became increasingly alienated from the team, eventually leaving entirely in the summer of 1981, when we were still just getting started, and the final product utilitized very few of the ideas in the Book of Macintosh. In fact, if the name of the project had changed after Steve took over in January 1981, and it almost did (see Bicycle) , there wouldn't be much reason to correlate it with his ideas at all.
Remember, at the time of development, mice were unheard of. A graphic user interface wouldn't have implied a mouse, and many people - presumably including Raskin himself - would have considered it a complication, an extra device that would have required user learning.
Suppose you're a terrorist. You need to hijack a plane, but what can you use as a weapon to overpower everyone?
Well, try Subway's bread. Lob a Subway sub at someone or bash them over the head with a Subway roll, and it causes more damage and pain than throwing a rock or hitting some with a crowbar. And, unlike the latter, you can get them through security without the X-Ray machines going off.
And if the flight crew still refuse to capitulate, you can always make them eat the sandwiches.
Copyright law already ENSURES that a lawful owner of a copy MAY make an archival copy. This law has been affirmed by court decision. You don't need Kerry to examine the issue, because the issue is already settled! All we need is a chief executive who will protect the rights we already have! (unfortunately, that will be neither of the major candidates)
Make archival copy of CSS protected DVD. Go directly to jail. Do not pass go. Do not collect $200.
If there is not in existance a device that passes through a content protection system that is authorized by copyright owners that backs up your content, then you do not have the legal right, under the DMCA, to back it up. Period. The end.
That's why many people want to amend the law to allow you to do this.
3" disks were available in a double sided version, the 8512 and 9512 PCW machines came with drives for them. I'm also not sure where you get the "spiral" thing, there were some custom "disk drive" units built during the mid-eighties that were like that, but the 3" disk was a regular, random access, tracks 'n' sectors, disk drive.
The major issue with 3" disks were that they were more expensive than 3.5" disks. The enclosure, a solid plastic sleeve with various mechanical extras, was rather more complex and expensive than the 3.5"'s enclosure. In theory, the 3" was a more durable design, but the added expense, the fact the.5" didn't really translate into much of a more compact disk, and the fact the.5" arguably did reduce the amount of capacity in the future ("HD" double-sided 3" disks stored 720k, I don't think they ever got more capacity than that) meant they really weren't going to compete with 3.5" disks. 3.5" disks were "good enough", cheaper, and had more potential.
You are quite mistaken about Britain being a Libertarian society at any time, let alone the 19th century.
I didn't say it was a "libertarian society" anywhere in my post. I replied to the comment "Great Britain has never had any close to resembling a Libertarian government." saying that, actually, in the nineteenth century, it did.
Your example is flawed: Cecil Rhodes was only able to operate in Rhodesia because the British government gave him the OK. Once he was ensconced in Rhodesia he was able to make sure their laws favored him and his friends.
The British government itself was actually opposed to the idea. However, legally there wasn't anything it could do at the time.
Incidentally, people argue that governments aren't libertarian enough on the grounds that the government prevents something from happening, not that it allows it.
To quote Inigo Montoya "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." Perhaps this will help?
Oh, good grief. May I suggest you take a history course. Other than a bizarre description of Rhodes which is factually wrong, wouldn't matter if it's factually right or not because the comment's irrelevent, you haven't actually addressed any of my comments. Do you deny that it was possible to raise private armies in nineteenth century Britain and invade countries without government support? Do you deny that welfare was completely privatised (limited to workhouses provided by the church), that taxes were low, that the government generally kept out of people's private lives, not to mention that the government left health and safety and wages and job security to the discression of the employers and employees, that in general, with the exception of censorship, the government stayed out of people's private lives?
If you do not, what else - other than the censorship I mentioned - would you say means that the UK government was so fascistic that you'd consider it "not even close to a libertarian government"? I'm not asking for proof it wasn't libertarian, I'd like to see something that you can point at that the UK government did that made it so anti-libertarian it wasn't even close.
Great Britain has never had any close to resembling a Libertarian government.
Other than throughout most of the nineteenth century, maybe?
Things were so laissez faire during that era, at least one country (Rhodesia: what Zimbabwe is today) was annexed by a private army hired by a diamond tycoon (the infamous Cecil Rhodes.)
No welfare state, low taxes, government generally (until the end) keeping out of people's private and economic lives with the exception of the occasional bit of censorship. Extreme punishments for screwing up (debtors prisons and whatnot.) Very close to a libertarian system - get rid of the censorship, and it's actually a little more extreme than most libertarians I know would feel comfortable with.
Advertising is marked as such, payola isn't. Payola differs from advertising in that specific way. If the DJ says "I'll tell you what I want, What I Really Really Want is brought to you by Virgin Records. Here's the song" then that's not "payola" because the fact that it was a sponsored record was made completely clear. It's an advert and there's nothing illegal about it.
Infomercials would be illegal too without the "The following is a paid advertisement for Ronco. The views expressed in this program do not... (etc, etc)" notices.
My understanding is that it is legal with full disclosure. Indeed, a story in the past on/. covered the fact that record companies were planning to "get around" the payola laws by booking three minute advertising segments and playing the song during them. Except they weren't really "getting around" anything, the entire point of the payola laws were that record companies were playing three minute adverts without it being clear that this was what they were (and without them being counted in the advertising vs content figures.)
What you're asking is for payola to be legalized if it isn't actually payola;-)
This is a straightforward case of businesses being given a slice of public property and having to obey a handful of straightforward public interest rules in return for continuing to keep that property.
If this rule were applied to Internet or Cable radio stations, I'd agree with you. But this isn't a free market, there's only a certain amount of spectrum available, and if someone wants to use it, they need to be reasonable.
Besides which, the payola rule is nothing more than a full disclosure law. If a radio station informs its listeners that they were paid to play a particular song, what they're doing isn't covered by the payola laws. This isn't about one company paying another for services, it's just regular regulation of advertising.
This isn't an area prone to vandalism normally. Anyone getting their car keyed can reasonably consider it a personal attack, and there's no other reason why it would have occured, from what we can see.
Yes, you can argue we can't prove it. But we don't see another rational or likely explanation.
Could be read either way: "prosecute child exploitation and obscenity over the FY 2001 level" could be:
prosecute "child exploitation" and "obscenity" over the FY 2001 level.
prosecute child "exploitation and obscenity" over the FY 2001 level.
I don't think you can read too much into that. A better solution would be to look at what the Justice Department is doing now. By all accounts, the pornography industry - legitimate and illegitmate both - are extremely concerned about the rhetoric coming out of John Ashcroft's office.
Re:A working wikipedia link for Kademlia
on
Replacing TCP?
·
· Score: 1
No, 80, 443, and sometimes 8080. 53 is DNS, most companies require their employees to use a local DNS server.
Re:A working wikipedia link for Kademlia
on
Replacing TCP?
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Maybe someone is blocking your outgoing port 8090 for you:-)
That would be fairly normal. Most businesses I've seen tend to block all ports except 80, 553, and, occasionally, 8080 because it's a popular "alternative".
I'm kind of baffled to be honest that the Coralisational people chose a port other than 80. Still, if we're in an article discussing running a high level protocol over the top of another high level protocol (these people seem to understand efficient networking about as well as they understand the GPL), it kind of seems appropriate.
Re:Is it an open protocol?
on
Replacing TCP?
·
· Score: 1
A pedant comments:
I'm assuming they're specifically saying "for free, non-commercial use" because they plan to charge (or otherwise limit) commercial use of the protocol.
In which case, how will they do that if they're releasing the code in open source under the "GNU Public License" (presumably the GPL)?
I'm guessing they're not aware you can't restrict uses if you're releasing under the GPL.
So, what you're essentially saying is that because this is an issue you don't care about, there are no major differences between the two candidates?
I can understand you saying this for yourself. I can't understand you objecting to someone's description of Nader's "there's no difference" campaign as a lie on that basis however.
Kyoto was a big deal. It affected an issue many of us consider extremely important. Even if it didn't, even if you can legitimately dismiss the wealth of science that shows reason to be concerned as "bogus science", the refusal to go ahead with it without showing any willingness to address the concerns damaged US credibility and began the process of isolating the US from the rest of the world. It was a big issue.
So instead of saying "no way" he'd have said "no thanks". That's not significant.
Assuming he rejected it (a big assumption), don't you think Gore would have tried to find better alternatives, rather than having his administration run to an agenda of dismissing concerns over global warming as "bogus science"?
I think it's a pretty significant difference. I can't see Gore ignoring the issue. Bush does.
Interestingly, one of the kings of pranks and tech heroes, Steve Wozniak, used to annoy fellow students with a jammer device... and he invented a device very similar to that in the article, only it was built into a watch:
I remember my first remote control watch. I could turn off TV's in stores and other places all the time, very discretely. My sons loved these.
From what I can see, the Mozilla issue isn't even a spoofed URL.
Essentially it makes use of the fact that dialog boxes are attached to windows, not tabs, so if you have two tabs open, and a dialog box comes up, you don't know if it's from the page you're viewing, or a different tab.
It took me a while of trying out the demo to work out what it was they were saying was a vulnerability - perhaps I'm used to the issue, I browse with confirmation of sites that want to show cookies and thus dialogs are popping up all the time for tabs I've opened in the background (and it's usually frickin' annoying...)
This is, for the most part, a user education issue (if that), not a vulnerability, though the Mozilla foundation could in general make their systems way more friendly by hiding dialogs that do not relate to the current tab until that tab is showing.
Well, that certainly solves one of my major issues.
I might be tempted anyway, though not right now. I usually use my PowerBook by balancing an IBM keyboard (w/trackpoint, it's a very thin, very flat thing, and it has three mouse buttons - yay!) on top of the thing. It's bigger than the laptop, but I can always decide which I want to use when I use it, depending on the application...
Slashdot Mirror
India is a thriving, democratic, capitalist country. And has been since independence.
My Nokia Communicator phones (9000, 9290) have GUIs, but they do not have mice or other pointing devices. They use "ATM buttons" on the sides to make menu choices, and have other dedicated keys. But just look at them and you can see that they're graphical.
Where did you read he was against a GUI? He was against a mouse, but everything I've read has implied the interface would, nonetheless, be graphical:
Remember, at the time of development, mice were unheard of. A graphic user interface wouldn't have implied a mouse, and many people - presumably including Raskin himself - would have considered it a complication, an extra device that would have required user learning.Well, try Subway's bread. Lob a Subway sub at someone or bash them over the head with a Subway roll, and it causes more damage and pain than throwing a rock or hitting some with a crowbar. And, unlike the latter, you can get them through security without the X-Ray machines going off.
And if the flight crew still refuse to capitulate, you can always make them eat the sandwiches.
* If you vote FOR this bill, then you voted 58 times to RAISE TAXES.
* If you vote AGAINST this bill, then you voted 58 times against sensible measures to keep America safe.
A politician can't win with that kind of propaganda, so why even play the game?
If there is not in existance a device that passes through a content protection system that is authorized by copyright owners that backs up your content, then you do not have the legal right, under the DMCA, to back it up. Period. The end.
That's why many people want to amend the law to allow you to do this.
The major issue with 3" disks were that they were more expensive than 3.5" disks. The enclosure, a solid plastic sleeve with various mechanical extras, was rather more complex and expensive than the 3.5"'s enclosure. In theory, the 3" was a more durable design, but the added expense, the fact the .5" didn't really translate into much of a more compact disk, and the fact the .5" arguably did reduce the amount of capacity in the future ("HD" double-sided 3" disks stored 720k, I don't think they ever got more capacity than that) meant they really weren't going to compete with 3.5" disks. 3.5" disks were "good enough", cheaper, and had more potential.
Incidentally, people argue that governments aren't libertarian enough on the grounds that the government prevents something from happening, not that it allows it.
Oh, good grief. May I suggest you take a history course. Other than a bizarre description of Rhodes which is factually wrong, wouldn't matter if it's factually right or not because the comment's irrelevent, you haven't actually addressed any of my comments. Do you deny that it was possible to raise private armies in nineteenth century Britain and invade countries without government support? Do you deny that welfare was completely privatised (limited to workhouses provided by the church), that taxes were low, that the government generally kept out of people's private lives, not to mention that the government left health and safety and wages and job security to the discression of the employers and employees, that in general, with the exception of censorship, the government stayed out of people's private lives?If you do not, what else - other than the censorship I mentioned - would you say means that the UK government was so fascistic that you'd consider it "not even close to a libertarian government"? I'm not asking for proof it wasn't libertarian, I'd like to see something that you can point at that the UK government did that made it so anti-libertarian it wasn't even close.
I would imagine obscene material that involves a child.
Things were so laissez faire during that era, at least one country (Rhodesia: what Zimbabwe is today) was annexed by a private army hired by a diamond tycoon (the infamous Cecil Rhodes.)
No welfare state, low taxes, government generally (until the end) keeping out of people's private and economic lives with the exception of the occasional bit of censorship. Extreme punishments for screwing up (debtors prisons and whatnot.) Very close to a libertarian system - get rid of the censorship, and it's actually a little more extreme than most libertarians I know would feel comfortable with.
Infomercials would be illegal too without the "The following is a paid advertisement for Ronco. The views expressed in this program do not... (etc, etc)" notices.
It's about disclosure.
What you're asking is for payola to be legalized if it isn't actually payola ;-)
If this rule were applied to Internet or Cable radio stations, I'd agree with you. But this isn't a free market, there's only a certain amount of spectrum available, and if someone wants to use it, they need to be reasonable.
Besides which, the payola rule is nothing more than a full disclosure law. If a radio station informs its listeners that they were paid to play a particular song, what they're doing isn't covered by the payola laws. This isn't about one company paying another for services, it's just regular regulation of advertising.
Yes, you can argue we can't prove it. But we don't see another rational or likely explanation.
- prosecute "child exploitation" and "obscenity" over the FY 2001 level.
- prosecute child "exploitation and obscenity" over the FY 2001 level.
I don't think you can read too much into that. A better solution would be to look at what the Justice Department is doing now. By all accounts, the pornography industry - legitimate and illegitmate both - are extremely concerned about the rhetoric coming out of John Ashcroft's office.No, 80, 443, and sometimes 8080. 53 is DNS, most companies require their employees to use a local DNS server.
I'm kind of baffled to be honest that the Coralisational people chose a port other than 80. Still, if we're in an article discussing running a high level protocol over the top of another high level protocol (these people seem to understand efficient networking about as well as they understand the GPL), it kind of seems appropriate.
I'm assuming they're specifically saying "for free, non-commercial use" because they plan to charge (or otherwise limit) commercial use of the protocol.
In which case, how will they do that if they're releasing the code in open source under the "GNU Public License" (presumably the GPL)?
I'm guessing they're not aware you can't restrict uses if you're releasing under the GPL.
Take a look at my signature for more information.
Amazes me how polarized things have become. BTW, I'm somewhat shocked your comment's been modded "funny". Insult added to injury.
I can understand you saying this for yourself. I can't understand you objecting to someone's description of Nader's "there's no difference" campaign as a lie on that basis however.
Kyoto was a big deal. It affected an issue many of us consider extremely important. Even if it didn't, even if you can legitimately dismiss the wealth of science that shows reason to be concerned as "bogus science", the refusal to go ahead with it without showing any willingness to address the concerns damaged US credibility and began the process of isolating the US from the rest of the world. It was a big issue.
I think it's a pretty significant difference. I can't see Gore ignoring the issue. Bush does.
Essentially it makes use of the fact that dialog boxes are attached to windows, not tabs, so if you have two tabs open, and a dialog box comes up, you don't know if it's from the page you're viewing, or a different tab.
It took me a while of trying out the demo to work out what it was they were saying was a vulnerability - perhaps I'm used to the issue, I browse with confirmation of sites that want to show cookies and thus dialogs are popping up all the time for tabs I've opened in the background (and it's usually frickin' annoying...)
This is, for the most part, a user education issue (if that), not a vulnerability, though the Mozilla foundation could in general make their systems way more friendly by hiding dialogs that do not relate to the current tab until that tab is showing.
I might be tempted anyway, though not right now. I usually use my PowerBook by balancing an IBM keyboard (w/trackpoint, it's a very thin, very flat thing, and it has three mouse buttons - yay!) on top of the thing. It's bigger than the laptop, but I can always decide which I want to use when I use it, depending on the application...