I think even Windows users know how to select "right-click->properties" to change file attributes. I assume AQUser's machine would have a "friendly" (I have that word, reminds me of a smiling paperclip) filemanager with check boxes for permissions.
After a while, they might even start to appreciate that they can keep other users out of their files.
It's not "free" if someone else is forced to pay for it. UCE takes disk space, bandwith and labor out of other peoples wallet. It's not even like junk snail-mail where the sender has to pay postage. Virtually all the $cost$ of spam is paid for by people other than the spammers.
we need to kick this two-party duopoly in the butt
Keep pressing this to individuals you talk to. Suggest they try SelectSmart's
Presidential selector to see how their opinions match with the candidates. So far, NONE of the people I've gotten to actually try it got either Gore or Bush in their top choices. If nothing else, it encourages them to click on the name that comes up first.
Second, stress that this is NOT a ball game. Winning at any cost is too expensive. Doing anything to make the "other guy" lose, makes us the losers. Only by voting our conscience will we get a government with a conscience. Personally, I think Browne presents the best message a citizen can send to Washington: Do your job and let us live our lives. But I don't want anyone to vote for him because I think he's best. I'd rather see everyone vote for who they believed would be best for the country. Explain that it's kind of like "Poll the audience." Who knows, it just might work...
Either thats trivializing gun violence or elevating piracy
as a major societal issue.
Not really, they are equal in that they are both rights reserved by the citizen. This is the problem with most sheeple. They are willing to give up a few rights here, a little freedom there. Pretty soon, there's nothing left. The question is really "Which rights should we sacrifice?": arms, speech, voting?
If anyone
is actually interested in making a difference, instead of just whining about it, I'd recommend they join the
Republican or Democratic party and make your voice heard within the party.
I seem to remember a relative handfull of people got tired of trying to work within the system when they threw a bunch of tea in the water. Seems it was pretty effective.
I'd recommend infiltrating the Republican party...
I recommend a complete break from the parties that put us in this position and replace them with representatives of the people who understand their responsibilities AND their limitations.
I'm sure a Firewall is a good example of protection steps.
Usually, but if you're using Outlook's read-and-execute mail reader, you've pretty much blown a hole from the inside out. I think you might make a good case that, with it's history of exploits, maintaining trade secrets on any box that runs it is negligent.
Last I heard there were some trademark issues
with the person who actually owns the python.net domain.
I've been waiting for something like this since MS announced.NET. W2K subverts the enterprise to MS at the core,.NET subsumes trademark control over a major TLD.
20 more years, and birth certificates will be replaced by MS EULA's....
Didn't you hear? It was repealed by the DMCA? The allegation of infringement is sufficient to cause the removal of the allegedly ingringing material. No presumption of inocence. No due process. Claiming IP infringement has all the power and authority of pointing at someone and yelling "Witch!".
Rights are not conferred by laws. Laws exist to protect rights.
Finally, someone who gets it. And I don't have mod points....
Re:This is not the election......
on
Should You Vote?
·
· Score: 1
If I am not for myself, who will be for me? If I am not for others, what am I? And if not now, when?
Rabbi Hillel, 12th Century
Exactly when is the time to follow your conscience?
Re:Libertarianism the new Republicism bur more evi
on
Should You Vote?
·
· Score: 1
No, they're not, and they are the correct and proper way to change the role of the federal government. Want gun control? Ammend the Consitution. Want socialized medicine? Amend the Consitution.
The point is that if we don't like the way the Consistution framed our federal government, the founding fathers gave us a procedure (a pretty fair one, I think) to change what it does. For years, the process has been bypassed, and we have not been given a choice.
Note that I'm note necessarily saying the federal government shouldn't do more that what the Constitution says; only that the citizens are the only ones with the authority to give it those additional powers.
Maybe not, BUT...
The concept is Internet C++, e.g. applications running on a server with a "thin client". IOW, all you should require on the client end is an Xserver. In order for the *nix base to be portable to Windows, you need some X compatibility libs an an Xserver built into the VM.
Whether they can pull something like this off remains to be seen, but if they can, so much for Windows 2000 taking over the internet server space.
The reason the process is allowed to be short-circuited in anti-trust cases is to allow for swift action to protect the economy and the American consumer. How does that apply in this case? Two words: "Windows 2000".
W2K is not a part of this case, but it IS a continuation of the same tactics demonstrated to be in violation of trust law. W2K embraces and extends Kerberos, network file sharing, DNS,....
It's a Blueprint for Domination". In the data center world, we are already feeling pressure to change the way we do business, simply because of the way W2K works. While other platforms can play in a W2K world, the objective is simple: Windows 2000 server and Active Directory rule the enterprise.
This is why this case needs to be expedited. By the time the appellate court wades through it, and it gets appealled again to the Supreme Court (and don't think MS won't want the S.C. to here it if they lose in appeals), W2K will be firmly rooted exactly where Microsoft wants it. Then, if they lose, the arguments start about where to break it up. Can you split apart Windows 2000 Server (OS) apart from Active Directory (application) into seperate companies (and still have anything work)? Look, you can't break it apart here! Oh, and Exchange 2000 is tightly integrated in Active Directory, so we have to keep that too. And Back Office is.....
So everyone that enters, please use your full and correct name so that it's spelled properly on the arrest warrant. Also remember to make yourself available for the arrest sweep on the day the contest ends.
Uhm, when you sue a corporation, win, and they pay you money, that money comes out of the corporation assets that the stockholders own. You ARE suing the stockholders and they can end up losing everything they have invested in that company. What the corporate protection grants them, is they cannot lose any other assets not owned by that company; like their house or car.
That aside, your point is reasonable, as both stockholders, consumers and voters we need to hold corporations more responsible for their actions. We should boycot the product and dump the stock (understanding that we may take a beating ourselves).
Our biggest obstacle is corporate "diversification". Most if the time, when a company's screwed up and needs to pay their dues, they are owned by another company (and another and...). The related companies may be fine, upstanding citizens or, more often, hidden behind a corporate veil. The naughty company now has additional resources to prop it up. We dump our stock, but the majority is held by other corporations who don't have our morals. We boycot the product, and the related companies fund the losses until we forget or give up in frustration.
There are companies that are worth more than most sovereign nations on the planet, with as much, or more, independence from external pressures. I'd love to here how to hold them accountable.
"Intelligent and mentally active" inspires mysticism. Mystic probably has as many definitions as Christian; my favorite being "Inspiring a sense of mystery and wonder". IMHO, if you aren't a mystic, then whatever religion you are following isn't inspiring you sufficiently.
As to noticing things, I think this is where heavy-thinkers get disturbed or dis-enfranchised by "organized religions" (defining organized religions as those that impose, rather than inspire belief). Speculation and contemplation of religious writings will inevitably result in paradoxes that people of simple faith will have difficulty defending to someone with good logical analysis skills. Yet there's a great and joyfull challenge for a thoughfull person in discovering consistency and constancy in the scriptures of all faiths. Metaphors and parables in religious literature have been intended to obscure the truth throughout history, both to inspire the believers to thorough study and contemplation and to protect the believer's activities from persecution. Joseph Campbell's studies show the inter-connectedness of belief systems throughout history.
Personally, I'm Baha'i. I believe in progressive revelation from God that is guiding us in building a united, peacefull world.
We can't wait around expecting miracles if we're not ready to start making things better ourselves.
To do that requires a bit of faith, and alot of hard work and thought. I think it's my beliefs as a Baha'i that makes me so enthusiastic about open source. It's a community working together despite of, or even because of, their differences to make something better.
I recently setup a bookpc (NOT an endorsement - just a link [to the first google hit] for those who don't know what it is) to do just this kind of stuff. I came up empty trying to get XFree86 working on the TV (NTSC - something like 15.5 kHz horizontal Sync) output.
Essentially the right protects your ability to transfer your access to any copyrighted work to another party at no cost.
Why at no cost? If I buy a textbook, can't I sell it when I'm finished? Further, if their is no legal ability to transfer ownership, that means wholesalers and retailers are violating the license.
Hmmm, maybe this is a way to attack the right of transfer issue...If the publisher prevents right of transfer, they have to market direct to their 'licensees' cutting off their marketing arms.
Slashdot Mirror
After a while, they might even start to appreciate that they can keep other users out of their files.
Are you sure?
Keep pressing this to individuals you talk to. Suggest they try SelectSmart's Presidential selector to see how their opinions match with the candidates. So far, NONE of the people I've gotten to actually try it got either Gore or Bush in their top choices. If nothing else, it encourages them to click on the name that comes up first.
Second, stress that this is NOT a ball game. Winning at any cost is too expensive. Doing anything to make the "other guy" lose, makes us the losers. Only by voting our conscience will we get a government with a conscience. Personally, I think Browne presents the best message a citizen can send to Washington: Do your job and let us live our lives. But I don't want anyone to vote for him because I think he's best. I'd rather see everyone vote for who they believed would be best for the country. Explain that it's kind of like "Poll the audience." Who knows, it just might work...
Wouldn't a bit-copy DVD copier be legal, since it wouldn't be bypassing any access control restrictions?
Not really, they are equal in that they are both rights reserved by the citizen. This is the problem with most sheeple. They are willing to give up a few rights here, a little freedom there. Pretty soon, there's nothing left. The question is really "Which rights should we sacrifice?": arms, speech, voting?
The correct answer is: None of the above.
I seem to remember a relative handfull of people got tired of trying to work within the system when they threw a bunch of tea in the water. Seems it was pretty effective.
I'd recommend infiltrating the Republican party ...
I recommend a complete break from the parties that put us in this position and replace them with representatives of the people who understand their responsibilities AND their limitations.
Usually, but if you're using Outlook's read-and-execute mail reader, you've pretty much blown a hole from the inside out. I think you might make a good case that, with it's history of exploits, maintaining trade secrets on any box that runs it is negligent.
I've been waiting for something like this since MS announced .NET. W2K subverts the enterprise to MS at the core, .NET subsumes trademark control over a major TLD.
20 more years, and birth certificates will be replaced by MS EULA's....
Didn't you hear? It was repealed by the DMCA? The allegation of infringement is sufficient to cause the removal of the allegedly ingringing material. No presumption of inocence. No due process. Claiming IP infringement has all the power and authority of pointing at someone and yelling "Witch!".
Finally, someone who gets it. And I don't have mod points....
Rabbi Hillel, 12th Century
Exactly when is the time to follow your conscience?
The point is that if we don't like the way the Consistution framed our federal government, the founding fathers gave us a procedure (a pretty fair one, I think) to change what it does. For years, the process has been bypassed, and we have not been given a choice.
Note that I'm note necessarily saying the federal government shouldn't do more that what the Constitution says; only that the citizens are the only ones with the authority to give it those additional powers.
Whether they can pull something like this off remains to be seen, but if they can, so much for Windows 2000 taking over the internet server space.
Try reading this
Uhm...That's what anti-trust law does.
Read the rest of this comment... tags.
Sorry, WINS is deprecated in Windows 2000.
W2K is not a part of this case, but it IS a continuation of the same tactics demonstrated to be in violation of trust law. W2K embraces and extends Kerberos, network file sharing, DNS, ....
It's a Blueprint for Domination". In the data center world, we are already feeling pressure to change the way we do business, simply because of the way W2K works. While other platforms can play in a W2K world, the objective is simple: Windows 2000 server and Active Directory rule the enterprise.
This is why this case needs to be expedited. By the time the appellate court wades through it, and it gets appealled again to the Supreme Court (and don't think MS won't want the S.C. to here it if they lose in appeals), W2K will be firmly rooted exactly where Microsoft wants it. Then, if they lose, the arguments start about where to break it up. Can you split apart Windows 2000 Server (OS) apart from Active Directory (application) into seperate companies (and still have anything work)? Look, you can't break it apart here! Oh, and Exchange 2000 is tightly integrated in Active Directory, so we have to keep that too. And Back Office is .....
Welcome to inovative integration.
Yes,
So everyone that enters, please use your full and correct name so that it's spelled properly on the arrest warrant. Also remember to make yourself available for the arrest sweep on the day the contest ends.
Thank you for your participation...
Will someone in Redmond please post this?
That aside, your point is reasonable, as both stockholders, consumers and voters we need to hold corporations more responsible for their actions. We should boycot the product and dump the stock (understanding that we may take a beating ourselves).
Our biggest obstacle is corporate "diversification". Most if the time, when a company's screwed up and needs to pay their dues, they are owned by another company (and another and...). The related companies may be fine, upstanding citizens or, more often, hidden behind a corporate veil. The naughty company now has additional resources to prop it up. We dump our stock, but the majority is held by other corporations who don't have our morals. We boycot the product, and the related companies fund the losses until we forget or give up in frustration.
There are companies that are worth more than most sovereign nations on the planet, with as much, or more, independence from external pressures. I'd love to here how to hold them accountable.
As to noticing things, I think this is where heavy-thinkers get disturbed or dis-enfranchised by "organized religions" (defining organized religions as those that impose, rather than inspire belief). Speculation and contemplation of religious writings will inevitably result in paradoxes that people of simple faith will have difficulty defending to someone with good logical analysis skills. Yet there's a great and joyfull challenge for a thoughfull person in discovering consistency and constancy in the scriptures of all faiths. Metaphors and parables in religious literature have been intended to obscure the truth throughout history, both to inspire the believers to thorough study and contemplation and to protect the believer's activities from persecution. Joseph Campbell's studies show the inter-connectedness of belief systems throughout history.
Personally, I'm Baha'i. I believe in progressive revelation from God that is guiding us in building a united, peacefull world. We can't wait around expecting miracles if we're not ready to start making things better ourselves. To do that requires a bit of faith, and alot of hard work and thought. I think it's my beliefs as a Baha'i that makes me so enthusiastic about open source. It's a community working together despite of, or even because of, their differences to make something better.
Anybody have any sources on how they did this?
Why at no cost? If I buy a textbook, can't I sell it when I'm finished? Further, if their is no legal ability to transfer ownership, that means wholesalers and retailers are violating the license.
Hmmm, maybe this is a way to attack the right of transfer issue...If the publisher prevents right of transfer, they have to market direct to their 'licensees' cutting off their marketing arms.