Isn't part of the aim of Java apps not to know too much about their environment? Maybe I'm only thinking of Java applets, but it seems that if you're going to build stuff in Java, to run in a VM, you should be hoping for the benefit of cross-platform compatibility, not your ability to fake the look and feel of an OS you could have programmed natively for, in, say, C or somesuch. If it's going to be Java... at least don't force it to look like it was built for only one platform. If MacOS users -really- hate your application because it doesn't look like everything else... well... KDE vs. Gnome users can just say "welcome to the club!"...
Basically, once you get to the point of being able to project light to any point within the fog... heck, you've got yourself a working hologram, no? So screw the fog...
And, uhm, have you noticed, when driving in fog, that you can't see very far into it? In order to get good image quality on it, it'd have to be pretty thick... your 3d image would be lost, with you looking for taillights.
So no. No 3d. Not with this. And... didn't they use this (or a water version) on [geek warning] "seaquest dsv"?
you -liked- maya's interface? anything that has me selecting from a drop-down so i can get a different set of menu options in the top menu bar... [shiver]
check out caligari trueSpace (http://www.caligari.com/) for an interface that won't suck your brain out. the renderer they use isn't bad (a few issues -- and they won't listen to me when i ask for 3d textures for water, coke, bubbles, etc.) but the main problem is their physics engine. i haven't bought their latest version, but the one i have has serious issues with collision detection during physics sims. which is sad, because i like good physics.
trueSpace also uses python as its scripting language -- but at least when i was looking for it... they had no documentation on what objects/classes/etc. were available from the interpreter. barely enough to poke around with.
trueSpace sorta runs under WineX, but i would love to have a good, -actually- cross-platform 3d modeller/renderer/animator to use. best of luck.
(and yes -- use quaternions! and don't forget, say, tensor-based fabrics, goo, strings, etc.!)
if you have trouble coming up with 'features' you want, ask around -- the slashdot crowd is GREAT at scope creep.
if i remember right, though, STLport was necessary even for older versions of gcc that hadn't quite finished up templating the iostream stuff, etc.
computer labs at school had an old borland c++ compiler that -thought- it knew what the STL was, and Visual C 6 with no pathces installed -- just enough to start compiling and croak. At least the borland compiler finished compiling, then trailed off when iterating through certain containers...
and we were learning 'data structures' on these, and couldn't convince anyone to just grab a copy of gcc on our Unix box. grrr.
so yes, STLport is not a bad idea -- at least you know you've got a good STL available if your local compiler comes with stupid libraries...
Re:is it so hard to believe?
on
Life on Pluto?
·
· Score: 1
[long pause] yup, that had a chilling effect. everyone's afraid of posting a reply, for fear of being predictable... oh shi[crackle, EOF]
you forgot the religious zealots. extra-terrestrial life of any sort is a problem too often set aside for later debate... actually finding some would mean -way- more fun discussions at the dinner table. i wouldn't mind.
Ouch. I'd say that was personal. I wouldn't mind your skepticism (may I call it that?) if it weren't so darn hard to fake videos of (fairly, if not perfectly) calm protestors getting beaten for complaining about our last presidential elections.
As to raisethefist, I'd remind you that your logic is quite a bit the same as that of the University of California, with the complaint about the link to the FARC? The argument is that by mentioning someone's point of view in your own argumentation, you are implicitely supporting theirs. I'd beg to disagree, but I really don't need to beg at all.
So, I have a party now? Neat! Always wanted one of those... when you manage to describe it accurately, send me the completed pamphlet. I've always wanted to know what it is I believe (I'm sure my parents would like to as well!)
I'll agree with you -- it's not as obvious as I may have seemed to think it is, that the electoral college has outlived its time. It's also not going away -- if I remember correctly, it'll take a 2/3 vote on the part of the states to change the system, and that would require the states who consider themselves beneficiary of the said system to give it up, which isn't likely.
Balancing the voices of the voters is, I'll admit, a complex task. Your presentation quite accurate. Could we accept, perhaps, a system in which votes are cast with a value of '1' per person, but make sure that in cases such as rural states (no offense meant) the specific problems of the area will be taken into account? I think that's what our congress is for, and local government. On a national scale, I'd tend to think that a person is 'worth' a person, not otherwise. On the local scale, I'm very much for these people who would otherwise not be 'as represented' getting their way. But I'd rather not think that, because of the way the system is built, my vote only matters 3/4 as much as the vote of someone in [name another state.]
Then again, even if I do get the 'right' person elected, thanks to my well-counted vote... there's no guarantee, as I said, that the elected official will actually side with me on enough of the issues for me to be satisfied. Switzerland has had quite a few referendums (for the larger stuff, 'smaller' law is handled by elected officials) and I'd say I rather fancy that system. But as stated by the parent, not everyone cares (at all) to vote on individual issues. We'd have a lot lower turnout (my guess) at per-issue votes than at elections. But it's still more people voting than in the house and senate (if anyone cares.)
All considered, it doesn't matter -- they're not changing the system. Bah.
No, this post has nothing to do with agoraphobia. However, it does relate to your most interesting comment about the right to vote. Your point is, I assume, that you'd really rather that votes only be cast, and counted, if they are backed by a true wish to make a difference.
I can understand your frustration with the voting system. I think, though, that your feelings about it can be better channeled by looking at the following problems:
-Not everyone would have the money to vote. Not everyone is fit for military service. (etc.) Imposing any restriction besides registration would imply a class-level difference, between those who can afford to vote, and those who cannot. I'd really rather not live in a country where only the (even mildly) rich may vote -- the laws have an effect one everyone's lives. As such, I'd even rather children be allowed to vote. And tourists. And anyone else who (at least for a short while) must live under the laws of the land. If the jurisdiction of law is going to be based on land-borders, votes should also be defined purely by land-borders.
-It's not apathy that is the root of the problem. It's not that people don't care about the issues; it's that they've already made up their minds ahead of time. I come from a rather (D) family, by girlfriend from a quite staunch (R) family. In both cases, I've observed people who will go to the voting booth because they care about the issue, but would willingly 'vote down the line' (check the box at the top saying you agree with said party on all issues.) We need to educate people to care about issues rather than grand theories. I grew up in europe, where there are quite a few more parties available to vote for. Here, you rarely have more than two choices: and two choices cannot possibly represent, accurately, all the different combinations of voting preferences of the american people. But they do. Because people here refuse to deal with individual issues. And that, I think, is even worse than apathy.
-Not being able to distinguish between (D) and (R) shouldn't surprise you: in europe, they're both considered centrist movements, compared to all other available political parties. You don't see here campaigns by neo-nazies or communists. The anarchists are barely represented. Independent? What does that mean? So really, no, the two aren't that different. If you see them as radically different, then you just have an extremely narrow vision of the political spectrum. Open your eyes.
-Representation is a problem: would it have mattered if I had voted (D) in the last presidential elections? No, because the deciding factor wasn't the state I'm in -- only in Florida did every vote count (that is, obviously so.) If we had a more direct approach, where 'popular vote' were actually the vote that counted, perhaps people would be more inclined to vote, no?
-Apathy isn't surprising: consider slashdot. Most of us are pissed off that our congresscritters (what a fond name) won't listen to us. Shouldn't they be listening? If they're not, and our votes don't really matter, then we're not left with much but civil disobedience. And with recent laws, that's not nearly as safe as it used to be. Check around -- police violence is a problem, and it's stifling even our ability to hold protests outdoors. Check the videos available from indymedia, raisethefist, etc. of protests, say, at the presidential elections? I hadn't even seen those on television... but it did happen. And it was shushed. People were beaten for complaining about what goes on. Are you surprised there's apathy?
I'm sure others can add to this list. I'm all for democracy -- fair democracy. Democracy in which people feel empowered to make a difference in how their country is run, how their lives will be changed by the powers that be. If they don't feel they have that, it's useless. Lobbyists, people like our families, who vote based on how their parents (and churches) vote... those are the people who will run our lives. If it takes electronic voting to reach out to those who think the system doesn't work, then do so! Make sure they know their vote matters, whatever it takes.
which is why setting style='border: 1px solid gray;' works on... text boxes and textareas... but not on checkboxes or drop-downs. wonderful. any other things about styling you'd like to mention? i would -love- for all browsers to actually stylize widgets correctly. but they don't. and my users ask me why it is the checkboxes don't look like the text box. or why the drop-down looks funny. or why the textarea, under mozilla, only does word-wrapping if you specify the number of columns, rather than (as you would expect to do) just specify a width, in pixels...
yes. i love widgets. i love how they all work alike.
remember that most of us deal with open-source code: if someone can see your code, whether it be in C or in PHP, they can look for holes. injection throught SQL is a big problem -- if someone's feeling malicious, they just have to figure out what you're running (and if it's one of the popular php-forums, that's not hard) and download the code... and start having a look around for potential security flaws. doesn't take much.
it's irritating to write as much code as it takes to be secure, but i'm glad i did it with my project -- it doesn't allow anonymous stuff at all, but there are still risks involved... so every single page, whether creating forms or accepting input from forms, re-verifies absolutely everything about what you're allowed to do, etc. there's no reason for create_object.php to make sure you can, and create_object_confirm.php not to.
and there's no reason not to make sure your SQL is secure. (although not using the most-used server also helps -- i use firebird/interbase... most people expect you to be using mysql, and will attack it as such.)
It is called capitalism, and it has made the U.S. the richest country on the planet.
Just as being a kingdom or an empire, or... has made a few other countries 'the richest country on the planet' in the past. can we start disassociating the two ideas? that maybe the form of government doesn't directly influence how well the country does? quite a few other countries are capitalist too (maybe more!) but that hasn't exactly made them the richest on the planet. take a step back, look again, and gain a new appreciation for complexity, k?
uhm, she didn't call bush hitler -- she said that bush was using war to distract attention from problems at home, and that this was obvious to everyone, that it was a standard tactic, and that -even- hitler (oh goodness) had used such a tactic.
A causes C. B causes C. therefore, A is just like B! no.
i'm not usually one to defend bush, but i'd at least ask that we not make the same logical mistakes his aides did when they responded, just like you, to the german minister's comment. if i say that even the town idiot knows that 2+2=4, that doesn't mean that just because you know this too, you're the town idiot.
oppression doesn't require technology -- it only requires that people be stupid enough to be blinded by whatever's going on.
he said "in a higher dimension" or somesuch -- as in, fifth dimension that you can't directly observe. think about the fact that standing on the surface of the earth, you'd have trouble telling, just from that, that it's not flat... so on the scale of the universe, the next dimension may not be apparent, etc. (no, it's not a bullet-proof analogy.)
it could be seen as typical, yes: copy large text instead of refering to origin, then use it to state much all at once as fact, include names of many references, but then forget to provide the actual bibliography (note the numbered [x] references)... and have trouble getting it into the text box (fear of technology?)
seems most EULA's basically say it's not their fault if you use the software, and because of this, you screw something up, expensive or not. among other things, software makers, even commercial, can't always account for all possible uses of their software... if they've missed something (like, say, interfacing with thing X will cause it to crash once in a million times)... well, you didn't ask for custom software, now did you? with OSS, you can check it yourself... possibly tweak it yourself, if you know that something else you're interfacing with might be quirky. and that's probably more to their taste than having the ability to take another company to court -after- something goes down... yeah, satellites should be replaceable, given enough time... but for, say, launch windows to other planets, you don't get another chance for a -long- time... money's nice... but getting it right the first time, and having the ability to fix stuff yourself, and feel confident in your own work, may be worthwhile.
as far as i know, the speed of light in glass is also less than the speed of light in a vacuum -- thus, both copper and glass (and plastic) fall short of "true" speed of light (in a vacuum)...
... of why slashdot should just give us permanent moderator priv's. so we don't have to have posts like these (and those above, from my point of view) to ask for moderation.
why, exactly, would a capitalist not wish to find the best deal in his/her own favor? you're suggesting that capitalism implies some sort of ethic -- that you're supposed to play by rules, under which you don't try to take over the market, make money, etc.
so, every 'good' capitalist should never add too much profit margin, ever misrepresent their product, or attempt to squash competition?
pardon the laughing, but no. every good capitalist will do whatever he/she can, until some competitor gets in the way, at which point battle over prices begins. or features. or laws. or anything to give them an advantage. in fact, anti-trust laws are just an add-on to keep the system running, because it isn't naturally stable. there is a recognized benefit to conglomeration and annihilation, which falls off when you become a little too big. but only if in the mean time the small companies learn to mavoeuver around you -- if you grow quickly enough and the small guys don't have time to get their little niches to fight back from... you win. you become a monopoly. it's unstable, so we add laws to make it seem stable.
if you're going to claim it's not right for capitalists to ask for legislation that would ban competing products... you've not looked at laws recently. it's just one more way of getting an advantage.
capitalism is not about consumers. it's about market.
very american thing, those blender-in-your-sink units... but wouldn't having a remote-control be dangerous on something like that? i mean... you're reaching down there to pull something out, push something in, whatever... and although you can see where he switch is (under your control, within slapping distance) you don't know where the remote is. and your kid is feeling vindictive...
any other units like this you would want to protect against remote use?
we built so-called homegrown software, knowing about hipaa (in fact, i think i read the spec more than the hipaa compliance officer assigned to the task) and no, there was no HL7 -- we built the app as a client/server with firebird/interbase, so there was no control over the data transmission. most of the firebird team, in fact, views SSL on the connection as unnecessary, but we didn't know how to go about setting that up manually (i hear it can be done, never got around to it.) the fact that the reply to your post says that HL7 is cleartext actually worries me... we had to share the network with non-medical staff, but at least we knew the internet access was nice and secure.
our database server was running linux (slackware) so the EULA had no effect there. on the other hand, some of our machines were running w2k (dell) and were thus liable to have a EULA issue on the client end (MS could remotely install a listening patch gaining access to the DB data coming and going... and slowly accumulate data about our patients.) to be hipaa compliant, you must make sure nobody can get to the data (remember: this also means locking your console when you're away, logging out, closing the door, keeping the blinds shut, etc.) so in this case, i'd recommend the following: make sure the w2k machines are set -not- to do automatic updates, and make sure the firewall is setup such that nobody's going to get in from the outside... as long as the machines don't automatically wake themselves up and decide to go looking for updates, you should be fine. nothing that comes with w2k should make the system insecure, and with no updates other than by your network admin/techs, nothing new should arrive to change that.
even with SSL between the DB and our clients, we couldn't prevent an MS program from, say, gleaning data directly from RAM... (i know, unlikely, but... core dumps for helping to fix things? memory dumps for entire system status at the time of a crash? that annoying feature in XP that asks you if you want to send MS a bug report about your own, home-grown app if it crashes while you're testing something unstable?)
a militia state -- this isn't about the government breaking into your network because of something you've done... but about other individuals getting 'justice' at random -- i seem to remember we were hoping to get rid of this by instituting police/government/law systems... innocent until proven guilty (in court)? ha! nah, just let random people attack each other... eventually the police will show up. maybe. if they feel like it.
my main concern is that this kind of bill would create a precedent for allowing citizens to randomly take whatever action they feel is necessary to kill off offending actions by others... something currently discouraged.
compared to... the most expensive version? the average? if 'most', then there's a market for charities... to sell you anything and everything for unreasonable prices, in the hopes you'll donate -large- savings to them...
Slashdot Mirror
Isn't part of the aim of Java apps not to know too much about their environment? Maybe I'm only thinking of Java applets, but it seems that if you're going to build stuff in Java, to run in a VM, you should be hoping for the benefit of cross-platform compatibility, not your ability to fake the look and feel of an OS you could have programmed natively for, in, say, C or somesuch. If it's going to be Java ... at least don't force it to look like it was built for only one platform. If MacOS users -really- hate your application because it doesn't look like everything else ... well ... KDE vs. Gnome users can just say "welcome to the club!" ...
Basically, once you get to the point of being able to project light to any point within the fog ... heck, you've got yourself a working hologram, no? So screw the fog ...
... your 3d image would be lost, with you looking for taillights.
... didn't they use this (or a water version) on [geek warning] "seaquest dsv"?
And, uhm, have you noticed, when driving in fog, that you can't see very far into it? In order to get good image quality on it, it'd have to be pretty thick
So no. No 3d. Not with this. And
you -liked- maya's interface? anything that has me selecting from a drop-down so i can get a different set of menu options in the top menu bar ... [shiver]
... they had no documentation on what objects/classes/etc. were available from the interpreter. barely enough to poke around with.
check out caligari trueSpace (http://www.caligari.com/) for an interface that won't suck your brain out. the renderer they use isn't bad (a few issues -- and they won't listen to me when i ask for 3d textures for water, coke, bubbles, etc.) but the main problem is their physics engine. i haven't bought their latest version, but the one i have has serious issues with collision detection during physics sims. which is sad, because i like good physics.
trueSpace also uses python as its scripting language -- but at least when i was looking for it
trueSpace sorta runs under WineX, but i would love to have a good, -actually- cross-platform 3d modeller/renderer/animator to use. best of luck.
(and yes -- use quaternions! and don't forget, say, tensor-based fabrics, goo, strings, etc.!)
if you have trouble coming up with 'features' you want, ask around -- the slashdot crowd is GREAT at scope creep.
if i remember right, though, STLport was necessary even for older versions of gcc that hadn't quite finished up templating the iostream stuff, etc.
...
...
computer labs at school had an old borland c++ compiler that -thought- it knew what the STL was, and Visual C 6 with no pathces installed -- just enough to start compiling and croak. At least the borland compiler finished compiling, then trailed off when iterating through certain containers
and we were learning 'data structures' on these, and couldn't convince anyone to just grab a copy of gcc on our Unix box. grrr.
so yes, STLport is not a bad idea -- at least you know you've got a good STL available if your local compiler comes with stupid libraries
[long pause] ... oh shi[crackle, EOF]
yup, that had a chilling effect. everyone's afraid of posting a reply, for fear of being predictable
you forgot the religious zealots. extra-terrestrial life of any sort is a problem too often set aside for later debate ... actually finding some would mean -way- more fun discussions at the dinner table. i wouldn't mind.
Ouch. I'd say that was personal. I wouldn't mind your skepticism (may I call it that?) if it weren't so darn hard to fake videos of (fairly, if not perfectly) calm protestors getting beaten for complaining about our last presidential elections.
... when you manage to describe it accurately, send me the completed pamphlet. I've always wanted to know what it is I believe (I'm sure my parents would like to as well!)
As to raisethefist, I'd remind you that your logic is quite a bit the same as that of the University of California, with the complaint about the link to the FARC? The argument is that by mentioning someone's point of view in your own argumentation, you are implicitely supporting theirs. I'd beg to disagree, but I really don't need to beg at all.
So, I have a party now? Neat! Always wanted one of those
G'day!
I'll agree with you -- it's not as obvious as I may have seemed to think it is, that the electoral college has outlived its time. It's also not going away -- if I remember correctly, it'll take a 2/3 vote on the part of the states to change the system, and that would require the states who consider themselves beneficiary of the said system to give it up, which isn't likely.
... there's no guarantee, as I said, that the elected official will actually side with me on enough of the issues for me to be satisfied. Switzerland has had quite a few referendums (for the larger stuff, 'smaller' law is handled by elected officials) and I'd say I rather fancy that system. But as stated by the parent, not everyone cares (at all) to vote on individual issues. We'd have a lot lower turnout (my guess) at per-issue votes than at elections. But it's still more people voting than in the house and senate (if anyone cares.)
Balancing the voices of the voters is, I'll admit, a complex task. Your presentation quite accurate. Could we accept, perhaps, a system in which votes are cast with a value of '1' per person, but make sure that in cases such as rural states (no offense meant) the specific problems of the area will be taken into account? I think that's what our congress is for, and local government. On a national scale, I'd tend to think that a person is 'worth' a person, not otherwise. On the local scale, I'm very much for these people who would otherwise not be 'as represented' getting their way. But I'd rather not think that, because of the way the system is built, my vote only matters 3/4 as much as the vote of someone in [name another state.]
Then again, even if I do get the 'right' person elected, thanks to my well-counted vote
All considered, it doesn't matter -- they're not changing the system. Bah.
No, this post has nothing to do with agoraphobia. However, it does relate to your most interesting comment about the right to vote. Your point is, I assume, that you'd really rather that votes only be cast, and counted, if they are backed by a true wish to make a difference.
... but it did happen. And it was shushed. People were beaten for complaining about what goes on. Are you surprised there's apathy?
... those are the people who will run our lives. If it takes electronic voting to reach out to those who think the system doesn't work, then do so! Make sure they know their vote matters, whatever it takes.
I can understand your frustration with the voting system. I think, though, that your feelings about it can be better channeled by looking at the following problems:
-Not everyone would have the money to vote. Not everyone is fit for military service. (etc.) Imposing any restriction besides registration would imply a class-level difference, between those who can afford to vote, and those who cannot. I'd really rather not live in a country where only the (even mildly) rich may vote -- the laws have an effect one everyone's lives. As such, I'd even rather children be allowed to vote. And tourists. And anyone else who (at least for a short while) must live under the laws of the land. If the jurisdiction of law is going to be based on land-borders, votes should also be defined purely by land-borders.
-It's not apathy that is the root of the problem. It's not that people don't care about the issues; it's that they've already made up their minds ahead of time. I come from a rather (D) family, by girlfriend from a quite staunch (R) family. In both cases, I've observed people who will go to the voting booth because they care about the issue, but would willingly 'vote down the line' (check the box at the top saying you agree with said party on all issues.) We need to educate people to care about issues rather than grand theories. I grew up in europe, where there are quite a few more parties available to vote for. Here, you rarely have more than two choices: and two choices cannot possibly represent, accurately, all the different combinations of voting preferences of the american people. But they do. Because people here refuse to deal with individual issues. And that, I think, is even worse than apathy.
-Not being able to distinguish between (D) and (R) shouldn't surprise you: in europe, they're both considered centrist movements, compared to all other available political parties. You don't see here campaigns by neo-nazies or communists. The anarchists are barely represented. Independent? What does that mean? So really, no, the two aren't that different. If you see them as radically different, then you just have an extremely narrow vision of the political spectrum. Open your eyes.
-Representation is a problem: would it have mattered if I had voted (D) in the last presidential elections? No, because the deciding factor wasn't the state I'm in -- only in Florida did every vote count (that is, obviously so.) If we had a more direct approach, where 'popular vote' were actually the vote that counted, perhaps people would be more inclined to vote, no?
-Apathy isn't surprising: consider slashdot. Most of us are pissed off that our congresscritters (what a fond name) won't listen to us. Shouldn't they be listening? If they're not, and our votes don't really matter, then we're not left with much but civil disobedience. And with recent laws, that's not nearly as safe as it used to be. Check around -- police violence is a problem, and it's stifling even our ability to hold protests outdoors. Check the videos available from indymedia, raisethefist, etc. of protests, say, at the presidential elections? I hadn't even seen those on television
I'm sure others can add to this list. I'm all for democracy -- fair democracy. Democracy in which people feel empowered to make a difference in how their country is run, how their lives will be changed by the powers that be. If they don't feel they have that, it's useless. Lobbyists, people like our families, who vote based on how their parents (and churches) vote
which is why setting style='border: 1px solid gray;' works on ... text boxes and textareas ... but not on checkboxes or drop-downs. wonderful. any other things about styling you'd like to mention? i would -love- for all browsers to actually stylize widgets correctly. but they don't. and my users ask me why it is the checkboxes don't look like the text box. or why the drop-down looks funny. or why the textarea, under mozilla, only does word-wrapping if you specify the number of columns, rather than (as you would expect to do) just specify a width, in pixels ...
yes. i love widgets. i love how they all work alike.
remember that most of us deal with open-source code: if someone can see your code, whether it be in C or in PHP, they can look for holes. injection throught SQL is a big problem -- if someone's feeling malicious, they just have to figure out what you're running (and if it's one of the popular php-forums, that's not hard) and download the code ... and start having a look around for potential security flaws. doesn't take much.
... so every single page, whether creating forms or accepting input from forms, re-verifies absolutely everything about what you're allowed to do, etc. there's no reason for create_object.php to make sure you can, and create_object_confirm.php not to.
... most people expect you to be using mysql, and will attack it as such.)
it's irritating to write as much code as it takes to be secure, but i'm glad i did it with my project -- it doesn't allow anonymous stuff at all, but there are still risks involved
and there's no reason not to make sure your SQL is secure. (although not using the most-used server also helps -- i use firebird/interbase
It is called capitalism, and it has made the U.S. the richest country on the planet.
... has made a few other countries 'the richest country on the planet' in the past. can we start disassociating the two ideas? that maybe the form of government doesn't directly influence how well the country does? quite a few other countries are capitalist too (maybe more!) but that hasn't exactly made them the richest on the planet. take a step back, look again, and gain a new appreciation for complexity, k?
Just as being a kingdom or an empire, or
uhm, she didn't call bush hitler -- she said that bush was using war to distract attention from problems at home, and that this was obvious to everyone, that it was a standard tactic, and that -even- hitler (oh goodness) had used such a tactic.
A causes C.
B causes C.
therefore, A is just like B!
no.
i'm not usually one to defend bush, but i'd at least ask that we not make the same logical mistakes his aides did when they responded, just like you, to the german minister's comment. if i say that even the town idiot knows that 2+2=4, that doesn't mean that just because you know this too, you're the town idiot.
oppression doesn't require technology -- it only requires that people be stupid enough to be blinded by whatever's going on.
he said "in a higher dimension" or somesuch -- as in, fifth dimension that you can't directly observe. think about the fact that standing on the surface of the earth, you'd have trouble telling, just from that, that it's not flat ... so on the scale of the universe, the next dimension may not be apparent, etc. (no, it's not a bullet-proof analogy.)
it could be seen as typical, yes: copy large text instead of refering to origin, then use it to state much all at once as fact, include names of many references, but then forget to provide the actual bibliography (note the numbered [x] references) ... and have trouble getting it into the text box (fear of technology?)
yes, this is flamebait.
seems most EULA's basically say it's not their fault if you use the software, and because of this, you screw something up, expensive or not. among other things, software makers, even commercial, can't always account for all possible uses of their software ... if they've missed something (like, say, interfacing with thing X will cause it to crash once in a million times) ... well, you didn't ask for custom software, now did you? with OSS, you can check it yourself ... possibly tweak it yourself, if you know that something else you're interfacing with might be quirky. and that's probably more to their taste than having the ability to take another company to court -after- something goes down ... yeah, satellites should be replaceable, given enough time ... but for, say, launch windows to other planets, you don't get another chance for a -long- time ... money's nice ... but getting it right the first time, and having the ability to fix stuff yourself, and feel confident in your own work, may be worthwhile.
the topic's a repost ... who cares if we sorta repost comments too? it's fair ...
as far as i know, the speed of light in glass is also less than the speed of light in a vacuum -- thus, both copper and glass (and plastic) fall short of "true" speed of light (in a vacuum) ...
... of why slashdot should just give us permanent moderator priv's. so we don't have to have posts like these (and those above, from my point of view) to ask for moderation.
why, exactly, would a capitalist not wish to find the best deal in his/her own favor? you're suggesting that capitalism implies some sort of ethic -- that you're supposed to play by rules, under which you don't try to take over the market, make money, etc.
... you win. you become a monopoly. it's unstable, so we add laws to make it seem stable.
... you've not looked at laws recently. it's just one more way of getting an advantage.
so, every 'good' capitalist should never add too much profit margin, ever misrepresent their product, or attempt to squash competition?
pardon the laughing, but no. every good capitalist will do whatever he/she can, until some competitor gets in the way, at which point battle over prices begins. or features. or laws. or anything to give them an advantage. in fact, anti-trust laws are just an add-on to keep the system running, because it isn't naturally stable. there is a recognized benefit to conglomeration and annihilation, which falls off when you become a little too big. but only if in the mean time the small companies learn to mavoeuver around you -- if you grow quickly enough and the small guys don't have time to get their little niches to fight back from
if you're going to claim it's not right for capitalists to ask for legislation that would ban competing products
capitalism is not about consumers. it's about market.
very american thing, those blender-in-your-sink units ... but wouldn't having a remote-control be dangerous on something like that? i mean ... you're reaching down there to pull something out, push something in, whatever... and although you can see where he switch is (under your control, within slapping distance) you don't know where the remote is. and your kid is feeling vindictive ...
any other units like this you would want to protect against remote use?
we built so-called homegrown software, knowing about hipaa (in fact, i think i read the spec more than the hipaa compliance officer assigned to the task) and no, there was no HL7 -- we built the app as a client/server with firebird/interbase, so there was no control over the data transmission. most of the firebird team, in fact, views SSL on the connection as unnecessary, but we didn't know how to go about setting that up manually (i hear it can be done, never got around to it.) the fact that the reply to your post says that HL7 is cleartext actually worries me ... we had to share the network with non-medical staff, but at least we knew the internet access was nice and secure.
... and slowly accumulate data about our patients.) to be hipaa compliant, you must make sure nobody can get to the data (remember: this also means locking your console when you're away, logging out, closing the door, keeping the blinds shut, etc.) so in this case, i'd recommend the following: make sure the w2k machines are set -not- to do automatic updates, and make sure the firewall is setup such that nobody's going to get in from the outside ... as long as the machines don't automatically wake themselves up and decide to go looking for updates, you should be fine. nothing that comes with w2k should make the system insecure, and with no updates other than by your network admin/techs, nothing new should arrive to change that.
... (i know, unlikely, but ... core dumps for helping to fix things? memory dumps for entire system status at the time of a crash? that annoying feature in XP that asks you if you want to send MS a bug report about your own, home-grown app if it crashes while you're testing something unstable?)
our database server was running linux (slackware) so the EULA had no effect there. on the other hand, some of our machines were running w2k (dell) and were thus liable to have a EULA issue on the client end (MS could remotely install a listening patch gaining access to the DB data coming and going
even with SSL between the DB and our clients, we couldn't prevent an MS program from, say, gleaning data directly from RAM
a militia state -- this isn't about the government breaking into your network because of something you've done ... but about other individuals getting 'justice' at random -- i seem to remember we were hoping to get rid of this by instituting police/government/law systems ... innocent until proven guilty (in court)? ha! nah, just let random people attack each other ... eventually the police will show up. maybe. if they feel like it.
... something currently discouraged.
my main concern is that this kind of bill would create a precedent for allowing citizens to randomly take whatever action they feel is necessary to kill off offending actions by others
and you still only put one N in 'millennium' ... two L's, two N's. period.
compared to ... the most expensive version? the average? if 'most', then there's a market for charities ... to sell you anything and everything for unreasonable prices, in the hopes you'll donate -large- savings to them ...