I don't deny the fact that OS X (at least the Intel version of 10.5) is a certified UNIX. I just meant to make clear that this is only a small part of what OS X is and that OS X is *not* "just a Unix" with a GUI. It is *also* UNIX (and certified as such), but "Unix based" is just wrong in more than one context. In many parts of OS X the UNIX/POSIX stuff is just *one* way to do things and more often than not the rather unusual one. And many essential OS X APIs don't care at all.
Mac, however, *is* UNIX, seeing as how BSD counts as UNIX (to me). I'm not clear on how you deny that. You can boot straight into a standard BSD command line, or access one any time. Most importantly, it meets both definitions of "based on UNIX": it works like UNIX and was also developed from the same code.
It still isn't Unix and not even "Unix based". It has a Unix bolted on under a corner, but most of the OS doesn't use it at all. You can even opt to *not* install the BSD subsystem and the average OS X user wouldn't even notice there's something missing. There's hardly any line of code in usual OS X software that uses the Unix underpinnings and there's *lots* of essential stuff which is totally alien to the Unix parts. It has a Unix bolted on, that's all.
All this "OS X is Unix with a nice GUI" is just misleading. A few percent of OS X is Unix and it is nice to have it, but if you try to work with OS X as if it were Unix you'll see it just isn't. OS X has a shitload of APIs, some new, some old and some even older and the Unix in OS X is just a single one of these. "Unix based" would mean that Unix is the base of the OS and this is not the case with OS X. As I said, hit the "Customize" button when installing OS X and you can uncheck the BSD-subsystem. See, no Unix there, OK? The OS and apps will still run fine.
ultimate power rests in a bunch of grumpy old men who believe they have a monopoly on determining what god wants
that doesn't bother you?
Is this *that* different from the power resting in other grumpy old men?
Iran is a country and a people and not just these grumpy old men. Many students and other educated folks there are fed up with them, too. And Iran has lots of those, this is not a third world country.
Anyway, you can't expect someone having nukes pointed at him *not* trying to point some back.
Come on, the iPhone & Google Books competing with an e-Book reader? I own an iPhone and love it, but it's the proposed situation is only possible if you overlook:
- A 3 inch screen that involves constant movement to see more than one paragraph at "text book" level font sizes
- A slow EDGE connection (at least an e-Book can cache the entire thing easily).
- Lousy bookmark system.
- Poor back & forth or history functionality.
I am reading books with the iPod touch (same display, hard- and software as the iPhone) using books.app and it works fine. The screen is small, but not too small. No need for using EDGE (you can install quite a few books in 8-16 GB of flash), the bookmarks are fine and it's a great reading experience overall.
The iPhone MAY one day compete with these other technologies, but to insist right now that it's everything and a bag of chips is just plain naive. Yes, this day will be the one when Apple lets you install software (like eBook readers) on the frigging things without having to hack them first.
You don't think Apple will repeat history in 2007 with the iPhone what they did in 2001 with the iPod?
No, because the iPhone (as other modern phones) is a *platform*, not just a single-purpose device. The iPod was hardware, design, iTunes and ITMS, the software on/for it (games etc.) was mostly irrelevant. With phones this is very different. Apple doesn't seem to get this, that's part of the problem with the iPhone.
Or they just think "Hey, let's make lots of money by selling a slick phone to 5% of the potential customers and luring them into expensive plans we get a fair share of". This may work out fine. 5% will than buy an iPhone, 80% something running Android and the rest, well, whatever. This is not a healthy plan for a platform, though. Any new popular service requiring Android will leave the iPhone out in the cold then.
The iPhone is not great because it is such a great thing, it is great because the OS and software on other phones sucks that much. Change that and the iPhone is just a proprietary, expensive brick.
Have you seen a 7" screen recently and tried typing on that surface?
I type regularly on a much smaller screen... not to speak of cellphone keyboards. I don't say it's comfortable or fast. But as I said, look at what many do with their notebooks -- they rarely write much. I know lots of people writing more on their cellphones than on their notebooks. They use it for its larger screen and for the software and faster hardware.
Nobody types on laptops anymore? Damn! Has someone told that to the laptop manufacturers? They are like... throwing money out the window.
They just don't get it, as always. They will get it eventually, though. Why include a keyboard if you can make a smaller, more sexy device without one? Mind you, I don't say that *nobody* writes much. Obviously most people writing here write quite a bit, but this is not the norm. And nobody at all would have imagined that *anyone* would like to type messages on a tiny phone keyboard and still there're more SMS written daily than emails.
Believe me, a good virtual keyboard on a 7" screen would be more than good enough for many mobile uses and if you can attach a BT or USB keyboard for stationary use many people wouldn't see any reason anymore to buy a notebook. That tablet PCs have largely failed is because they're too large, heavy and cumbersome and have an OS on them that just doesn't fit in here.
And... ummm.. Where exactly is the appeal in the TabletPC? I mean... hand-held PDA devices - OK. I can use it and hold it with one hand, and put it in my pocket.
But a 14", or 15" or 17" big, clumsy, fragile thing I have to haul around and which I must always hold with one hand when I interact with it (no keyboard to put on my lap, while the screen stays upright), AND the control/input interface IS the viewing interface (so one dies with another in case of a malfunction) - why?
Imagine a device with a 7" screen, about the size of a paperback, but thinner (and heavier). A resolution of about 1024x768 with a GUI optimized for fingering it, very much like the iPhone, but with room enough for real apps. A virtual (fullscreen) keyboard large enough to type with both hands.
Well, it still would be mostly useful for *consuming* stuff (videos, browsing, etc), not as an all-purpose working machine, but come on: That's exactly what notebooks are bought for today -- except for writing short messages and typing in passwords and URLs nobody types anything on those things anyway, so why bother with a keyboard much better than the typical T9-enhanced cellphone keypad? Doing away with the physical keyboard is just a logical step.
Wait a few years and you'll see real keyboards in offices and on developer's desks, but nowhere else. We're all consumers now and hardly anyone writes more than 160 characters at a time anyway. And anyone who can cope with a tiny touchpad on a notebook to position a tiny arrow on a large screen can use a much larger touchscreen to tap on large, shiny, virtual buttons. The keyboard is going the way of the dodo. If you're a programmer or a professional writer or a secretary, you're just in a tiny minority. 90% of the potential buyers of such a tablet are typing more on their cellphones than on their computers already and if they can do that, they can cope with a touchscreen, too.
The problem with statements like "Don't let big [evil] corporations run anything" is that there isn't really an alternative. Who do you propose runs the telecom grid? Ma Bell so we can get another hundred years of rotary phones? The government that pays $20,000 for a hammer and holds fake press conferences? The sad fact is that there aren't any alternatives to letting a corporate entity run things. Not only that, but the gouging that has transpired over the last 20 years has financed the R&D that allows stuff like wireless internet.
If this is true, how can it be that we can have highspeed Internet without Internet providers selling "free" computers (which are locked to the provider) along with hideously expensive monthly data plans? Why can we send email as much as we want and as large as we want instead of paying a fixed price for every 160 characters in them?
In theory if more people used GSM phones and phone cards, there would be more competition since the cell providers can't lock you in to a contract. This is, by the way, the situation in Europe where GSM is the standard.
In practice the situation in Europe is a bit better than in the US, but not very much. Most phones are sold cheaply but with a monthly plan and locked to a provider. You can get better plans or prepaid SIM cards when you buy an unlocked phone, but if you want to have a state-of-the-art phone these are expensive, so most people just run straight into the same trap as in the US.
Now, what you can do is this: Buy a cheap and simple unlocked phone (like the Motorola F3 or a basic Nokia) and put in a prepaid SIM card. *And* buy a WiFi enabled PDA or a similar device. Use the phone for making calls (which is cheap then, you can get away with about 10 c/min for outgoing calls here, with incoming calls free and no monthly fees involved) and use the other device for everything else. Sadly the market for smart devices without a phone in them is almost dead... The nearest thing to a perfect smartphone without a phone is the iPod touch, if you jailbreak it. A sad state of affairs, yes. There's no such thing as a free market when it comes to cell phones.
Lesson 3. Always keep a hardware firewall even if it is a cheap Linksys Firewall/Router they will double up protection and keep your system relatively safe.
Most hardware firewalls run a version of Linux (good) which gets hardly ever updated (bad). You may very well target yourself to a bazillion of script-kiddies if you're running a hardware firewall with an outdated Linux on it.
This is a time-bomb ticking in many (even quite geeky) households. Tell me, which version of the Linux kernel is your hardware router/firewall running?
I have to wonder - Could this particular anisotropy account for the Voyager paradox? That would set a much lower bound...
There's not only the Voyager anomaly (which we have very poor data of and may have totally conservative causes).
Much more interesting is the Flyby anomaly, an unexpected and unexplained energy (velocity) increase during Earth flybys of satellites (or probes). It has been observed with at least four satellites yet and seems to show that our understanding of gravity/mass is subtly wrong in a very fundamental way.
ICQ: "You agree that by posting any material or information anywhere on the ICQ Services and Information you surrender your copyright and any other proprietary right in the posted material or information. You further agree that ICQ Inc. is entitled to use at its own discretion any of the posted material or information in any manner it deems fit, including, but not limited to, publishing the material or distributing it." (ICQ Policy)
AIM: "However, by submitting or posting Content to public areas of AIM Products (for example, posting a message on a message board or submitting your picture for the "Rate-A-Buddy" feature), you grant AOL, its parent, affiliates, subsidiaries, assigns, agents and licensees the irrevocable, perpetual, worldwide right to reproduce, display, perform, distribute, adapt and promote this Content in any medium. Once you submit or post Content to any public area on an AIM Product, AOL does not need to give you any further right to inspect or approve uses of such Content or to compensate you for any such uses. AOL owns all right, title and interest in any compilation, collective work or other derivative work created by AOL using or incorporating Content posted to public areas of AIM Products." (AIM Terms of Service)
MSN: "For materials you post or otherwise provide to Microsoft related to the MSN Web Sites (a "Submission"), you grant Microsoft permission to (1) use, copy, distribute, transmit, publicly display, publicly perform, reproduce, edit, modify, translate and reformat your Submission, each in connection with the MSN Web Sites, and (2) sublicense these rights, to the maximum extent permitted by applicable law. Microsoft will not pay you for your Submission. Microsoft may remove your Submission at any time. For each Submission, you represent that you have all rights necessary for you to make the grants in this section. To the maximum extent permitted by applicable law, Microsoft may monitor your e-mail, or other electronic communications and may disclose such information in the event it has a good faith reason to believe it is necessary for purposes of ensuring your compliance with this Agreement, and protecting the rights, property, and interests of the Microsoft Parties or any customer of a Microsoft Party." (Microsofts Terms of Use)
...that quite a few people don't get the fact that the very same things that make the Internet a pest are the things that make it what it is. The Internet is a relict, based on very simple, public protocols that allow almost everything, good and bad. The good old Internet assumes almost nothing and allows nearly everything. Replace it with something that assumes a lot and allows only very limited things and you get TV with DRM. What is exactly what some people want it to be, but *we* don't want that, do we?
There's nothing wrong with the Internet. There's something wrong with some governments, corporations and, generally, systems, but changing the Internet won't change a bit of *that*.
When someone has new protocols, business models or whatever, fine. Show them, use them, and when they're good, they'll thrive. If not, not.
Communism's other name is "command economics". It's the idea that some wise and benevolent leader is better at allocating resources than a pack of ravenous self-interested capitalists.
No, it isn't. In real communism there's not even more a need for a state, a government or a leader. In theory at least.
You do of course realize that one can both believe that the theory of evolution is 100% correct and also believe that God created this process?
Of course one could believe that, but what would this mean for your average believer? A God that knew (and knows) nothing of man... How is a God creating some primitive form of life billions of years ago and creating a way of developing ever more complex kinds of life over nearly endless amounts of time compatible with what your average bible fan believes in? I tell you what: Preach that and he won't care at all. He wants to believe in the Big Father in the Sky. Who can't be black, of course. Or a Big Bacteria. Science, knowledge and cold facts are the natural enemies of religion. They make things just too boring and man just too irrelevant as to allow for the God the people want to believe in.
There may be scientists still believing in God, yes. But doing so requires abstracting such a lot of things away from the God of the bible and common religious frames of thought that there's not much left to preach to the masses.
Another way to deal with this is to just use one address and filter the spam. I'm doing it this way: I have exactly two addresses (one for professional use, one for private use) which I have not changed for more than 10 years now. I don't protect them in any way, I post with these addresses to Usenet, to mailing lists, use them for newsletters and use them without even thinking of spam just everywhere.
Effect: Yeah, these two addresses are very likely to be found in every single spam database in the solar system and beyond. So what? Filtering works good enough to allow only about a dozen spam mails get past my filters daily. Nothing to be afraid of. On the other hand I don't have to deal with a myriad of addresses which may or may not receive legitimate mail, I have not to waste any thought over what address I give out to whom and every single person who wants to send me mail can do so, even if he finds my address in some dusty mailing list archive from a decade ago -- it's still the same address and it works.
Don't take it personally but your strategy is really flawed. Take an address (make sure it is your own and register a domain) and stick to it. Everything else makes the solution worse than the problem, since you not only receive spam on several addresses but also have to carefully track which address may still receive legitimate mail.
Yes, this may sound paranoid. But unfortunately until the technology is changed to allow tracking spammers down, and the laws are changed to allow dealing with spammers effectively (.30-06 is effective), these are the sorts of measures needed to keep your inbox relatively clean.
They really have cool properties - you can tile an infinite plane with just two different tiles, in such a way that the pattern never repeats; the ratio of the frequencies of both types is exactly the golden ratio. There's a lot more, see the article.
Apparently they found actual Penrose tiles, hundreds of years old.
From the the Wikipedia arcticle: "Pentaplex Ltd., a company in Yorkshire, England controlled by Penrose, owns the licensing rights to Penrose tilings."
This culture will go under, no doubt, and we all know why.
Chimps are very much like us. They engage in warfare with other chimp tribes, they use "hammer and anvil" tactics in hunting parties--- none of this learned from outside.
There are two species comprising the chimpanzee genus. The common chimp is what you describe, the Pygmy Chimp (also called Bonobo) is much different. Bonobos don't engage in warfare and prefer having sex with each other all day over aggressive encounters. They're much less dominant and aggressive within their tribes, too.
Both species seem to thrive well. I find it kind of refreshing to see that there are very different social models possible and both work. And while the chimps seem to be more inventive when it comes to killing, the Bonobos are certainly more inventive when it comes to having fun. I think we should learn from them.
It's also interesting to see that the behaviour of Bonobos seems to be much too unsettling that you will see or read much of it. Even in scientific literature they were more or less taboo for a long time and even today you won't see documentaries showing them having all kinds of sex just for fun (and they really do that all the time, including oral sex, masturbation and homosexual sex).
Because they were originally intended to last for 90 days. There were no "long treks" planned. People assumed that maybe they'd survive a teensy bit beyond the 90 day mark and there was pretty wild celebration (for a bunch of nerds) at the 100-day mark because people thought it was really cool.
That's plain wrong. The engineers knew very well that the rovers would be good for much more than 90 days (if they weren't particularly unlucky). The mission was limited for 90 days initially for a bunch of reasons, not the least being the fact that budgeting for a year or more of operating time and DSN bandwidth would have been really, really expensive. Once the buggers were there and worked fine, getting the money and time on the dishes was much easier.
It's nevertheless impressive, of course.
I think they have a good point here. We've been working on a 'space station' for quite some time and barely have anything to show for it yet.
This is nonsense and you should know that. ISS is a great achievement, it has demonstrated and tested many things which just *have* to be done for any longer duration space mission. It is in fact the most successful achievement in manned spaceflight yet and even the much critisized international aspect of it has helped to get at least some notation of standards noone would care for with short-lived missions like Apollo.
There's absolutely no reason to belittle ISS. In fact it is the *only* major new thing in manned spaceflight that has been done (as opposed to "planned" or "designed" or "dreamed of") in decades. We should really prepare for a future in which things like Moon bases or Mars missions are either done ISS-style or not done at all. Not the least factor being the fact that international cooperation and contracts are just the best insurance against any single entity pulling the plug when the thing gets more expensive than expected (or the other party wins an election).
Do you really want to hinge our future in space on who wins an election or how NASA has to bent to get its budget approved? In my (humble) opinion ISS has shown how to handle spaceflight and this is not a small achievement at all.
The basics are pretty much like earth bases, and the long-term effects of no/low-gravity are not really known. So it'd be like designing a regular earth base with airlocks, and huge gaping holes where they are going to put the unknown things they'll need once they understand non-earth living.
Uh, no. A moon base is pretty much the same as a space station, just a bit harder (abrasive dust and hefty temperature changes).
Twenty-eight percent of Brirish Muslims hope for the U.K. one day to become a fundamentalist Islamic state.
Which means that 72 percent do not hope that the UK becomes a fundamentalist islamic state. Fine. Now, if 72 percent of the British Non-Muslims hope the UK not to become a facist police-state (and act accordingly), there's still hope...
I mean, what does make you think that the Sharia is more worse than what we're heading towards with light-speed in the west?
Re:But does it have a useable file-save dialogue?
on
GNOME 2.16 Released
·
· Score: 1
Do you know what the difference between MacOS X and Gnome is? Yeah, the save-dialogs are almost the same, but in OS X the dialog *remembers* its state (expanded or not) across apps. With GTK you have to patch the sources if you don't want to expand it over and over again.
I mean, I have nothing against Gnome (running it on my FreeBSD-machine), but there are places where OS X just gets it right and Gnome doesn't. Don't get me started about Metacity not remembering position and size of windows.
What I could never understand is the reason for having Y and Z changed in German keyboards...
The reason is that Y is only very rarely used in German, while the Z is common. With English it's the other way round. Frequently needed keys in the pinky position in the bottom row can slow down typing a lot and provokes typing errors.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't deny the fact that OS X (at least the Intel version of 10.5) is a certified UNIX. I just meant to make clear that this is only a small part of what OS X is and that OS X is *not* "just a Unix" with a GUI. It is *also* UNIX (and certified as such), but "Unix based" is just wrong in more than one context. In many parts of OS X the UNIX/POSIX stuff is just *one* way to do things and more often than not the rather unusual one. And many essential OS X APIs don't care at all.
It still isn't Unix and not even "Unix based". It has a Unix bolted on under a corner, but most of the OS doesn't use it at all. You can even opt to *not* install the BSD subsystem and the average OS X user wouldn't even notice there's something missing. There's hardly any line of code in usual OS X software that uses the Unix underpinnings and there's *lots* of essential stuff which is totally alien to the Unix parts. It has a Unix bolted on, that's all.
All this "OS X is Unix with a nice GUI" is just misleading. A few percent of OS X is Unix and it is nice to have it, but if you try to work with OS X as if it were Unix you'll see it just isn't. OS X has a shitload of APIs, some new, some old and some even older and the Unix in OS X is just a single one of these. "Unix based" would mean that Unix is the base of the OS and this is not the case with OS X. As I said, hit the "Customize" button when installing OS X and you can uncheck the BSD-subsystem. See, no Unix there, OK? The OS and apps will still run fine.
Every once in a while, however, you meet a predator/bully who cannot be challenged via _any_ means except a war to the death.
So why challenge him at all? Just ignore him and make sure others ignore him, too.
You do not beat diseases by negotiating with bacteria.
Of course you do. It's much easier to stay healthy than to fight a desease. In fact *avoiding* diseases is very much like negotiating.
You do not eliminate rats by trying to train them away from dumpsters.
Of course you do. Avoid food being dumped, that will train them away from dumpsters.
Is this *that* different from the power resting in other grumpy old men?
Iran is a country and a people and not just these grumpy old men. Many students and other educated folks there are fed up with them, too. And Iran has lots of those, this is not a third world country.
Anyway, you can't expect someone having nukes pointed at him *not* trying to point some back.
I'm happily using a cellphone with that kind of display since half a year now (Motorola F3).
I am reading books with the iPod touch (same display, hard- and software as the iPhone) using books.app and it works fine. The screen is small, but not too small. No need for using EDGE (you can install quite a few books in 8-16 GB of flash), the bookmarks are fine and it's a great reading experience overall. The iPhone MAY one day compete with these other technologies, but to insist right now that it's everything and a bag of chips is just plain naive. Yes, this day will be the one when Apple lets you install software (like eBook readers) on the frigging things without having to hack them first.
No, because the iPhone (as other modern phones) is a *platform*, not just a single-purpose device. The iPod was hardware, design, iTunes and ITMS, the software on/for it (games etc.) was mostly irrelevant. With phones this is very different. Apple doesn't seem to get this, that's part of the problem with the iPhone.
Or they just think "Hey, let's make lots of money by selling a slick phone to 5% of the potential customers and luring them into expensive plans we get a fair share of". This may work out fine. 5% will than buy an iPhone, 80% something running Android and the rest, well, whatever. This is not a healthy plan for a platform, though. Any new popular service requiring Android will leave the iPhone out in the cold then.
The iPhone is not great because it is such a great thing, it is great because the OS and software on other phones sucks that much. Change that and the iPhone is just a proprietary, expensive brick.
I type regularly on a much smaller screen... not to speak of cellphone keyboards. I don't say it's comfortable or fast. But as I said, look at what many do with their notebooks -- they rarely write much. I know lots of people writing more on their cellphones than on their notebooks. They use it for its larger screen and for the software and faster hardware.
They just don't get it, as always. They will get it eventually, though. Why include a keyboard if you can make a smaller, more sexy device without one? Mind you, I don't say that *nobody* writes much. Obviously most people writing here write quite a bit, but this is not the norm. And nobody at all would have imagined that *anyone* would like to type messages on a tiny phone keyboard and still there're more SMS written daily than emails.
Believe me, a good virtual keyboard on a 7" screen would be more than good enough for many mobile uses and if you can attach a BT or USB keyboard for stationary use many people wouldn't see any reason anymore to buy a notebook. That tablet PCs have largely failed is because they're too large, heavy and cumbersome and have an OS on them that just doesn't fit in here.
Imagine a device with a 7" screen, about the size of a paperback, but thinner (and heavier). A resolution of about 1024x768 with a GUI optimized for fingering it, very much like the iPhone, but with room enough for real apps. A virtual (fullscreen) keyboard large enough to type with both hands.
Well, it still would be mostly useful for *consuming* stuff (videos, browsing, etc), not as an all-purpose working machine, but come on: That's exactly what notebooks are bought for today -- except for writing short messages and typing in passwords and URLs nobody types anything on those things anyway, so why bother with a keyboard much better than the typical T9-enhanced cellphone keypad? Doing away with the physical keyboard is just a logical step.
Wait a few years and you'll see real keyboards in offices and on developer's desks, but nowhere else. We're all consumers now and hardly anyone writes more than 160 characters at a time anyway. And anyone who can cope with a tiny touchpad on a notebook to position a tiny arrow on a large screen can use a much larger touchscreen to tap on large, shiny, virtual buttons. The keyboard is going the way of the dodo. If you're a programmer or a professional writer or a secretary, you're just in a tiny minority. 90% of the potential buyers of such a tablet are typing more on their cellphones than on their computers already and if they can do that, they can cope with a touchscreen, too.
If this is true, how can it be that we can have highspeed Internet without Internet providers selling "free" computers (which are locked to the provider) along with hideously expensive monthly data plans? Why can we send email as much as we want and as large as we want instead of paying a fixed price for every 160 characters in them?
In practice the situation in Europe is a bit better than in the US, but not very much. Most phones are sold cheaply but with a monthly plan and locked to a provider. You can get better plans or prepaid SIM cards when you buy an unlocked phone, but if you want to have a state-of-the-art phone these are expensive, so most people just run straight into the same trap as in the US.
Now, what you can do is this: Buy a cheap and simple unlocked phone (like the Motorola F3 or a basic Nokia) and put in a prepaid SIM card. *And* buy a WiFi enabled PDA or a similar device. Use the phone for making calls (which is cheap then, you can get away with about 10 c/min for outgoing calls here, with incoming calls free and no monthly fees involved) and use the other device for everything else. Sadly the market for smart devices without a phone in them is almost dead... The nearest thing to a perfect smartphone without a phone is the iPod touch, if you jailbreak it. A sad state of affairs, yes. There's no such thing as a free market when it comes to cell phones.
Most hardware firewalls run a version of Linux (good) which gets hardly ever updated (bad). You may very well target yourself to a bazillion of script-kiddies if you're running a hardware firewall with an outdated Linux on it.
This is a time-bomb ticking in many (even quite geeky) households. Tell me, which version of the Linux kernel is your hardware router/firewall running?
There's not only the Voyager anomaly (which we have very poor data of and may have totally conservative causes).
Much more interesting is the Flyby anomaly, an unexpected and unexplained energy (velocity) increase during Earth flybys of satellites (or probes). It has been observed with at least four satellites yet and seems to show that our understanding of gravity/mass is subtly wrong in a very fundamental way.
ICQ:
"You agree that by posting any material or information anywhere on the ICQ Services and Information you surrender your copyright and any other proprietary right in the posted material or information. You further agree that ICQ Inc. is entitled to use at its own discretion any of the posted material or information in any manner it deems fit, including, but not limited to, publishing the material or distributing it." (ICQ Policy)
AIM:
"However, by submitting or posting Content to public areas of AIM Products (for example, posting a message on a message board or submitting your picture for the "Rate-A-Buddy" feature), you grant AOL, its parent, affiliates, subsidiaries, assigns, agents and licensees the irrevocable, perpetual, worldwide right to reproduce, display, perform, distribute, adapt and promote this Content in any medium. Once you submit or post Content to any public area on an AIM Product, AOL does not need to give you any further right to inspect or approve uses of such Content or to compensate you for any such uses. AOL owns all right, title and interest in any compilation, collective work or other derivative work created by AOL using or incorporating Content posted to public areas of AIM Products." (AIM Terms of Service)
MSN:
"For materials you post or otherwise provide to Microsoft related to the MSN Web Sites (a "Submission"), you grant Microsoft permission to (1) use, copy, distribute, transmit, publicly display, publicly perform, reproduce, edit, modify, translate and reformat your Submission, each in connection with the MSN Web Sites, and (2) sublicense these rights, to the maximum extent permitted by applicable law. Microsoft will not pay you for your Submission. Microsoft may remove your Submission at any time. For each Submission, you represent that you have all rights necessary for you to make the grants in this section. To the maximum extent permitted by applicable law, Microsoft may monitor your e-mail, or other electronic communications and may disclose such information in the event it has a good faith reason to believe it is necessary for purposes of ensuring your compliance with this Agreement, and protecting the rights, property, and interests of the Microsoft Parties or any customer of a Microsoft Party." (Microsofts Terms of Use)
...that quite a few people don't get the fact that the very same things that make the Internet a pest are the things that make it what it is. The Internet is a relict, based on very simple, public protocols that allow almost everything, good and bad. The good old Internet assumes almost nothing and allows nearly everything. Replace it with something that assumes a lot and allows only very limited things and you get TV with DRM. What is exactly what some people want it to be, but *we* don't want that, do we?
There's nothing wrong with the Internet. There's something wrong with some governments, corporations and, generally, systems, but changing the Internet won't change a bit of *that*.
When someone has new protocols, business models or whatever, fine. Show them, use them, and when they're good, they'll thrive. If not, not.
No, it isn't. In real communism there's not even more a need for a state, a government or a leader. In theory at least.
Of course one could believe that, but what would this mean for your average believer? A God that knew (and knows) nothing of man... How is a God creating some primitive form of life billions of years ago and creating a way of developing ever more complex kinds of life over nearly endless amounts of time compatible with what your average bible fan believes in? I tell you what: Preach that and he won't care at all. He wants to believe in the Big Father in the Sky. Who can't be black, of course. Or a Big Bacteria. Science, knowledge and cold facts are the natural enemies of religion. They make things just too boring and man just too irrelevant as to allow for the God the people want to believe in.
There may be scientists still believing in God, yes. But doing so requires abstracting such a lot of things away from the God of the bible and common religious frames of thought that there's not much left to preach to the masses.
Effect: Yeah, these two addresses are very likely to be found in every single spam database in the solar system and beyond. So what? Filtering works good enough to allow only about a dozen spam mails get past my filters daily. Nothing to be afraid of. On the other hand I don't have to deal with a myriad of addresses which may or may not receive legitimate mail, I have not to waste any thought over what address I give out to whom and every single person who wants to send me mail can do so, even if he finds my address in some dusty mailing list archive from a decade ago -- it's still the same address and it works.
Don't take it personally but your strategy is really flawed. Take an address (make sure it is your own and register a domain) and stick to it. Everything else makes the solution worse than the problem, since you not only receive spam on several addresses but also have to carefully track which address may still receive legitimate mail.
My inbox *is* relatively clean.
From the the Wikipedia arcticle: "Pentaplex Ltd., a company in Yorkshire, England controlled by Penrose, owns the licensing rights to Penrose tilings."
This culture will go under, no doubt, and we all know why.
There are two species comprising the chimpanzee genus. The common chimp is what you describe, the Pygmy Chimp (also called Bonobo) is much different. Bonobos don't engage in warfare and prefer having sex with each other all day over aggressive encounters. They're much less dominant and aggressive within their tribes, too.
Both species seem to thrive well. I find it kind of refreshing to see that there are very different social models possible and both work. And while the chimps seem to be more inventive when it comes to killing, the Bonobos are certainly more inventive when it comes to having fun. I think we should learn from them.
It's also interesting to see that the behaviour of Bonobos seems to be much too unsettling that you will see or read much of it. Even in scientific literature they were more or less taboo for a long time and even today you won't see documentaries showing them having all kinds of sex just for fun (and they really do that all the time, including oral sex, masturbation and homosexual sex).
This is nonsense and you should know that. ISS is a great achievement, it has demonstrated and tested many things which just *have* to be done for any longer duration space mission. It is in fact the most successful achievement in manned spaceflight yet and even the much critisized international aspect of it has helped to get at least some notation of standards noone would care for with short-lived missions like Apollo.
There's absolutely no reason to belittle ISS. In fact it is the *only* major new thing in manned spaceflight that has been done (as opposed to "planned" or "designed" or "dreamed of") in decades. We should really prepare for a future in which things like Moon bases or Mars missions are either done ISS-style or not done at all. Not the least factor being the fact that international cooperation and contracts are just the best insurance against any single entity pulling the plug when the thing gets more expensive than expected (or the other party wins an election).
Do you really want to hinge our future in space on who wins an election or how NASA has to bent to get its budget approved? In my (humble) opinion ISS has shown how to handle spaceflight and this is not a small achievement at all.
Uh, no. A moon base is pretty much the same as a space station, just a bit harder (abrasive dust and hefty temperature changes).
Twenty-eight percent of Brirish Muslims hope for the U.K. one day to become a fundamentalist Islamic state.
Which means that 72 percent do not hope that the UK becomes a fundamentalist islamic state. Fine. Now, if 72 percent of the British Non-Muslims hope the UK not to become a facist police-state (and act accordingly), there's still hope...
I mean, what does make you think that the Sharia is more worse than what we're heading towards with light-speed in the west?
Do you know what the difference between MacOS X and Gnome is? Yeah, the save-dialogs are almost the same, but in OS X the dialog *remembers* its state (expanded or not) across apps. With GTK you have to patch the sources if you don't want to expand it over and over again.
I mean, I have nothing against Gnome (running it on my FreeBSD-machine), but there are places where OS X just gets it right and Gnome doesn't. Don't get me started about Metacity not remembering position and size of windows.
What I could never understand is the reason for having Y and Z changed in German keyboards...
The reason is that Y is only very rarely used in German, while the Z is common. With English it's the other way round. Frequently needed keys in the pinky position in the bottom row can slow down typing a lot and provokes typing errors.