There was a link to them. And descriptions of them in the summary and in TFA.
Do we have to start licensing computer users now?
Actually, I think I know what happened. You don't know the meaning of the word "trope", so you didn't understand that the sentence containing it was closing the meme for you. Pay attention in school in your next life.
I didn't pretend it's a release. There's a release channel that lets you download versions called "Release" so that this mistake won't happen.
It is a version, however. At any one time, there's a current Release version, a current Beta version, a current Aurora version, and a current Nightly Build version. I list them here in the order by which they get "more current" as you go down the list. The first three are downloadable by anyone in the public to use. Beta and Aurora come with feedback features enabled, so that you can report bugs and other observations or desires. Nightly Build is internal, clearly so that changes can be unit tested and any requirement or regression testing can be done on the new integration to catch obvious bugs before handing the program to J. Random Gefingerpoken for itinerant stress and unintended-consequence testing.
If you don't want it, that's fine. Get the current Release version. No skin off my mouse.
The folder/file thing is an avatar for the simple matter of putting information into collections called documents because they assay a single meme, and then putting those documents into a container called a folder because they're related. The document type and the folder type are different because they need to do different things and contain different things. It's a tree structure with a different tree structure in it. Nothing more. If it didn't exist it would be necessary to invent it. And we'd make the analogy to folders and paper documents the same way, because those meatspace things closely relate and are modern enough to be relatable. What does he want, scrolls and gunnysacks? Besides, folders and documents go way back beyond the 40s.
And then, after being very detailed about his misunderstood views of something simple and usable, he completely screws the pooch in describing what he wants. Which is why you don't want what he smoked. It tied all his neurons into knots (that's another metaphor that helps people understand something in a way that's slightly different from how it physically is; it would actually be something of an ordeal to tie a cerebral neuron into an actual knot).
The current visual OSes aren't actually a veneer. They do have substructures that use the file/folder system, but that's because such a structure provides an understandable structure that gives you a 1:1 mapping to individual memes, and an easy way to follow the map. Even if his in-document linking system weren't based on one-way URIs, they'd have to be based on something almost exactly like them. Having data and locating it when you only have an avatar for it are two different puzzles, and the embedding of the URI under a snippet of referential text is how it works best. I would agree that it would be more useful to be able to link to a single sentence in a document, but # tags let you link to any subsection, so the mechanism exists as long as the source document writer defines the # tags.
His gibberish also suggests that the document be self-editable, which would seem to be an OO kind of thing, and OO has been around for 3 decades or so, so he's sort of not making the point that computers do anything wrong, just that nobody's written an OO document type that embeds its own editor.
Unless you count, say, forum pages on the web that let you add content by hitting a Reply or Edit button. You know, like wikipedia and/.
Maybe he really is having a brain dysfunction. This stuff is too obvious, and he invented hypertext half the epoch ago; you'd think he'd have gotten these things straight by now.
Government contractors working to government requirements. Government is people. Government contractors are government employees are government. Only the litigious semanticians among us could separate them.
There are a few people who need their votes kept secret. They are political noise, along with people who have no business voting, people who are simply misinformed, people who are acting nefariously with their vote, etc.
Most people would be happy raising their hand on television to have their vote counted.
The secret ballot is how you allow only those who count the votes to have all the power to decide the election.
Ask the people of Wisconsin how traceability would be helping them right now.
if you can prove how you voted, the authorities can prove you sold your vote
but if you can't, then it works like this: you get offered $X if candidate Y wins, and $0 if not. The only way to help ensure he wins is to vote for him. Maybe even campaign for him. Sure there will be turncoats, but almost everyone who wants the money will help make sure the outcome is as purchased. and if the guy loses, there's no expense to the person buying the votes. so it's the ideal setup for him, too.
Well, no, I'm telling you what happened to the studios in the 80s that got us to where we are today where no Major studio makes anything other than a blockbuster.
They stopped listening to the artists and started listening, intently and without question, to the focus groups.
And as a result every one of their movies clocks that 10% penetration, and many go to 20% or more, and if Jimmy Cameron wants to film his next turd in 4-D Shittovision he'll probably pull another $billion from the trough. They don't give a flying fuck that the movies are all artistically stagnant and fail to represent society. They're making bank. Money over mind, and they're dead deleriously happy about it.
Smaller studios, "indies," aren't what one generally means by "Hollywood," although I could have made that clear.
What it's going to take is someone with some artistic talent who also knows where the audience buttons are, and can marry them and make a really good film that also makes the loot fly. There have been some near misses, but on second iteration it turned out the dude just got lucky and really didn't know what he was doing (I'm looking at you, Shyamalan).
I've run into exactly zero entities that require a facebook ID to do anything. You're hanging out in the wrong part of town.
I don't see how this is like loyalty rewards cards at all. This isn't a scam designed to steal money from you for wanting not to participate in a spamming system. This is a means of allowing you to provide your identity to those entities that have a reason to confirm your identity.
I don't understand why people get nervous about imaginary Big Brotherism that isn't going to happen in a democracy, when the real problem is very real plutocratic subversion of democracy that forces government to have no power to regulate the sort of corporations that control your food supply and insist on your accepting their spamming system or paying an extra 40% for a can of Spam.
A little more Big Brother would go a long way towards decoupling the economy from things like the Flash Crash and the Housing Bubble and the Credit-Default Swap collapse.
The trick is to use your democratic power to enable the good things and prevent the bad things about the Big Brotherism. But you'd rather use it not to have the good things because you're just paranoid about any government.
Hi. This is Cam-bot, your friendly neighborhood grocery store security camera. I've just run facial recognition scanning software on your face and matched it to another camera at Song Lee's House of Happy Endings. Would you like me to tweet this for you?
Very very few businesses care about your actual identity. They care that you provide a valid delivery address and a valid credit card.
I.e., that you identify yourself as a valid customer. They may not phrase it as "we want your identity," but they get it. That won't change on the net. They'll want you to validate that it's your address and your credit card, just as in the physical world.
As for your workarounds: you can't get a PO Box without ID. FedEx knows who you are, even if there's no signature involved.
Visa gift cards are virtual cash, but to get one someone has to either show up at a store that sells them, or order them over the net, and that means using a real credit card or other form of identifying payment.
No different from having someone else use their certified identity to do your shopping online in this system.
The people you bought the money order from can identify you. The people you rent the dropbox from can identify you. You aren't anonymous. They may not be bothering to record who you are, but they can find you if they want you.
And if you're using cash, you're not sending it over the internet. You're walking into the store, where they can take your picture, collect your fingerprints and DNA, yadda yadda yadda.
Have you ever seen what happens when some megacorporation like, say, Google, copies something from some other megacorporation like, say, Oracle?
This. The litigation of which will probably outlive the comma and result in legal fees larger than the federal debt.
So, no, you can't make the blanket statement that corporations can just steal what they want because they have lawyers and money. Corporations have whole departments to prevent their employees from even inadvertently violating intellectual property rights of other corporations.
And good luck getting anything you wrote into a Hollywood studio. It's an entire industry that doesn't even allow you to share ideas except in a structured environment, to avoid having to defend itself against lawsuits from unimaginative dolts who come up with the same ideas everyone does (and Hollywood ends up filming because it's realized the audience is incapable of spending money on original ideas, but really, they're only doing that because of market research, so it's the same dopes who send in their unoriginal ideas who are demanding and paying to see movies with those unoriginal ideas; it's all perfectly logical, and artless).
Back when "copy" meant "take a quill and scrawl out every single letter of the text yourself", and 99% of the audience was incapable of reading, there wasn't much theft of intellectual property.
Along comes the printing press and it still takes a major effort to individually lay out every single letter of the text on a plate, and paper still costs a fortune, and there's still no mass-market audience owing to the continuing single-digit literacy rate.
And then someone invents the linotype, and then photolithography, and grammar school, and the world of copyright goes to hell.
So, no, it's not correct to point to the early history of literature as an example of egalitarian treatment of intellectual property.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes.
Instead of just shouting "You're stupid! You suck! I hate you!" and running away, they're proving it and watching you blog about it.
But they clearly had enormous balls.
There was a link to them. And descriptions of them in the summary and in TFA.
Do we have to start licensing computer users now?
Actually, I think I know what happened. You don't know the meaning of the word "trope", so you didn't understand that the sentence containing it was closing the meme for you. Pay attention in school in your next life.
I didn't pretend it's a release. There's a release channel that lets you download versions called "Release" so that this mistake won't happen.
It is a version, however. At any one time, there's a current Release version, a current Beta version, a current Aurora version, and a current Nightly Build version. I list them here in the order by which they get "more current" as you go down the list. The first three are downloadable by anyone in the public to use. Beta and Aurora come with feedback features enabled, so that you can report bugs and other observations or desires. Nightly Build is internal, clearly so that changes can be unit tested and any requirement or regression testing can be done on the new integration to catch obvious bugs before handing the program to J. Random Gefingerpoken for itinerant stress and unintended-consequence testing.
If you don't want it, that's fine. Get the current Release version. No skin off my mouse.
If the standard is evolving at a faster rate than the implementation, then the standard is not really a standard.
You don't want it. It came from another planet.
The folder/file thing is an avatar for the simple matter of putting information into collections called documents because they assay a single meme, and then putting those documents into a container called a folder because they're related. The document type and the folder type are different because they need to do different things and contain different things. It's a tree structure with a different tree structure in it. Nothing more. If it didn't exist it would be necessary to invent it. And we'd make the analogy to folders and paper documents the same way, because those meatspace things closely relate and are modern enough to be relatable. What does he want, scrolls and gunnysacks? Besides, folders and documents go way back beyond the 40s.
And then, after being very detailed about his misunderstood views of something simple and usable, he completely screws the pooch in describing what he wants. Which is why you don't want what he smoked. It tied all his neurons into knots (that's another metaphor that helps people understand something in a way that's slightly different from how it physically is; it would actually be something of an ordeal to tie a cerebral neuron into an actual knot).
The current visual OSes aren't actually a veneer. They do have substructures that use the file/folder system, but that's because such a structure provides an understandable structure that gives you a 1:1 mapping to individual memes, and an easy way to follow the map. Even if his in-document linking system weren't based on one-way URIs, they'd have to be based on something almost exactly like them. Having data and locating it when you only have an avatar for it are two different puzzles, and the embedding of the URI under a snippet of referential text is how it works best. I would agree that it would be more useful to be able to link to a single sentence in a document, but # tags let you link to any subsection, so the mechanism exists as long as the source document writer defines the # tags.
His gibberish also suggests that the document be self-editable, which would seem to be an OO kind of thing, and OO has been around for 3 decades or so, so he's sort of not making the point that computers do anything wrong, just that nobody's written an OO document type that embeds its own editor.
Unless you count, say, forum pages on the web that let you add content by hitting a Reply or Edit button. You know, like wikipedia and /.
Maybe he really is having a brain dysfunction. This stuff is too obvious, and he invented hypertext half the epoch ago; you'd think he'd have gotten these things straight by now.
I'm old enough to have gone through History class, and I remember it better than most.
Having some verifiable information could have saved McCarthy's victims a lot of trouble, and buried McCarthy a lot sooner.
Actually I described all politics: What's in it for me?
But that's legal and the point of democracy, unless the answer is "money from someone other than the government".
You have your 2) and 1) backwards. Otherwise, fine.
Government contractors working to government requirements. Government is people. Government contractors are government employees are government. Only the litigious semanticians among us could separate them.
Hypothesis: The fewer polysyllabic words you have, the more distinct syllables you need.
There are a few people who need their votes kept secret. They are political noise, along with people who have no business voting, people who are simply misinformed, people who are acting nefariously with their vote, etc.
Most people would be happy raising their hand on television to have their vote counted.
The secret ballot is how you allow only those who count the votes to have all the power to decide the election.
Ask the people of Wisconsin how traceability would be helping them right now.
if you can prove how you voted, the authorities can prove you sold your vote
but if you can't, then it works like this: you get offered $X if candidate Y wins, and $0 if not. The only way to help ensure he wins is to vote for him. Maybe even campaign for him. Sure there will be turncoats, but almost everyone who wants the money will help make sure the outcome is as purchased. and if the guy loses, there's no expense to the person buying the votes. so it's the ideal setup for him, too.
Well, no, I'm telling you what happened to the studios in the 80s that got us to where we are today where no Major studio makes anything other than a blockbuster.
They stopped listening to the artists and started listening, intently and without question, to the focus groups.
And as a result every one of their movies clocks that 10% penetration, and many go to 20% or more, and if Jimmy Cameron wants to film his next turd in 4-D Shittovision he'll probably pull another $billion from the trough. They don't give a flying fuck that the movies are all artistically stagnant and fail to represent society. They're making bank. Money over mind, and they're dead deleriously happy about it.
Smaller studios, "indies," aren't what one generally means by "Hollywood," although I could have made that clear.
What it's going to take is someone with some artistic talent who also knows where the audience buttons are, and can marry them and make a really good film that also makes the loot fly. There have been some near misses, but on second iteration it turned out the dude just got lucky and really didn't know what he was doing (I'm looking at you, Shyamalan).
I can always afford more lawyers than someone who is committing a federal crime.
Debug it.
Cuz...dayum.
I've run into exactly zero entities that require a facebook ID to do anything. You're hanging out in the wrong part of town.
I don't see how this is like loyalty rewards cards at all. This isn't a scam designed to steal money from you for wanting not to participate in a spamming system. This is a means of allowing you to provide your identity to those entities that have a reason to confirm your identity.
I don't understand why people get nervous about imaginary Big Brotherism that isn't going to happen in a democracy, when the real problem is very real plutocratic subversion of democracy that forces government to have no power to regulate the sort of corporations that control your food supply and insist on your accepting their spamming system or paying an extra 40% for a can of Spam.
A little more Big Brother would go a long way towards decoupling the economy from things like the Flash Crash and the Housing Bubble and the Credit-Default Swap collapse.
The trick is to use your democratic power to enable the good things and prevent the bad things about the Big Brotherism. But you'd rather use it not to have the good things because you're just paranoid about any government.
Hi. This is Cam-bot, your friendly neighborhood grocery store security camera. I've just run facial recognition scanning software on your face and matched it to another camera at Song Lee's House of Happy Endings. Would you like me to tweet this for you?
Very very few businesses care about your actual identity. They care that you provide a valid delivery address and a valid credit card.
I.e., that you identify yourself as a valid customer. They may not phrase it as "we want your identity," but they get it. That won't change on the net. They'll want you to validate that it's your address and your credit card, just as in the physical world.
As for your workarounds: you can't get a PO Box without ID. FedEx knows who you are, even if there's no signature involved.
Visa gift cards are virtual cash, but to get one someone has to either show up at a store that sells them, or order them over the net, and that means using a real credit card or other form of identifying payment.
No different from having someone else use their certified identity to do your shopping online in this system.
The people you bought the money order from can identify you. The people you rent the dropbox from can identify you. You aren't anonymous. They may not be bothering to record who you are, but they can find you if they want you.
Ever heard the term "untraceable cash"?
There's a reason there's a distinction.
And if you're using cash, you're not sending it over the internet. You're walking into the store, where they can take your picture, collect your fingerprints and DNA, yadda yadda yadda.
Yes. It's really simple. When those words enter your brain through your eyes, set your brain not to send a signal to your hand to click "Reply".
HTH.
Have you ever seen what happens when some megacorporation like, say, Google, copies something from some other megacorporation like, say, Oracle?
This. The litigation of which will probably outlive the comma and result in legal fees larger than the federal debt.
So, no, you can't make the blanket statement that corporations can just steal what they want because they have lawyers and money. Corporations have whole departments to prevent their employees from even inadvertently violating intellectual property rights of other corporations.
And good luck getting anything you wrote into a Hollywood studio. It's an entire industry that doesn't even allow you to share ideas except in a structured environment, to avoid having to defend itself against lawsuits from unimaginative dolts who come up with the same ideas everyone does (and Hollywood ends up filming because it's realized the audience is incapable of spending money on original ideas, but really, they're only doing that because of market research, so it's the same dopes who send in their unoriginal ideas who are demanding and paying to see movies with those unoriginal ideas; it's all perfectly logical, and artless).
Back when "copy" meant "take a quill and scrawl out every single letter of the text yourself", and 99% of the audience was incapable of reading, there wasn't much theft of intellectual property.
Along comes the printing press and it still takes a major effort to individually lay out every single letter of the text on a plate, and paper still costs a fortune, and there's still no mass-market audience owing to the continuing single-digit literacy rate.
And then someone invents the linotype, and then photolithography, and grammar school, and the world of copyright goes to hell.
So, no, it's not correct to point to the early history of literature as an example of egalitarian treatment of intellectual property.
Kids in high school think their parents are stupid.