The last time somebody tried out an innovative new way of communicating with a machine
No, one of the times that somebody tried an innovative new way of communicating with a machine, we got the mouse. Most times, we got gloves, or vertical keyboards, or silver dots glued to our heads.
The first problem that I can see with this system is that my iPAQ and P800 spend about half their time docked in cradles. A UI that relies on being able to swing them around can't be the only solution.
Extra hardware, extra cost, extra annoyance value.
There's a practical retail solution already, see Picsel, now shipping on Sony Clie's. Every document is displayed the same way, as a draggable, freely zoomable image, done with intuitive (touch-drag, tap-touch-drag) stylus commands.
Other nice stuff: it's cross platform (PalmOS, Symbian, WinCE, Linux, easy to port to just about anything else), and ~1.5Mb in size, which includes a web browser, file viewer, and viewers for.doc, excel, pdf, rich text and text. The only annoyance value is having to toggle between free view and input modes, but a tilting device would need a toggle or press lock anyway.
Do some reading. The US Constitution is available online and defines pretty narrowly what El Presidente is allowed to do (not that it stopped Bush from committing the US to war - sorry, "regime change" - with Iraq before consulting with the Senate, but the principle is there). Now try and find out what the limits on Tony Blair's powers are. Any luck? Didn't think so.
What browser are you using, and why?
on
Ask Kevin Mitnick
·
· Score: 1
And please feel free to expand and expound for your other 'net accessing devices. I'd be fascinated to know how a technically clued person with no (legal) access to the 'net can make informed decisions about what technology to choose to begin to access it.
And in 1775, George III was King of North America, and of that there was no debate.
You see, the thing about politics is that there's always a debate, and just because some guy called George declares himself my lord and master doesn't preclude me from saying that he's a thieving parasite with no more mandate to rule than any other monarch appointed by a partisan Council of the Wise rather than a popular vote.
"NASA initially tried to explain the images away as pixel faults, passing meteors or asteroids, etc., but when a European-led consortium presented them with images that clearly were none of the aforementioned, they 'clamped up'."
If the images that "clearly were none of the aforementioned" were clearly of overexposed planets, the above statement remains 100% true. 'clamped up' is a meaningless phrase, irrespective of who's supposed it's supposed to be 'quoting'. I'd suggest that by 'clamped up' (by which I imagine they mean clammed up) they mean that NASA just stopped dignifying them by looking at any more of their amateurish splodges.
I compared donating to Mandrake with welfare handouts; without a plan to get them off welfare (which they never had) it would be a never ending process. Gosh, and I was right.
I said that Mandrake was doomed as a commercial venture, and that it would end up being the responsibility of the devout to keep it going, one way or another. Wow, and I was right.
Please listen to me this time. Let it die. I know you love it, but it's dead. Let it rest in peace. Find a viable distro, give your love and energy to them. We need fewer distros, not more.
You should probably do some reading on the difference between the Microsoft Visual Machine (MVM) and the Sun Java Virtual Machine (JVM). I agree that this case is bonkers, but not for the reason you give.
Aww, snookums. Console yourself with the thought that when you did appear in Nemesis for those four milliseconds, my good lady wife exclaimed "Was that Wil Wheaton? He's hot!"
Then again, she was blind drunk at the time. Although I think that I implied that when I said she was watching Nemesis.
Uh, but That 60's Show did actually get canned, and it took ten years for the ashes to be raked over. Similarly, I don't see networks missing Farscape until it's gone.
But what do I know? Or rather, without a Neilsen box, what do the networks care what my opinion is?
And further, I believe that if any of our elected representatives keep pushing for mandatory DRM anyway, it's because it's The Right Thing To Do. And that if the RIAA keeps bankrolling these politicians, then that is also because it's The Right Thing To Do.
In other news, the war in Iraq has nothing to do with oil. We know this, because President Bush said so.
Until it's compiled. Not that I'm saying that Microsoft are a bunch of lying, cheating weasels. I don't have to say that, a couple of courts have done it for me.
Given that, and given the "other arrangement" that the US gubmint has to access the source (note "the" source, not "some" source), I would have no confidence that anything shown to me by Microsoft - in a Microsoft lab, controlled by them, not available for tinkering or compiling - actually represented the source used to build the version of Windows that I was deploying across my home nation of Elbonia.
Then the terror-, sorry, the MPAA - have already won.
Not such a big issue here (languages and all) but something to bear in mind. I live in Region 2 (as decreed by the DVD powers), but I buy almost all of my disks as Region 1 (or when possible, region 0 or unregioned) and have them posted from Hong Kong, as soon as possible. The message: market segmentation isn't going to work any more. Stick to global release schedules, you chiselling bastards.
Has it occurred to you that every time riaa.org gets defaced, it helps them peddle their message that the interweb is a wretched hive of scum and villainy that needs to be locked down?
Do they lose money when it's down? No. Do they lose credibility? They had none to begin with, nor do they need any. So what's the downside to it being 0wn3d?
Nothing.
Rethink your ideas about them. I doubt they're as dumb as they like to appear. Perhaps not clever, but possessed of a certain native cunning.
Infer whatever you like. But if they mean that, why don't they just say that?
For example, say that we're "allowed to use" the patented IP? They explicitely say that we're not, that we "infringing". However, they won't sue (today) because of that infringement. That's not "allowed to use", that's "we'll tolerate your abuse".
Remind me to say "I told you so" when they go Chapter 7.
How do you feel about having to correct editors that are so lazy and complacent that they don't feel the need to explain or even to link to an explanation of what "Usual interview rules" are? Further, do you see this as a sign that Slashdot has accepted that it can expect no new users, and that from now on it's just a sad slippery slope of sliding standards and shrinking, shrieking subscribers?
"The only reason that acquiring patents is useful to RedHat is for defensive purposes."
The other reason is to make them an attractive purchase for Microsoft. When they're bought out, do you think Microsoft will:
A: honour their non-binding non-promise to not pursue the patents that they explicitely have not licensed.
B: tear up the non-promise and pursue the patents.
C: scream with maniacal laughter, tear up the non-promise and pursue the patents.
Patents are evil. Red Hat are creating more evil, and they're infecting GPL source with it. They're fools, and I'll have your apology on the day that Microsoft buy them from the receivers.
"RedHat granted the right to use their patents in GPL'd software, and they can't take that back."
The hell they did, and the hell they can't.
Read the actual policy, and be sure to take a copy, because it's ephemeral. I'll spell it out for you.
"Red Hat agrees to refrain from enforcing the infringed patent against such party for such [open source] exercise ("Our Promise")"
That's it. That's the whole promise. Not "licenses", not "refrain in perpetuity", not "and has accounted for this promise as a fiduciary liability and an entailment on any future sale of Red Hat".
It's merely a statement that Red Hat won't sue you today. That's all. If you want to argue that it's more than that, or that it's binding, or that it'll be binding when Microsoft buys them out, get yourself a good lawyer, because you'll need him.
To me and thee perhaps, but not to Andy IT. WinXP server - $300. Office 200-whatever, $400. Service contract, couple of hundred $ per machine. $97 is peanuts. It's not even as though they'll count the machines, they'll just write a cheque to get them off their back, same as they do when Microsoft sends the BSA blackshirts round.
You go ahead and believe that. Until I see it writ large and unappealed, I'm staying in full cynicicism mode, and when Red Hat - or their future owners - renege on their promise to not pursue patent licenses for GPL uses of their IP, I'll be right there saying "Told you so", just as I'm right here saying it now about SCO.
Slashdot Mirror
No, one of the times that somebody tried an innovative new way of communicating with a machine, we got the mouse. Most times, we got gloves, or vertical keyboards, or silver dots glued to our heads.
The first problem that I can see with this system is that my iPAQ and P800 spend about half their time docked in cradles. A UI that relies on being able to swing them around can't be the only solution.
Extra hardware, extra cost, extra annoyance value.
There's a practical retail solution already, see Picsel, now shipping on Sony Clie's. Every document is displayed the same way, as a draggable, freely zoomable image, done with intuitive (touch-drag, tap-touch-drag) stylus commands.
Other nice stuff: it's cross platform (PalmOS, Symbian, WinCE, Linux, easy to port to just about anything else), and ~1.5Mb in size, which includes a web browser, file viewer, and viewers for .doc, excel, pdf, rich text and text. The only annoyance value is having to toggle between free view and input modes, but a tilting device would need a toggle or press lock anyway.
Do some reading. The US Constitution is available online and defines pretty narrowly what El Presidente is allowed to do (not that it stopped Bush from committing the US to war - sorry, "regime change" - with Iraq before consulting with the Senate, but the principle is there). Now try and find out what the limits on Tony Blair's powers are. Any luck? Didn't think so.
And please feel free to expand and expound for your other 'net accessing devices. I'd be fascinated to know how a technically clued person with no (legal) access to the 'net can make informed decisions about what technology to choose to begin to access it.
And in 1775, George III was King of North America, and of that there was no debate.
You see, the thing about politics is that there's always a debate, and just because some guy called George declares himself my lord and master doesn't preclude me from saying that he's a thieving parasite with no more mandate to rule than any other monarch appointed by a partisan Council of the Wise rather than a popular vote.
Right, and you'd vote for a bulgy headed freak over a hot Elerian chick? Reality check!
Brush up on your reading skills.
"NASA initially tried to explain the images away as pixel faults, passing meteors or asteroids, etc., but when a European-led consortium presented them with images that clearly were none of the aforementioned, they 'clamped up'."
If the images that "clearly were none of the aforementioned" were clearly of overexposed planets, the above statement remains 100% true. 'clamped up' is a meaningless phrase, irrespective of who's supposed it's supposed to be 'quoting'. I'd suggest that by 'clamped up' (by which I imagine they mean clammed up) they mean that NASA just stopped dignifying them by looking at any more of their amateurish splodges.
I compared donating to Mandrake with welfare handouts; without a plan to get them off welfare (which they never had) it would be a never ending process. Gosh, and I was right.
I said that Mandrake was doomed as a commercial venture, and that it would end up being the responsibility of the devout to keep it going, one way or another. Wow, and I was right.
Please listen to me this time. Let it die. I know you love it, but it's dead. Let it rest in peace. Find a viable distro, give your love and energy to them. We need fewer distros, not more.
You should probably do some reading on the difference between the Microsoft Visual Machine (MVM) and the Sun Java Virtual Machine (JVM). I agree that this case is bonkers, but not for the reason you give.
Well, quite. So why does it deserve to generate copy rights at all?
Aww, snookums. Console yourself with the thought that when you did appear in Nemesis for those four milliseconds, my good lady wife exclaimed "Was that Wil Wheaton? He's hot!"
Then again, she was blind drunk at the time. Although I think that I implied that when I said she was watching Nemesis.
Uh, but That 60's Show did actually get canned, and it took ten years for the ashes to be raked over. Similarly, I don't see networks missing Farscape until it's gone.
But what do I know? Or rather, without a Neilsen box, what do the networks care what my opinion is?
And further, I believe that if any of our elected representatives keep pushing for mandatory DRM anyway, it's because it's The Right Thing To Do. And that if the RIAA keeps bankrolling these politicians, then that is also because it's The Right Thing To Do.
In other news, the war in Iraq has nothing to do with oil. We know this, because President Bush said so.
Until it's compiled. Not that I'm saying that Microsoft are a bunch of lying, cheating weasels. I don't have to say that, a couple of courts have done it for me.
Given that, and given the "other arrangement" that the US gubmint has to access the source (note "the" source, not "some" source), I would have no confidence that anything shown to me by Microsoft - in a Microsoft lab, controlled by them, not available for tinkering or compiling - actually represented the source used to build the version of Windows that I was deploying across my home nation of Elbonia.
Then the terror-, sorry, the MPAA - have already won.
Not such a big issue here (languages and all) but something to bear in mind. I live in Region 2 (as decreed by the DVD powers), but I buy almost all of my disks as Region 1 (or when possible, region 0 or unregioned) and have them posted from Hong Kong, as soon as possible. The message: market segmentation isn't going to work any more. Stick to global release schedules, you chiselling bastards.
Has it occurred to you that every time riaa.org gets defaced, it helps them peddle their message that the interweb is a wretched hive of scum and villainy that needs to be locked down?
Do they lose money when it's down? No. Do they lose credibility? They had none to begin with, nor do they need any. So what's the downside to it being 0wn3d?
Nothing.
Rethink your ideas about them. I doubt they're as dumb as they like to appear. Perhaps not clever, but possessed of a certain native cunning.
The article says "rocket" thirteen times, and jet nonce. What's your point?
Infer whatever you like. But if they mean that, why don't they just say that?
For example, say that we're "allowed to use" the patented IP? They explicitely say that we're not, that we "infringing". However, they won't sue (today) because of that infringement. That's not "allowed to use", that's "we'll tolerate your abuse".
Remind me to say "I told you so" when they go Chapter 7.
How do you feel about having to correct editors that are so lazy and complacent that they don't feel the need to explain or even to link to an explanation of what "Usual interview rules" are? Further, do you see this as a sign that Slashdot has accepted that it can expect no new users, and that from now on it's just a sad slippery slope of sliding standards and shrinking, shrieking subscribers?
"The only reason that acquiring patents is useful to RedHat is for defensive purposes."
The other reason is to make them an attractive purchase for Microsoft. When they're bought out, do you think Microsoft will:
A: honour their non-binding non-promise to not pursue the patents that they explicitely have not licensed.
B: tear up the non-promise and pursue the patents.
C: scream with maniacal laughter, tear up the non-promise and pursue the patents.
Patents are evil. Red Hat are creating more evil, and they're infecting GPL source with it. They're fools, and I'll have your apology on the day that Microsoft buy them from the receivers.
"RedHat granted the right to use their patents in GPL'd software, and they can't take that back."
The hell they did, and the hell they can't.
Read the actual policy, and be sure to take a copy, because it's ephemeral. I'll spell it out for you.
"Red Hat agrees to refrain from enforcing the infringed patent against such party for such [open source] exercise ("Our Promise")"
That's it. That's the whole promise. Not "licenses", not "refrain in perpetuity", not "and has accounted for this promise as a fiduciary liability and an entailment on any future sale of Red Hat".
It's merely a statement that Red Hat won't sue you today. That's all. If you want to argue that it's more than that, or that it's binding, or that it'll be binding when Microsoft buys them out, get yourself a good lawyer, because you'll need him.
To me and thee perhaps, but not to Andy IT. WinXP server - $300. Office 200-whatever, $400. Service contract, couple of hundred $ per machine. $97 is peanuts. It's not even as though they'll count the machines, they'll just write a cheque to get them off their back, same as they do when Microsoft sends the BSA blackshirts round.
You go ahead and believe that. Until I see it writ large and unappealed, I'm staying in full cynicicism mode, and when Red Hat - or their future owners - renege on their promise to not pursue patent licenses for GPL uses of their IP, I'll be right there saying "Told you so", just as I'm right here saying it now about SCO.
The Jello(tm).
But how long could you tolerate their squeaking mating cry of:
"A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? ..."