i agree with you theoretically about how a client should be a black box and conform with standards, but from a performance perspective, minimizing the size of the download is probably a greater priority - if you can exploit a useless field, you might as well do it.
i mean, 1K adds up to about.5 seconds of download time for the vast majority of users, so this guy's idea could shave a couple of seconds...
is a double-digit percent performance enhancement worth tossing away because of philosophical objections to design decisions on a decade old protocol?
Or you could say it's like complaining that a building doesn't have handicap access. That's not allowed, and is just as analogous.
anyway, argue all you want for MS's rights, because I guarantee you that they will not hesitate for even a moment to completely disregard yours the first opportunity it is convenient for them.
just from looking at the screen shots, it seems to me that the center of the screen is being optimized, and the everything else is being rendered at a lower quality.
kind of mimics the functionality of the eye, and how vision is most acute in the fovea.
I think Ami is pretty clear:
At that point the trickle of users moving their desktops to Linux will become a flood and MS won't have anything to use as leverage to take over new markets.
the odds are stacked hard against a 'flood of new Linux users' in the next 2 years. MS will continue doing the same thing they've been so successful with over the past decade - having computer vendors package windows with their systems (MS tax). Consumers for the most part will keep buying their systems from Dell, Gateway, Compaq, et al and they will be to lazy to install a new OS, irregardless of how dissatisfied they are with MS.
So MS will keep selling copies of their OS. Which will be bundled with IE, and people will sign up for Passport accounts and use 'my services'. no matter how much i hate it.
your argument is valid, but i doubt its soundness - I see no reason that Microsoft would lose it's OS monopoly in the next ten years, even if linux was superior in features.
many people are still running windows 95 at home... people do not switch OSs easily, and especially if it is technically involved. I would guess that most people don't upgrade their operating system at all, and the only time they do is when they buy a new computer.
so the biggest obstacle is a dearth of pre-packaged computers with Linux installed by the vendor. When Dell, Compaq, et al offer Linux systems, MS will start to feel it. Of course, MS has monstrous influence at these companies, and change there is very unlikely any time soon.
another huge step would be an AOL port to Linux, but that hasn't even happened yet... that is a barrier to tens of millions of people in the US who use them for their ISP.
1. Certainly, the equations governing fluid dynamics are highly non-linear, and predicting currents may be hampered by chaotic behavior, but schools of fish are pretty far outside the conventional definition of chaos.. they're more like interference.
2. There is no packet loss, as there is no routing/no packets.
I worked for an auction company (not ebay) that used to provide the services for MSNs auction site, among others.
eBay is using Passport and.NET because they they reached a deal with MS about a year ago. I'm not sure when (or if it's happened already), but I would expect to see ebay listings on MSN/MSNBC/BCentral soon.
NIH, anthrax, terrorist cells operating in the US...
That at least tests the boundaries of 'reasonable'
Try this excerpt (taken from http://www.eff.org/Legal/email_privacy.citations):
"Individuals do not lose Fourth Amendment rights merely because they work or the government instead of a private employer. The operational reality of the workplace, however, may make *some* employee's expectations of privacy unreasonable... Public employees' expectations of privacy in their offices, desks, and file cabinets, like similar expectations of employees in the private sector, may be reduced by virtue of actual office practices and procedures, or by legitimate regulation.... Given the great variety of work environments in the public sector, the question of whether an employee has a *reasonable expectation of privacy* must be addressed on a case-by-case basis."
[Majority Opinion, O'Conner v. Ortega, US Supreme mCourt, 1987]
i'm going to print it out, and use it as my christmas/hanukah card this year.
in fact, i think i'll just make t-shirts out of it so that people can be aware that i am a clueless yankee. i'm sure the people i know will be relieved to find out they've been mistaken out me for so many years. they will be chagrined to find out that what they missed was easily pointed out by a complete stranger, whom i will not make value judgements about, but who felt fine making value judgements about me.
what i object to is this adversarial attitude, that it will be some form of VICTORY to defeat this technologically and legally flawed idea. it is everyones' LOSS if law enforcement cannot catch these people, so they have to improve every facet of there operations, including monitering encrypted communications over the internet.
7 people in the town I grew up in are dead, and there families are getting jugs of NYC dirt instead of their bodies. sorry if 'my head is in my ass'
my frustration is that i believe that the end result of a libertarian state is worse than what we have now.
you talk about power mongering and corporate heavy-handedness, but that's exactly what will happen in the absence of strong central authority that can impose punishment and has the machinery to enforce it.
at some point in the libertarian ideal, one of these small firms will realize that it's a lot easier to squash competition and bribe politicians (will always be possible - systems of government do not change human nature) than it is to compete with them, and more permanent. politicians will realize it is easier to form coalitions (parties..) than it is to use rational debate to get their way....
i just think there are basic conflicts with human nature and libertarianism, just as there are with communism - which is why neither has ever formed the basis for a successful modern government.
No. It is based on the two-party lock that the Republocrats have conspired together to ensure that only they have power. In fact, if political parties were subject to the laws covering corporations, then they could be sued for collusion, price-fixing and unfair restraint of trade. They are a duopoly with a death-grip on the political machinery guarding the path to office at both the state and national level.
Personal Accountability and Free Market Economy. 2 very basic principles of Libertarianism. And you are complaining about both.
You are not barred from campaigning hard, so do so if you believe in Libertarianism enough.
Neither the Republicans, Democrats, nor media giants have ANY obligation to give airtime to anyone, according to Libertarian philosophy.
This '2 party Duopoly Death Grip' doesn't exist. Perot and Nader both made substantial showings. either you're just not working hard enough, or NOT ENOUGH PEOPLE LIKE YOUR IDEAS
perhaps you could try posting that in afghanistan.. oh, no, they outlawed COMMUNICATING IN ENGLISH THERE.
the price of freedom is eternal vigilance, but don't be dense. see Orwell's "Notes on Nationalism", 1942.
but as a preview, I leave you with this excerpt from it:
PACIFISM The majority of pacifists either belong to obscure religious sects or are simply humanitarians who object to the taking of life and prefer not to follow their thoughts beyond that point. But there is a minority of intellectual pacifists whose real though unadmitted motive appears to be hatred of western democracy and admiration of totalitarianism. Pacifist propaganda usually boils down to saying that one side is as bad as the other, but if one looks closely at the writings of younger intellectual pacifists, one finds that they do not by any means express impartial disapproval but are directed almost entirely against Britain and the United States. Moreover they do not as a rule condemn violence as such, but only violence used in defense of western countries. The Russians, unlike the British, are not blamed for defending themselves by warlike means, and indeed all pacifist propaganda of this type avoids mention of Russia or China. It is not claimed, again, that the Indians should abjure violence in their struggle against the British. Pacifist literature abounds with equivocal remarks which, if they mean anything, appear to mean that statesmen of the type of Hitler are preferable to those of the type of Churchill, and that violence is perhaps excusable if it is violent enough. After the fall of France, the French pacifists, faced by a real choice which their English colleagues have not had to make, mostly went over to the Nazis, and in England there appears to have been some small overlap of membership between the Peace Pledge Union and the Blackshirts. Pacifist writers have written in praise of Carlyle, one of the intellectual fathers of Fascism. All in all it is difficult not to feel that pacifism, as it appears among a section of the intelligentsia, is secretly inspired by an admiration for power and successful cruelty. The mistake was made of pinning this emotion to Hitler, but it could easily be retransfered.
as a well educated person, i have never in my life seen a persuasive libertarian argument, and this is no start...
point 1: In most localities, it is extremely difficult to get on the ballot unless your party got a certain % of the vote last time. But you can't get % of the electorate if you can't get on the ballot! Chicken and egg...
Okay, one thing i consistently hear from libertarians are arguments to the tune of 'well, no one is stopping you from doing [x], you're just too lazy to go out and do it...'
sorry if getting elected is such a big effort, but where exactly are the laws written saying that you can't go door to door and convince people to vote for your party via write-in votes?
Point 2: Strategic voting, aka "I don't want to throw my vote away." The current "plurality vote" system allows someone that almost 2/3 of the voters did not want to win. (May the Best Man Lose. This encourages betraying your conscience to vote for the "lesser of two evils" to keep the worse guy out. There are alternatives, such as the Condorcet Method, which is essentially an improved IRV. If you don't have liberty of conscience...what do you have?
are you proposing a loose interpretation of the constitution? because last I heard voting laws were specified in the body of the constitution. I would say the same to your 3rd point.
if you want real answers as to why there is little/no libertarian representation in government, don't blame the electoral process or the voting public.
what do you want, government regulations to help out 3rd party candidates? that would be the height of irony. as would be caps on campaign donations.
i agree that just about anyone should be able to get on a ballot (within reason). however, you'll still lose as candidates that are willing to pass laws favoring big business get into office on the strength of those big business's campaign dollars. free market, people's choice - that's the libertarian ideal if i'm not mistake.
Slashdot Mirror
then you fight the military. targetting civilians is always wrong.
always. what you're talking about is guerilla warfare maybe?
FARC, ETA, Islamic Jihad.. these are all terrorist organizations.
i agree with you theoretically about how a client should be a black box and conform with standards, but from a performance perspective, minimizing the size of the download is probably a greater priority - if you can exploit a useless field, you might as well do it.
.5 seconds of download time for the vast majority of users, so this guy's idea could shave a couple of seconds...
i mean, 1K adds up to about
is a double-digit percent performance enhancement worth tossing away because of philosophical objections to design decisions on a decade old protocol?
Or you could say it's like complaining that a building doesn't have handicap access. That's not allowed, and is just as analogous.
anyway, argue all you want for MS's rights, because I guarantee you that they will not hesitate for even a moment to completely disregard yours the first opportunity it is convenient for them.
fascist (fshst)
n.
adj.
[Italian fascista, from fascio, group. See fascism.]fascistic (f-shstk) adj.
sorry to interrupt this fascinating thread, but i have to say that this quite possibly the worst abuse of the word 'fascistic' i've ever seen.
oh, newbury streets so yesterday.
everyone knows that all the good release parties are on boylston and lansdowne.
eh, you could sum it up by saying 'we're screwed'...
read this site's article about the ATI card...
just from looking at the screen shots, it seems to me that the center of the screen is being optimized, and the everything else is being rendered at a lower quality.
kind of mimics the functionality of the eye, and how vision is most acute in the fovea.
very good points... i personally hope you're right.
I think Ami is pretty clear:
At that point the trickle of users moving their desktops to Linux will become a flood and MS won't have anything to use as leverage to take over new markets.
the odds are stacked hard against a 'flood of new Linux users' in the next 2 years. MS will continue doing the same thing they've been so successful with over the past decade - having computer vendors package windows with their systems (MS tax). Consumers for the most part will keep buying their systems from Dell, Gateway, Compaq, et al and they will be to lazy to install a new OS, irregardless of how dissatisfied they are with MS.
So MS will keep selling copies of their OS. Which will be bundled with IE, and people will sign up for Passport accounts and use 'my services'. no matter how much i hate it.
don't have strong feelings either way, but don't you mean that the people who can code are in total control?
not everyone has the neurological horsepower to code certain things.
good argument is sound and valid.
your argument is valid, but i doubt its soundness - I see no reason that Microsoft would lose it's OS monopoly in the next ten years, even if linux was superior in features.
many people are still running windows 95 at home... people do not switch OSs easily, and especially if it is technically involved. I would guess that most people don't upgrade their operating system at all, and the only time they do is when they buy a new computer.
so the biggest obstacle is a dearth of pre-packaged computers with Linux installed by the vendor. When Dell, Compaq, et al offer Linux systems, MS will start to feel it. Of course, MS has monstrous influence at these companies, and change there is very unlikely any time soon.
another huge step would be an AOL port to Linux, but that hasn't even happened yet... that is a barrier to tens of millions of people in the US who use them for their ISP.
okay, 2 semantic points and an apology.
1. Certainly, the equations governing fluid dynamics are highly non-linear, and predicting currents may be hampered by chaotic behavior, but schools of fish are pretty far outside the conventional definition of chaos.. they're more like interference.
2. There is no packet loss, as there is no routing/no packets.
Sorry, I hate being an jerk on semantics.
but bad flamebait as well.
at least try to be subtle.
I worked for an auction company (not ebay) that used to provide the services for MSNs auction site, among others.
.NET because they they reached a deal with MS about a year ago. I'm not sure when (or if it's happened already), but I would expect to see ebay listings on MSN/MSNBC/BCentral soon.
eBay is using Passport and
maybe it's hopelessly optimistic, but maybe they'll learn something from it.
more likely, they'll crush their competitors, blah, blah, blah...
NIH, anthrax, terrorist cells operating in the US...
:
... Public employees' expectations of privacy in their offices, desks, and file cabinets, like similar expectations of employees in the private sector, may be reduced by virtue of actual office practices and procedures, or by legitimate regulation. ... Given the great variety of work environments in the public sector, the question of whether an employee has a *reasonable expectation of privacy* must be addressed on a case-by-case basis."
That at least tests the boundaries of 'reasonable'
Try this excerpt (taken from http://www.eff.org/Legal/email_privacy.citations)
"Individuals do not lose Fourth Amendment rights merely because they work or the government instead of a private employer. The operational reality of the workplace, however, may make *some* employee's expectations of privacy unreasonable
[Majority Opinion, O'Conner v. Ortega, US Supreme mCourt, 1987]
that a fantastic comment.
i'm going to print it out, and use it as my christmas/hanukah card this year.
in fact, i think i'll just make t-shirts out of it so that people can be aware that i am a clueless yankee. i'm sure the people i know will be relieved to find out they've been mistaken out me for so many years. they will be chagrined to find out that what they missed was easily pointed out by a complete stranger, whom i will not make value judgements about, but who felt fine making value judgements about me.
first you assume that i am FOR this idea.
what i object to is this adversarial attitude, that it will be some form of VICTORY to defeat this technologically and legally flawed idea. it is everyones' LOSS if law enforcement cannot catch these people, so they have to improve every facet of there operations, including monitering encrypted communications over the internet.
7 people in the town I grew up in are dead, and there families are getting jugs of NYC dirt instead of their bodies. sorry if 'my head is in my ass'
my frustration is that i believe that the end result of a libertarian state is worse than what we have now.
you talk about power mongering and corporate heavy-handedness, but that's exactly what will happen in the absence of strong central authority that can impose punishment and has the machinery to enforce it.
at some point in the libertarian ideal, one of these small firms will realize that it's a lot easier to squash competition and bribe politicians (will always be possible - systems of government do not change human nature) than it is to compete with them, and more permanent. politicians will realize it is easier to form coalitions (parties..) than it is to use rational debate to get their way....
i just think there are basic conflicts with human nature and libertarianism, just as there are with communism - which is why neither has ever formed the basis for a successful modern government.
No. It is based on the two-party lock that the Republocrats have conspired together to ensure that only they have power. In fact, if political parties were subject to the laws covering corporations, then they could be sued for collusion, price-fixing and unfair restraint of trade. They are a duopoly with a death-grip on the political machinery guarding the path to office at both the state and national level.
Personal Accountability and Free Market Economy. 2 very basic principles of Libertarianism. And you are complaining about both.
You are not barred from campaigning hard, so do so if you believe in Libertarianism enough.
Neither the Republicans, Democrats, nor media giants have ANY obligation to give airtime to anyone, according to Libertarian philosophy.
This '2 party Duopoly Death Grip' doesn't exist. Perot and Nader both made substantial showings. either you're just not working hard enough, or NOT ENOUGH PEOPLE LIKE YOUR IDEAS
you get the 3am clarity of thought award for the day (no cash value or karma).
very good reworking of the analogy.
great, take action. then the FBI won't be able to catch any terrorists. then we win, right?
um, a little melodramatic, don't you think?
perhaps you could try posting that in afghanistan.. oh, no, they outlawed COMMUNICATING IN ENGLISH THERE.
the price of freedom is eternal vigilance, but don't be dense. see Orwell's "Notes on Nationalism", 1942.
but as a preview, I leave you with this excerpt from it:
PACIFISM The majority of pacifists either belong to obscure religious sects or are simply humanitarians who object to the taking of life and prefer not to follow their thoughts beyond that point. But there is a minority of intellectual pacifists whose real though unadmitted motive appears to be hatred of western democracy and admiration of totalitarianism. Pacifist propaganda usually boils down to saying that one side is as bad as the other, but if one looks closely at the writings of younger intellectual pacifists, one finds that they do not by any means express impartial disapproval but are directed almost entirely against Britain and the United States. Moreover they do not as a rule condemn violence as such, but only violence used in defense of western countries. The Russians, unlike the British, are not blamed for defending themselves by warlike means, and indeed all pacifist propaganda of this type avoids mention of Russia or China. It is not claimed, again, that the Indians should abjure violence in their struggle against the British. Pacifist literature abounds with equivocal remarks which, if they mean anything, appear to mean that statesmen of the type of Hitler are preferable to those of the type of Churchill, and that violence is perhaps excusable if it is violent enough. After the fall of France, the French pacifists, faced by a real choice which their English colleagues have not had to make, mostly went over to the Nazis, and in England there appears to have been some small overlap of membership between the Peace Pledge Union and the Blackshirts. Pacifist writers have written in praise of Carlyle, one of the intellectual fathers of Fascism. All in all it is difficult not to feel that pacifism, as it appears among a section of the intelligentsia, is secretly inspired by an admiration for power and successful cruelty. The mistake was made of pinning this emotion to Hitler, but it could easily be retransfered.
as a well educated person, i have never in my life seen a persuasive libertarian argument, and this is no start...
point 1:
In most localities, it is extremely difficult to get on the ballot unless your party got a certain % of the vote last time. But you can't get % of the electorate if you can't get on the ballot! Chicken and egg...
Okay, one thing i consistently hear from libertarians are arguments to the tune of 'well, no one is stopping you from doing [x], you're just too lazy to go out and do it...'
sorry if getting elected is such a big effort, but where exactly are the laws written saying that you can't go door to door and convince people to vote for your party via write-in votes?
Point 2:
Strategic voting, aka "I don't want to throw my vote away." The current "plurality vote" system allows someone that almost 2/3 of the voters did not want to win. (May the Best Man Lose. This encourages betraying your conscience to vote for the "lesser of two evils" to keep the worse guy out. There are alternatives, such as the Condorcet Method, which is essentially an improved IRV. If you don't have liberty of conscience...what do you have?
are you proposing a loose interpretation of the constitution? because last I heard voting laws were specified in the body of the constitution. I would say the same to your 3rd point.
if you want real answers as to why there is little/no libertarian representation in government, don't blame the electoral process or the voting public.
what do you want, government regulations to help out 3rd party candidates? that would be the height of irony. as would be caps on campaign donations.
i agree that just about anyone should be able to get on a ballot (within reason). however, you'll still lose as candidates that are willing to pass laws favoring big business get into office on the strength of those big business's campaign dollars. free market, people's choice - that's the libertarian ideal if i'm not mistake.