The Canadian Federal Government is in the process of sinking millions of dollars of taxpayers' money in what they're calling the "Common Look and Feel Project".
Link, please?
As a Canadian, I'd like to know where my money is being wasted.
Part of the problem with IP now is not the limit of IP addresses, but the limit of 253 nodes per subnet.
What the hell are you talking about?
There is no such limit. There is a limit of 253 hosts per 24-bit subnet, but that's just a function of mathematics - if you need more, simply use a 23 or 22-bit mask. (which will give you 510 and 1022 address, respectively.)
"Statistically, California residents are the most responsive consumers to e-mail advertisers who offer various products and services," the PW Marketing advertisement said.
Of course, what they don't tell you is that the responses you get are "stop spamming me you $$%^*&&^%&*!!":o)
no, it's not behind schedule. The original plans were for 1994, but those got scrapped as the project got bigger and they realized exactly how long it would take
So why don't they just ask the geeks how long the software will be, and then push it back again?:o)
How about STOP deleting sh!t you don't want to delete?
OK, what about software that deletes stuff you wanted?
I downloaded an MS update once, and it asked where to store it, so I put it on a directory on my server (running Linux), where I put all of my downloaded files.
So as soon as it downloads, it runs, and after installing (I got no warning that it would do any of this) presents the dialog box "Would you like to delete temporary files used during the install process" - so (naturally) I say YES (since it put the damn files in the folder, and it should know which files it created.) It then proceeds to delete the entire damn folder, including all of my other files, which it DIDN'T install, and which I wanted to keep.
any remote desktop software will allow you to do the same
That's pretty much the point.
You need to do a remote desktop.
Not a remote application.
Kind of like "You only need to run one app? TOUGH! You're getting the whole damn desktop, whether you like it or not - I don't care how much bandwidth it wastes!"
What if I'm signed in, and reading some mail, and then I get up for a coffee. Now, while I'm AFK, somebody else comes along and starts using my browser to go to amazon.com
Funny Story:
A few years ago (1996 or so), a guy at work and I got into a practical joke war.. He got up to get himself cofee, and (as was his habit,) left his email client open.
I went to an online personals site (new at the time:o), and created an account using his email address - as he was away, I was able to 'OK' the email confirmation on his behalf.. (and then promptly delete it:o)
Using 'his' new account, I posted an ad in the Gay Encounter section, saying that he was just discovered his sexuality, and asking for someone who would be gentle with him..
The look on his face when he started recieving photos was priceless.
Now, he learned a lesson that he never forgot, and it's one that you should know as well - if you have sensitive windows open, close them or lock your workstation when it's unattended.
Even before single sign-on's were thought of, the scenario you envision is still possible.
He has no responsibility to the drivers that he creates
You're right. But the question is who does?
A company on the other hand does (in theory) and should be forced to respond to such inquiries.
(emphasis mine)
Reminds me of an old quote: the difference between theory and reality is that in theory, there is no difference between theory and reality.
If a company decided not to address your question, how (exactly) do you force them to respond?
At first glance, your argument makes some twisted sense, until you realize that the card in question came from 3Com, which is (wait for it...) a company!
So, why didn't the author get drivers from 3Com? Perhaps because 3Com didn't provided any either?
Just remember that the bottom line is this - I have a wallet.
All of your points are very saliet, but ultimately irrelevant to the argument proposed.
You're arguing the demand side of supply and demand (ie. people are charged what they are willing to pay), whereas the original poster was arguing the supply side (ie. CD's cost more to produce.)
My argument is that (on average) CD's DON'T cost more to produce.
When a DVD is released most if not all of the production cost has all ready been made back.
You're using some pretty nebulous terms. Most of the production cost has been made back - OK, how much (on average) is made back, relative to the amount spent on production, and how much is the average amount spent on production.
Then, how much does the average CD cost to produce? Give us some
I'll give you an example (using made-up numbers) of why you MAY be correct, but it's still a moot issue. - Say the average movie cost $10M to produce, and the average CD costs $1M to produce.
Your assertion that the movie has made back most (say, 90%?) of it's costs could be correct, but still have nothing to do with relative retail costs, because the total amount of money is still the same! (90% of $10M is $1M!)
The only new production expense is the added features.
OK, so what about the direct-to-DVD releases? They're usually even cheaper than hollywood blockbusters - by your logic, they should be much more expensive, because the blockbusters have already made tons of money.
Just because all I did was find a new application for libraries does not mean I did not create something, nor that what I did not have value.
Nobody is debating that.
You put work into your software, and you get recognition for it, in the way of copyright protection
If someone else were to do solve the same problem you did, in the same way, why should they have to pay you? They put in the same amount of work, they created something - why should you be rewarded for their work if they didn't use anything you did?
Patents are supposed to protect a specific solution to a problem - they are not supposed to protect the problem itself.
if it was not innovative, why was it not done earlier?
Perhaps it was, but nobody thought that it was worth patenting, because it's so obvious.
and in all examples utilizing this system your servers are not an issue. Your servers only transmit email and are not used to read email
Please read my post again. They are used to read (and send) email (using Pine.)
this standard is not a haphazard mish-mash of technology - it really isn't
OK, not knowing anything besides what's been posted here, I'll have to take your word on that; LIS, it's just the way it seemed from your description.
while the concept of 'adding technology' everytime a protocol is re-written really is not feasible - it is possible that this is the special case that warrants it.
I disagree.
With any properly designed internet (or computer) technology, blind people have one device (screen reader), and they can do everything they need. If your new system can't work within that constraint, then it's fundamentally flawed, and needs to be re-thought.
I don't believe that email is primarily a text medium anymore - at all. I receive HTML formatted emails
Can you tell me what the T in HTML stands for? I'll give you a hint, it's not Graphics.
it works with all email types, even straight text. It simply requires the use of a web browser in addition to an email client.
So you're saying that if I have Lynx and Pine, that I'll be able to use it? (Lynx is a web browser, and Pine is an email client.)
I think you're still missing my main point, which is that you belive that the 'internet' is what YOU see, not necessarily what other people see. You may use graphics-only software, but other people don't (either by preference, or by necessity.)
If you want to make this a true standard, and have it widespread, you need to take a step outside the Windows (or X, or Mac) world. It's not by accident that internet standards are text-based, it's by design.
A simple 'ADV' in the subject line for filters to find would take care of the first amendment issue.
There IS no first amendment issue. Regardless of how much spammers whine that they have the right to send their stuff, it's just plain BS.
The "first amendment" issue is a red herring thrown up by spammers to thrown the lawmakers off the trail of the real problems.
The first amendment guarantees the right to speak, it does NOT guarantee the right to be heard, nor does it guarantee the right to force people to pay to listen to you.
Spam is theft. Because I pay for bandwidth, I am forced to pay for spam I recieve, even if I don't want it. It doesn't matter if I can filter it based on something in the message - I've got to recieve it before I can filter it, and by then I've already paid for it.
To quote Saturday the 14th, it's like bolting the barn door after the horses have eaten your children.
Before I begin, I realize that some of my comments below may come off as flamebait, but that really isn't my intention - so if you take offense to what I'm saying here, I apologize in advance.
actually I was referring to the ability for monitors to display images and connect with enough bandwidth for images not to pose a problem
OK, all of my servers are headless - no monitor, no video card. They are all admin'ed either via remote (text-only) console, or serial console (often a modem - in some cases the speed is as low as 14.4kbps, as that's all the telephone lines in remote parts of the Arctic will support). I frequently connect from home (or elsewhere) to do admin tasks when needed, and these admin tasks frequently involve sending and recieving email. If I was forced to view images to use email, how exactly would I do that?
Considering the relative importance of Email and the possibilities of such a system eliminating a very real problem - additional technology for the blind may be a small price to pay - and a price that could be paid by companies or the government.
This sounds like you're more of a marketroid than a techie.. You're talking about replacing a solid, stable, mature standard with (what sounds like) a hap-hazzard mish-mash of technology, that would require some users to purchase additional technology to do what they can already do with their existing devices.
I know we would be happy to provide a low-cost device to any visually impaired person using our software
Any SMTP-replacement that would require additional hardware for anyone sounds like a bad idea. Imagine if Tim Berners-Lee decided that blind people had to have a special device to allow them to surf the web? Or Gopher, or FTP? All of a sudden, your average blind person would have to go out and buy a new device each time a new protocol was developed.
I think what you're missing is that blind access isn't a single obstacle to overcome, but rather a prominent symptom that your entire approach is fundamentally flawed. Email is primarily a text medium - just like snail-mail, the primary use of person-to-person email is text (look at IM - again, primarily used to send text back and forth.) It's like this for a reason - text is important. It's simple, easy to make, and easy to understand. Most computers have the ability to play and record sound - it's trivial to make a spoken message and send that as an attachment, but (almost?) nobody does it. Why? Because text is easier.
To paraphrase Henry Spencer, "Those who do not understand internet protocols are condemned to reinvent them, poorly."
Slashdot Mirror
The Canadian Federal Government is in the process of sinking millions of dollars of taxpayers' money in what they're calling the "Common Look and Feel Project".
Link, please?
As a Canadian, I'd like to know where my money is being wasted.
Part of the problem with IP now is not the limit of IP addresses, but the limit of 253 nodes per subnet.
What the hell are you talking about?
There is no such limit. There is a limit of 253 hosts per 24-bit subnet, but that's just a function of mathematics - if you need more, simply use a 23 or 22-bit mask. (which will give you 510 and 1022 address, respectively.)
Then prosecute theft.
Perhaps you hadn't noticed, but that's pretty much what's happening.
Spammers are stealing bandwidth, and the government is passing laws against it, and then prosecuting the spammers.
What was your point again?
Government has no right interfering in the business activities of spammers.
How about
"Government has no right interfering in the business activities of mafia."
Theft is illegal. Spam is theft.
Government has every right to "interefere" with such "business" activities.
"California residents are the most responsive"
When enterred into Babelfish, returns:
"Statistically, California residents are the most stupid."
Not necessarily; if those responses are "Fsck off and die!" (You'll note that it doesn't say positive responses, or sales.)
is a cutting down of spam volume worth the general erosion of freedom and enforcement dollars that it will cost
Enforcement dollars perhaps, but there is no "erosion of freedom" associated with banning spam.
Every single bit of freedom that could possibly be "lost" was gone long ago, when other types of theft were made illegal.
From the story:
:o)
"Statistically, California residents are the most responsive consumers to e-mail advertisers who offer various products and services," the PW Marketing advertisement said.
Of course, what they don't tell you is that the responses you get are "stop spamming me you $$%^*&&^%&*!!"
All the poor guy did was spam
Just because he only steals a couple of cents from a million people, doesn't mean it's not theft.
What if we arrested multiple mailers to real mailboxes?
Well, if they forged stamps in an attempt to send millions envelopes, I'm sure you would.
no, it's not behind schedule. The original plans were for 1994, but those got scrapped as the project got bigger and they realized exactly how long it would take
:o)
So why don't they just ask the geeks how long the software will be, and then push it back again?
How about STOP deleting sh!t you don't want to delete?
OK, what about software that deletes stuff you wanted?
I downloaded an MS update once, and it asked where to store it, so I put it on a directory on my server (running Linux), where I put all of my downloaded files.
So as soon as it downloads, it runs, and after installing (I got no warning that it would do any of this) presents the dialog box "Would you like to delete temporary files used during the install process" - so (naturally) I say YES (since it put the damn files in the folder, and it should know which files it created.) It then proceeds to delete the entire damn folder, including all of my other files, which it DIDN'T install, and which I wanted to keep.
If you use a VPN, you probably don't care much about security anyway.
In a word, you're full of shit. People use VPNs because they care about security.
VPNs are useful only when you have servers which grant access based on source IP address or other such nonsense.
What have you been smoking? People use VPNs to link large networks together, and to allow standard protocols (like filesharing) to operate.
Show me a "secure protocol" that allows you to mount your home directory across a network.
OK - this is a troll
Ahh, now I understand. Please answer this question: how the hell did a troll with such a low user ID get to post at 2?
any remote desktop software will allow you to do the same
That's pretty much the point.
You need to do a remote desktop.
Not a remote application.
Kind of like "You only need to run one app? TOUGH! You're getting the whole damn desktop, whether you like it or not - I don't care how much bandwidth it wastes!"
the "clicks" don't always register with windows.. so I need an audible sound of recognision so i KNOW that windows has accepted the click.
Yeah, except that most of the time when Windows doesn't register the "click", it really does - it just takes 10 to 20 seconds..
So you click, and don't hear anything, so you click again and again.. then 10 seconds later get all your clicks happening at once..
What if I'm signed in, and reading some mail, and then I get up for a coffee. Now, while I'm AFK, somebody else comes along and starts using my browser to go to amazon.com
:o), and created an account using his email address - as he was away, I was able to 'OK' the email confirmation on his behalf.. (and then promptly delete it :o)
Funny Story:
A few years ago (1996 or so), a guy at work and I got into a practical joke war.. He got up to get himself cofee, and (as was his habit,) left his email client open.
I went to an online personals site (new at the time
Using 'his' new account, I posted an ad in the Gay Encounter section, saying that he was just discovered his sexuality, and asking for someone who would be gentle with him..
The look on his face when he started recieving photos was priceless.
Now, he learned a lesson that he never forgot, and it's one that you should know as well - if you have sensitive windows open, close them or lock your workstation when it's unattended.
Even before single sign-on's were thought of, the scenario you envision is still possible.
He has no responsibility to the drivers that he creates
You're right. But the question is who does?
A company on the other hand does (in theory) and should be forced to respond to such inquiries.
(emphasis mine)
Reminds me of an old quote: the difference between theory and reality is that in theory, there is no difference between theory and reality.
If a company decided not to address your question, how (exactly) do you force them to respond?
At first glance, your argument makes some twisted sense, until you realize that the card in question came from 3Com, which is (wait for it...) a company!
So, why didn't the author get drivers from 3Com? Perhaps because 3Com didn't provided any either?
Just remember that the bottom line is this - I have a wallet.
All of your points are very saliet, but ultimately irrelevant to the argument proposed.
You're arguing the demand side of supply and demand (ie. people are charged what they are willing to pay), whereas the original poster was arguing the supply side (ie. CD's cost more to produce.)
My argument is that (on average) CD's DON'T cost more to produce.
When a DVD is released most if not all of the production cost has all ready been made back.
You're using some pretty nebulous terms. Most of the production cost has been made back - OK, how much (on average) is made back, relative to the amount spent on production, and how much is the average amount spent on production.
Then, how much does the average CD cost to produce? Give us some
I'll give you an example (using made-up numbers) of why you MAY be correct, but it's still a moot issue. - Say the average movie cost $10M to produce, and the average CD costs $1M to produce.
Your assertion that the movie has made back most (say, 90%?) of it's costs could be correct, but still have nothing to do with relative retail costs, because the total amount of money is still the same! (90% of $10M is $1M!)
The only new production expense is the added features.
OK, so what about the direct-to-DVD releases? They're usually even cheaper than hollywood blockbusters - by your logic, they should be much more expensive, because the blockbusters have already made tons of money.
To record the commentary track for a two hour movie takes two hours. How long do you think it takes to record a CD?
Why is that relevant? Are you suggesting that the entire two hours is all that it takes to make a movie?
Just because all I did was find a new application for libraries does not mean I did not create something, nor that what I did not have value.
Nobody is debating that.
You put work into your software, and you get recognition for it, in the way of copyright protection
If someone else were to do solve the same problem you did, in the same way, why should they have to pay you? They put in the same amount of work, they created something - why should you be rewarded for their work if they didn't use anything you did?
Patents are supposed to protect a specific solution to a problem - they are not supposed to protect the problem itself.
if it was not innovative, why was it not done earlier?
Perhaps it was, but nobody thought that it was worth patenting, because it's so obvious.
and in all examples utilizing this system your servers are not an issue. Your servers only transmit email and are not used to read email
Please read my post again. They are used to read (and send) email (using Pine.)
this standard is not a haphazard mish-mash of technology - it really isn't
OK, not knowing anything besides what's been posted here, I'll have to take your word on that; LIS, it's just the way it seemed from your description.
while the concept of 'adding technology' everytime a protocol is re-written really is not feasible - it is possible that this is the special case that warrants it.
I disagree.
With any properly designed internet (or computer) technology, blind people have one device (screen reader), and they can do everything they need. If your new system can't work within that constraint, then it's fundamentally flawed, and needs to be re-thought.
I don't believe that email is primarily a text medium anymore - at all. I receive HTML formatted emails
Can you tell me what the T in HTML stands for? I'll give you a hint, it's not Graphics.
it works with all email types, even straight text. It simply requires the use of a web browser in addition to an email client.
So you're saying that if I have Lynx and Pine, that I'll be able to use it? (Lynx is a web browser, and Pine is an email client.)
I think you're still missing my main point, which is that you belive that the 'internet' is what YOU see, not necessarily what other people see. You may use graphics-only software, but other people don't (either by preference, or by necessity.)
If you want to make this a true standard, and have it widespread, you need to take a step outside the Windows (or X, or Mac) world. It's not by accident that internet standards are text-based, it's by design.
I loved Brimstone! It was a great idea and the cast was perfect!
YES!
John Glover.. the perfect guy to play evil incarnate..
Ever see him in 52 pickup? He's the best thing about that movie..
this show is gonna be a poor man's Lexx.
I thought Lexx was a poor-man's Lexx?
Andromeda rules!
The First season and a bit did, but it's gone seriously downhill since..
very geek-friendly - one off lines that assume you know who Heisenberg is, or why time slows down when you near a black hole..
*sigh*
A simple 'ADV' in the subject line for filters to find would take care of the first amendment issue.
There IS no first amendment issue. Regardless of how much spammers whine that they have the right to send their stuff, it's just plain BS.
The "first amendment" issue is a red herring thrown up by spammers to thrown the lawmakers off the trail of the real problems.
The first amendment guarantees the right to speak, it does NOT guarantee the right to be heard, nor does it guarantee the right to force people to pay to listen to you.
Spam is theft. Because I pay for bandwidth, I am forced to pay for spam I recieve, even if I don't want it. It doesn't matter if I can filter it based on something in the message - I've got to recieve it before I can filter it, and by then I've already paid for it.
To quote Saturday the 14th, it's like bolting the barn door after the horses have eaten your children.
Before I begin, I realize that some of my comments below may come off as flamebait, but that really isn't my intention - so if you take offense to what I'm saying here, I apologize in advance.
actually I was referring to the ability for monitors to display images and connect with enough bandwidth for images not to pose a problem
OK, all of my servers are headless - no monitor, no video card. They are all admin'ed either via remote (text-only) console, or serial console (often a modem - in some cases the speed is as low as 14.4kbps, as that's all the telephone lines in remote parts of the Arctic will support). I frequently connect from home (or elsewhere) to do admin tasks when needed, and these admin tasks frequently involve sending and recieving email. If I was forced to view images to use email, how exactly would I do that?
Considering the relative importance of Email and the possibilities of such a system eliminating a very real problem - additional technology for the blind may be a small price to pay - and a price that could be paid by companies or the government.
This sounds like you're more of a marketroid than a techie.. You're talking about replacing a solid, stable, mature standard with (what sounds like) a hap-hazzard mish-mash of technology, that would require some users to purchase additional technology to do what they can already do with their existing devices.
I know we would be happy to provide a low-cost device to any visually impaired person using our software
Any SMTP-replacement that would require additional hardware for anyone sounds like a bad idea. Imagine if Tim Berners-Lee decided that blind people had to have a special device to allow them to surf the web? Or Gopher, or FTP? All of a sudden, your average blind person would have to go out and buy a new device each time a new protocol was developed.
I think what you're missing is that blind access isn't a single obstacle to overcome, but rather a prominent symptom that your entire approach is fundamentally flawed. Email is primarily a text medium - just like snail-mail, the primary use of person-to-person email is text (look at IM - again, primarily used to send text back and forth.) It's like this for a reason - text is important. It's simple, easy to make, and easy to understand. Most computers have the ability to play and record sound - it's trivial to make a spoken message and send that as an attachment, but (almost?) nobody does it. Why? Because text is easier.
To paraphrase Henry Spencer, "Those who do not understand internet protocols are condemned to reinvent them, poorly."