Great Ring is Forged.
Sauron is confronted, cowed, returns to Numenor.
Numenor falls.
Sauron loses his form, becomes a big eye, wears his ring again.
Then comes the big battle with Elves and men.
Got it. I had the rings being forged after the downfall in my head. Thanks!
while I don't agree with the poster that this is why the ring made you invisible ( interesting argument not borne out by close reading of the text ), another component of the ring is, indeed, as a machine to give you your desires.
Gollum's problem was that he wanted the ring in and of itself... which is the real problem with the ring. It's near absolute power makes it an object of desire in and of itself ( a perfect circle ), hence his constant hissing "My precious" and his ultimate, venemous hatred for "Baggins, Thief!"
Gollum's desire is the ring.
The ring gives one power over the wills of others. It is an emblem of tyranny... how it enslaves others to it's bearer, and the bearer to others... and itself, my preccccioussssss....
Ooops. Sorry. Going back to lurking and eating homemade sushi now.
wasn't that was after the battle he lost that power?
When he helped make the rings, after the fall of numenor, he stilled appeared in a fair ( one presumes human-ish ) form and was known to the dwarves and elves of moria as a great giver of gifts...
then when everything came into the light came the war, and he was cut down by Isildur, had his "claw" removed and his ring taken. I assume that although he still had the power to appear nice, he wasn't using in the battle, as claws can really make some people uncomfortable.
looking nice is how he is able to slip the proverbial back-door into all the rings, and carry off the ultimate back-orifice trick on the whole world. everyone thought he was just this neato-guy... or if they had suspicions they weren't sure anyway.
After the battle he lost the power to assume a "fair form". It's sort of implied that he isn't too pretty to look from there on out...
you, and people like you, keep posting this. It seems you are not reading closely.
State is the operative word here.
See, there are State Governments, and Federal Governments. This clause is about State's rights, and basically says they don't have any. Federal Laws supercede state laws and Constitutions ( Yes, the States have Constitutions too... )
It has 0 to do with Federal Laws. No law, treaty, or executive mandate supercedes the Federal constitution, period. It is the "Supreme Law of the Land" and can only be interpreted, rightly or wrongly, by the Supreme Court.
People, please stop posting this thing... I've seen this so many times posted wrongly regarding treaties the US is going to enter into, I'm not going to answer it anymore. It only applies if Virginia or Ohio signs a treaty with Pago Pago.
While everything else was crumbling, this was the only place to get info in the office here. I guess I surf too much, because more than one person came over to me in the first few minutes because they literally could not get to anything... CNN, Boston.com, washington post... DOA... that made you wonder even scarier things when you had no idea what was next...
And I guess maybe I do surf to much cause I knew to go to slashdot and news.yahoo. News.yahoo held up for a very short time, and then it died too. I know it wasn't our proxy servers, cause I could get recipies and stuff. Slashdot was there, which is just amazing.
Everyone on the crew deserves kudos. I never sent a thank you... I feel bad, you shouldn't need your boss to fish for one. Thing is, you are tops and like everything else that seems so seamless, you sometimes forget that it's people doing this stuff...
It would end with Tengwar, as mentioned above. A "made up" language that is truly phonetic, designed by a linguistic. You can put any language into it, and people who don't know the language can still "read", or at least pronounce, what is written.
Of course, actually using it for that purpose is as popular as writing esperanto in it.
how the hell would you know that's really the parent calling? What if it was some nutcase stalker?
What if the same question was asked of a phone company?
Yeah, just chuck out law and order when it gets tough for you. Good answer.
Not saying they shouldn't have ways of getting, say, in touch with the police when something like that comes up, so the right channels can be followed, but that's so far out of the realm of something you'd want someone making $7 / hour deciding...
Glad that isn't you too... I can jut imaging you giving away my personal info to some axe murdering fiend who said she was my mom.
They sort of have, I remember seeing it on a nature program some time ago. Not completely, obviously, but our closest relatives are closer to us than you might imagine. The statistical percentage of correlation isn't just high, it was staggeringly close, above 99.99%.
Of course, as the article pointed out, we aren't that far from shrubs either. So maybe that's not a great measuring stick anyway. Using DNA shifts I mean.
The reason my be a lot of DNA is left in there and "shut off" using "switches" in the helix. So there is the code to make you an successful jellyfish species, but it's just included, not actually used, like functions that are never called, only defined.
To your point: When you say rapid, I say check again. Truth is... we didn't evolve that much. We just got a few really good tricks in release Ape 1.01 with patches, the basic design was finished long ago.
I'll concede, the extra features are great, but actual DNA change wise? Not much. It's my understanding you're dealing with a single eight character line of code in Win 2K for our closest relative ( an ape, but I forget which species ). But I'm not an expert in the field.
And it's also my understanding that more than a few lines and you'd be a camel, or possibly a lumpfish. Go figure.
I would imagine, long term, the real benefit that outweighs all of the above: Cheaper to manufacture. It's only 10K now for the device. The tapes would not require a major retool from existing facilities.
They are betting they can undercut the competition, same way VHS did for Laserdisc. Why buy an expensive, Read-only solution?
Plus, I imagine some of these limitations could be overcome with a "buffering" appliance, somewhat TIVo-ish... you could put plenty of HD ( which is cheap ) or RAM in there to hold the things and give something of the illusion of Random Access. Not that they would bother.
I'm guessing if this goes forward, it will be price. Not everyone wants something twice as good if it costs twice as much.
...but organized protests might. I know email-campaigns can be less than effective, but in the crush of modern software design, companies large and small spend a lot of time defending themselves against potential "problems" which might affect both their customers and investors.
Just the potential stink of a lawsuit will make many of these shops, large and small, come crawling back to the table. Like the public humiliation sentences of the eighteenth century, we have our modern versions of the pillory. Put up a web site with blatant violators of standards, code rip-off artists and...
Oh, right./.
Regardless, isn't it fair play to rip them off in return? Put up their port, for free, under your name. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Put up the reason you did it too. That will bring them to your door, for good or ill. At least next time they'll be careful about ripping off code.
Seriously, if all you do is try to ignore them, you will be as successful as King Arthur was against the French in the Holy Grail movie. It just doesn't work. Call them out, it's the only way to deal with sneaks and bullies, believe me. Next time, win or lose, chances are you will not be bothered by them again. Probably the worst that will happen is a lot of shoving and a bloody nose.
OK... I looked at the site... and got possibly more boggled, or maybe I understand.
One thing that puzzled me from the site... it seemed to imply these three different chemical receptors aren't actually three different receptors, but one has different sub-type receptors in it... why not just say there are four?
Nevermind...
Anyway, i read this, and it seemed partly clear how things work, the chemicals absorb light across different frequencies which "overlap" to some extent as you go up the frequency chart. So, the result is that each "color" we precieve has a unique reaction it creates in these three ( or four ) types of receptors. Great, neat...
But, they seem to cover a whole span...there are no blanks where a "color" would hide...
When you look at a rainbow, or the light through a prism, there aren't any blank spots.
So, I guess my question is: would having an extra receptor really help? It seems like it would just overlap anyway... it might make it a little easier to see that this color didn't match that, but... ummm... even with just three receptors, that color is going to have a unique three-part signature, it may be trickier to see a difference just like it's possibly more precise to have a four-way fix on your position than a three way... but the truth is, provided the position is in a unique part of the set, you can get away with two numbers covering the same area... or one, as long as it's unique to that part of the spectrum...
Suppose that you have a set XYZ... well, for the tri-chromes, X is zero starting ( it looks like ) the beginning of green anyway, Y is getting good recption and Z is just warming up... for any position in the spectrum, numbers for Y and Z will be unique, and X will be zero anyway...
I guess it depends on how accurate the data is... but the curves in the diagrams ( probably simplified ) looked damn smooth... no kinks where that shade of yellow would match this other one...
Is this other receptor just a help, or is it really giving them a "unique" color? Why don't we have "flat" parts of the spread spectrum that WE can percieve that "hey, you know... that shade is just like this one as far as I can tell, but there is a measurable distance between them, why the hell is that?"
He gave an interesting presentation... especially about open sourcing BSD when he was there, "the machine is the manual / the network is the machine", his theories on nanotech nightmares and so on.
He was a clever, spirited guy with an offbeat sense of humor... and he had a lot of good stories, plus was quick on his feet in the question and answer. Very energetic and interesting.
I also figure that Neal Stephenson's views on anything have to be fun... although maybe he's not an "open source" guy in the strictest sense, I bet he'd be a popular draw. I never seen him speak though.
Re:Changing def of an OS?
on
Is UNIX An OS?
·
· Score: 1
>>We have to be able to communicate with these people. Should we look at differing our def of an OS?
No, you will plant more confusion. It's natural for language to change and adapt over time. Words and phrases will get overloaded with meaning, and have several, there are very few words in the dictionary that have only one meaning under them.
but you shouldn't encourage it, in my view. the next moron will have another definition. Will you change yours to match his next time? Where do you get off that train, exactly?
There is a grain of truth in his polemic somewhere... it's frightening how little most people actually know about the machines, and how many layers of shifting gears are required to make them "useful" about these devices they rely on increasingly.
But none of that makes him right. A horse is not a carraige, even if you the latter to use the former.
Anyone feel this is a practice run for them, to help getting a feel for coding under the Mac OSX architecture? Not that I know enough about Mac OSX to say anything...
... and not that I care, it's all good. I'm happy not having to hope that binary runs under the LINUX emulation as well as acrobat does ( no sarcasm, it actually runs surprising well considering the fits I've seen under windows... )...
kudos, boys, Loki just went to the top of my gaming companies, you can rest assured when the ports come out I will buy them...
I remember when Terminus LINUX demo came out I downloaded it, wrestled with it all night, but it just kept exiting... that was a real low point for me...
If anyone suggests I should dual boot to LINUX, they will be fired upon. That's not a solution, that's a strategy for coping with a problem.
and I do run Linux at home, but on other boxes ( without decent graphics cards in 'em. )
plus it cuts into my uptime... which is precious to me...
I have a hard time thinking the english language is that instrumental. the truth is, you tend to use a small set of "words" in programming that are prebuilt into the system, far smaller than the number of words in any language used by humans for day to day communication!
Instead, you have less than a "Learn English in X days!" booklet would have, and most of these are concepts which are mathematical, or structure based if you will, with you making up stuff on the fly for variable names... there isn't a single fuzzy "idiom" based thing going on... which is why many programmers may write excellent code but have questionable english skills... you don't really need them.
However, the use of the Roman Alphabet, which our keyboards are mapped to, certainly is a critical difference if your native alphabet is Cyrillic or Kanji! Definitely, for a German, Frenchman or Spainard, there really isn't much to learn... however if you've been writing in Arabic script your whole life, only the numbers will look familiar... I imagine that can't be much fun.
Also, learning to type must be a struggle... it was for me and I knew all the letters already.
It might be interesting to have a programming language that used all international notation for mathematics / logic instead of English words though... it would put everyone on an even footing. Not that I'm advocating that...
I'm sure there must be "translators" that just go through code looking for key words in the other language ( if, then, else ) and change them into people's native tounges... I've never seen any of the english-is-my-second language people use them myself, but I'm assuming they must exist...
Not that, as I've said, it would be so important as there aren't many English words to learn... I can't imagine asking someone from another planet who's only encounters with English were learning C++ or PERL to ask for directions on getting to New Jersey in Times Square and expecting them to make it alive.
take it back... as i said in reply to a reply to a previous post, it was either a bug in the machine or a bad typing job by me, but I was able to telnet into localhost and see the directory structure.
As you've said, most of these things aren't
constitutional... indeed, only if it's for a
valid purpose of advancement of science etc.,
and then only for a reasonable length of time,
per the constitution, is a patent allowed to
stand.
Of course, most of us ignore these prohibitions
( no pun intended ) as long as they continue
to serve society.
I would say, though, that I have no interest in
hiding. Let them come, I say. Let's have it
out. There is no logic in the arguments against
this stuff... it's just pandering to fear. And
by hiding out, we make ourselves look criminal.
We know that's not true. Precedent is behind us.
The Constitution is behind us, only baseless
arguments to the contrary by people with special
interests are before us.
Until the common mindset of the public / judiciary
changes, we will have these problems. We won't
change things by skulking about.
Anyway, that's just my opinion. While it might
seem quieter to do this stuff on the sly, maybe
if this stuff gets interesting, more interested
developers will get involved, and companies will
pre-think these things... maybe steal our thunder,
god bless'm.
Slashdot Mirror
Too late on this prolly but...
OK... so it goes:
Great Ring is Forged.
Sauron is confronted, cowed, returns to Numenor.
Numenor falls.
Sauron loses his form, becomes a big eye, wears his ring again.
Then comes the big battle with Elves and men.
Got it. I had the rings being forged after the downfall in my head. Thanks!
while I don't agree with the poster that this is why the ring made you invisible ( interesting argument not borne out by close reading of the text ), another component of the ring is, indeed, as a machine to give you your desires.
Gollum's problem was that he wanted the ring in and of itself... which is the real problem with the ring. It's near absolute power makes it an object of desire in and of itself ( a perfect circle ), hence his constant hissing "My precious" and his ultimate, venemous hatred for "Baggins, Thief!"
Gollum's desire is the ring.
The ring gives one power over the wills of others. It is an emblem of tyranny... how it enslaves others to it's bearer, and the bearer to others... and itself, my preccccioussssss....
Ooops. Sorry. Going back to lurking and eating homemade sushi now.
wasn't that was after the battle he lost that power?
When he helped make the rings, after the fall of numenor, he stilled appeared in a fair ( one presumes human-ish ) form and was known to the dwarves and elves of moria as a great giver of gifts...
then when everything came into the light came the war, and he was cut down by Isildur, had his "claw" removed and his ring taken. I assume that although he still had the power to appear nice, he wasn't using in the battle, as claws can really make some people uncomfortable.
looking nice is how he is able to slip the proverbial back-door into all the rings, and carry off the ultimate back-orifice trick on the whole world. everyone thought he was just this neato-guy... or if they had suspicions they weren't sure anyway.
After the battle he lost the power to assume a "fair form". It's sort of implied that he isn't too pretty to look from there on out...
you, and people like you, keep posting this. It seems you are not reading closely.
State is the operative word here.
See, there are State Governments, and Federal Governments. This clause is about State's rights, and basically says they don't have any. Federal Laws supercede state laws and Constitutions ( Yes, the States have Constitutions too... )
It has 0 to do with Federal Laws. No law, treaty, or executive mandate supercedes the Federal constitution, period. It is the "Supreme Law of the Land" and can only be interpreted, rightly or wrongly, by the Supreme Court.
People, please stop posting this thing... I've seen this so many times posted wrongly regarding treaties the US is going to enter into, I'm not going to answer it anymore. It only applies if Virginia or Ohio signs a treaty with Pago Pago.
While everything else was crumbling, this was the only place to get info in the office here. I guess I surf too much, because more than one person came over to me in the first few minutes because they literally could not get to anything... CNN, Boston.com, washington post... DOA... that made you wonder even scarier things when you had no idea what was next...
And I guess maybe I do surf to much cause I knew to go to slashdot and news.yahoo. News.yahoo held up for a very short time, and then it died too. I know it wasn't our proxy servers, cause I could get recipies and stuff. Slashdot was there, which is just amazing.
Everyone on the crew deserves kudos. I never sent a thank you... I feel bad, you shouldn't need your boss to fish for one. Thing is, you are tops and like everything else that seems so seamless, you sometimes forget that it's people doing this stuff...
So now I'm saying it. Thanks.
Ummmmm...
You missed the point. That's saying the constitution of any state notwithstanding, not "this Constitution".
In other words, the constitution of the great State of Del. doesn't matter a hill of beans next to any federal treaty, law, or the constitution.
It would end with Tengwar, as mentioned above. A "made up" language that is truly phonetic, designed by a linguistic. You can put any language into it, and people who don't know the language can still "read", or at least pronounce, what is written.
Of course, actually using it for that purpose is as popular as writing esperanto in it.
how the hell would you know that's really the parent calling? What if it was some nutcase stalker?
What if the same question was asked of a phone company?
Yeah, just chuck out law and order when it gets tough for you. Good answer.
Not saying they shouldn't have ways of getting, say, in touch with the police when something like that comes up, so the right channels can be followed, but that's so far out of the realm of something you'd want someone making $7 / hour deciding...
Glad that isn't you too... I can jut imaging you giving away my personal info to some axe murdering fiend who said she was my mom.
They sort of have, I remember seeing it on a nature program some time ago. Not completely, obviously, but our closest relatives are closer to us than you might imagine. The statistical percentage of correlation isn't just high, it was staggeringly close, above 99.99%.
Of course, as the article pointed out, we aren't that far from shrubs either. So maybe that's not a great measuring stick anyway. Using DNA shifts I mean.
The reason my be a lot of DNA is left in there and "shut off" using "switches" in the helix. So there is the code to make you an successful jellyfish species, but it's just included, not actually used, like functions that are never called, only defined.
To your point: When you say rapid, I say check again. Truth is... we didn't evolve that much. We just got a few really good tricks in release Ape 1.01 with patches, the basic design was finished long ago.
I'll concede, the extra features are great, but actual DNA change wise? Not much. It's my understanding you're dealing with a single eight character line of code in Win 2K for our closest relative ( an ape, but I forget which species ). But I'm not an expert in the field.
And it's also my understanding that more than a few lines and you'd be a camel, or possibly a lumpfish. Go figure.
you mean little sheep?
I would imagine, long term, the real benefit that outweighs all of the above: Cheaper to manufacture. It's only 10K now for the device. The tapes would not require a major retool from existing facilities.
They are betting they can undercut the competition, same way VHS did for Laserdisc. Why buy an expensive, Read-only solution?
Plus, I imagine some of these limitations could be overcome with a "buffering" appliance, somewhat TIVo-ish... you could put plenty of HD ( which is cheap ) or RAM in there to hold the things and give something of the illusion of Random Access. Not that they would bother.
I'm guessing if this goes forward, it will be price. Not everyone wants something twice as good if it costs twice as much.
...but organized protests might. I know email-campaigns can be less than effective, but in the crush of modern software design, companies large and small spend a lot of time defending themselves against potential "problems" which might affect both their customers and investors.
/.
Just the potential stink of a lawsuit will make many of these shops, large and small, come crawling back to the table. Like the public humiliation sentences of the eighteenth century, we have our modern versions of the pillory. Put up a web site with blatant violators of standards, code rip-off artists and...
Oh, right.
Regardless, isn't it fair play to rip them off in return? Put up their port, for free, under your name. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Put up the reason you did it too. That will bring them to your door, for good or ill. At least next time they'll be careful about ripping off code.
Seriously, if all you do is try to ignore them, you will be as successful as King Arthur was against the French in the Holy Grail movie. It just doesn't work. Call them out, it's the only way to deal with sneaks and bullies, believe me. Next time, win or lose, chances are you will not be bothered by them again. Probably the worst that will happen is a lot of shoving and a bloody nose.
OK... I looked at the site... and got possibly more boggled, or maybe I understand.
One thing that puzzled me from the site... it seemed to imply these three different chemical receptors aren't actually three different receptors, but one has different sub-type receptors in it... why not just say there are four?
Nevermind...
Anyway, i read this, and it seemed partly clear how things work, the chemicals absorb light across different frequencies which "overlap" to some extent as you go up the frequency chart. So, the result is that each "color" we precieve has a unique reaction it creates in these three ( or four ) types of receptors. Great, neat...
But, they seem to cover a whole span...there are no blanks where a "color" would hide...
When you look at a rainbow, or the light through a prism, there aren't any blank spots.
So, I guess my question is: would having an extra receptor really help? It seems like it would just overlap anyway... it might make it a little easier to see that this color didn't match that, but... ummm... even with just three receptors, that color is going to have a unique three-part signature, it may be trickier to see a difference just like it's possibly more precise to have a four-way fix on your position than a three way... but the truth is, provided the position is in a unique part of the set, you can get away with two numbers covering the same area... or one, as long as it's unique to that part of the spectrum...
Suppose that you have a set XYZ... well, for the tri-chromes, X is zero starting ( it looks like ) the beginning of green anyway, Y is getting good recption and Z is just warming up... for any position in the spectrum, numbers for Y and Z will be unique, and X will be zero anyway...
I guess it depends on how accurate the data is... but the curves in the diagrams ( probably simplified ) looked damn smooth... no kinks where that shade of yellow would match this other one...
Is this other receptor just a help, or is it really giving them a "unique" color? Why don't we have "flat" parts of the spread spectrum that WE can percieve that "hey, you know... that shade is just like this one as far as I can tell, but there is a measurable distance between them, why the hell is that?"
Sorry, sorry!!!
I have microsoft on the brain... no doubt he is wondering why he suddenly got a case of the goosebumps right now...
sorry Bill... heh...
He gave an interesting presentation... especially about open sourcing BSD when he was there, "the machine is the manual / the network is the machine", his theories on nanotech nightmares and so on.
He was a clever, spirited guy with an offbeat sense of humor... and he had a lot of good stories, plus was quick on his feet in the question and answer. Very energetic and interesting.
I also figure that Neal Stephenson's views on anything have to be fun... although maybe he's not an "open source" guy in the strictest sense, I bet he'd be a popular draw. I never seen him speak though.
>>We have to be able to communicate with these people. Should we look at differing our def of an OS?
No, you will plant more confusion. It's natural for language to change and adapt over time. Words and phrases will get overloaded with meaning, and have several, there are very few words in the dictionary that have only one meaning under them.
but you shouldn't encourage it, in my view. the next moron will have another definition. Will you change yours to match his next time? Where do you get off that train, exactly?
There is a grain of truth in his polemic somewhere... it's frightening how little most people actually know about the machines, and how many layers of shifting gears are required to make them "useful" about these devices they rely on increasingly.
But none of that makes him right. A horse is not a carraige, even if you the latter to use the former.
>
>- English wasn't his primary language.
>
so what's your point?
or was that a joke?
you're saying, someone who speaks another language at home can't write well in English?
I won't even go into how wrong... and ignorant... that is...
Anyone feel this is a practice run for them, to help getting a feel for coding under the Mac OSX architecture? Not that I know enough about Mac OSX to say anything...
... and not that I care, it's all good. I'm happy not having to hope that binary runs under the LINUX emulation as well as acrobat does ( no sarcasm, it actually runs surprising well considering the fits I've seen under windows... )...
kudos, boys, Loki just went to the top of my gaming companies, you can rest assured when the ports come out I will buy them...
I remember when Terminus LINUX demo came out I downloaded it, wrestled with it all night, but it just kept exiting... that was a real low point for me...
If anyone suggests I should dual boot to LINUX, they will be fired upon. That's not a solution, that's a strategy for coping with a problem.
and I do run Linux at home, but on other boxes ( without decent graphics cards in 'em. )
plus it cuts into my uptime... which is precious to me...
I have a hard time thinking the english language is that instrumental. the truth is, you tend to use a small set of "words" in programming that are prebuilt into the system, far smaller than the number of words in any language used by humans for day to day communication!
Instead, you have less than a "Learn English in X days!" booklet would have, and most of these are concepts which are mathematical, or structure based if you will, with you making up stuff on the fly for variable names... there isn't a single fuzzy "idiom" based thing going on... which is why many programmers may write excellent code but have questionable english skills... you don't really need them.
However, the use of the Roman Alphabet, which our keyboards are mapped to, certainly is a critical difference if your native alphabet is Cyrillic or Kanji! Definitely, for a German, Frenchman or Spainard, there really isn't much to learn... however if you've been writing in Arabic script your whole life, only the numbers will look familiar... I imagine that can't be much fun.
Also, learning to type must be a struggle... it was for me and I knew all the letters already.
It might be interesting to have a programming language that used all international notation for mathematics / logic instead of English words though... it would put everyone on an even footing. Not that I'm advocating that...
I'm sure there must be "translators" that just go through code looking for key words in the other language ( if, then, else ) and change them into people's native tounges... I've never seen any of the english-is-my-second language people use them myself, but I'm assuming they must exist...
Not that, as I've said, it would be so important as there aren't many English words to learn... I can't imagine asking someone from another planet who's only encounters with English were learning C++ or PERL to ask for directions on getting to New Jersey in Times Square and expecting them to make it alive.
I assume you're implying it would destroy it because you'd be typing the same cramped characters over and over and over again...
plus, don't hawaiians use longer words because they have fewer sounds to work with? It would make variables incredibly long...
take it back... as i said in reply to a reply to a previous post, it was either a bug in the machine or a bad typing job by me, but I was able to telnet into localhost and see the directory structure.
take that back, must have been some typo i made in the telnet session ( or a bug in the bug ), i was just now able telnet, do the GET etc...
possibly my mistake. anyway, it seems to work and once is too much.
when i telnet to the port on localhost... at first I thought it was open, but it isn't.
so what is the browser doing? has anyone tried to browse to this off another machine yet? or telnet to the port?
i wish my other two machines weren't down or i would just do it myself...
i mean, it seems like it MUST be open, yeah... cause it's the URL, but, um, gee if the port is open shouldn't I be able to connect with telnet?
or is there something i'm missing here...
OK... but i tried telnet too and it didn't
return anything... even though I never
connected with the browser ( yet ).
although the port is open... i did connect...
which is unsettling enough.
So, what's the dilio?
I see you are advocating "Silence = Freedom"
As you've said, most of these things aren't
constitutional... indeed, only if it's for a
valid purpose of advancement of science etc.,
and then only for a reasonable length of time,
per the constitution, is a patent allowed to
stand.
Of course, most of us ignore these prohibitions
( no pun intended ) as long as they continue
to serve society.
I would say, though, that I have no interest in
hiding. Let them come, I say. Let's have it
out. There is no logic in the arguments against
this stuff... it's just pandering to fear. And
by hiding out, we make ourselves look criminal.
We know that's not true. Precedent is behind us.
The Constitution is behind us, only baseless
arguments to the contrary by people with special
interests are before us.
Until the common mindset of the public / judiciary
changes, we will have these problems. We won't
change things by skulking about.
Anyway, that's just my opinion. While it might
seem quieter to do this stuff on the sly, maybe
if this stuff gets interesting, more interested
developers will get involved, and companies will
pre-think these things... maybe steal our thunder,
god bless'm.
how about open-sourcing those ROMs?