The "digital revolution" has had an enormous impact on my life. I'm from a "village" of 1,350 people but I have friends from all over the world. "Digitization" (yeah I know, not even a word) is an enabler, it enables people to do so much more then you could without it, akin to machinery.
If it really hasn't had an impact on our lives then why does everyone seem to have a computer these days, why are IT jobs becomming more and more prevelant, and why doesn't my watch still have hands that rotate around the face?
I think that anyone who says the Digital Revolution hasn't had a significant impact on our lives can't see the forest for the trees.
I had a friend message me via licq (he uses winders)..."d00d! is there a way to unzip like 30 zip files all at once? without having to double click on each one of them?"
Or, if you have winzip, you could select them all, right-click drag them to where you want to unzip them, and click extract.
Not true, precisely. We may be legally bound to follow the treaty, but we can opt out of the legal consequences (of which there is no way to enforce) of the treaty at any time, that's what makes the UN relatively worthless.
The UN is far from worthless. However from this past thread I see logic isn't your strong suit so I will refrain from stating the reasons why.
There's no legal binding if there is no court of justice to uphold the law. I would LOVE to see a body here to solve these problems, but I don't think WIPO is it.
There ARE international courts, however that is irrelevant. Again, you're confusing legality with enforcement. The lack if enforcement does NOT negate legality.
The treaty in this case is only as binding as the country WANTS it to be. The US can walk out of the UN Charter whenever they feel like it, that's part of what makes the UN such a joke in the international community. We don't HAVE to be there, instead we CHOOSE to. We've also CHOSEN not to pay our UN Dues for the past umpty-squat years. Some treaties are binding, some are voluntary, the UN Charter is NOT binding.
You're confusing legality with enforcement. All treaties signed by countries are legally binding according to international law, of course, there is no higher power that can enforce them except the member countries themselves, but that has no relevance on whether they are legally binding or not.
There is no distinction between "voluntary" and "binding" treaties as all treaties are both.
Jaywalking is illegal, it is hardly enforced by police, still it is illegal regardless.
The UN Charter is legally binding, member countries willingness or unwillingness to enforce it does not negate the legality of it.
But the UN Charter says precisely DICK about the web.
Hrmm, neither does the US first amendment, gee, I guess it doesn't apply.
On top of that, it's a voluntary treaty and not a binding one, and if the Charter's non-binding, then so is the WIPO.
Any treaty a country SIGNS is a binding treaty. All a treaty is is a contract between countries. What you just said was akin to saying "My verbal agreement to buy your car isn't legal, so neither is the contract I just signed." It has as much logic as a Dr. Seuss book.
Fine, I'll admit the internet is a global thing, however, a global body without genuine solvency is not the place to start. The WIPO has some treaty protection, but most of it seems to be based on the UN, which is established as being a great idea with poor execution. No nation is required to act when the UN snaps its fingers, what makes you think them running out cybersquatters will be any different?
Nations are bound by treaties they sign, whether it be the UN Charter, WIPO, or whatever. I'd say that's pretty much "requirement".
I realize that one of my statements is not predicated by the previous post...I said that there is no place for foreign gov'ts inside of domestic policy. What I meant to say is thus: There is no need for foreign intervention into problems that individual nations can solve themselves. There's no need for Germany to shove their decision on the people of the US when the NameServers are run by the US.
Run by the US huh? Lets just look at that...
I.ROOT-SERVERS.NET - Royal Institute of Technology, Sweeden K.ROOT-SERVERS.NET - RIPE Network Coordination Centre, Netherlands M.ROOT-SERVERS.NET - Keio University, Japan
Fact of the matter is, the root servers are global, for the global population, not just for the US. Don't be so arrogant in thinking other nations don't have interest in the domain name space. Anyone anywhere in the world can register a.com,.net or.org, and squatters are a global problem.
This isn't as important as people would have you believe. The United Nations is a group of nations who show up to meetings and say things are "bad" but then have no jurisdiction to actually do anything. Sure you can create social pressure, but there's no real treaty requirement for nations to follow the edicts that the UN drops down on people.
Nah, just that whole UN Charter thing that member countries have to sign, thats all....
The teeth of the UN doesn't come from the UN itself, the UN is just an organization, the teeth come from its members.
-- iCEBaLM
Re:Determining Canadian Citizenship [Serious]
on
iCraveTV To Relaunch
·
· Score: 2
Quebec is actually PQ, not to mention most ISP's do NOT use domains in the.ca TLD. Infact, out of about 5 or 6 locally, only two do, and none of them have the provincial codes in them. Usually a city code of some sort.
To view TV content off the net requires more than dialup. So that the market segment is minute. and how many Canadians are there? 25 Million? how many have good connections? 1%? of those, who will want this?
Your question is how is it possible for them to make money. Lets assume your figures are correct. 25 million Canadians total, only 1% have a high speed internet connection. Thats 250,000 people, at $9 a month equals 2.25 million dollars a month.
Now sure, not everyone is going to use it, 25% of that 1% maybe? Thats still 62,500 people with a monthly revenue stream of $562,500 or 6.75 million dollars per annum.
This isn't chump change here, but of course, your numbers are way off, I'm willing to say there are more then 1% of Canadians who have high speed internet connections, and it will be increasing constantly. Not to mention I used iCraveTV on my dialup, and really it was viewable (was great for me, we don't get cable out here) so I don't see why you're limiting it to high speed internet users.
BS Alert! -- "My Computer" and "Network Neighborhood" are completely artifacts of explorer.exe. If litestep displays My Computer, it's actually running Explorer (and IE) underneath.
Litestep doesn't display the "My Computer", "Network Neighborhood" or "Recycle Bin" icons on the desktop, nor the taskbar. But you can still "get there from here".
Well, that's not quite accurate. The browser is not integrated into the kernel, it's integrated into the shell. Just like how KDE has a browser integrated into their shell, accessible through the file explorer.
No, that's not accurate. IE is "integrated" into the Windows OS, if you replace explorer.exe (the default windows shell) with something like litestep, you'll see that IE is still used for the general display of "My Computer", the Control Panel, all "File Windows" when you double click a drive from "My Computer", etc. It's still there.
But Microsoft did have the right idea, technically speaking. However, you can definitely argue that a lot of their other practices we're anticompetitive, I will admit.
No, they didn't. They put IE too low level, if IE crashed, so did the OS. IE is always wasting RAM and CPU time when you're in Windows, etc.
I've always thought that was the stupidest thing for the justice department to focus on. Of course a browser should be included in an operating system, just like Linux, Be, the Mac, and just about every Unix nowadays does. It's just a utility like 'troff'. Take a file and format it.
The problem is that this isn't an accurate analogy. Sure, a web browser included with the operating system is a good thing, a web browser integrated into the operating system is a bad thing. You wouldn't want troff to be in the linux kernel would you? No. Why have IE in the Windows one?
The problem is MS provides no way to uninstall IE from Windows. They did this deliberately to undermine and destroy Netscape. The issue isn't that they included IE on the Windows install disc, or that they installed it by default. The issue is they "integrated" it with the OS, don't allow the user to uninstall it, and did it with the SOLE purpose of using their monopoly power in the OS market to gain share in the browser market.
That, my friend, is why the DOJ concentrated on IE.
imagine how you would feel if Red Hat or VA were trading at 53 cents and the press constantly dissed it despite the fact that you believe it makes the best software and will dominate the future of the industry.
Well, heh, this is pretty funny:
1 - I don't think Redhat makes the best software 2 - VA doesn't make *any* software 3 - Their stock price means absolutely 0 to me
You see, in the world of (free|open source) software, stock price means nothing because those who want to work on it still will regardless of any stock price.
MS broke the law, deal with it, leave MS if you are so inclined, but don't get angry because a court and people are calling a duck a duck.
Motif is pretty bad, and it being closed didn't help either.
I can't talk from a developer standpoint as I've never tried coding any Motif apps, but I find GTK to be pretty easy to work with, it's not as ugly as Motif, then ontop of things GTK is themeable, and open.
Having experienced what it's like to have defamatory stuff published about me and several friends on newsgroups, I'm not too sure where I stand on this one. It's very easy to hide behind the 'freedom of speech' banner and allow anyone to write what they like on the web - but that disregards the anguish that those comments can cause.
Whether you believe that you should be allowed to post whatever you want on the net or not, you must agree, jailing someone over their speech is just downright wrong. These things should be dealt with in civil court, there is no reason for police to get involved, computer seziure, or jailing. I'm quite disgusted by the US for doing this.
I'm allowed writing anything I like about Ford without stepping on theit trademark rights. But if I start painting Ford logos on Ladas and reselling them, I might get in trouble! This is a similar situation -- Mattel is just protecting Barbie's good name.
Unforunately you forgot one point. This tribes clan isn't selling anything...
Some might think this is desirable, but I believe it could be dangerous. This goes back to that whole "Doom made me such an efficient killer" arguemnt. I'm not sure what the result of something like this would be, but it could be something we're not expecting.
Right, and playing Nascar 2 with a wheel allowed me to drive in the Daytona 500 and beat Dale Earnhart.
Slashdot Mirror
The "digital revolution" has had an enormous impact on my life. I'm from a "village" of 1,350 people but I have friends from all over the world. "Digitization" (yeah I know, not even a word) is an enabler, it enables people to do so much more then you could without it, akin to machinery.
If it really hasn't had an impact on our lives then why does everyone seem to have a computer these days, why are IT jobs becomming more and more prevelant, and why doesn't my watch still have hands that rotate around the face?
I think that anyone who says the Digital Revolution hasn't had a significant impact on our lives can't see the forest for the trees.
-- iCEBaLM
I had a friend message me via licq (he uses winders)..."d00d! is there a way to unzip like 30 zip files all at once? without having to double click on each one of them?"
Or, if you have winzip, you could select them all, right-click drag them to where you want to unzip them, and click extract.
-- iCEBaLM
Not true, precisely. We may be legally bound to follow the treaty, but we can opt out of the legal consequences (of which there is no way to enforce) of the treaty at any time, that's what makes the UN relatively worthless.
The UN is far from worthless. However from this past thread I see logic isn't your strong suit so I will refrain from stating the reasons why.
There's no legal binding if there is no court of justice to uphold the law. I would LOVE to see a body here to solve these problems, but I don't think WIPO is it.
There ARE international courts, however that is irrelevant. Again, you're confusing legality with enforcement. The lack if enforcement does NOT negate legality.
-- iCEBaLM
The treaty in this case is only as binding as the country WANTS it to be. The US can walk out of the UN Charter whenever they feel like it, that's part of what makes the UN such a joke in the international community. We don't HAVE to be there, instead we CHOOSE to. We've also CHOSEN not to pay our UN Dues for the past umpty-squat years. Some treaties are binding, some are voluntary, the UN Charter is NOT binding.
You're confusing legality with enforcement. All treaties signed by countries are legally binding according to international law, of course, there is no higher power that can enforce them except the member countries themselves, but that has no relevance on whether they are legally binding or not.
There is no distinction between "voluntary" and "binding" treaties as all treaties are both.
Jaywalking is illegal, it is hardly enforced by police, still it is illegal regardless.
The UN Charter is legally binding, member countries willingness or unwillingness to enforce it does not negate the legality of it.
-- iCEBaLM
But the UN Charter says precisely DICK about the web.
Hrmm, neither does the US first amendment, gee, I guess it doesn't apply.
On top of that, it's a voluntary treaty and not a binding one, and if the Charter's non-binding, then so is the WIPO.
Any treaty a country SIGNS is a binding treaty. All a treaty is is a contract between countries. What you just said was akin to saying "My verbal agreement to buy your car isn't legal, so neither is the contract I just signed." It has as much logic as a Dr. Seuss book.
-- iCEBaLM
Fine, I'll admit the internet is a global thing, however, a global body without genuine solvency is not the place to start. The WIPO has some treaty protection, but most of it seems to be based on the UN, which is established as being a great idea with poor execution. No nation is required to act when the UN snaps its fingers, what makes you think them running out cybersquatters will be any different?
Nations are bound by treaties they sign, whether it be the UN Charter, WIPO, or whatever. I'd say that's pretty much "requirement".
-- iCEBaLM
I realize that one of my statements is not predicated by the previous post...I said that there is no place for foreign gov'ts inside of domestic policy. What I meant to say is thus: There is no need for foreign intervention into problems that individual nations can solve themselves. There's no need for Germany to shove their decision on the people of the US when the NameServers are run by the US.
.com, .net or .org, and squatters are a global problem.
Run by the US huh? Lets just look at that...
I.ROOT-SERVERS.NET - Royal Institute of Technology, Sweeden
K.ROOT-SERVERS.NET - RIPE Network Coordination Centre, Netherlands
M.ROOT-SERVERS.NET - Keio University, Japan
Fact of the matter is, the root servers are global, for the global population, not just for the US. Don't be so arrogant in thinking other nations don't have interest in the domain name space. Anyone anywhere in the world can register a
-- iCEBaLM
Treaties give WIPO jurisdiction.
-- iCEBaLM
This isn't as important as people would have you believe. The United Nations is a group of nations who show up to meetings and say things are "bad" but then have no jurisdiction to actually do anything. Sure you can create social pressure, but there's no real treaty requirement for nations to follow the edicts that the UN drops down on people.
Nah, just that whole UN Charter thing that member countries have to sign, thats all....
The teeth of the UN doesn't come from the UN itself, the UN is just an organization, the teeth come from its members.
-- iCEBaLM
Quebec is actually PQ, not to mention most ISP's do NOT use domains in the .ca TLD. Infact, out of about 5 or 6 locally, only two do, and none of them have the provincial codes in them. Usually a city code of some sort.
-- iCEBaLM
To view TV content off the net requires more than dialup. So that the market segment is minute. and how many Canadians are there? 25 Million? how many have good connections? 1%? of those, who will want this?
Your question is how is it possible for them to make money. Lets assume your figures are correct. 25 million Canadians total, only 1% have a high speed internet connection. Thats 250,000 people, at $9 a month equals 2.25 million dollars a month.
Now sure, not everyone is going to use it, 25% of that 1% maybe? Thats still 62,500 people with a monthly revenue stream of $562,500 or 6.75 million dollars per annum.
This isn't chump change here, but of course, your numbers are way off, I'm willing to say there are more then 1% of Canadians who have high speed internet connections, and it will be increasing constantly. Not to mention I used iCraveTV on my dialup, and really it was viewable (was great for me, we don't get cable out here) so I don't see why you're limiting it to high speed internet users.
-- iCEBaLM
BS Alert! -- "My Computer" and "Network Neighborhood" are completely artifacts of explorer.exe. If litestep displays My Computer, it's actually running Explorer (and IE) underneath.
Litestep doesn't display the "My Computer", "Network Neighborhood" or "Recycle Bin" icons on the desktop, nor the taskbar. But you can still "get there from here".
-- iCEBaLM
Well, that's not quite accurate. The browser is not integrated into the kernel, it's integrated into the shell. Just like how KDE has a browser integrated into their shell, accessible through the file explorer.
No, that's not accurate. IE is "integrated" into the Windows OS, if you replace explorer.exe (the default windows shell) with something like litestep, you'll see that IE is still used for the general display of "My Computer", the Control Panel, all "File Windows" when you double click a drive from "My Computer", etc. It's still there.
But Microsoft did have the right idea, technically speaking. However, you can definitely argue that a lot of their other practices we're anticompetitive, I will admit.
No, they didn't. They put IE too low level, if IE crashed, so did the OS. IE is always wasting RAM and CPU time when you're in Windows, etc.
-- iCEBaLM
I've always thought that was the stupidest thing for the justice department to focus on. Of course a browser should be included in an operating system, just like Linux, Be, the Mac, and just about every Unix nowadays does. It's just a utility like 'troff'. Take a file and format it.
The problem is that this isn't an accurate analogy. Sure, a web browser included with the operating system is a good thing, a web browser integrated into the operating system is a bad thing. You wouldn't want troff to be in the linux kernel would you? No. Why have IE in the Windows one?
The problem is MS provides no way to uninstall IE from Windows. They did this deliberately to undermine and destroy Netscape. The issue isn't that they included IE on the Windows install disc, or that they installed it by default. The issue is they "integrated" it with the OS, don't allow the user to uninstall it, and did it with the SOLE purpose of using their monopoly power in the OS market to gain share in the browser market.
That, my friend, is why the DOJ concentrated on IE.
-- iCEBaLM
This means not even "Microsoft Certified Software Engineers" know how to use scripts in windoze machines.
Actually thats Microsoft Certified Systems Engineers, but it makes it no less appauling.
-- iCEBaLM
imagine how you would feel if Red Hat or VA were trading at 53 cents and the press constantly dissed it despite the fact that you believe it makes the best software and will dominate the future of the industry.
Well, heh, this is pretty funny:
1 - I don't think Redhat makes the best software
2 - VA doesn't make *any* software
3 - Their stock price means absolutely 0 to me
You see, in the world of (free|open source) software, stock price means nothing because those who want to work on it still will regardless of any stock price.
MS broke the law, deal with it, leave MS if you are so inclined, but don't get angry because a court and people are calling a duck a duck.
-- iCEBaLM
Motif is pretty bad, and it being closed didn't help either.
I can't talk from a developer standpoint as I've never tried coding any Motif apps, but I find GTK to be pretty easy to work with, it's not as ugly as Motif, then ontop of things GTK is themeable, and open.
Motif just simply got out-classed.
-- iCEBaLM
which I am not claiming it is right, but when I first heard GNUtella, I thought it was a Unix program from the Free Software Foundations...
What does the "tella" stand for anyways?
Nutella is a chocolate spread that comes in a jar, akin to peanut butter. Its quite rich chocolate, very sweet.
GNU + Nutella = GNUtella
-- iCEBaLM
Having experienced what it's like to have defamatory stuff published about me and several friends on newsgroups, I'm not too sure where I stand on this one. It's very easy to hide behind the 'freedom of speech' banner and allow anyone to write what they like on the web - but that disregards the anguish that those comments can cause.
Whether you believe that you should be allowed to post whatever you want on the net or not, you must agree, jailing someone over their speech is just downright wrong. These things should be dealt with in civil court, there is no reason for police to get involved, computer seziure, or jailing. I'm quite disgusted by the US for doing this.
-- iCEBaLM
I'm allowed writing anything I like about Ford without stepping on theit trademark rights. But if I start painting Ford logos on Ladas and reselling them, I might get in trouble! This is a similar situation -- Mattel is just protecting Barbie's good name.
Unforunately you forgot one point. This tribes clan isn't selling anything...
-- iCEBaLM
Some might think this is desirable, but I believe it could be dangerous. This goes back to that whole "Doom made me such an efficient killer" arguemnt. I'm not sure what the result of something like this would be, but it could be something we're not expecting.
Right, and playing Nascar 2 with a wheel allowed me to drive in the Daytona 500 and beat Dale Earnhart.
Please...
-- iCEBaLM
I found an article about the case detailing exactly why the drives were faulty and the law firm that sued for the settlement.
http://www.maxtarget. com/hardware/cdrom/cd_class_action.shtml
-- iCEBaLM
I have a 6020, and it don't worke :P
-- iCEBaLM
How about a link or something to these?
-- iCEBaLM
I got a HP6020 too, I hope that site comes back online soon.
-- iCEBaLM