Based on NCSA Mosaic. NCSA Mosaic(TM); was developed at the National Center for Supercomputing Applications at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Distributed under a licensing agreement with Spyglass, Inc.
This licensing agreement with Spyglass has some huge royalty in it for every copy of Internet Explorer that Microsoft sold. Little did Spyglass know that Microsoft wasn't going to sell IE.
I assume Child Pornography is illegal because a child is abused in the making of it. If Child Pornography is illegal to produce, own, or view, the assumption is that you are protecting children from being abused by those who would make child pornography.
Simulated child pornography, however, does not technically abuse a child in the making of it.
The legal question (read: minor detail) may be: in these simulations, are the images in question still using partial images of real children? If so, then is that still an abuse of the child?
Sadly, as much as we hear government officials talk about "sick" people who are into to child pornography, I've never heard any of them say they are going to catch them to help them get out of their unacceptable habits. They just want to catch them and lock them up. Presumably because these are bad people.
Is child pornography a disease? Is there a cure other than isolation?
XHTML is nice, but if things go properly, you will likely see certain communities of websites with their own DTDs, stylesheets, and XML markups. The reason is simple, the needs of the News websites is different than the needs of a commerce website is different from the needs of a literary website is different from the needs of a physics website, etc.
Much like where LaTeX has a variety of templates for different types of documents, XML will have many DTDs for different types of document structures.
The difference is, and this is key, XML does the job better now (although lacking robust display applications) than LaTeX does.
Sure, you can use a wrench as a hammer. You're going to bend a few nails and probably smash a thumb. Even if your careful, the time it takes to pound some nails is wasteful if you have a hammer within your reach.
XHTML has just a few differences. It is a reformating of HTML 4 so that it is XML compliant. So empty tags such as the IMG tag (there is no/IMG tag following a block of text, it is therefore an empty tag) require a "/" at the end to denote they are indeed empty tags.
i.e. <IMG SRC="foo.jpg" ALT="bar"> in HTML 4 becomes <IMG SRC="foo.jpd" ALT="bar"/> in XHTML. Notice the addition of the "/" in the XHTML. There are minor differences. But XHTML is not supposed to vary greatly from HTML4, it is HTML4, just represented in XML compliant syntax.
LaTeX (based on TeX) is a fine typographic markup language. That is, it is specifically designed for describing pages of text in a elegant fashion.
SGML is a markup language designed to describe a document's contents, not layout. The layout of an SGML document is determined by a stylesheet.
HTML, was based upon SGML because the idea behind HTML was not to design a page description language, but a document description language. A language that describes the elements of a document and not how they are to be displayed on the screen or be printed. Unfortunately thanks to the commercial interests of Netscape and Microsoft, it failed to seperate layout and content.
XML is an attempt to simplify SGML, eliminating the more esoteric features. XML documents do not describe layout, but rely upon Stylesheets to determine how a page is layed out. This proves superior to LaTeX because a seperation between content and layout can be made.
The idea is, you can mark up data with XML, and then using a stylesheet, change how it is presented to the user. Even more impressive, the content's presentation (or stylesheet) can be modified dynamically through scripting.
XHTML is HTML represented in terms of HTML, it is the future, and as time progresses (we can hope) that XML and Stylesheets will eventually replace HTML.
LaTeX is not the answer for HTML. The goals of LaTeX is for the final presentation to be printed pages. LaTeX does a splendid job of that. The goal of XML is data-description. Add stylesheets and you have the means to present content in many ways.
XML is the replacement for HTML. XHTML is the gateway from HTML to XML.
Kudos, seichert for being brave. It's absolutely a good plan. Considering the whole software industry is moving to an ASP model, it would be foolish for Microsoft not to do the same.
You lease your phone system, your copier, lease to own your mid-range systems (AS/400s), hell we even lease our water system.
Let me explain this in accounting terms. There's capital expenditures and operating costs. Getting approval for a capital expenditure is difficult, because it shows up on the yearly ledgers as one big lump of money you spent on something that doesn't directly lead to black ink on the bottom line. Operating costs get rolled all into one nice little unnoticed heap month after month. They are costs you have to pay to keep the business running.
Office, if I'm not mistaken, is business productivity software. Sure, it's used in education and home use, but it's primary market is business. Businesses like amortization (making payments over a period of time).
Microsoft holds no one anymore hostage than Standard Oil. You want to drive a normal car, you buy gasoline. You want to operate a normal business computer, you run Office. Heaven forbid anyone pays $10/month for productivity software! There goes the EverQuest budget!
In the end, the consumer gets a better product for less money up front, and the software maker makes more money from subscription fees and saves money by no longer needing to support obsolete versions of software.
If you truly think this is a bad model of doing business, please don't pay that cable/dss bill this month.
There is a company doing such a rollout in the northeast. According to the article:
"Princeton, New Jersey's RCN has been building a network concentrated in Northeastern United States that offers a combination of phone, Internet and cable service."
The companies aren't hyping their activity for one very important reason: they don't want expectations to be too high for a technology they are not positive will take off. A silent flop is less painful than a loud one caught on camera and displayed on the 11 o'clock news.
Something you are not likely to hear anytime soon:
"I worked at a place that gave me a company car. I didn't like that it used gasoline, so I spent the money and time and had it converted to use propane. Propane is not only cheaper, but is also better for the environment."
The problem isn't Linux, the problem is people who are overstepping their authority and possibly creating more work for someone else.
This is the beginnings of the old argument: if it wasn't free, would you buy it?
I think you will find that most people who pirate music, software, video, etc. wouldn't buy those items even if the only way to get those items was to buy them.
How an industry claims loss of revenue when they report record earnings is the real problem here. Record companies are making more money this year than last year. Where is this loss of revenue caused by the Internet?
Radio was once thought to be a potential loss of revenue to the recording industry. ASCAP charged outrageous radioplay license fees because of this fear, uncertainy, and doubt. BMI came along and offered substantially cheaper radioplay license fees: crowning Elvis as the King, selling millions of albums because of his exposure to the radio audiences, and pushing many ASCAP artists into obscurity.
The questions are, who is going to be the next BMI, who gets to be the King because of that company, and how many artists is the RIAA screwing out of exposure (like ASCAP did) which could have catapaulted them to King status.
In the words of Purdue University's Professor Steven Robb: "The problem with you kids is you don't bring enough history with you to the table." Mr. Vice President Heckler would probably get the same lecture.
I put together CUPS on a FreeBSD server. It's a dream.
With a quick trip to Windows Update, download the Internet Printing update, and add printers with the location of http://corporation.com:631/printers/hp4000 (A work around, since MS Internet Printing doesn't allow you to use ipp://...) and bam, that machine can print to that printer from anywhere. Before anyone can print to the printer they need to A) be from an approved IP, and B) enter a user name and password. At the moment I'm not using SSL, but that's an option to add security.
Currently I have no problem printing documents from anywhere in the state back to the home office.
The CUPS suite can accept LPD print requests, with Samba can handle SMB print requests (although you'd only want to do that for NT 4 and Win3.1 clients). It has a web-based interface for both configuring/administering the printers as well as viewing the print queue. And print classes allow you to effortlessly set up a single queue for several printers.
Of all the things Unix does right, printing was a administrative heap of dung until CUPS. If you're not using it, you're probably working too hard.
If your office is moving to a dispersed office (everyone telecommuting) then CUPS and IPP is your best option for allowing workers, from home, to print back in the office.
On a final note, I'm not really sure why anyone finds pushing IPP through a firewall difficult. It's all on TCP port 631. It's just HTTP. Maybe just that no current turn-key firewall software has a button/checkbox to "enable IPP"?
There was a type of software that went around about 5 years ago for assisting teachers to determine if a child was being abused. It was merely a knowledgebase of common traits of an abused child and the appropriate response to that child (what agency to call, or whether to seek out the school psychologist or what have you).
The point of the software wasn't to screen every child, but rather to give people an idea of what to do when the proverbial shit was appearing to hit the theoretical fan. It's not a big brother tactic. It's a method of storing and searching for common indicators so that untrained people can see about getting professionals in before things get ugly.
Of course, I still own and occassionally wear the black trenchcoat I wore when in highschool. It was not a sign that I was a violent teen, rather that I was far too interested in music groups like Front 242, The Cure, and Ministry. Hopefully the knowledgebase is populated with decent data.
In the end, that software for protecting children from their parent disappeared mostly. No one really bought it. So don't be so surprised if this new fad of concern for children safety doesn't fade away.
Slashdot Mirror
I assume Child Pornography is illegal because a child is abused in the making of it. If Child Pornography is illegal to produce, own, or view, the assumption is that you are protecting children from being abused by those who would make child pornography.
Simulated child pornography, however, does not technically abuse a child in the making of it.
The legal question (read: minor detail) may be: in these simulations, are the images in question still using partial images of real children? If so, then is that still an abuse of the child?
Sadly, as much as we hear government officials talk about "sick" people who are into to child pornography, I've never heard any of them say they are going to catch them to help them get out of their unacceptable habits. They just want to catch them and lock them up. Presumably because these are bad people.
Is child pornography a disease? Is there a cure other than isolation?
XHTML is nice, but if things go properly, you will likely see certain communities of websites with their own DTDs, stylesheets, and XML markups. The reason is simple, the needs of the News websites is different than the needs of a commerce website is different from the needs of a literary website is different from the needs of a physics website, etc.
/IMG tag following a block of text, it is therefore an empty tag) require a "/" at the end to denote they are indeed empty tags.
Much like where LaTeX has a variety of templates for different types of documents, XML will have many DTDs for different types of document structures.
The difference is, and this is key, XML does the job better now (although lacking robust display applications) than LaTeX does.
Sure, you can use a wrench as a hammer. You're going to bend a few nails and probably smash a thumb. Even if your careful, the time it takes to pound some nails is wasteful if you have a hammer within your reach.
XHTML has just a few differences. It is a reformating of HTML 4 so that it is XML compliant. So empty tags such as the IMG tag (there is no
i.e. <IMG SRC="foo.jpg" ALT="bar"> in HTML 4 becomes <IMG SRC="foo.jpd" ALT="bar"/> in XHTML. Notice the addition of the "/" in the XHTML. There are minor differences. But XHTML is not supposed to vary greatly from HTML4, it is HTML4, just represented in XML compliant syntax.
LaTeX (based on TeX) is a fine typographic markup language. That is, it is specifically designed for describing pages of text in a elegant fashion.
SGML is a markup language designed to describe a document's contents, not layout. The layout of an SGML document is determined by a stylesheet.
HTML, was based upon SGML because the idea behind HTML was not to design a page description language, but a document description language. A language that describes the elements of a document and not how they are to be displayed on the screen or be printed. Unfortunately thanks to the commercial interests of Netscape and Microsoft, it failed to seperate layout and content.
XML is an attempt to simplify SGML, eliminating the more esoteric features. XML documents do not describe layout, but rely upon Stylesheets to determine how a page is layed out. This proves superior to LaTeX because a seperation between content and layout can be made.
The idea is, you can mark up data with XML, and then using a stylesheet, change how it is presented to the user. Even more impressive, the content's presentation (or stylesheet) can be modified dynamically through scripting.
XHTML is HTML represented in terms of HTML, it is the future, and as time progresses (we can hope) that XML and Stylesheets will eventually replace HTML.
LaTeX is not the answer for HTML. The goals of LaTeX is for the final presentation to be printed pages. LaTeX does a splendid job of that. The goal of XML is data-description. Add stylesheets and you have the means to present content in many ways.
XML is the replacement for HTML. XHTML is the gateway from HTML to XML.
Kudos, seichert for being brave. It's absolutely a good plan. Considering the whole software industry is moving to an ASP model, it would be foolish for Microsoft not to do the same.
You lease your phone system, your copier, lease to own your mid-range systems (AS/400s), hell we even lease our water system.
Let me explain this in accounting terms. There's capital expenditures and operating costs. Getting approval for a capital expenditure is difficult, because it shows up on the yearly ledgers as one big lump of money you spent on something that doesn't directly lead to black ink on the bottom line. Operating costs get rolled all into one nice little unnoticed heap month after month. They are costs you have to pay to keep the business running.
Office, if I'm not mistaken, is business productivity software. Sure, it's used in education and home use, but it's primary market is business. Businesses like amortization (making payments over a period of time).
Microsoft holds no one anymore hostage than Standard Oil. You want to drive a normal car, you buy gasoline. You want to operate a normal business computer, you run Office. Heaven forbid anyone pays $10/month for productivity software! There goes the EverQuest budget!
In the end, the consumer gets a better product for less money up front, and the software maker makes more money from subscription fees and saves money by no longer needing to support obsolete versions of software.
If you truly think this is a bad model of doing business, please don't pay that cable/dss bill this month.
There is a company doing such a rollout in the northeast. According to the article:
"Princeton, New Jersey's RCN has been building a network concentrated in Northeastern United States that offers a combination of phone, Internet and cable service."
The companies aren't hyping their activity for one very important reason: they don't want expectations to be too high for a technology they are not positive will take off. A silent flop is less painful than a loud one caught on camera and displayed on the 11 o'clock news.
Something you are not likely to hear anytime soon:
"I worked at a place that gave me a company car. I didn't like that it used gasoline, so I spent the money and time and had it converted to use propane. Propane is not only cheaper, but is also better for the environment."
The problem isn't Linux, the problem is people who are overstepping their authority and possibly creating more work for someone else.
This is the beginnings of the old argument: if it wasn't free, would you buy it?
I think you will find that most people who pirate music, software, video, etc. wouldn't buy those items even if the only way to get those items was to buy them.
How an industry claims loss of revenue when they report record earnings is the real problem here. Record companies are making more money this year than last year. Where is this loss of revenue caused by the Internet?
Radio was once thought to be a potential loss of revenue to the recording industry. ASCAP charged outrageous radioplay license fees because of this fear, uncertainy, and doubt. BMI came along and offered substantially cheaper radioplay license fees: crowning Elvis as the King, selling millions of albums because of his exposure to the radio audiences, and pushing many ASCAP artists into obscurity.
The questions are, who is going to be the next BMI, who gets to be the King because of that company, and how many artists is the RIAA screwing out of exposure (like ASCAP did) which could have catapaulted them to King status.
In the words of Purdue University's Professor Steven Robb: "The problem with you kids is you don't bring enough history with you to the table." Mr. Vice President Heckler would probably get the same lecture.
I put together CUPS on a FreeBSD server. It's a dream.
With a quick trip to Windows Update, download the Internet Printing update, and add printers with the location of http://corporation.com:631/printers/hp4000 (A work around, since MS Internet Printing doesn't allow you to use ipp://...) and bam, that machine can print to that printer from anywhere. Before anyone can print to the printer they need to A) be from an approved IP, and B) enter a user name and password. At the moment I'm not using SSL, but that's an option to add security.
Currently I have no problem printing documents from anywhere in the state back to the home office.
The CUPS suite can accept LPD print requests, with Samba can handle SMB print requests (although you'd only want to do that for NT 4 and Win3.1 clients). It has a web-based interface for both configuring/administering the printers as well as viewing the print queue. And print classes allow you to effortlessly set up a single queue for several printers.
Of all the things Unix does right, printing was a administrative heap of dung until CUPS. If you're not using it, you're probably working too hard.
If your office is moving to a dispersed office (everyone telecommuting) then CUPS and IPP is your best option for allowing workers, from home, to print back in the office.
On a final note, I'm not really sure why anyone finds pushing IPP through a firewall difficult. It's all on TCP port 631. It's just HTTP. Maybe just that no current turn-key firewall software has a button/checkbox to "enable IPP"?
There was a type of software that went around about 5 years ago for assisting teachers to determine if a child was being abused. It was merely a knowledgebase of common traits of an abused child and the appropriate response to that child (what agency to call, or whether to seek out the school psychologist or what have you).
The point of the software wasn't to screen every child, but rather to give people an idea of what to do when the proverbial shit was appearing to hit the theoretical fan. It's not a big brother tactic. It's a method of storing and searching for common indicators so that untrained people can see about getting professionals in before things get ugly.
Of course, I still own and occassionally wear the black trenchcoat I wore when in highschool. It was not a sign that I was a violent teen, rather that I was far too interested in music groups like Front 242, The Cure, and Ministry. Hopefully the knowledgebase is populated with decent data.
In the end, that software for protecting children from their parent disappeared mostly. No one really bought it. So don't be so surprised if this new fad of concern for children safety doesn't fade away.
Multithreaded thought is called schizophrenia. The problem is, with only one center in the brain for processing language: it works poorly at best.
Stay single threaded. It makes life easier.