Don't forget the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (also by Infocom). It came with a "Don't Panic!" button, some pocket fluff, Peril-sensitive glasses (solid black cardboard glasses), and a "microscopic space fleet" (empty plastic bag).
Theft means taking something away from someone, so that the rightful owner no longer has posession of it. That doesn't quite apply to Intellectual Property, because the owner still has the original.
Piracy means taking property from others using violent force. This definitely doesn't apply to 99.999% of those who mis-appropriate Intellectual Property.
I was thinking the same thing. There's an outstanding $250,000 award for the first person to surf a 100-foot wave. The current record is a 70-foot wave. At these heights, the waves are so fast that they have to get towed in to get onto the waves. Most of the waves in the 50+ foot range have apparently been about 100 miles west of California. The guys that surf them are pretty experienced surfers.
Click on the page about the IT Industry. It includes this:
KCC [Korea Computer Center] regards it as its immediate target to reach the world level and to be competent in the world market in a few years in development of Linux-based operating system and applications, computer-aided high technology and services with its own core technology.
I can understand the copyright and trademark issues involved with a copy of a website. However, what if it was a proxy instead of a copy of the site? Seems like that would be eliminate the complaints, since it dynamically re-writes the page, and end-point communication still goes to their page. Sure, it would be hard to automate re-writing a web-page to make it cross-browser and W3C-complaint. But it would be really cool if someone would write such a proxy. You could even place such a proxy at the client-side, so the web site owners wouldn't even need to know about it.
Under copyright and trademark law, I think he should be able to make a partial copy of the site and fix it up as a critique -- an example of how to fix the problems. However, that would not include the ability to use the trademarks. So he should keep the site up, with any trademarks removed. (He could keep the name to refer back to the original though.) In retaliation, I would recommend that he also cahnge all the movie times, so that anyone still looking at his site would be even more pissed.
Is that a non-sequitor, or what? Why does he need a tracking chip in his arm to be able to access the crime database? He's the Attorney General -- if anyone should have access to the crime database, it would be him. Who could possibly make a rule forcing him to do anything in order to access the database? RFIDs might be good for physical identification, but it seems silly to use it for access to an online database.
Can you remember everything you need to buy at the grocery store? If you can, then I suspect that your memory is better than 99% of the people out there. It's this level of detail/importance that people have trouble remembering. Remembering that they have to go to the grocery store and the cleaners is what they generally remember.
And, yes, this is something I regularly keep on my TODO list.
I'm not sure if I should feel happy or sad for you. All I know is that I find it remarkable that you can accomlish everything you need/want in a short enough time that you can remember it all. I expect you must get bored not having many goals. Or perhaps you feel good for always accomplishing your goals.
Thanks for the link. Lots of good stuff in there, especially the descriptions of the court cases. Interesting that the Catholic church made abortion an excommunicable offense back in the 16th century. Although they also proclaimed that human life didn't exist before 40 days. While I agree with the Roe v. Wade decision for the most part, I don't agree with their reasoning -- reading between the lines to add new rights. While I'm happy that they realized the need for additional rights, that doesn't seem like the way to go about it. A better argument to me would be that making abortion illegal puts too many women at risk of clothes-hanger incidents.
I commend your ability to poke holes in my arguments. Although I knew the breathing argument was fairly weak. You make me question whether maybe my whole logical argument is rather weak, and my side is the more emotion-based. And I do understand the other side's fervor -- if you think it's murder, then you really have to stand up and say so. I'm probably more on the fence than most people. I just personally don't see how a non-viable fetus is any more an individual human life than some of my body parts. But I suppose you could argue that abortion could still be illegal in the same way that chopping my arm off is illegal.
I also don't believe that men should have any legal say in the matter. I know how difficult it is physically and emotionally for a woman to go through an abortion. I think that's enough of a deterrent in itself, and men don't have any real understanding of the process, nor of the burden of pregnancy.
Hmm, you make a pretty good point there about conception being the beginning of life. But there are several observations that would be to the contrary. One thing we consider to be vital to "life" is breathing -- if you stopped breathing for 2 months, would people consider you a living person?
As for the "natural" conclusion, why have we not already made such a conclusion? Why do the laws not already see it that way? The way things work in this world is that the ones challenging the status quo are the ones who must go out of their way to convince the rest. Also be aware that if we change the assumptions, a lot of other things come into question. If a woman spontaneosly aborts, should she be charged with manslaughter (assuming abortion would be murder)? What does conception mean -- does it apply to zygotes in a test tube? What privelges and responsibilities do these fetuses have?
One thing is for sure -- things are going to get even more confusing in the future, with genetic engineering and such.
Since there is no other point that is definitive besides birth, which is really an inadequate demarcation of human life, and conception, _____________________ conception must be the mark of when a life becomes human.
And that (where I marked) is exactly where you took a leap of faith in your argument. Up to that point, I agree with you. We don't know where a "proper" demarcation of the beginning of life should be. I could just as easily say that "birth must be the mark of when a life becomes human". Society and the legal system have for the most part always held this to be the case. And you've made no factual argument that that would be wrong.
With no factual evidence to support either side, you've made a moral judgement. Which is fine. In fact, I'd say that in most cases, you've made the correct moral judgement. The problem is that you're trying to force others into coming to the same conclusion that you have, based on your beliefs and experiences.
Wow, very interesting. I wonder if that has any effect on life expectancy. I.e. is it part of the reason women live longer than men? It would be interesting to see a study comparing mothers versus non-mothers. Although I suspect that the process of raising kids might have a life-reducing impact, counter-acting the overall numbers.
The first part is easy enough: just write down what you think a new person would need to know. The second part is hard: organizing all the information so that he can find it. Unfortunately, I don't have too much advice on how to go about organizing things.
How come they don't try to add their ideas to Linux rather than making it a whole competing system?
Two reasons. First, development on the EROS predecessor systems began before Linux existed. Second, the architectures of the systems are very different. It would probably not be feasible to "tack on" the EROS features. I'd love to see it though. It'd be awesome to have such resilience. Maybe there's some way to make it happen, but I think it would take a lot of work to make such radical changes to Linux's architecture.
That's not a very good reason to have a CAPSLOCK key. What if you later decide that you want to change it so that the section is no longer all-caps? The correct way to make a section all-caps is to flag the program to display the section in all caps. The same way you'd make a section bold, or italic, or small-caps. By your reasoning, we should have a bold-lock key as well.
As for programs that require you to enter all capital letters, the program should simply take the lower-case letters and convert them to upper case. This is very easy to do -- you can even do it in HTML forms with some pretty simple JavaScript.
You guys (and apparently some programmers) seem to be missing the fact that the whole point of using a word processor or other software versus a typewriter is that the output is somewhat independent of the input.
Anyway, I think the question is about removing the CAPSLOCK key, not the the CAPSLOCK mode. You could keep the mode without keeping the key. I believe the NeXT keyboard used Command-Shift, which even lit up a light on the Shift key. Hitting Shift would disable the mode. (BTW, Windows has an option in the Control Panel to turn off CAPSLOCK when you hit Shift.) Windows (and the Linux console) already has StickyKeys -- you hit Shift twice to enable Shift-lock. (You may have to turn the feature on in the Control Panel.)
Actually, there's no limit to the number of selections in X. It's just that there are 3 commonly used by convention. From section 2 of the ICCCM:
There can be an arbitrary number of selections, each named by an atom. To conform with the inter-client conventions, however, clients need deal with only these three selections:
PRIMARY
SECONDARY
CLIPBOARD
Other selections may be used freely for private communication among related groups of clients.
They actually mention swapping the PRIMARY and SECONDARY in some scenarios, but don't discuss how the user might express that. So basically, the SECONDARY selection has fallen out of use. If someone were to come up with a use for more selections, they could easily be implemented via the existing X framework. Perhaps the clipboard managers could exchange their multiple clips with CLIPBOARD2, CLIPBOARD3, etc.
Damn, my mod points just expired, and the parent post is VERY informative to anyone interested in this thread. And it's too late to hope than other moderators might be reading this thread.
Trademark law doesn't require the name to be a "household item". And the term "windows" was (and is) the standard generic way of expressing that particular concept. There's no other word used in Computer Science to describe such a concept, and it had been used in Computer Science circles (the primary audience for computer programs at that time) for 15 years. The example I cited was the "oldest" I could find, not some random limited example. All windowing systems derive from that one example.
During lawsuits between Intel and AMD over the 486, the courts ruled that a number cannot be trademarked. That's why Intel's next chip was called the Pentium, not the 586. (Intel also named the later 486 chips "i486".) This is also why Google chose to NOT use the name "googol", because they wouldn't be able to trademark that.
There's also the issue of scope. A trademark does not usually apply to everything, but to a limited area. If the areas of use are distinct and unlikely to cause confusion, the same name can be used by different companies. That's why Apple Records and Apple Computer were able to coexist (until iPod and iTunes came along -- expect some serious friction coming from these two). A search site and a number are unlikely to be confused.
Finally there is the issue of asserting ownership. Trademarks can be lost if they are not used or enforced. The usual examples of companies on the verge of losing their trademarks due to non-enforcement are Xerox and Kleenex. The family has allowed (you might even say encouraged) the term googol to be used by the mathematics community for decades. To now assert that the word should be reserved for only "authorized" use is ridiculous.
Um. One of the primary goals of security is to ensure that people have access to the services that are provided. If you take out those services when doing your scan, you've reduced security. Other replies have some good suggestions on how to mitigate any service outages.
On the other hand, there's got to be a point at which management does need to take security seriously. This includes allowing scanning of systems during production hours. I'd suggest doing some preliminary (proof-of-non-intrusiveness) scans during off-hours o gain confidence, then doing more tourough scans when they're likely to provide reliable results.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't forget the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (also by Infocom). It came with a "Don't Panic!" button, some pocket fluff, Peril-sensitive glasses (solid black cardboard glasses), and a "microscopic space fleet" (empty plastic bag).
Theft means taking something away from someone, so that the rightful owner no longer has posession of it. That doesn't quite apply to Intellectual Property, because the owner still has the original.
Piracy means taking property from others using violent force. This definitely doesn't apply to 99.999% of those who mis-appropriate Intellectual Property.
I was thinking the same thing. There's an outstanding $250,000 award for the first person to surf a 100-foot wave. The current record is a 70-foot wave. At these heights, the waves are so fast that they have to get towed in to get onto the waves. Most of the waves in the 50+ foot range have apparently been about 100 miles west of California. The guys that surf them are pretty experienced surfers.
Click on the page about the IT Industry. It includes this:
KCC [Korea Computer Center] regards it as its immediate target to reach the world level and to be competent in the world market in a few years in development of Linux-based operating system and applications, computer-aided high technology and services with its own core technology.
I can understand the copyright and trademark issues involved with a copy of a website. However, what if it was a proxy instead of a copy of the site? Seems like that would be eliminate the complaints, since it dynamically re-writes the page, and end-point communication still goes to their page. Sure, it would be hard to automate re-writing a web-page to make it cross-browser and W3C-complaint. But it would be really cool if someone would write such a proxy. You could even place such a proxy at the client-side, so the web site owners wouldn't even need to know about it.
Under copyright and trademark law, I think he should be able to make a partial copy of the site and fix it up as a critique -- an example of how to fix the problems. However, that would not include the ability to use the trademarks. So he should keep the site up, with any trademarks removed. (He could keep the name to refer back to the original though.) In retaliation, I would recommend that he also cahnge all the movie times, so that anyone still looking at his site would be even more pissed.
Is that a non-sequitor, or what? Why does he need a tracking chip in his arm to be able to access the crime database? He's the Attorney General -- if anyone should have access to the crime database, it would be him. Who could possibly make a rule forcing him to do anything in order to access the database? RFIDs might be good for physical identification, but it seems silly to use it for access to an online database.
Can you remember everything you need to buy at the grocery store? If you can, then I suspect that your memory is better than 99% of the people out there. It's this level of detail/importance that people have trouble remembering. Remembering that they have to go to the grocery store and the cleaners is what they generally remember.
And, yes, this is something I regularly keep on my TODO list.
I'm not sure if I should feel happy or sad for you. All I know is that I find it remarkable that you can accomlish everything you need/want in a short enough time that you can remember it all. I expect you must get bored not having many goals. Or perhaps you feel good for always accomplishing your goals.
Don't forget:
for ( int i = 0; i < 13; i++ )
putchar(i["Hello, World!"]);
Thanks for the link. Lots of good stuff in there, especially the descriptions of the court cases. Interesting that the Catholic church made abortion an excommunicable offense back in the 16th century. Although they also proclaimed that human life didn't exist before 40 days. While I agree with the Roe v. Wade decision for the most part, I don't agree with their reasoning -- reading between the lines to add new rights. While I'm happy that they realized the need for additional rights, that doesn't seem like the way to go about it. A better argument to me would be that making abortion illegal puts too many women at risk of clothes-hanger incidents.
I commend your ability to poke holes in my arguments. Although I knew the breathing argument was fairly weak. You make me question whether maybe my whole logical argument is rather weak, and my side is the more emotion-based. And I do understand the other side's fervor -- if you think it's murder, then you really have to stand up and say so. I'm probably more on the fence than most people. I just personally don't see how a non-viable fetus is any more an individual human life than some of my body parts. But I suppose you could argue that abortion could still be illegal in the same way that chopping my arm off is illegal.
I also don't believe that men should have any legal say in the matter. I know how difficult it is physically and emotionally for a woman to go through an abortion. I think that's enough of a deterrent in itself, and men don't have any real understanding of the process, nor of the burden of pregnancy.
Hmm, you make a pretty good point there about conception being the beginning of life. But there are several observations that would be to the contrary. One thing we consider to be vital to "life" is breathing -- if you stopped breathing for 2 months, would people consider you a living person?
As for the "natural" conclusion, why have we not already made such a conclusion? Why do the laws not already see it that way? The way things work in this world is that the ones challenging the status quo are the ones who must go out of their way to convince the rest. Also be aware that if we change the assumptions, a lot of other things come into question. If a woman spontaneosly aborts, should she be charged with manslaughter (assuming abortion would be murder)? What does conception mean -- does it apply to zygotes in a test tube? What privelges and responsibilities do these fetuses have?
One thing is for sure -- things are going to get even more confusing in the future, with genetic engineering and such.
And that (where I marked) is exactly where you took a leap of faith in your argument. Up to that point, I agree with you. We don't know where a "proper" demarcation of the beginning of life should be. I could just as easily say that "birth must be the mark of when a life becomes human". Society and the legal system have for the most part always held this to be the case. And you've made no factual argument that that would be wrong.
With no factual evidence to support either side, you've made a moral judgement. Which is fine. In fact, I'd say that in most cases, you've made the correct moral judgement. The problem is that you're trying to force others into coming to the same conclusion that you have, based on your beliefs and experiences.
Wow, very interesting. I wonder if that has any effect on life expectancy. I.e. is it part of the reason women live longer than men? It would be interesting to see a study comparing mothers versus non-mothers. Although I suspect that the process of raising kids might have a life-reducing impact, counter-acting the overall numbers.
Chuck Yeager must be too young to appear along with the SpaceShipOne crew.
The first part is easy enough: just write down what you think a new person would need to know. The second part is hard: organizing all the information so that he can find it. Unfortunately, I don't have too much advice on how to go about organizing things.
Two reasons. First, development on the EROS predecessor systems began before Linux existed. Second, the architectures of the systems are very different. It would probably not be feasible to "tack on" the EROS features. I'd love to see it though. It'd be awesome to have such resilience. Maybe there's some way to make it happen, but I think it would take a lot of work to make such radical changes to Linux's architecture.
Well, with the moats around the city/site/whatever, it technically is an island. Just not surrounded by as much water as we might have guessed.
That's not a very good reason to have a CAPSLOCK key. What if you later decide that you want to change it so that the section is no longer all-caps? The correct way to make a section all-caps is to flag the program to display the section in all caps. The same way you'd make a section bold, or italic, or small-caps. By your reasoning, we should have a bold-lock key as well.
As for programs that require you to enter all capital letters, the program should simply take the lower-case letters and convert them to upper case. This is very easy to do -- you can even do it in HTML forms with some pretty simple JavaScript.
You guys (and apparently some programmers) seem to be missing the fact that the whole point of using a word processor or other software versus a typewriter is that the output is somewhat independent of the input.
Anyway, I think the question is about removing the CAPSLOCK key, not the the CAPSLOCK mode. You could keep the mode without keeping the key. I believe the NeXT keyboard used Command-Shift, which even lit up a light on the Shift key. Hitting Shift would disable the mode. (BTW, Windows has an option in the Control Panel to turn off CAPSLOCK when you hit Shift.) Windows (and the Linux console) already has StickyKeys -- you hit Shift twice to enable Shift-lock. (You may have to turn the feature on in the Control Panel.)
Damn, my mod points just expired, and the parent post is VERY informative to anyone interested in this thread. And it's too late to hope than other moderators might be reading this thread.
Trademark law doesn't require the name to be a "household item". And the term "windows" was (and is) the standard generic way of expressing that particular concept. There's no other word used in Computer Science to describe such a concept, and it had been used in Computer Science circles (the primary audience for computer programs at that time) for 15 years. The example I cited was the "oldest" I could find, not some random limited example. All windowing systems derive from that one example.
Try again. Windows and GUIs existed since 1968. Next I suppose you'll try to tell us that Microsoft was the first to use the term "Word".
During lawsuits between Intel and AMD over the 486, the courts ruled that a number cannot be trademarked. That's why Intel's next chip was called the Pentium, not the 586. (Intel also named the later 486 chips "i486".) This is also why Google chose to NOT use the name "googol", because they wouldn't be able to trademark that.
There's also the issue of scope. A trademark does not usually apply to everything, but to a limited area. If the areas of use are distinct and unlikely to cause confusion, the same name can be used by different companies. That's why Apple Records and Apple Computer were able to coexist (until iPod and iTunes came along -- expect some serious friction coming from these two). A search site and a number are unlikely to be confused.
Finally there is the issue of asserting ownership. Trademarks can be lost if they are not used or enforced. The usual examples of companies on the verge of losing their trademarks due to non-enforcement are Xerox and Kleenex. The family has allowed (you might even say encouraged) the term googol to be used by the mathematics community for decades. To now assert that the word should be reserved for only "authorized" use is ridiculous.
I was under the impression that unicycling was the canonical geek sport. Especially mountain unicycling (muni).
Um. One of the primary goals of security is to ensure that people have access to the services that are provided. If you take out those services when doing your scan, you've reduced security. Other replies have some good suggestions on how to mitigate any service outages.
On the other hand, there's got to be a point at which management does need to take security seriously. This includes allowing scanning of systems during production hours. I'd suggest doing some preliminary (proof-of-non-intrusiveness) scans during off-hours o gain confidence, then doing more tourough scans when they're likely to provide reliable results.