So because it was "human nature" that slaves would just naturally not want to be slaves, you think you can denigrate the struggle for abolition as "a farce?".
Nice logic, asshole. Having something to gain does not somehow magically de-legitimize struggles for justice.
I just started learning Python a couple of months ago (I come from a Perl/PHP web development background).
Really, get over the whitespace-indentation thing. It's such a small thing to get hung up on compared to how much more powerful, elegant, and flexible the syntax is (for starters). That, and it encourages you to indent source code properly anyway.
It's getting easy to pigeon-hole libertarian rhetoric that seeks to divide politicians and government in general from the people they represent.
The argument that "we should do nothing, because we suck at it" (where "we" means us and our government by the people) just doesn't pull weight for me anymore. It's not as if we have more influence over commercial network operators through any other means.
Sure, market fundies are always telling us that we can exert influence within a robust, competitive marketplace. NEWSFLASH: 2 options for millions of consumers is NOT competitive! Foster some real competition in the marketplace, and then you can use the competition argument.
And, gee, who do we call to enforce competition? Could it be, government regulation?
So much for doing nothing.
The idea that a technology "works better" is also conveniently vague. There are many goals to a network. Some people want to communicate. Others want to make money. These two do not always mix. I'd like my interests in how to reconcile the conflicts of these interests represented by some policy other than "always give the businesspeople what they want".
Maybe the FCC sucks, but it's//mine//. Your oligopolist ISP is not.
Given the absurdity of being effectively forbidden to make backups copies of the stuff in Second Life they claim I own the copyrights to (a deal breaker in my book), I'm pretty happy to finally see an actually open and complete virtual worlds platform (even if it is alpha).
It wouldn't surprise me if the burgeoning openness of these and other VW software projects is what is driving business to take a second look at it, as well.
I hate to be able to jump to conclusions so quickly, but I can't copy & paste sections of the speech for quotation. That's the very first thing I tried to do. I realize Flash is currently the sweet spot for this kind of close integration with video, but the inability to highlight and copy content makes this a pretty big loser right out of the gate. I know you can copy & paste with Flash, but the only reason I can't fix this bug is because of it being a proprietary format.
It's cool to get a good license, no doubt. But the appeal of Twitter to me isn't the software license - it's the service provided. Specifically, it's the timely access they provide to the closed SMS network.
For a while, I was using my wireless phone carrier's email gateway to send my phone text messages generated by server monitoring scripts. When their gateway got clogged and delayed, I discovered that Twitter wasn't. So now my monitors use the Twitter API.
Other than for that, I wouldn't bother with Twitter - and I don't.
So public licensing is nice, but unless they've somehow cracked the gates of the closed SMS network, I don't see much to be excited about.
"This means that if you're using open-source code, you have got to be very scrupulous and diligent to make sure that another developer hasn't surreptitiously slipped in a political message or a feature that could make your organization look bad or even lose it money.
And always be mindful that once you let third parties touch your enterprise in any way, decisions they make will be broadcast around the Internet whether you like them or not. Basic Web 2.0 software technologies are proving to be both incredibly powerful and productive, but they can also lead to disastrous results for an organization that isn't paying close enough attention."
There. That's better. Same point. Less FUD.
I'll have to add this to my list of criticisms of things as if they don't apply to the things they're being contrasted with. Like blogging vs TV, radio, and newspapers, or Wikipedia vs Britannica.
Q: Why is closed source/Britannica/TV/newspapers/radio better than open source/Wikipedia/bloggers?
A: When closed source/Britannica/TV/newspapers/radio makes a mistake, almost no one finds out about it.
Q: Ah. Wait... that's a feature?"
A: It is to them. Get it?
Don't tell me - I can't download and use their software on my web server; I have to let them host my private data (private meaning, I have to trust them with it).
That's pretty impressive, figuring out how to tether a decades-old application that was designed to run entirely on the user's equipment.
I suppose you could just email the stack to those you really wanted to share it with. But where would they get the stack interpreter?
What are the odds the Federal Internet goes down first?
Seriously, do they really think this failocracy can secure and buttress its own networks better than the open Internet everyone else uses?
I'll give them this, though: At least they're having the common courtesy to try and keep attacks on the federal government from affecting my Internet. Damn kind of them.
Ferreira said that Microsoft was working with key industry partners, including open-source communities, to develop interoperable solutions that met customer needs.
The rest of you are shit out of luck.
"For innovation to continue, there needs to be value - and even open-source applications have some form of market model, which incentivises them to continue innovating." That's true, for those of you who have your market blinders on. because markets are the only thing that matters. Unlike your "value-added products and services", however FOSS exists beyond markets. It's undead.
Want proof? Go out of business. No one will use Windows anymore, but GNU/Linux will still be available.
This is not about surveillance. It's about WARRANTS.
The FISA Act, and the secret court it created, allow for domestic surveillance. All you have to do is go to the court, and get the judge to sign off on it. FISA even allows for emergency surveillance, so you can take up to three days to get the warrant in fast-moving circumstances. This was how the law was, since the//seventies//, when it was enacted.
The problem with the Bush "administration's" wiretapping is not that it is unnecessary, or even that Americans "don't care"//if they do it//. I'm sure that if there's a decent reason - and an upswing in terrorist activities created by Bush himself certainly qualifies, in my treasonous, liberal, progressive mind - that such surveillance is necessary in ways it wasn't before 9/11^H^H^H^H the Bush "administration". We need surveillance. Surveillance is good.
Just get a warrant. THAT, not the surveillance itself, is what Americans care about. And THAT is what Bush is refusing to do. THAT is why his surveillance programs are warrantless^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H unwarranted, and thus, unconstitutional.
Even the people cannot overrule the Constitution, without an appropriate amendment.
From the FAQ: http://dev.aol.com/aim/faqs
* Although we have removed many restrictions on usage and development, we still do not permit developers to build Open AIM applications that are interoperable with other IM networks. (Multi-headed applications are now allowed). Please refer to the Developers License Agreement for additional details. From the main page: http://dev.aol.com/aim
Development of AIM-Enabled, Multi-IM Protocol Clients
* AOL now allows multiheaded clients to access the AIM network OK, so I'm confused. What's the difference between a permitted "multi-headed client" and a prohibited "multi-headed application"?
They can't even seem to get their own promotional copy down right.
Slashdot Mirror
So because it was "human nature" that slaves would just naturally not want to be slaves, you think you can denigrate the struggle for abolition as "a farce?".
Nice logic, asshole. Having something to gain does not somehow magically de-legitimize struggles for justice.
I just started learning Python a couple of months ago (I come from a Perl/PHP web development background).
Really, get over the whitespace-indentation thing. It's such a small thing to get hung up on compared to how much more powerful, elegant, and flexible the syntax is (for starters). That, and it encourages you to indent source code properly anyway.
It's getting easy to pigeon-hole libertarian rhetoric that seeks to divide politicians and government in general from the people they represent.
The argument that "we should do nothing, because we suck at it" (where "we" means us and our government by the people) just doesn't pull weight for me anymore. It's not as if we have more influence over commercial network operators through any other means.
Sure, market fundies are always telling us that we can exert influence within a robust, competitive marketplace. NEWSFLASH: 2 options for millions of consumers is NOT competitive! Foster some real competition in the marketplace, and then you can use the competition argument.
And, gee, who do we call to enforce competition? Could it be, government regulation?
So much for doing nothing.
The idea that a technology "works better" is also conveniently vague. There are many goals to a network. Some people want to communicate. Others want to make money. These two do not always mix. I'd like my interests in how to reconcile the conflicts of these interests represented by some policy other than "always give the businesspeople what they want".
Maybe the FCC sucks, but it's //mine//. Your oligopolist ISP is not.
Just a few days ago, I finally installed and ran an OpenSim server on my own box.
Given the absurdity of being effectively forbidden to make backups copies of the stuff in Second Life they claim I own the copyrights to (a deal breaker in my book), I'm pretty happy to finally see an actually open and complete virtual worlds platform (even if it is alpha).
It wouldn't surprise me if the burgeoning openness of these and other VW software projects is what is driving business to take a second look at it, as well.
I hate to be able to jump to conclusions so quickly, but I can't copy & paste sections of the speech for quotation. That's the very first thing I tried to do. I realize Flash is currently the sweet spot for this kind of close integration with video, but the inability to highlight and copy content makes this a pretty big loser right out of the gate. I know you can copy & paste with Flash, but the only reason I can't fix this bug is because of it being a proprietary format.
You mean the Russian military can't get bandwidth because the spammers are busy using it against Georgia?
This is //Soviet Russia//, after all...
It's cool to get a good license, no doubt. But the appeal of Twitter to me isn't the software license - it's the service provided. Specifically, it's the timely access they provide to the closed SMS network.
For a while, I was using my wireless phone carrier's email gateway to send my phone text messages generated by server monitoring scripts. When their gateway got clogged and delayed, I discovered that Twitter wasn't. So now my monitors use the Twitter API.
Other than for that, I wouldn't bother with Twitter - and I don't.
So public licensing is nice, but unless they've somehow cracked the gates of the closed SMS network, I don't see much to be excited about.
A skylight would work.
"This means that if you're using open-source code, you have got to be very scrupulous and diligent to make sure that another developer hasn't surreptitiously slipped in a political message or a feature that could make your organization look bad or even lose it money.
And always be mindful that once you let third parties touch your enterprise in any way, decisions they make will be broadcast around the Internet whether you like them or not. Basic Web 2.0 software technologies are proving to be both incredibly powerful and productive, but they can also lead to disastrous results for an organization that isn't paying close enough attention."
There. That's better. Same point. Less FUD.
I'll have to add this to my list of criticisms of things as if they don't apply to the things they're being contrasted with. Like blogging vs TV, radio, and newspapers, or Wikipedia vs Britannica.
Q: Why is closed source/Britannica/TV/newspapers/radio better than open source/Wikipedia/bloggers?
A: When closed source/Britannica/TV/newspapers/radio makes a mistake, almost no one finds out about it.
Q: Ah. Wait... that's a feature?"
A: It is to them. Get it?
The fact that McCain's campaign has to ask people to blog is a sad sign. Obama //can't stop// his supporters from blogging.
Don't tell me - I can't download and use their software on my web server; I have to let them host my private data (private meaning, I have to trust them with it).
That's pretty impressive, figuring out how to tether a decades-old application that was designed to run entirely on the user's equipment.
I suppose you could just email the stack to those you really wanted to share it with. But where would they get the stack interpreter?
Shall we call the store "The Queuebe", then?
Tell me once again, how much you want those cybernetic implants...
//"(turn corner; monster jumps out of hiding; rinse & repeat)"//
So boring, in fact, that they even skipped the "lather" step.
Only aspiring monopolists count their competitors' revenues, and their customers' savings, as "losses".
What are the odds the Federal Internet goes down first?
Seriously, do they really think this failocracy can secure and buttress its own networks better than the open Internet everyone else uses?
I'll give them this, though: At least they're having the common courtesy to try and keep attacks on the federal government from affecting my Internet. Damn kind of them.
http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2008/03/the_security_mi_1.html
Counter-terrorists make good terrorists, too. What's your point?
The rest of you are shit out of luck. "For innovation to continue, there needs to be value - and even open-source applications have some form of market model, which incentivises them to continue innovating." That's true, for those of you who have your market blinders on. because markets are the only thing that matters. Unlike your "value-added products and services", however FOSS exists beyond markets. It's undead.
Want proof? Go out of business. No one will use Windows anymore, but GNU/Linux will still be available.
This author is WAY late to the party.
iPod/iTunes DRM? check.
Google collaboration with censorhsip? check.
Windows Vista suckage? check.
This would have been current 5-10 years ago.
This is not about surveillance. It's about WARRANTS.
//seventies//, when it was enacted.
//if they do it//. I'm sure that if there's a decent reason - and an upswing in terrorist activities created by Bush himself certainly qualifies, in my treasonous, liberal, progressive mind - that such surveillance is necessary in ways it wasn't before 9/11^H^H^H^H the Bush "administration". We need surveillance. Surveillance is good.
The FISA Act, and the secret court it created, allow for domestic surveillance. All you have to do is go to the court, and get the judge to sign off on it. FISA even allows for emergency surveillance, so you can take up to three days to get the warrant in fast-moving circumstances. This was how the law was, since the
The problem with the Bush "administration's" wiretapping is not that it is unnecessary, or even that Americans "don't care"
Just get a warrant. THAT, not the surveillance itself, is what Americans care about. And THAT is what Bush is refusing to do. THAT is why his surveillance programs are warrantless^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H unwarranted, and thus, unconstitutional.
Even the people cannot overrule the Constitution, without an appropriate amendment.
I hear buzz growing about amaranth as a grain contender. Better protein, restores soil nutrients, etc.
Sounds like they need more info posted under GoDaddy's entry in the RateMyCop.com database.
I propose we drop this tortured term "warrantless" and call this what it is: "unwarranted"
Should scientists date people who read fashion magazines?
(Would anyone want to?)
Should Bayesians date non-Bayesians?
http://dev.aol.com/aim/faqs * Although we have removed many restrictions on usage and development, we still do not permit developers to build Open AIM applications that are interoperable with other IM networks. (Multi-headed applications are now allowed). Please refer to the Developers License Agreement for additional details. From the main page:
http://dev.aol.com/aim Development of AIM-Enabled, Multi-IM Protocol Clients
* AOL now allows multiheaded clients to access the AIM network OK, so I'm confused. What's the difference between a permitted "multi-headed client" and a prohibited "multi-headed application"?
They can't even seem to get their own promotional copy down right.