Ok, just something that came to mind while reading your comment...
We've got Caldera releasing OpenUNIX, based on SCO, with (sort of) binary compatibility for Linux, surely, some of their future efforts will go into further integrating the two.
Now, we've got HP and Compaq merging, and you're talking about them doing binary compatibility between HP-UX and Linux, and if they did that, wouldn't they go for further integration in the future also?
Wouldn't that sort of create the same split in Linux that UNIX had? I mean, if I understand it correctly, you'd have (at least) two distros with a binary incompatibility, just to start. And that could only be a bad thing.
First Amendment buddy. According to the constitution, I can say whatever the hell I want. With the exception of slander, but I'm not entirely sure how that works, and it doesn't apply here anyway.
He developed the software outside the United States, and the 1st Amendment covers him speaking about it.
He's not guilty, the DMCA is stupid. What's the problem?
Uhm, but should countries (and by that, I mean their peoples, cause everyone knows countries get their money fromf the people) also foot the bill for the huge advertising campaigns waged by the pharmaceutical companies? And trust me, that's probably why Brazil couldn't afford the price.
I dunno about you, but I don't need to see those incomprehensible ads for Viagra or Paxel. If I need the stuff, my doctor will prescribe it to me, and explain it, without showing me a tape of a commercial.
Just my $0.02
Re:CE is part of the problem
on
$1200 Cheap!
·
· Score: 1
Don't be too critical, let's not forget, Dreamcast is CE-based.
From dictionary.com:
Found 8 entries for AIM.
aim (m)
v. aimed, aiming, aims
v. tr.
To direct (a weapon) toward an intended target.
To direct toward or intend for a particular goal or group: The publicity campaign was aimed at improving the eating habits of children.
v. intr.
To direct a weapon: a gunner aiming carefully.
To determine a course or direct an effort: aim for a better education.
To propose to do something; intend: The historical society is aiming to restore the town hall.
I've got Comcast@Home in New Jersey, and I gotta say, the service is nice. However, it took more than a month to install. They had this nifty self-install deal, so I signed up for that. I got the equipment about a week after I signed up, hooked it up to my machine (had to take out the anolog modem, to make room for the NIC,) and called the number for activation. I was told that I would be online within 3 days. Three days come and go, nothing. I call again, and I'm not in the activation queue anymore.
To make a long story short, I went through this about 4 times. A month and a half later, I was finally on.
Since then though, aside from a problem concerning a filter on the pole outside my house, service has been good. Fast, and only one 5 minute outage the entire time.
Well, when rpm -i does that, I usually go to http://rpmfind.net (plaintext for the goatse.cx wary) which generally has even some of the more obscure libraries that some RPMs need (in RPM packages, of course.)
Just my two cents.
How about the 10% of the country that gets pissed at these things, and takes them out of context, lightens up a bit? I'm sick of everything I say being called racist (including dark fiber, I've used that term many times) just because I have pale skin.
Ok, go ahead, mod me down now.
There is a meta-tag that can be added to a page to exempt it from having Smart Tags. I'm not an HTML programmer though, so I don't know what the meta-tag is, or how it would be constructed in HTML.
On the side, I still think this is underhanded. This sort of thing should be opt-in (require the meta-tag to have Smart Tags enabled on a website) instead of opt-out (the other way around.)
This isn't about changing colors and that kind of crap. It's about changing the content of a page, and possibly the meaning. To use an example that I've used before, let's say you have a page that has the phrase "Save The Whales." on it. Now, lets say that MS has a deal with the XYZ Whaling Company. The word "Whales" on the site is SmartLinked to XYZ's website, where they explain (perhaps graphically) how they hunt down whales, and sell off the parts for various applications. If you ask me, that's no better than changing the phrase to "Kill The Whales" in the first place.
Also, keep in mind, that a website has to have a meta-tag to disable the feature on the site. It's opt-out. So now, every idiot user that doesn't know any better will see these links on sites that haven't had the chance to be updated yet, or are never updated.
As I've said in a previous thread, that would be a complete and utter waste of time. Why would you *want* to set up a Smart Tag for a word you already know the definition of, to a place you already know exists.
Of course, if an ISP who ships a custom version of IE could modify the browser, that could be useful to them.
But if you ask me, both are bad scenarios. I don't want some big software corp, or some ISP, defining where certain words will take me when they load into the browser.
Just my $0.02.
And like I said, it's a simple matter to block French access to the site. As has already been pointed out, Saudi Arabia does it for pornography, and I'm sure there are numerous other examples that can be pointed out.
And as for South American drug selling countries, it should be noted that the production of drugs in most of those countries is illegal, on top of the use and production of those drugs being illegal in the US. In that case, it's the responsibility of *both* countries to uphold their laws more effectively.
Yahoo abided by the French ruling on the French Yahoo site, which is the one operating in French territory. I completely agree that if the French don't want Nazi relics being sold in their country, they have every right to order Yahoo to stop selling the stuff in their territory.
The American Yahoo site is *not* operating on French soil, however. And I don't recall there being any law in the United States against this sort of stuff.
So tell me, why should it be (the American) Yahoo site's responsibility to prevent French citizens from doing something illegal? Let them block the American site, and keep the (Nazi-free) French site.
France's gov't should take responsibility for their country, instead of suing a foreign corporation because they are unwilling (or unable) to enforce their own laws.
But the owner *does* have the right to have your car removed from *their* property, at your expense, without notifying you. At least that's what it's like here in New Jersey.
The drives belong to the storage company. Though I wouldn't argue that it's completely unethical for the company to do something to your data, surely it's not illegal.
Your comparison of SmartTags to Style Sheets is, IMVHO, flawed. Yes, any user should be allowed to change the appearance of a webpage, to suit their needs, and this functionality has long been available in browsers.
However, SmartTags are a change of content by a single corporate entity. For example, let's say MS cuts a deal with the XYZ Whaling Corporation. Now, when you have the line "Save the Whales" on your website, and the word Whales is SmartTagged to redirect the viewer to XYZ's webpage, which discusses how they slaughter whales, and sell off the oil and skins, wouldn't that be just as traumatic to the meaning of the "Save The Whales" website, as just changing the whole line to "Kill The Whales"?
To my knowledge, the only group of people in the US that can use thermal imaging technology, aside from reserachers, etc, is the military. And they're not allowed to scope out your house.
And you're a slashdot user, not one of the millions of newbies on the internet that don't know how to distinguish between what a site author intended, and what MS, (or anyone else, for that matter) put there.
But something else. NBCi.com, as an example, is allowed to set whatever kinds of links they want in *their* site. If they want to link exclusively to information in their domain, that is their right.
Banner Ads... I run a number of webpages (crappy ones, at that) on Freeservers. When I went in, I *knew* that there would be advertising, and in some cases, it might be stuff that I might not agree with.
I doubt anyone who wrote a webpage prior to this "feature" (and hence, have *not* added the disabling meta-tag) knew that some day, someone might be adding SmartTags to their website, even if it is client-side.
Uhm, just curiosity here, and keeping in mind that I haven't read through the specs...
If I read through what everyone is saying about the file msdnodc.xml correctly, you can change it to customize the redirects presented to you as SmartTags on webpages.
What I want to know is, wouldn't it be a waste of time to add sites that you *already know about* to this file?
So, you're going to add custom links to a webpage using certain keywords you already know the definition of, to information you already know about?
The only way these SmartTags are useful is if they present information that you didn't already have/take you to places you didn't know about. And the only way you can get that, that I see, is by using the defaults. And doesn't MS control the defaults?
Slashdot Mirror
Ok, just something that came to mind while reading your comment...
We've got Caldera releasing OpenUNIX, based on SCO, with (sort of) binary compatibility for Linux, surely, some of their future efforts will go into further integrating the two.
Now, we've got HP and Compaq merging, and you're talking about them doing binary compatibility between HP-UX and Linux, and if they did that, wouldn't they go for further integration in the future also?
Wouldn't that sort of create the same split in Linux that UNIX had? I mean, if I understand it correctly, you'd have (at least) two distros with a binary incompatibility, just to start. And that could only be a bad thing.
First Amendment buddy. According to the constitution, I can say whatever the hell I want. With the exception of slander, but I'm not entirely sure how that works, and it doesn't apply here anyway.
He developed the software outside the United States, and the 1st Amendment covers him speaking about it.
He's not guilty, the DMCA is stupid. What's the problem?
Single machine, not networked, in a lead lined room, with two marine infantrymen guarding the door = secure enviroment.
But I guess that *would* be kinda impractical...
Uhm, but should countries (and by that, I mean their peoples, cause everyone knows countries get their money fromf the people) also foot the bill for the huge advertising campaigns waged by the pharmaceutical companies? And trust me, that's probably why Brazil couldn't afford the price.
I dunno about you, but I don't need to see those incomprehensible ads for Viagra or Paxel. If I need the stuff, my doctor will prescribe it to me, and explain it, without showing me a tape of a commercial.
Just my $0.02
Don't be too critical, let's not forget, Dreamcast is CE-based.
From dictionary.com: Found 8 entries for AIM. aim (m) v. aimed, aiming, aims v. tr. To direct (a weapon) toward an intended target. To direct toward or intend for a particular goal or group: The publicity campaign was aimed at improving the eating habits of children. v. intr. To direct a weapon: a gunner aiming carefully. To determine a course or direct an effort: aim for a better education. To propose to do something; intend: The historical society is aiming to restore the town hall.
I've got Comcast@Home in New Jersey, and I gotta say, the service is nice. However, it took more than a month to install. They had this nifty self-install deal, so I signed up for that. I got the equipment about a week after I signed up, hooked it up to my machine (had to take out the anolog modem, to make room for the NIC,) and called the number for activation. I was told that I would be online within 3 days. Three days come and go, nothing. I call again, and I'm not in the activation queue anymore. To make a long story short, I went through this about 4 times. A month and a half later, I was finally on. Since then though, aside from a problem concerning a filter on the pole outside my house, service has been good. Fast, and only one 5 minute outage the entire time.
It's a Sicilian necktie... I should know, I'm from New Jersey. ;)
Well, when rpm -i does that, I usually go to http://rpmfind.net (plaintext for the goatse.cx wary) which generally has even some of the more obscure libraries that some RPMs need (in RPM packages, of course.) Just my two cents.
How about the 10% of the country that gets pissed at these things, and takes them out of context, lightens up a bit? I'm sick of everything I say being called racist (including dark fiber, I've used that term many times) just because I have pale skin. Ok, go ahead, mod me down now.
There is a meta-tag that can be added to a page to exempt it from having Smart Tags. I'm not an HTML programmer though, so I don't know what the meta-tag is, or how it would be constructed in HTML. On the side, I still think this is underhanded. This sort of thing should be opt-in (require the meta-tag to have Smart Tags enabled on a website) instead of opt-out (the other way around.)
This isn't about changing colors and that kind of crap. It's about changing the content of a page, and possibly the meaning. To use an example that I've used before, let's say you have a page that has the phrase "Save The Whales." on it. Now, lets say that MS has a deal with the XYZ Whaling Company. The word "Whales" on the site is SmartLinked to XYZ's website, where they explain (perhaps graphically) how they hunt down whales, and sell off the parts for various applications. If you ask me, that's no better than changing the phrase to "Kill The Whales" in the first place. Also, keep in mind, that a website has to have a meta-tag to disable the feature on the site. It's opt-out. So now, every idiot user that doesn't know any better will see these links on sites that haven't had the chance to be updated yet, or are never updated.
As I've said in a previous thread, that would be a complete and utter waste of time. Why would you *want* to set up a Smart Tag for a word you already know the definition of, to a place you already know exists. Of course, if an ISP who ships a custom version of IE could modify the browser, that could be useful to them. But if you ask me, both are bad scenarios. I don't want some big software corp, or some ISP, defining where certain words will take me when they load into the browser. Just my $0.02.
And like I said, it's a simple matter to block French access to the site. As has already been pointed out, Saudi Arabia does it for pornography, and I'm sure there are numerous other examples that can be pointed out. And as for South American drug selling countries, it should be noted that the production of drugs in most of those countries is illegal, on top of the use and production of those drugs being illegal in the US. In that case, it's the responsibility of *both* countries to uphold their laws more effectively.
Yahoo abided by the French ruling on the French Yahoo site, which is the one operating in French territory. I completely agree that if the French don't want Nazi relics being sold in their country, they have every right to order Yahoo to stop selling the stuff in their territory. The American Yahoo site is *not* operating on French soil, however. And I don't recall there being any law in the United States against this sort of stuff. So tell me, why should it be (the American) Yahoo site's responsibility to prevent French citizens from doing something illegal? Let them block the American site, and keep the (Nazi-free) French site. France's gov't should take responsibility for their country, instead of suing a foreign corporation because they are unwilling (or unable) to enforce their own laws.
But the owner *does* have the right to have your car removed from *their* property, at your expense, without notifying you. At least that's what it's like here in New Jersey. The drives belong to the storage company. Though I wouldn't argue that it's completely unethical for the company to do something to your data, surely it's not illegal.
Your comparison of SmartTags to Style Sheets is, IMVHO, flawed. Yes, any user should be allowed to change the appearance of a webpage, to suit their needs, and this functionality has long been available in browsers. However, SmartTags are a change of content by a single corporate entity. For example, let's say MS cuts a deal with the XYZ Whaling Corporation. Now, when you have the line "Save the Whales" on your website, and the word Whales is SmartTagged to redirect the viewer to XYZ's webpage, which discusses how they slaughter whales, and sell off the oil and skins, wouldn't that be just as traumatic to the meaning of the "Save The Whales" website, as just changing the whole line to "Kill The Whales"?
To my knowledge, the only group of people in the US that can use thermal imaging technology, aside from reserachers, etc, is the military. And they're not allowed to scope out your house.
And you're a slashdot user, not one of the millions of newbies on the internet that don't know how to distinguish between what a site author intended, and what MS, (or anyone else, for that matter) put there. But something else. NBCi.com, as an example, is allowed to set whatever kinds of links they want in *their* site. If they want to link exclusively to information in their domain, that is their right. Banner Ads... I run a number of webpages (crappy ones, at that) on Freeservers. When I went in, I *knew* that there would be advertising, and in some cases, it might be stuff that I might not agree with. I doubt anyone who wrote a webpage prior to this "feature" (and hence, have *not* added the disabling meta-tag) knew that some day, someone might be adding SmartTags to their website, even if it is client-side.
Uhm, just curiosity here, and keeping in mind that I haven't read through the specs... If I read through what everyone is saying about the file msdnodc.xml correctly, you can change it to customize the redirects presented to you as SmartTags on webpages. What I want to know is, wouldn't it be a waste of time to add sites that you *already know about* to this file? So, you're going to add custom links to a webpage using certain keywords you already know the definition of, to information you already know about? The only way these SmartTags are useful is if they present information that you didn't already have/take you to places you didn't know about. And the only way you can get that, that I see, is by using the defaults. And doesn't MS control the defaults?