We don't need to be planning for "if", we need to be planning for "when" it happens. It is a guarantee, along with death and taxes, that some twit will always try to crack a system, no matter how benevolent the purpose of the system is.
However, I share one concern with you: just because my clock skew is 2.138ms doesn't preclude someone else from having the same skew.
But the chances of someone having the exact same clock skew behind a NAT box are very, very small. It doesn't sound like a perfect system, but it is probably enough to narrow down to one or two machines of a couple thousand behind the NAT.
Technology is a major initiative of my campaign...
In what way is "technology a major initiative of your campaign"? We've heard candidates state the same things before, at all levels of government, but what does it really mean? While it's obvious that technology cannot be the sole focus of your candidacy, does it mean you are going to be pushing some form of Open Source adoption or what? Are you going to pushing digital rights legislation? There are a myriad of technological concerns that are being pushed into the political realm, where the people most likely to legislate are the ones least likely to be informed. Is this focus on technology merely a way to get low-cost assistance at pushing the same old non-tech issues?
So, again, how is technology a major initiative of your campaign?
You know there is some SCO techie who is just doing his job because he needs a paycheck (he probably feels unpure about working for sco, but when you gotta feed a family, you gotta do it)... and he is dying to post here but is scared for being rated karma -50 (the mods will make an exception);)
Tough cookies. I spent all my sympathy during the last election.
Isn't one of the advantages of OSS the fact you don't have to re-implement what has already been done.
Your point is moot when half the OSS programmers have a Not-Invented-Here attitude. This would explain why there (for example) a thousand open-source CMS systems that all do pretty much the same thing in a slightly different and just as confusing way.
Actually, the point is this: I want the stuff to work without having to dig around in the innards too much. I have work to do, not a bunch of pointless tinkering. I am paid to produce results, not tinker with the computer.
Another reason to avoid the x86 platform is the large base of commercial software. They would be forced to make too many compromises to allow Windows software to run on their system in order to maintain market viability.
This is not something Linux suffers from, although there are sterling efforts in place to get Windows programs to run on Linux. AFAIK, Linux is not about commercial viability, but rather about producing a solid open operating system.
By retaining a half-open, half-closed operating system on a closed platform, they get the best of all world: they don't have to bend to fit a Window-centric world and open source software is easily modified to fit onto the system. The gaps in commercial software availability will begin to be filled over time.
And the best part, they are seen as innovative in a world of dull, boring PCs running Windows and Linux.
Ah, yes. I don't use support guys, being much more into know what's on the machine and how it interacts with the other stuff so that when it breaks, I know why it broke.
But then again, anyone who can figure out how to remap the mouse and would do so in a manner that makes the machine nigh-well impossible to use, would probably not be calling support in the first place.
On a related note, it is extremely frustrating using another persons PC
Which is why I always remap my mouse buttons to something else - to keep other people off my machine. The only button they can count on is the left click. Right click, etc., has all been remapped from the default.
The only problem is that the public is still paying to publish the article. I seriously doubt that scientists are coughing up their own moolah for this.
It seems to me the best solution is the one where the scientific journal is paying the researcher, much as any other magazine would pay a journalist.
There should be a limit. Suing without a hope of winning, just using money and power to exhaust a target, should be illegal.
The problem is setting those limits. It's easy to say "there oughta be a limit" when talking about specific cases, but it's very difficult to craft a law specific enough to get rid of cases like this one, since all you really need is a lawyer good enough to make it sound like something else.
The key thing to remember is that ethics and law are two very different things. Ethics is an unwritten (mostly) set of practices agreed on by society, whereas law is codified, written down, and usually only changeable by a defined process. Ethics can be determined by just about anyone, with a great deal of difference between two individuals, but the law, hopefully, applies equally to all parties, and can only be made by a governing body.
I'll venture a guess that Apple does think they have a chance of winning. Whether you or I agree with it is immaterial, unless you can rouse enough public opinion against it.
The comparisons you make are not equivalent in any way. One is a computer system, the other is a living human being.
And yes, I thought that answer out before I typed it. The choice of what browser to use should be up to the user, not the person serving the site. If that causes problems for the site owner, then they have not done their job properly by allowing for a faulty browser implementation.
Yes, IE sucks. Get over it. Use a different browser. Whatever.
but doesnt the First Amendment only pertain to limitations on freedom and religious expression from the Government and not private companies?
Yes, but don't try and change any misconceptions around here. They aren't listening and it won't work anyway. There is no First Amendment protection when you deal with a private corporation.
The major difference is that we can choose to do business with a corporation or not, so if they offend us, it's off to the competition. Since the government effectively has no competition, and since it's a lawmaking body, the First Amendment provides the people with certain guarantees of redress for wrongs that they have no other means of handling.
The user HATES it when they dont have a choice, they detest it to the upmost degree, and once they realise that somesites are forcing them to use internet explorer, they will turn away and shun the site.
Actually, I think a large majority of the users out there don't even notice that they have a choice. On the other hand, forcing someone to use Firefox or Safari to browse a site is no better than forcing them to use IE, from an ethical standpoint.
Ideally, just give them the ability to browse a site with any browser, and if they happen to choose one you don't like, well, so be it.
Slashdot Mirror
We don't need to be planning for "if", we need to be planning for "when" it happens. It is a guarantee, along with death and taxes, that some twit will always try to crack a system, no matter how benevolent the purpose of the system is.
in my opinion a fix to spam has to come from the software side, not from the government side
...
Well, the government could help by making it legal to mutilate spammers on the first offense
On a more serious note, just make it legal to go after the companies that hire spammers.
Wait, I like the first idea better. Yeah. Mutilate spammers. And their families.
However, I share one concern with you: just because my clock skew is 2.138ms doesn't preclude someone else from having the same skew.
But the chances of someone having the exact same clock skew behind a NAT box are very, very small. It doesn't sound like a perfect system, but it is probably enough to narrow down to one or two machines of a couple thousand behind the NAT.
Funny thing is - at work, I use OS X and at home I use Windows. Same software on both platforms and roughly the same versions.
It all comes down to familiarity. I like OS X, a lot, but I get more done in Windows because I'm more familiar with it.
Now, if I can just explain that to the boss.
Technology is a major initiative of my campaign ...
In what way is "technology a major initiative of your campaign"? We've heard candidates state the same things before, at all levels of government, but what does it really mean? While it's obvious that technology cannot be the sole focus of your candidacy, does it mean you are going to be pushing some form of Open Source adoption or what? Are you going to pushing digital rights legislation? There are a myriad of technological concerns that are being pushed into the political realm, where the people most likely to legislate are the ones least likely to be informed. Is this focus on technology merely a way to get low-cost assistance at pushing the same old non-tech issues?
So, again, how is technology a major initiative of your campaign?
You know there is some SCO techie who is just doing his job because he needs a paycheck (he probably feels unpure about working for sco, but when you gotta feed a family, you gotta do it)... and he is dying to post here but is scared for being rated karma -50 (the mods will make an exception) ;)
Tough cookies. I spent all my sympathy during the last election.
Dude, I want big abs, not tiny ones. And aren't there more than 6 abdominals? What happens to the extras?
I'd be running around without all the abs that I'm supposed and they'd be tiny!
(kind of like my brain)
has anyone welcomed our new microbial overlords, yet?
The only good things to come out of NewsCorp are the Simpsons, Futurama, and a smattering of movies from Fox Studios.
I won't miss Eidos much.
Isn't one of the advantages of OSS the fact you don't have to re-implement what has already been done.
Your point is moot when half the OSS programmers have a Not-Invented-Here attitude. This would explain why there (for example) a thousand open-source CMS systems that all do pretty much the same thing in a slightly different and just as confusing way.
Actually, the point is this: I want the stuff to work without having to dig around in the innards too much. I have work to do, not a bunch of pointless tinkering. I am paid to produce results, not tinker with the computer.
(yeah, I know, or post stuff on Slashdot).
Another reason to avoid the x86 platform is the large base of commercial software. They would be forced to make too many compromises to allow Windows software to run on their system in order to maintain market viability.
This is not something Linux suffers from, although there are sterling efforts in place to get Windows programs to run on Linux. AFAIK, Linux is not about commercial viability, but rather about producing a solid open operating system.
By retaining a half-open, half-closed operating system on a closed platform, they get the best of all world: they don't have to bend to fit a Window-centric world and open source software is easily modified to fit onto the system. The gaps in commercial software availability will begin to be filled over time.
And the best part, they are seen as innovative in a world of dull, boring PCs running Windows and Linux.
you need to edit your binary search paths ($PATH) and make sure javavm
... why? That sort of thing should already have been handled by the OS.
And we should have to do this
Ah, yes. I don't use support guys, being much more into know what's on the machine and how it interacts with the other stuff so that when it breaks, I know why it broke.
But then again, anyone who can figure out how to remap the mouse and would do so in a manner that makes the machine nigh-well impossible to use, would probably not be calling support in the first place.
Windows users do not have this luxury. Taunting them about it is cruel. Be nicer.
... /protowhine
Why? They started it. All the Linux boys are doing it
On a related note, it is extremely frustrating using another persons PC
Which is why I always remap my mouse buttons to something else - to keep other people off my machine. The only button they can count on is the left click. Right click, etc., has all been remapped from the default.
The only problem is that the public is still paying to publish the article. I seriously doubt that scientists are coughing up their own moolah for this.
It seems to me the best solution is the one where the scientific journal is paying the researcher, much as any other magazine would pay a journalist.
Typically the quality with RealPlayer is so low that it's easier and more pleasant to just go blind.
FoxGoo would better communicate what I think you were intending.
Plus, it appeals to fox hunters.
Nah, what we need are some robot soccer hooligans!
There should be a limit. Suing without a hope of winning, just using money and power to exhaust a target, should be illegal.
The problem is setting those limits. It's easy to say "there oughta be a limit" when talking about specific cases, but it's very difficult to craft a law specific enough to get rid of cases like this one, since all you really need is a lawyer good enough to make it sound like something else.
The key thing to remember is that ethics and law are two very different things. Ethics is an unwritten (mostly) set of practices agreed on by society, whereas law is codified, written down, and usually only changeable by a defined process. Ethics can be determined by just about anyone, with a great deal of difference between two individuals, but the law, hopefully, applies equally to all parties, and can only be made by a governing body.
I'll venture a guess that Apple does think they have a chance of winning. Whether you or I agree with it is immaterial, unless you can rouse enough public opinion against it.
The comparisons you make are not equivalent in any way. One is a computer system, the other is a living human being.
And yes, I thought that answer out before I typed it. The choice of what browser to use should be up to the user, not the person serving the site. If that causes problems for the site owner, then they have not done their job properly by allowing for a faulty browser implementation.
Yes, IE sucks. Get over it. Use a different browser. Whatever.
but doesnt the First Amendment only pertain to limitations on freedom and religious expression from the Government and not private companies?
Yes, but don't try and change any misconceptions around here. They aren't listening and it won't work anyway. There is no First Amendment protection when you deal with a private corporation.
The major difference is that we can choose to do business with a corporation or not, so if they offend us, it's off to the competition. Since the government effectively has no competition, and since it's a lawmaking body, the First Amendment provides the people with certain guarantees of redress for wrongs that they have no other means of handling.
Object Oriented Language = data knows what to do with itself but programmer don't know what to do with the data.
Data Oriented Language = data doesn't know what to do with itself and neither does anyone else.
The user HATES it when they dont have a choice, they detest it to the upmost degree, and once they realise that somesites are forcing them to use internet explorer, they will turn away and shun the site.
Actually, I think a large majority of the users out there don't even notice that they have a choice. On the other hand, forcing someone to use Firefox or Safari to browse a site is no better than forcing them to use IE, from an ethical standpoint.
Ideally, just give them the ability to browse a site with any browser, and if they happen to choose one you don't like, well, so be it.