DESCRIPTION The xclipboard program is used to collect and display text selections that are sent to the CLIPBOARD by other clients. It is typically used to save CLIPBOARD selections for later use. It stores each CLIPBOARD selection as a separate string, each of which can be selected. Each time CLIPBOARD is asserted by another application, xclip board transfers the contents of that selection to a new buffer and displays it in the text window. Buffers are never automatically deleted, so you'll want to use the delete button to get rid of useless items.
also things like cut and paste that X doesn't handle
X handles text cut and paste very well; with a 3-button mouse as the gods intended, it's much better than MacOS or Windows. Other types of cut and paste are Not Its Job. (Indeed, I question the extension of the "cut and paste" metaphor to file
management; when I move papers from one filing cabinet to another, the idea of that I'm "cutting" from one drawer and "pasting" to another never enters my mind.)
Lack of a built in window manager is also a pain as even the most basic one
adds lots of overhead to X
Managing windows is also Not Its Job. X provides mechanism, not policy. It is a layered architecture. This is a Good Thing.
Unfortunately many X critics simply have no understanding of what X is and isn't.
We currently have the technology (assuming big bucks) to send multi-generational colonies to other star systems.
Sorry, but claims like this are based on wild-ass extrapolation. We have just about zero experience in creating a self-sustaining ecosystem such as would be required; no experience in long-term (multi-year) space habiation; no experience in build large structures in space (sorry, ISS is too small to count). To say that we "currently have" sufficient tech is like Ben Franklin projecting from Leyden jars to electric cars and supercomputers on the basis that he currently (no pun intended) has the technology to tame electricity.
Given what I call the "Moores Law of Terrorism" [1], eventually it will be possible to for a small group of people to wipe out the
entire human species (via nukes, biokillers, nanokillers, etc.)
Which is why we ought to get to work on ending the brutality and repression that breeds terrorism.
(Note: It probably will not be me in the tin can.)
That's part two of the problem. Any such project is going to need a substantial part of the planet's resources. Given the choice between spending dollars sending someone else to safety, or working on defenses that might have a change save my own personal ass - or on eliminating the motivation for someone to threaten my ass in the first place - where do you think I'm going to logically direct my ducats?
A zillion dollars split between efforts towards peace, stability, and relief (on the political, ecological, and economic fronts) in the Middle East and Africa, and efforts to develop defenses againt bioweapons and grey goo (a nuke or two could kill a lot of people, but it would take a full-scale exchange to be a threat) to our species is a better investment than a zillion dollars towards a long-shot lifeboat for someone else.
Inevitably some group is going to oppose the elevator and attempt to use force to bring it down. Just look at the animal rights groups that blow up labs conducting animal research.
Why is it inevitable that someone will oppose a space elevator? I don't know of anyone who thinks that such a construction would be unethical, the way that many people think certain animal research is. The comparison doesn't seem to connect.
Most Linux geeks that I know would want high end equipment not cheap junk. I've got an old celeron that has trouble running X.
Um, one of my machines here is a Pentium 130. I've run X on a 25MHz 486 box (NetBSD, not Linux, but still...) If you can't run X on a Celeron box, either XFree86 doesn't support your card (unlikely), or something is hideously misconfigured.
How is it practically possible to completely isolate these new genetically "enhanced" strains anyway? Surely as long a they're being grown in the big wide world, the genetic changes will crep into the food chain anyway...?
Which is exactly why we need to not fscking grow them out in the big wide world.
GM plants should be grown only in sealed greenhouses, at least for the first few decades until we thouroughly understand them. Anything less is criminal negligence with the ecosystem.
Why wouldn't this kids.us portion of the web be analogous to a children's section in a public library?
Children's sections don't restrict access to the rest of the library. The childrens section is no more binding that the science fiction or mystery sections; it's a informational classification of content, not a restriction on access.
And depending on how well your own biases match those of your local librarian, yes, you had probably better supervise your kids in the childrens' section, or at least scope it out before hand. Some parents wouldn't want their kids to see "Heather Has Two Daddies" (if such a book ever really existed), others might want to keep their kids away from an NRA "Eddie the Eagle" coloring book.
Free speech means the right to , not the right to be heard.
To express your ideas on the same basis as others. You don't need to be a strict constructionist to see that: it's well-established that if the state creates a forum, it cannot regulate content in that forum, even if other forums are available for those censored.
For example, if the county sets up a "youth fair" of some sort and allows a church youth group to set up a booth, they can't deny a pagan group, a Satanic group, or an atheist group from equal access. If they allow an "African American Hertitage for Kids" booth, they can't deny the KKK the right to a "Junior White Power" exhibition.
Same here: you can't have the state deciding that some speakers deserve a favored platform to address children but others don't.
a low-cost program that might make some parents lives easier...
The freedom of others often makes our own lives inconvenient. That doesn't mean that we can restrict it.
...and some children a bit safer
I think that by now we all know the one about trading liberty for safety.
Why shouldn't kids (presumably elementary school kids) be able to surf the web while their parents are busy making dinner.
For the same reason they shouldn't be able to roam a large library (perhaps containing material like Mein Kampf, The Sataninc Bible, and a book of Robert Mapplethorpe's photos) unsupervised.
Young kids should be supervised in their information access. There are three options:
Do it yourself.
Hand the responsibility over to some private-party babysitter. In the case of the web, that would be filter software, which so far has generally seemed to suck enormously, and to be produced by lawsuit-happy corporate bastards.
Demand that the government handle it. Which is unconstitutional censorship.
If it's locked down tighter than I would, so what?
So people are denied their free speech rights, that's what.
When someone is locked out of this domain, their equal right to speak to a certain audience is violated. If your local church can put up "jesuslovesyou.kids.us" but I can't put up "goddesslovesyou.kids.us" or "satanlovesyou.kids.us" or "nogod.kids.us", my rights are violated.
Great. So do other people. If it's a useful and workable solution, let the market provide one. Indeed, let the market provide several. The federal government's involvement is unnecessary - and unconstitutional.
Now we have the choice of a potentially more safe domain, that's great. And you still have the unrestricted internet, perfect.
If I have a message that I wish to target to children, and therefore want entry into the special forum that the government has created, but the government doesn't like my message, then we have serious free speech and equal protection issues. For example, should your local church be able to put up up a "jesuslovesyou.kids.us" site? How about your local Satanic chruch and "satanlovesyou.kids.us"? Or the KKK's "whitepride.kids.us"? All these groups have equal rights under the law to speak to children. (To children in general, not to your children specifically - of course you have the right to decide which sites your kids should view.)
It is an established principle that the state can regulate time and manner, but not content, of speech; that if the government creates a forum, it must allow equal access to all who wish to speak. This censored domain fails to meet that basic test.
Obviously the poster is being *very* responsible as a parent, by making sure he knows what kind of crazy shit his kid is getting in to. Contrary to handing over the responsibility to NeuStar, he's in the same room as his kid, making the judgements himself.
Read the complete context. Note the sentance after the one you quoted, where he claims that having to be responsible like that "sucks".
He's doing it now because NeuStar isn't set up. He says that doing so "sucks" and that "[p]arents need something like this" censored domain. The desire to hand the responsiblity over to someone else is clear.
If you even have to *question* if something is hateful or inappropriate for kids under 12, then it most probably is.
Nonsense. What some people would ban, others would accept without a second thought. Haven't you read any of/.'s coverage of filtering software over the past few years?
The rest of the world can do what they like on.com and the rest of the TLD's. This proposal has nothing to do with infringing on
free speech there.
So what? The existence of other forums doesn't give the state the authority to censor one. "We're forbidding any criticism of the government of the internet. The rest of the world can do what they like on the printed page, TV, and radio." Doesn't work tha way.
I do not have any www controls at home, my kids each have their own computers in their bedrooms. I still monitor it on occasion via their cache directories and the squid logs.. I noticed my 10 year old son a few months ago looking for porn...I did not approve of this and talked to him about it.
Which sounds to me just about the perfect way to do it - actually fscking talking to your kids about what and why some stuff is objectionable. I salute you sir.
I think, however, that you are going to have a pretty hard time making the
case that keeping a 7 year-old from accidentally encountering www.fursuitsex.com is a bad thing.
The very obvious, huge, gaping problem is that the state is unlikely to keep just www.fursuitsex.com off their "whitelist". They may choose to keep "acluforkids.org" or "nrajr.net" or "zenforkids.com" or "littlesatanists.org" or "growingupgay.org" (all names fictitious, as far as I know) off the list.
Now if you personally want to keep your kids from viewing those sites, fine. But it is not the place of the government to make "naughty" and "nice" lists of content.
why not let children under 12 have a sanatized internet domain where they can play and have fun without looking at pr0n.
You want one, fine, but it's not the business of the government to do such a thing.
The majority of people in the U.S. are Christian. Many would perfer that their kids only view "Christian-friendly" websites. Would that make it ok for the state to get up a special favored "christian.us" domain? Of course not.
If some private company wants to do this, fine. (It's still a stupid idea, but at least it would be legally sound.) But getting the state involved in this runs smack into free speech and equal protection issues.
It would be cool if there were sites dedicated to homework help and research for school papers, news from the world explained
in terms that kids can understand would also be a good thing, but ultimatly its the parents who decide if they want their children
to view this material or not.
Everything that you say is true regardless of the existence of a government-backed "kids.us" domain.
I don't let my kids on the internet unless I'm sitting in the same room. That sucks.
Sorry, but if you can't handle the responsibility of being a parent - if you want to hand over responsibility for deciding what's appropriate for your kids to some fscking government contractor - please put your kids up for adoption now.
According to this the.us has been available since 15-February-1985
Not quite. The TLD has existed since the mid-80s, but was government-use-only for most of that time - not available to the rest of us.
My first non-work e-mail address was when the Baltimore County Public Library started offering internet service: I was tms@mail.bcpl.lib.md.us. I could not have registered "tomssite.us" or "tomsite.md.us".
Cash absolutely has inherent physical value, just like gold or diamonds...If you have an item that you know can be exchanged for something you want, that item has inherent value. Value is nothing more than a consensual mass delusion.
You are confusing "inherent physical value" with value in general. Inherent value is the ability of an object to fulfil a basic human need or desire; a desire that crosses culural and economic systems - a value that is present in the object regardless of exernal judgements.
A hammer, for example, has inherent value as a functional object. It may have additional "delusional" value, as a collectors item for example.
Gold and gems have inherent value; they have industrial uses, and can be used to craft luxury items. They also have "delusional" value, in that a large percentage of the world's population view them as a medium of exchange.
Currency has no significant inherent value; other than as firestarter or toliet paper, a wad of $20s has little use.
So if you have one IOU from Fred, you have a million IOUs from Fred.
Yes, but only one of those copies can ever be redeemed.
Very smart people have spent a lot of time thinking about this. They saw pretty quickly that bit strings could be copied. They figured out how to deal with that. Perhaps you should read their work? The canonical book is Applied Crytography.
Slashdot Mirror
A fundamental Green principal is decentralization of control, including governments: "Decision-making should, as much as possible, remain at the individual and local level, while assuring that civil rights are protected for all citizens." I think that's something Greens and Libertarians could agree on, no?
Perhaps you should base your criticism on facts?
The two are not incompatable, indeed the "libertarian" label was used by socialists first before it was stolen by capitalists.
If you're quadruple-booked for meetings all day, you have a lifestyle problem, not a technological problem.
What you need is not a PDA, or planning software, but Thoreau's doctrine: "Our life is frittered away by detail ...Simplify, Simplify."
X handles text cut and paste very well; with a 3-button mouse as the gods intended, it's much better than MacOS or Windows. Other types of cut and paste are Not Its Job. (Indeed, I question the extension of the "cut and paste" metaphor to file management; when I move papers from one filing cabinet to another, the idea of that I'm "cutting" from one drawer and "pasting" to another never enters my mind.)
Managing windows is also Not Its Job. X provides mechanism, not policy. It is a layered architecture. This is a Good Thing.
Unfortunately many X critics simply have no understanding of what X is and isn't.
Sorry, but claims like this are based on wild-ass extrapolation. We have just about zero experience in creating a self-sustaining ecosystem such as would be required; no experience in long-term (multi-year) space habiation; no experience in build large structures in space (sorry, ISS is too small to count). To say that we "currently have" sufficient tech is like Ben Franklin projecting from Leyden jars to electric cars and supercomputers on the basis that he currently (no pun intended) has the technology to tame electricity.
Which is why we ought to get to work on ending the brutality and repression that breeds terrorism.
That's part two of the problem. Any such project is going to need a substantial part of the planet's resources. Given the choice between spending dollars sending someone else to safety, or working on defenses that might have a change save my own personal ass - or on eliminating the motivation for someone to threaten my ass in the first place - where do you think I'm going to logically direct my ducats?
A zillion dollars split between efforts towards peace, stability, and relief (on the political, ecological, and economic fronts) in the Middle East and Africa, and efforts to develop defenses againt bioweapons and grey goo (a nuke or two could kill a lot of people, but it would take a full-scale exchange to be a threat) to our species is a better investment than a zillion dollars towards a long-shot lifeboat for someone else.
Why is it inevitable that someone will oppose a space elevator? I don't know of anyone who thinks that such a construction would be unethical, the way that many people think certain animal research is. The comparison doesn't seem to connect.
Mainstream American media outlets are no more liberal than the megacorps that own them. Is AOL/Time-Warner or Disney caling for the workers to take over the means of production? I don't think so. And journalists are, on average, more conservative on economic issues than most Americans.
The myth of the "liberal media" is a successful marketing ploy of the right wing, matched only by their ability to convince average Americans that they are rich (in one poll, 19% of American voters surveyed believed that they fell into the top 1% income bracket) and thus should support their plutocratic policies.
Um, one of my machines here is a Pentium 130. I've run X on a 25MHz 486 box (NetBSD, not Linux, but still...) If you can't run X on a Celeron box, either XFree86 doesn't support your card (unlikely), or something is hideously misconfigured.
Which is exactly why we need to not fscking grow them out in the big wide world.
GM plants should be grown only in sealed greenhouses, at least for the first few decades until we thouroughly understand them. Anything less is criminal negligence with the ecosystem.
Children's sections don't restrict access to the rest of the library. The childrens section is no more binding that the science fiction or mystery sections; it's a informational classification of content, not a restriction on access.
And depending on how well your own biases match those of your local librarian, yes, you had probably better supervise your kids in the childrens' section, or at least scope it out before hand. Some parents wouldn't want their kids to see "Heather Has Two Daddies" (if such a book ever really existed), others might want to keep their kids away from an NRA "Eddie the Eagle" coloring book.
To express your ideas on the same basis as others. You don't need to be a strict constructionist to see that: it's well-established that if the state creates a forum, it cannot regulate content in that forum, even if other forums are available for those censored.
For example, if the county sets up a "youth fair" of some sort and allows a church youth group to set up a booth, they can't deny a pagan group, a Satanic group, or an atheist group from equal access. If they allow an "African American Hertitage for Kids" booth, they can't deny the KKK the right to a "Junior White Power" exhibition. Same here: you can't have the state deciding that some speakers deserve a favored platform to address children but others don't.
The freedom of others often makes our own lives inconvenient. That doesn't mean that we can restrict it.
I think that by now we all know the one about trading liberty for safety.
For the same reason they shouldn't be able to roam a large library (perhaps containing material like Mein Kampf, The Sataninc Bible, and a book of Robert Mapplethorpe's photos) unsupervised.
Young kids should be supervised in their information access. There are three options:
So people are denied their free speech rights, that's what.
When someone is locked out of this domain, their equal right to speak to a certain audience is violated. If your local church can put up "jesuslovesyou.kids.us" but I can't put up "goddesslovesyou.kids.us" or "satanlovesyou.kids.us" or "nogod.kids.us", my rights are violated.
Great. So do other people. If it's a useful and workable solution, let the market provide one. Indeed, let the market provide several. The federal government's involvement is unnecessary - and unconstitutional.
If I have a message that I wish to target to children, and therefore want entry into the special forum that the government has created, but the government doesn't like my message, then we have serious free speech and equal protection issues. For example, should your local church be able to put up up a "jesuslovesyou.kids.us" site? How about your local Satanic chruch and "satanlovesyou.kids.us"? Or the KKK's "whitepride.kids.us"? All these groups have equal rights under the law to speak to children. (To children in general, not to your children specifically - of course you have the right to decide which sites your kids should view.)
It is an established principle that the state can regulate time and manner, but not content, of speech; that if the government creates a forum, it must allow equal access to all who wish to speak. This censored domain fails to meet that basic test.
Read the complete context. Note the sentance after the one you quoted, where he claims that having to be responsible like that "sucks".
He's doing it now because NeuStar isn't set up. He says that doing so "sucks" and that "[p]arents need something like this" censored domain. The desire to hand the responsiblity over to someone else is clear.
Nonsense. What some people would ban, others would accept without a second thought. Haven't you read any of /.'s coverage of filtering software over the past few years?
So what? The existence of other forums doesn't give the state the authority to censor one. "We're forbidding any criticism of the government of the internet. The rest of the world can do what they like on the printed page, TV, and radio." Doesn't work tha way.
Which sounds to me just about the perfect way to do it - actually fscking talking to your kids about what and why some stuff is objectionable. I salute you sir.
The very obvious, huge, gaping problem is that the state is unlikely to keep just www.fursuitsex.com off their "whitelist". They may choose to keep "acluforkids.org" or "nrajr.net" or "zenforkids.com" or "littlesatanists.org" or "growingupgay.org" (all names fictitious, as far as I know) off the list.
Now if you personally want to keep your kids from viewing those sites, fine. But it is not the place of the government to make "naughty" and "nice" lists of content.
And if anyone believes that that is even a remote possibility, I suggest remedial U.S. history...
You want one, fine, but it's not the business of the government to do such a thing.
The majority of people in the U.S. are Christian. Many would perfer that their kids only view "Christian-friendly" websites. Would that make it ok for the state to get up a special favored "christian.us" domain? Of course not.
If some private company wants to do this, fine. (It's still a stupid idea, but at least it would be legally sound.) But getting the state involved in this runs smack into free speech and equal protection issues.
Everything that you say is true regardless of the existence of a government-backed "kids.us" domain.
Yes, it would be very bad. The job of deciding what's "adult material" or "child-safe" is not an appropriate one for governments. It's that simple.
Sorry, but if you can't handle the responsibility of being a parent - if you want to hand over responsibility for deciding what's appropriate for your kids to some fscking government contractor - please put your kids up for adoption now.
Not quite. The TLD has existed since the mid-80s, but was government-use-only for most of that time - not available to the rest of us.
My first non-work e-mail address was when the Baltimore County Public Library started offering internet service: I was tms@mail.bcpl.lib.md.us. I could not have registered "tomssite.us" or "tomsite.md.us".
You are confusing "inherent physical value" with value in general. Inherent value is the ability of an object to fulfil a basic human need or desire; a desire that crosses culural and economic systems - a value that is present in the object regardless of exernal judgements.
A hammer, for example, has inherent value as a functional object. It may have additional "delusional" value, as a collectors item for example.
Gold and gems have inherent value; they have industrial uses, and can be used to craft luxury items. They also have "delusional" value, in that a large percentage of the world's population view them as a medium of exchange.
Currency has no significant inherent value; other than as firestarter or toliet paper, a wad of $20s has little use.
Yes, but only one of those copies can ever be redeemed.
Very smart people have spent a lot of time thinking about this. They saw pretty quickly that bit strings could be copied. They figured out how to deal with that. Perhaps you should read their work? The canonical book is Applied Crytography.
"One of these things is not like the others..."
Really. Cash has no (significant) physical value. It's a counter for the "full faith and credit" of the government.