Why is this guy being criminalized? If Pepsi offered the damn thing they should hold up their part of the bargain. When the hell does a company decide what "reasonable" means? Perhaps Microsoft should say, "oh, well, no REASONABLE person would believe our advertising, and expect that software is bug-free", and not make any bug fixes. It's stupid to blame this guy. Blame Pepsi for not expecting there to be people to call their bluff. They deserve it.
Umm, I don't see how it is that unreasonable. Companies ostensibly give away multi-million dollar cars, boats, property, trips, etc. in these stupid things that nobody wins of course. This guy was just calling their bluff. They should pay up. If they're going to market to the lowest common denominator, they have to expect to uphold their stupid offers. Give the man his damn Harrier.
SURE it would be GREAT if AOL and MS and everybody elsed opened up all their source and protocols and/or standardized on one IETF protocol.
BUT...Isn't using AIM actually usage of the AOL network?? I can't really stand AOL like the next guy, BUT...they DID put a lot of MONEY and TIME into developing their network. That has to count for something, right? MS can't just exploit their service for nothing. Why can't I use my neighbor's idle bandwidth when he's online?? Why can't I make a cell phone call to my friend whenever I want, but only he has to pay? Sure it would be lovely if everybody opened up and got along, but let's not just villianize AOL. They have legitimate commercial responsibility (they have to service their customers with their network), and finite network capability.
and with the biological model come...adaptive antivirus programs which incorrectly target the host? (arthritis, etc.)
Also, this won't really detect Trojan Horses will it? The majority of damage, I'd say, are from Trojan Horses...due to simple human stupidity...not the cleverness of the program. Will an adaptive immune system realize the human is defective and send it to security training?
Before people go lambasting them, I HAVE heard from several people, some of which work for ISPs, that an extremely nasty and rare electrical storm DID occur, and DID cause some urban electrical outages, which is very rare for the area. MS may have been affected.
Now when they bring it back up under normal whether and it falls over dead, THEN you can resume.
"You are guilty of doing the same thing as most of the other people in this thread - confusing X with the GUI. X is NOT a GUI."
Well, duh. No, X is NOT a GUI. But it is used to RUN the GUI. And since the GUI (and all the underlying layers that may affect it) are under discussion, X is pursuant to that discussion. No, I won't complain that X does a bad job at what it was meant to do. I WILL complain that what it was meant to do may not be the best basis for a GUI!
Layers to use a GUI in X: X (client/server architecture), Window Manager, Widget Toolkit
Layers to use a GUI not in X: GUI
X does add overhead. Some think it is reasonable. I say that if your task involves client/server GUI interaction then great. But myself, and I'm sure many others, just use X for the GUI at the same machine the host is on and don't give a darn for the client/server architecture. Can't this be gutted out? #UNDEF CLIENT_SERVER If I want the taste of an orange, the solution is not to complain about how my apples don't taste like oranges: the solution is to replace the darn apples!
"4. I don't see this at all. If the core libs were OO only, other programmers would suffer. If they are going to be in both OO and non-OO, then one will be better than the other. And pure OO is not realistic. Some things work better in OO, some don't. "
No-one said anything about PURE OO. Even Java isn't PURE OO. C++ isn't PURE OO either. Some things DO work better than others in OO. A GUI is one of those things! You have actual OBJECTS. A button is an object, not some random calls to a C library! A GUI is one of those things to which OO programming is MOST applicable (sure the graphics sublayer calls can all be C - copy this, draw line, whatever).
"5. Don't understand the complaint. Is there an alternative to one lib per language?"
Yes. A framework flexible enough so that people could plug in their Look and Feels without custom coding toolkits. Image an OO GUI framework which handled all the events, but did no, or minimal, painting. The plugin could handle it. Maybe this is how it works with X toolkits. Taking it one step removed, the standard plugin variables could be incorporated into the framework so that all you have to do is write a settings file telling it how to behave and look - no code.
"7. I do not like consistency for the sake of consistency. I don't want all programs the same. Fvwm does fine by me for most things. Any enforced consistency would stifle new ideas."
And I don't like inconsistency for the sake of inconsistency. I DO want programs to be sandboxed within SOME sort of consistent framework. At some point this ALWAYS has to happen (i.e., the window manager can only really deal with WINDOWs, not FOO-BARS). This bar can be raised so that apps have customizable (but standardized!) behavoir accross the board.
"If you can create a virus entirely from genes, we're a short step away from being able to insert mutagens into viruses and using them to fight cancer and such-something that people have been working on for quite sometime now."
If you can create a virus entirely from genes, we're a short step away from being able create viruses totally unseen before, with unexpected and perhaps devastating behavoir which may not be able to be guarded against. We've been fighting the same old junk for millenia. All of a sudden mr scientists whips up some new wierd thing and we have no idea what to do with it or how to control it. The same thing goes with biological weapons. The problem isn't killing millions of your enemies. The problem is wiping out the whole damn world with one stupid missile. I'm not a luddite...this can surely be used for good. But people should be careful and not Stupid (tm). (no, no human-created life-forms in my vitamins thank you)
This too, was one of my ideas, a while back when there was a post that invokes talk about a distributed cryptographic filesystem.
My opinion is that no ONE center could organize all the data on the whole net, since it is so wide spread and far flung. My idea (somewhat corresponding to distributed filesystems) was that every client held a piece of the index and had some sort of reliability rating. Low reliability nodes would have to be backed up on fallover, duplicate nodes. Anyway there would be a whole distributed hierarchy of nodes based both spacially and I guess on reliability. When you asked the master node, or perhaps your regional node for something, it would forward it on to who IT thought might have the right answers. Each node would do the same, in turn, until the host itself was reached, or a terminal node was reached. The info would then be fed back to you. Yes it would be slower, but you WOULD get the correct answers. Also, if nodes were distributed spacially, then regional/local nodes could more frequently check for page expiration and 404s...one of the major problems is that all these CENTRAL search engines have LOADS of outdated crap. Sure you find a lot...but it's all invalid.
My Seti client could sure share some CPU with a distributed indexing client...somebody set this up already!
If it WAS: Why the hell not!? How do you think every other darn country in the world manages to deal, huh? You think all the French and Spanish are just a bunch of drunk, smoking, sinful lushes? GROW UP. If you need the government to tell you what is good and bad and what is right and wrong, then YOU are in serious trouble. Banning things is a negative feedback cycle. If it is banned it gains importance and through lack of experience and discussion people will abuse it when they get it. On the other hand, bringing children up with REASONABLE explanations of these things leads to maturity and mature decisions. Maybe you are willing to accept that you are a mindless drone...I won't.
I said that this was *his* assertion. I didn't see SouthPark so I don't know for myself.
I think what he means is to take those kids who are mature enough to see it (regardless of age). Since he is speaking to a "geek" community, he says "geek" kids, probably implying that "geek" kids are the one who are mature enough to see it.
"What Katz is advocating in Part II, however, is exactly that - that we usher minors into the theater, regardless of whether their parents want them to see the film."
No, I think he is assuming it is implicit that the minors you escort in already have permission, or that you yourself have obtained permission. I really don't think that he is saying "grab some kids and show them this stuff just to be spitefull".
"The movie theater is trying to make a buck while enforcing the laws that let them operate."
What laws? I thought all these rating agencies are independent. It is NOT the government's place to decide what a parent decides is adequate for its child (short of abuse, starvation, other violations of human rights bills). AFAIK any parent in America can (and should) be able to show any movie they deem fit for their child and not be susceptible to arrest and legal prosecution.
Because typically geeks are the one who would understand and appreciate the films...this is at least his assertion...that the films are full of geek satire.
Non-geek kids are probably gumming their jujus at Tarzan or some other Disney drivel.
Yeah...I guess Ghandi should've been told that too..."hey man, stop causing trouble!"
I remember once, a long time ago, when we had to "fix the system" by lying, cheating, stealing, getting arrested, and hell, even HOMICIDE. It was called the American Revolution. The French had a bloodier one. Damn trouble-making French peasants...shouldn've just eaten their damn cake and been happy, huh?!
What about those damn longhairs in Chicago too...remember them?! Damn hippies. You gotta beat em with clubs you see, that's all they understand.
Get a bunch of 21+ friends (10 or so) and ONE "under-age" friend (20 yrs., 11 months old)..HEY better yet, pretend it is this "under-age"d friend's birthday THE NEXT DAY. Buy your 10 tickets legally, then ask the ticket guy about buying a ticket for your ONE "under-age" friend (who will become 21 tomorrow). When the ticket guy refuses to sell you a ticket for the 20 yr. 11 month old DEMAND a refund for all the 10 tickets you just bought. Ya think maybe they'll realize the stupidity of it all?
Slashdot Mirror
Why is this guy being criminalized? If Pepsi offered the damn thing they should hold up their part of the bargain. When the hell does a company decide what "reasonable" means? Perhaps Microsoft should say, "oh, well, no REASONABLE person would believe our advertising, and expect that software is bug-free", and not make any bug fixes. It's stupid to blame this guy. Blame Pepsi for not expecting there to be people to call their bluff. They deserve it.
Umm, I don't see how it is that unreasonable. Companies ostensibly give away multi-million dollar cars, boats, property, trips, etc. in these stupid things that nobody wins of course. This guy was just calling their bluff. They should pay up. If they're going to market to the lowest common denominator, they have to expect to uphold their stupid offers. Give the man his damn Harrier.
ya...but are they female?
Maybe I'm not getting it, but...
/or standardized on one IETF protocol.
SURE it would be GREAT if AOL and MS and everybody elsed opened up all their source and protocols and
BUT...Isn't using AIM actually usage of the AOL network?? I can't really stand AOL like the next guy, BUT...they DID put a lot of MONEY and TIME into developing their network. That has to count for something, right? MS can't just exploit their service for nothing. Why can't I use my neighbor's idle bandwidth when he's online?? Why can't I make a cell phone call to my friend whenever I want, but only he has to pay? Sure it would be lovely if everybody opened up and got along, but let's not just villianize AOL. They have legitimate commercial responsibility (they have to service their customers with their network), and finite network capability.
and with the biological model come...adaptive antivirus programs which incorrectly target the host? (arthritis, etc.)
Also, this won't really detect Trojan Horses will it? The majority of damage, I'd say, are from Trojan Horses...due to simple human stupidity...not the cleverness of the program. Will an adaptive immune system realize the human is defective and send it to security training?
Before people go lambasting them, I HAVE heard from several people, some of which work for ISPs, that an extremely nasty and rare electrical storm DID occur, and DID cause some urban electrical outages, which is very rare for the area. MS may have been affected.
Now when they bring it back up under normal whether and it falls over dead, THEN you can resume.
P.S. I'm not a MS troll...
Since you're into CORBA, have you heard of AllianceOS?
www.allos.org
The whole OS is CORBA based and network transparent. nice nice. Just hope CORBA doesn't introduce unnecessary overhead (communication negotiation).
"You are guilty of doing the same thing as most of the other people in this thread - confusing X with the GUI. X is NOT a GUI."
Well, duh. No, X is NOT a GUI. But it is used to RUN the GUI. And since the GUI (and all the underlying layers that may affect it) are under discussion, X is pursuant to that discussion. No, I won't complain that X does a bad job at what it was meant to do. I WILL complain that what it was meant to do may not be the best basis for a GUI!
Layers to use a GUI in X: X (client/server architecture), Window Manager, Widget Toolkit
Layers to use a GUI not in X: GUI
X does add overhead. Some think it is reasonable. I say that if your task involves client/server GUI interaction then great. But myself, and I'm sure many others, just use X for the GUI at the same machine the host is on and don't give a darn for the client/server architecture. Can't this be gutted out? #UNDEF CLIENT_SERVER If I want the taste of an orange, the solution is not to complain about how my apples don't taste like oranges: the solution is to replace the darn apples!
"4. I don't see this at all. If the core libs were OO only, other programmers would suffer. If they are going to be in both OO and non-OO, then one will be better than the other. And pure OO is not realistic. Some things work better in OO, some don't. "
No-one said anything about PURE OO. Even Java isn't PURE OO. C++ isn't PURE OO either. Some things DO work better than others in OO. A GUI is one of those things! You have actual OBJECTS. A button is an object, not some random calls to a C library! A GUI is one of those things to which OO programming is MOST applicable (sure the graphics sublayer calls can all be C - copy this, draw line, whatever).
"5. Don't understand the complaint. Is there an alternative to one lib per language?"
Yes. A framework flexible enough so that people could plug in their Look and Feels without custom coding toolkits. Image an OO GUI framework which handled all the events, but did no, or minimal, painting. The plugin could handle it. Maybe this is how it works with X toolkits. Taking it one step removed, the standard plugin variables could be incorporated into the framework so that all you have to do is write a settings file telling it how to behave and look - no code.
"7. I do not like consistency for the sake of consistency. I don't want all programs the same. Fvwm does fine by me for most things. Any enforced consistency would stifle new ideas."
And I don't like inconsistency for the sake of inconsistency. I DO want programs to be sandboxed within SOME sort of consistent framework. At some point this ALWAYS has to happen (i.e., the window manager can only really deal with WINDOWs, not FOO-BARS). This bar can be raised so that apps have customizable (but standardized!) behavoir accross the board.
Well, I got:
"JavaScript error: Type 'javascript:' into Location for details"
so I had to read the source (yay) to figure out what they were saying.
But anyway...I would think l0pht is all over this already...is it? do they know/care?
"If you can create a virus entirely from genes, we're a short step away from being able to insert mutagens into viruses and using them to fight cancer and such-something that people have been working on for quite sometime now."
If you can create a virus entirely from genes, we're a short step away from being able create viruses totally unseen before, with unexpected and perhaps devastating behavoir which may not be able to be guarded against. We've been fighting the same old junk for millenia. All of a sudden mr scientists whips up some new wierd thing and we have no idea what to do with it or how to control it. The same thing goes with biological weapons. The problem isn't killing millions of your enemies. The problem is wiping out the whole damn world with one stupid missile. I'm not a luddite...this can surely be used for good. But people should be careful and not Stupid (tm). (no, no human-created life-forms in my vitamins thank you)
I heard 130%oftheweb was actually fabricating new content to swell its index...heh
Just for fun I decided to search for myself on Alltheweb. To my surprise I found:
1. The plan for an old CS group project from college, where my name was referenced!
2. 2 broken links to ZDNet talkbacks of mine.
3. A CNet page with a dorky little media player I wrote and released as freeware.
4. Some random Italian site hosting Win95 software including my dorky media player with full description extracted!!
Wow...my head is swelling...
Hmm...it didn't find my page though...heh
Aaron
Sorta like my idea...every node is a server AND a client...
This too, was one of my ideas, a while back when there was a post that invokes talk about a distributed cryptographic filesystem.
My opinion is that no ONE center could organize all the data on the whole net, since it is so wide spread and far flung. My idea (somewhat corresponding to distributed filesystems) was that every client held a piece of the index and had some sort of reliability rating. Low reliability nodes would have to be backed up on fallover, duplicate nodes. Anyway there would be a whole distributed hierarchy of nodes based both spacially and I guess on reliability. When you asked the master node, or perhaps your regional node for something, it would forward it on to who IT thought might have the right answers. Each node would do the same, in turn, until the host itself was reached, or a terminal node was reached. The info would then be fed back to you. Yes it would be slower, but you WOULD get the correct answers. Also, if nodes were distributed spacially, then regional/local nodes could more frequently check for page expiration and 404s...one of the major problems is that all these CENTRAL search engines have LOADS of outdated crap. Sure you find a lot...but it's all invalid.
My Seti client could sure share some CPU with a distributed indexing client...somebody set this up already!
I've heard of a webserver on a smartcard....now that's tiny
I stand corrected then :)
"the more you know..."
If that WASN'T sarcasm: Right on.
If it WAS: Why the hell not!? How do you think every other darn country in the world manages to deal, huh? You think all the French and Spanish are just a bunch of drunk, smoking, sinful lushes? GROW UP. If you need the government to tell you what is good and bad and what is right and wrong, then YOU are in serious trouble. Banning things is a negative feedback cycle. If it is banned it gains importance and through lack of experience and discussion people will abuse it when they get it. On the other hand, bringing children up with REASONABLE explanations of these things leads to maturity and mature decisions. Maybe you are willing to accept that you are a mindless drone...I won't.
I said that this was *his* assertion. I didn't see SouthPark so I don't know for myself.
I think what he means is to take those kids who are mature enough to see it (regardless of age). Since he is speaking to a "geek" community, he says "geek" kids, probably implying that "geek" kids are the one who are mature enough to see it.
"What Katz is advocating in Part II, however, is exactly that - that we usher minors into the theater, regardless of whether their parents want them to see the film."
No, I think he is assuming it is implicit that the minors you escort in already have permission, or that you yourself have obtained permission. I really don't think that he is saying "grab some kids and show them this stuff just to be spitefull".
and bare breasts too...at least in ny state
"The movie theater is trying to make a buck while enforcing the laws that let them operate."
What laws? I thought all these rating agencies are independent. It is NOT the government's place to decide what a parent decides is adequate for its child (short of abuse, starvation, other violations of human rights bills). AFAIK any parent in America can (and should) be able to show any movie they deem fit for their child and not be susceptible to arrest and legal prosecution.
Because typically geeks are the one who would understand and appreciate the films...this is at least his assertion...that the films are full of geek satire.
Non-geek kids are probably gumming their jujus at Tarzan or some other Disney drivel.
Yeah...I guess Ghandi should've been told that too..."hey man, stop causing trouble!"
I remember once, a long time ago, when we had to "fix the system" by lying, cheating, stealing, getting arrested, and hell, even HOMICIDE. It was called the American Revolution. The French had a bloodier one. Damn trouble-making French peasants...shouldn've just eaten their damn cake and been happy, huh?!
What about those damn longhairs in Chicago too...remember them?! Damn hippies. You gotta beat em with clubs you see, that's all they understand.
OR
Get a bunch of 21+ friends (10 or so) and ONE "under-age" friend (20 yrs., 11 months old)..HEY better yet, pretend it is this "under-age"d friend's birthday THE NEXT DAY. Buy your 10 tickets legally, then ask the ticket guy about buying a ticket for your ONE "under-age" friend (who will become 21 tomorrow). When the ticket guy refuses to sell you a ticket for the 20 yr. 11 month old DEMAND a refund for all the 10 tickets you just bought. Ya think maybe they'll realize the stupidity of it all?