You can't say a perpetual motion machine is impossible, just that it is inconsistent with current theories about how the universe works.
I.e. as impossible as me jumping out of the window and flying, or the moon being flat. If you're going to overturn theories with as much evidence as the Laws of Thermodynamics, you need solid proof. All we want to see is the machine in actual operation, with proof that it will actually run forever.
You take some substance, usually related to the disease by random intuitive way, add it to water, and then dilute it with water. They dilute with water so heavily, that modern physics says there should not be even an atom of the non-water ingrediant left.
There are two reason why this is mocked. First is the whole dilution thing; what you've giving people is water. Second is the fact that from we've seen of the rest of medicine, there's reason more than a very tiny percentage of intuitively picked ingrediants should work; even if the fundamental theory works, it should take many, many tries to find the right ingrediants.
People that write software and free software foundations do not have the funds to muscle many commercial ventures that abuse the GPL. Right and wrong has nothing to do with expensive discovery and an ignorant public/court system.
Every time the FSF has demanded a violation of its copyright be fixed, it was fixed without going to court. Copyright law is fairly clear, and nobody is going to win a court case where they clearly ripped off the GPL, and companies know this.
If you have enought money to go through with the court case and justice is clear, then justice will prevail. Judges are neither dumb nor blind, and a lot of them are there because they believe in justice.
Gish says, in your link, that "Arthur claims that the mandate of the modern creationist movement is to introduce the biblical story of creation into public school classrooms by disguising it as science. This is a false accusation that is repeated frequently in science journals and the mass media."
It's interesting, then, that at least two courts found that the point was to introduce the Bible into schools, and that creationism is not science. Yes, evolutionists are getting seriously tired of a belief system held by people who "view this whole battle as one between God and anti-God forces" (Paul Ellwanger, author of the creationism bill enacted in Arkansas), or people from the Institute for Creation Research, which makes all its members swear to the truth of Biblical creation. Maybe if they were consistently dealing with scientific arguments, they would be inclined to listen. But Creationists have almost invariably "met God", and are spouting "divine truth", not scientific evidence.
I think the renaming of applications may be good actually, since they're modifying them
So? Almost every distribution modifies almost every major package in some way, usually patches to make it work with that distribution or some hack that's deemed neccessary for the distribution, but not yet acceptable to upstream. The good distributions/maintainers spend the time to merge those patches, but they can seem to accumulate some times.
In other words, they forked their source tree. Open Source folks do this all the time (look at how many ircd forks there are, all with different names!)
There's a difference between forking an IRC daemon and forking a serious word processor. I'd bet a decent programmer could hack out an IRC daemon in a weekend. The IRC daemons out there already do pretty much anything that people want; what's left is mainly vanity hacking.
A word processor, on the other hand, is a lot of work, and there are no solutions that will do pretty much everything we would want done. A fork will drain people working on it, and waste people's time in merges. No small group of people is going to quickly produce a WordPublisher distinctly different from KWord, and it'll be much better if anyone working on what is basically KWord is actually working on KWord.
Lindows' fork looks more like a one way fork; it looks like Lindows has a bunch of patches to KWord, and even if they release the source, they won't submit them upstream or do the least bit of work to get them merged. So WordPublisher gets all the benefit of KWord, without actually helping KWord out.
No, someone is taking something from me - my right to prepare and distribute derivitive works.?
You have no such right. All rights to create and distribute derivative works for a copyrighted work belong to the copyright owner of the original work.
Well I can understand why they rebranded kword as wordpublisher, kword or kanything does not make any sense to the mainstream consumer.
And wordpublisher does? I almost think he may be shooting himself in the foot here; KWord sounds like a real product; wordpublisher sounds like a rebranded no-name ripoff.
It's still incredibly tacky to rename the programs, even if it is legal. It makes it look even more strongly that he is trying to hide something. I haven't seen anything that says Lindows.com is an upright company; their actions remind more of a quick-rip off company, more like one of those that takes fonts from the net with no-distribute/no-commerical licenses, maybe bothers to rename them, burns them to CD and sells them for $15.
If people spent HALF the time coding instead of flaming, we might just have better code out there.
That applies to you, too, though. There's coding you could be doing instead of flaming too. In any case, how many people here would be doing serious coding if they weren't arguing here? Most flamers aren't coders, and vice versa. Even if they are, you can't write code all the time; slinging prose is a way to relax for some people.
The FSF is forcing me to use GPLed source code if I create a derivitive work based on other GPLed source code
So the FSF is forcing you to use GPLed source code if you use GPLed source code. How can they force you to do something you're already doing.
You do not however have to right to take my (GPL:d) code and do what you like with that without complying with the GPL.
And that's what I'm complaining about.
So someone is giving you something for free, and you're whining that you can't use it in any way you want? If you don't like the terms, don't accept them. Nobody is forcing you to use the code; they generously give you an option you can accept or reject, at your will.
Basically, you're saying that it's your right to take our work, and do whatever with you want. Are you willing to do that with your work? "We'll give you your paycheck when we release."?
With most people following the GPL not making tons of money from their efforts, who will enforce the following of the GPL?
The court system. If someone violates the GPL on your program, you can go to a court and point out that you own the copyright on this piece, and that they are using it in violation of any license you may have given them. Then it becomes a very standard copyright infringement/contract violation lawsuit.
Of course, you don't go to court until you've tried talking it over first. Lawyers are expensive, and courts don't like it when the parties haven't already tried to come to an agreement.
This is all IFCC data, which pulled it's data from a pool of fewer than 50,000 complaints. This should tell you why percentages are bad and misleading.
If they were properly selected, 50,000 is a _huge_ statistical universe. Most polls and studies only use a few hundred people, and they get within a few percent.
But it's on the Internet, so suddenly it's a major catastrophe and the FBI has to step in and save us.
It's FBI's job to deal with interstate fraud. Of course they should step in when somebody is being ripped off via the Internet (or the phone or snailmail).
Fair use my ass. I just want to non-profit play with a prime.
Have you ever tried asking the people who own the Prime copyright to release it into the public domain, or at least let you use it for non-profit purposes? It's worked in other cases, and it's not really fair to complain about copyright stopping you until you've at least made an attempt to ask the copyright owner.
Gee, it's always been my life goal to help someone embezzle millions of dollars of ill-gotten money from a third-world country. They could feed the people, or they could build schools or infrastructure, but no, it's better that it goes in my pocket and that of the family of the ex-dictator.
But you mentioned (er, tried to whine about) ECMA executables not being able to run on non-X86 CPU's which is false - they will run on non-X86
But it can't run natively on all systems. If it's a sweet as you say on Pentium 4's, there's going to have to be an interpreter to run on Pentium (1) and PowerPC, and there's no reason to assume it will be any faster than a JVM.
And you're right about Windows/Linux emulating Linux/Windows - because Wine and VMWare are *so* fast.
What does VMWare have to do with this? It runs at a totally different level from any built-in executable support. A better comparison would be the Linux emulation in the BSD's, which runs at the same speed as running natively on Linux. At any rate, during CPU-bound tasks, even Wine and VMWare should run at the same speed as native code.
Furthermore, why would.NET run any faster?.NET has to use all the kludge ups that any system running foreign OS/native hardware code has to do.
endianness is the only portability issue I've seen with the executables
What uses big-endian x86? In case, portability to anything that runs.NET on x86 isn't exactly very portable.
You can buy an Itanium now...it will run 64 bit XP or Linux...oh wait, is that Linux ia64 port done yet???
I think that makes it apparent you're just a Microsoft shill.
HP's Itanium page supports Redhat 7.2 running on their Itanium systems. Debian woody will also include Itanium support. All of this Linux/Itanium support has been out for while.
".NET executables" (AFAIK ECMA 335 compliant executables) are not bytecode - they're machine code [...] They do not need a JIT or JVM - they directly call the OS.
So in other words, they created a new executable format (instead of Windows emulating Linux or visa versa, an much more useful goal), which will work on Linux/x86 if and when Linus ever adds support. Of course, it will only work on x86s, so the.NET executables aren't portable at all.
But writing an app that takes advantage of the X86 SSE2 instructions? And running it on any P4 regardless of OS?
It's been doable in GNU C or GNU Ada for a long time now. It just needs a recompile. And there's all of what, 5, x86 OS's out there. Compile for x86 Linux and you will be able to run on most x86 BSD's anyway, so you only really need to compile it twice.
Frankly, I hope not to be running x86 in a few years. Either Itanium, or Sledgehammer or maybe some nice PowerPC hardware. Nothing you've suggested is in the least portable to non-x86 hardware, unless you're willing to emulate the x86, which puts us back to where we started with bytecode.
Really. And you know this before there was an implementation for more than one operating system how? At least Sun has some motivation to support more than one operating system; there's no particular reason for Microsoft to support more than Windows. I suspect that Microsoft will make sure Unix/Mac implementations exist for PR, and then go ahead with complete disregard for compatibility with them.
imagine the day when you can compile an executable (not java bytecode) on a {Windows, Linux} box and then run that executable on a {Linux, Windows} box.
Why is.NET bytecode an executable and Java bytecode not? Six of one and half dozen of the other. Anything you can do with one you can do with the other.
with them having submitted everything to ECMA, that's really an outside worry.
Because Microsoft couldn't twist a standard, or omit important material from a standard or leave a standard vague in certain spots.
(What's next? the Textbook Authors Guilde sending nasty letters to my college's bookstore telling them not to put used books on the shelves?)
They put the book, or part of the course materials, on CD and then refuse to buy it back unless the CD is unopened.
Re:extension? what do we need the extension for?
on
JPEG2000 Coming Soon
·
· Score: 2
you would see "file" improved to the point that it identified everything 99% accurately
If you know how to do this, why don't you do it? I'm sure everyone would love a 99% accurate file.
In any case, 99% isn't good enough. 99% means everytime I try and look at every file in a 100 file directory, one will be wrong. By the nature of your solution, that one will be almost completely unfixably wrong. Running across bugs of your system every day is not acceptable.
if you include accurately identifying a file without magic numbers as "I don't know what this is" rather than some random type
Why is "I don't know" better than "UTF-8 text with CRLF line endings"? And how exactly do you distinguish between a typed file and a file that just happens to start with those magic numbers?
you would quickly see magic numbers stuck on everything,
In other words, you think you can do this, and the world will beat a path to your door to serve you. Not likely.
raw UTF-8 would have a UTF-8 encoded non-marking-space
The UTF-8 BOM causes all sorts of problems with the standard Unix text tools. What tools take one off and put one on is an ugly complex question that requires changing about every program that might output text.
We need a system where getting the first 1K or so of a file is as fast as reading it's name.
I.e. we need a system where it takes as much time to read the directory listing as it does to read the directory listing and open the file. Sounds like efficency to me.
Re:Better operating systems not getting a chance?
on
Unix Isn't Dead
·
· Score: 2
If they were better, they'd have their chance. Welcome to the market, or Real World,[...]
How about you check out the real world? People don't care about operating systems, they care about the programs that run on them and other real-world stuff that has nothing to do with the quality of the OS. MS-DOS was a dog of an operating system. But it ran the programs that people wanted on cheap hardware. A large part of Window's early success was people wanting full compatibility with their old MS-DOS software. The fact that Windows 95's VFAT is a kludge applied to an inefficent, poorly designed file system is something they never knew, and it certainly didn't play a significant influence on thier OS choice.
Better frequently doesn't get a chance. because people have good enough. _That_ is the real world.
Re:extension? what do we need the extension for?
on
JPEG2000 Coming Soon
·
· Score: 2
Violating the rules of "file" will cause it to fail.
Sure. The problem is not file, but in people wanting to use file automatically. A large portion of the files on my disk don't have magic numbers, so file can't be used automatically to identify files for a file manager.
Re:extension? what do we need the extension for?
on
JPEG2000 Coming Soon
·
· Score: 2
I have a file of OCR'ed pages from a book, all UTF-8 text, all named *.txt. file correctly recognizes 226 out of 229. The other three it seems to believe are "MSX game cartridge dump"s. So if I'm working along through the book in your file manager, I get to these pages, and the file manager opens up a game emulator, which will then spaz out on poorly scanned poetry.
The problem is not so much that file is wrong, it's that file is unpredictably and unfixably wrong. If I have a JPEG named foo.txt, then I know why stuff isn't handling it right, and can fix that easily. If I have a text file named foo.txt that file thinks is a "MSX game cartridge dump", I can either change the data (which is unacceptable) or change the magic (which has further unpredicatble results, especially if I have MSX game cartridge dumps somewhere.)
So, no, when I tell the computer a file is a text file, I don't want the computer second guessing me. All it does is add frustration to my day.
Slashdot Mirror
You can't say a perpetual motion machine is impossible, just that it is inconsistent with current theories about how the universe works.
I.e. as impossible as me jumping out of the window and flying, or the moon being flat. If you're going to overturn theories with as much evidence as the Laws of Thermodynamics, you need solid proof. All we want to see is the machine in actual operation, with proof that it will actually run forever.
What is the idea of homeopathic medicine?
You take some substance, usually related to the disease by random intuitive way, add it to water, and then dilute it with water. They dilute with water so heavily, that modern physics says there should not be even an atom of the non-water ingrediant left.
There are two reason why this is mocked. First is the whole dilution thing; what you've giving people is water. Second is the fact that from we've seen of the rest of medicine, there's reason more than a very tiny percentage of intuitively picked ingrediants should work; even if the fundamental theory works, it should take many, many tries to find the right ingrediants.
People that write software and free software foundations do not have the funds to muscle many commercial ventures that abuse the GPL. Right and wrong has nothing to do with expensive discovery and an ignorant public/court system.
Every time the FSF has demanded a violation of its copyright be fixed, it was fixed without going to court. Copyright law is fairly clear, and nobody is going to win a court case where they clearly ripped off the GPL, and companies know this.
If you have enought money to go through with the court case and justice is clear, then justice will prevail. Judges are neither dumb nor blind, and a lot of them are there because they believe in justice.
Among many other things:
Gish says, in your link, that "Arthur claims that the mandate of the modern creationist movement is to introduce the biblical story of creation into public school classrooms by disguising it as science. This is a false accusation that is repeated frequently in science journals and the mass media."
It's interesting, then, that at least two courts found that the point was to introduce the Bible into schools, and that creationism is not science.
Yes, evolutionists are getting seriously tired of a belief system held by people who "view this whole battle as one between God and anti-God forces" (Paul Ellwanger, author of the creationism bill enacted in Arkansas), or people from the Institute for Creation Research, which makes all its members swear to the truth of Biblical creation. Maybe if they were consistently dealing with scientific arguments, they would be inclined to listen. But Creationists have almost invariably "met God", and are spouting "divine truth", not scientific evidence.
McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education. A court of law found that creationism is not science.
The Underdogs really tries to only post the binaries for games that are no longer sold
That doesn't make it legal, it just makes ethical, and less likely that anyone is going to care.
I think the renaming of applications may be good actually, since they're modifying them
So? Almost every distribution modifies almost every major package in some way, usually patches to make it work with that distribution or some hack that's deemed neccessary for the distribution, but not yet acceptable to upstream. The good distributions/maintainers spend the time to merge those patches, but they can seem to accumulate some times.
In other words, they forked their source tree. Open Source folks do this all the time (look at how many ircd forks there are, all with different names!)
There's a difference between forking an IRC daemon and forking a serious word processor. I'd bet a decent programmer could hack out an IRC daemon in a weekend. The IRC daemons out there already do pretty much anything that people want; what's left is mainly vanity hacking.
A word processor, on the other hand, is a lot of work, and there are no solutions that will do pretty much everything we would want done. A fork will drain people working on it, and waste people's time in merges. No small group of people is going to quickly produce a WordPublisher distinctly different from KWord, and it'll be much better if anyone working on what is basically KWord is actually working on KWord.
Lindows' fork looks more like a one way fork; it looks like Lindows has a bunch of patches to KWord, and even if they release the source, they won't submit them upstream or do the least bit of work to get them merged. So WordPublisher gets all the benefit of KWord, without actually helping KWord out.
No, someone is taking something from me - my right to prepare and distribute derivitive works.?
You have no such right. All rights to create and distribute derivative works for a copyrighted work belong to the copyright owner of the original work.
Well I can understand why they rebranded kword as wordpublisher, kword or kanything does not make any sense to the mainstream consumer.
And wordpublisher does? I almost think he may be shooting himself in the foot here; KWord sounds like a real product; wordpublisher sounds like a rebranded no-name ripoff.
It's still incredibly tacky to rename the programs, even if it is legal. It makes it look even more strongly that he is trying to hide something. I haven't seen anything that says Lindows.com is an upright company; their actions remind more of a quick-rip off company, more like one of those that takes fonts from the net with no-distribute/no-commerical licenses, maybe bothers to rename them, burns them to CD and sells them for $15.
If people spent HALF the time coding instead of flaming, we might just have better code out there.
That applies to you, too, though. There's coding you could be doing instead of flaming too. In any case, how many people here would be doing serious coding if they weren't arguing here? Most flamers aren't coders, and vice versa. Even if they are, you can't write code all the time; slinging prose is a way to relax for some people.
The FSF is forcing me to use GPLed source code if I create a derivitive work based on other GPLed source code
So the FSF is forcing you to use GPLed source code if you use GPLed source code. How can they force you to do something you're already doing.
You do not however have to right to take my (GPL:d) code and do what you like with that without complying with the GPL.
And that's what I'm complaining about.
So someone is giving you something for free, and you're whining that you can't use it in any way you want? If you don't like the terms, don't accept them. Nobody is forcing you to use the code; they generously give you an option you can accept or reject, at your will.
Basically, you're saying that it's your right to take our work, and do whatever with you want. Are you willing to do that with your work? "We'll give you your paycheck when we release."?
With most people following the GPL not making tons of money from their efforts, who will enforce the following of the GPL?
The court system. If someone violates the GPL on your program, you can go to a court and point out that you own the copyright on this piece, and that they are using it in violation of any license you may have given them. Then it becomes a very standard copyright infringement/contract violation lawsuit.
Of course, you don't go to court until you've tried talking it over first. Lawyers are expensive, and courts don't like it when the parties haven't already tried to come to an agreement.
Redhat, who is one of the strongest corporate supporters of open source, has been doing this for a long time.
No, they haven't. They never give the source to anyone, besides the person who paid for the modifications, who can distribute it to anyone they want.
This is all IFCC data, which pulled it's data from a pool of fewer than 50,000 complaints. This should tell you why percentages are bad and misleading.
If they were properly selected, 50,000 is a _huge_ statistical universe. Most polls and studies only use a few hundred people, and they get within a few percent.
But it's on the Internet, so suddenly it's a major catastrophe and the FBI has to step in and save us.
It's FBI's job to deal with interstate fraud. Of course they should step in when somebody is being ripped off via the Internet (or the phone or snailmail).
Fair use my ass. I just want to non-profit play with a prime.
Have you ever tried asking the people who own the Prime copyright to release it into the public domain, or at least let you use it for non-profit purposes? It's worked in other cases, and it's not really fair to complain about copyright stopping you until you've at least made an attempt to ask the copyright owner.
Gee, it's always been my life goal to help someone embezzle millions of dollars of ill-gotten money from a third-world country. They could feed the people, or they could build schools or infrastructure, but no, it's better that it goes in my pocket and that of the family of the ex-dictator.
But you mentioned (er, tried to whine about) ECMA executables not being able to run on non-X86 CPU's which is false - they will run on non-X86
But it can't run natively on all systems. If it's a sweet as you say on Pentium 4's, there's going to have to be an interpreter to run on Pentium (1) and PowerPC, and there's no reason to assume it will be any faster than a JVM.
And you're right about Windows/Linux emulating Linux/Windows - because Wine and VMWare are *so* fast.
.NET run any faster? .NET has to use all the kludge ups that any system running foreign OS/native hardware code has to do.
.NET on x86 isn't exactly very portable.
What does VMWare have to do with this? It runs at a totally different level from any built-in executable support. A better comparison would be the Linux emulation in the BSD's, which runs at the same speed as running natively on Linux. At any rate, during CPU-bound tasks, even Wine and VMWare should run at the same speed as native code.
Furthermore, why would
endianness is the only portability issue I've seen with the executables
What uses big-endian x86? In case, portability to anything that runs
You can buy an Itanium now...it will run 64 bit XP or Linux...oh wait, is that Linux ia64 port done yet???
I think that makes it apparent you're just a Microsoft shill.
HP's Itanium page supports Redhat 7.2 running on their Itanium systems. Debian woody will also include Itanium support. All of this Linux/Itanium support has been out for while.
".NET executables" (AFAIK ECMA 335 compliant executables) are not bytecode - they're machine code [...] They do not need a JIT or JVM - they directly call the OS.
.NET executables aren't portable at all.
So in other words, they created a new executable format (instead of Windows emulating Linux or visa versa, an much more useful goal), which will work on Linux/x86 if and when Linus ever adds support. Of course, it will only work on x86s, so the
But writing an app that takes advantage of the X86 SSE2 instructions? And running it on any P4 regardless of OS?
It's been doable in GNU C or GNU Ada for a long time now. It just needs a recompile. And there's all of what, 5, x86 OS's out there. Compile for x86 Linux and you will be able to run on most x86 BSD's anyway, so you only really need to compile it twice.
Frankly, I hope not to be running x86 in a few years. Either Itanium, or Sledgehammer or maybe some nice PowerPC hardware. Nothing you've suggested is in the least portable to non-x86 hardware, unless you're willing to emulate the x86, which puts us back to where we started with bytecode.
.NET offers "compile once, run anywhere.
.NET bytecode an executable and Java bytecode not? Six of one and half dozen of the other. Anything you can do with one you can do with the other.
Really. And you know this before there was an implementation for more than one operating system how? At least Sun has some motivation to support more than one operating system; there's no particular reason for Microsoft to support more than Windows. I suspect that Microsoft will make sure Unix/Mac implementations exist for PR, and then go ahead with complete disregard for compatibility with them.
imagine the day when you can compile an executable (not java bytecode) on a {Windows, Linux} box and then run that executable on a {Linux, Windows} box.
Why is
with them having submitted everything to ECMA, that's really an outside worry.
Because Microsoft couldn't twist a standard, or omit important material from a standard or leave a standard vague in certain spots.
(What's next? the Textbook Authors Guilde sending nasty letters to my college's bookstore telling them not to put used books on the shelves?)
They put the book, or part of the course materials, on CD and then refuse to buy it back unless the CD is unopened.
you would see "file" improved to the point that it identified everything 99% accurately
If you know how to do this, why don't you do it? I'm sure everyone would love a 99% accurate file.
In any case, 99% isn't good enough. 99% means everytime I try and look at every file in a 100 file directory, one will be wrong. By the nature of your solution, that one will be almost completely unfixably wrong. Running across bugs of your system every day is not acceptable.
if you include accurately identifying a file without magic numbers as "I don't know what this is" rather than some random type
Why is "I don't know" better than "UTF-8 text with CRLF line endings"? And how exactly do you distinguish between a typed file and a file that just happens to start with those magic numbers?
you would quickly see magic numbers stuck on everything,
In other words, you think you can do this, and the world will beat a path to your door to serve you. Not likely.
raw UTF-8 would have a UTF-8 encoded non-marking-space
The UTF-8 BOM causes all sorts of problems with the standard Unix text tools. What tools take one off and put one on is an ugly complex question that requires changing about every program that might output text.
We need a system where getting the first 1K or so of a file is as fast as reading it's name.
I.e. we need a system where it takes as much time to read the directory listing as it does to read the directory listing and open the file. Sounds like efficency to me.
If they were better, they'd have their chance. Welcome to the market, or Real World,[...]
How about you check out the real world? People don't care about operating systems, they care about the programs that run on them and other real-world stuff that has nothing to do with the quality of the OS. MS-DOS was a dog of an operating system. But it ran the programs that people wanted on cheap hardware. A large part of Window's early success was people wanting full compatibility with their old MS-DOS software. The fact that Windows 95's VFAT is a kludge applied to an inefficent, poorly designed file system is something they never knew, and it certainly didn't play a significant influence on thier OS choice.
Better frequently doesn't get a chance. because people have good enough. _That_ is the real world.
Violating the rules of "file" will cause it to fail.
Sure. The problem is not file, but in people wanting to use file automatically. A large portion of the files on my disk don't have magic numbers, so file can't be used automatically to identify files for a file manager.
I have a file of OCR'ed pages from a book, all UTF-8 text, all named *.txt. file correctly recognizes 226 out of 229. The other three it seems to believe are "MSX game cartridge dump"s. So if I'm working along through the book in your file manager, I get to these pages, and the file manager opens up a game emulator, which will then spaz out on poorly scanned poetry.
The problem is not so much that file is wrong, it's that file is unpredictably and unfixably wrong. If I have a JPEG named foo.txt, then I know why stuff isn't handling it right, and can fix that easily. If I have a text file named foo.txt that file thinks is a "MSX game cartridge dump", I can either change the data (which is unacceptable) or change the magic (which has further unpredicatble results, especially if I have MSX game cartridge dumps somewhere.)
So, no, when I tell the computer a file is a text file, I don't want the computer second guessing me. All it does is add frustration to my day.