The safest thing to do would be to print them out and stick them in an album. Then you could look at them whenever and wherever you wanted, without the hassle of a computer.
Is this a new idea?
It would mean that a lot of work would have to be done to periodically duplicate the material onto new media.
Some systems in use will still be relevant in 50 years (if humans survive that long with global warming etc.). The electrical voltage standards would be the same, so it would be possible to bury systems with the archive that could be used to read it. It is also important to bury applications that can read the data, not just the hardware.
Don't look in the usual media channels to form an opinion. You are looking in the right place now, on slashdot. You can form an opinon regardless, and vote on that basis. Your vote counts as much as the vote of a moron. Pass the word around that the problem is not the media but the morons who couldn't give a toss about being screwed over by them.
In Britain, politicians are generally perceived as bums, whatever party they are in. Whether they govern or not, they'll get rough treatment from the media, and that goes with the job. Patriotism is reserved for the Queen, and that's about the only reason the brits keep her paid up.
In January, 1998, due to ice on the lines, Hydro-Quebec failed to deliver power to the Greater-Montreal region, leaving 4 million people without power in the dead of winter. The outage lasted for a minimum of four days (central Montreal) up to several months in the Eastern Townships. The cost to business, property and lives was enormous. Although I would agree that Hydro-Quebec are a profitable state owned business, they do not shine all the time.
Spot on! Some people might even plant thier emails so that spammers would pick them up, then get paid for nothing. Once you had enough spam to buy the groceries, you could give up work.
We don't have waiters in the UK, they were abolished in pubs a long time back. When you want a beer, you get up and go to the bar. This give you a little exercise each time, so the more you drink, the fitter you get. I guess this idea will go down well in Canada and the USA. A better invention would be a machine which goes for a piss for me without having to get up. That way, drinking could be totally uninterrupted.
To fix this spam problem, combine micro-payments with a (very small) charge to send mail. The charge could be 0.1 penny. It would be charged at the forwarding mail server. Email clients would have a spam button. The reader could press it if it's spam, and she gets to keep the tenth of a penny. What a bonus.
That's it... spam gone.
I think that XENIX is used in the Radarsat ground system. It is either used by the real-time Spacecraft Operations Consoles or by the Spacecraft Database (telemetry data) systems, most likely the former.
The SOCS couldn't last more than a day or two between crashes, and the Spacecraft Database throughput was maxed out from the first pass, so whichever it was, it didn't work too good.
There were also lots of compatibility issues related to NFS and Oracle. It took some horrible workarounds to get the data flow to work.
One of the main objects of standards is to reduce the number of ways of doing things. This allows things to be adopted and expanded easily. The basic idea is that we need the fewest number of standards possible that cover the area we are working in. We don't need 10 desktops; this increases the number of ways of doing things, making it hard to adopted and expand.
So its fear by the community that Drobbins will make out big time on the efforts of community, and greed by community members who want something back - this has been the same right through the industrial revolution. Sour grapes of the oppressed majority versus capitalistic exploitation by the people in control. Why does Zach Welsh need to write a (couple of) thousand word to state the obvious?
Spot on! Why should computer geeks expect to earn more than plumbers? Plumbing is hard and dirty work (like dentistry) and deserves good pay. The world can go on without the Linux Router Project, but quality of life would be much impaired if all the toilets were broken.
It's a bit rich for this bloke to say that Europeans don't understand the Internet when they invented computers, TV and the World Wide Web (SSEM, HREF="http://www.tvdawn.com/tvhist1.htm#Baird">Bai rd and Berners-Lee
, all brits)!
More none-legal definitions of slander. Suggest we invent a new term for multimedia, such as slibelled, or landered or some such word.
2: the act of defaming [syn: aspersion, calumny, defamation] v : charge falsely or with malicious intent; attack the good name and reputation of someone; "The journalists have defamed me!" The article in the paper sullied my reputation" [syn: defame, smirch, asperse, denigrate, calumniate, smear, sully, besmirch]
With respect, the first non-legal definition I found in google says that slander is âa false and malicious statement or report about someoneâ(TM) so I rest my case on that. I agree that (in pre-internet days) there was a concrete difference between slander and libel, but the multi-media oriented Internet will erase this distinction in time. In fact, it is the real-time nature of the Internet that makes it more like having a conversation than reading a newspaper. This in turn makes it reasonable to accept rebuttals, as you would in a discussion over a pint in the pub.
What I mean to say, in a nutshell, is that traditional âWebMasterâ(TM) style users treated the Internet like a Newspaper and barred rebuttals, at least as far as they could on their own sites. This law will encourage the use of the Internet as a consensus driven conversational tool, rather than as a mouthpiece for crackpots. It will allow feedback, which is necessary for any system to work.
No. The fellow who said something unkind on the Internet has the right to post it on his OWN web page. At present, the slandered party must find another web page. They are NOT allowed by the mighty WebMasters to post on the same page that slandered them, so they have less freedom of speech. They have to find another forum. This is rather like using a megaphone at a cocktail party.
The mighty WebMasters demand the right to censor other contributions by exclusion.
What this law is about is making the Internet public property, not the private domain of the mighty WebMasters, who expect to say what they want, in public and one way (i.e. without allowing the other party to respond in the same forum).
I don't understand this yet. I agree that newspapers are immutable - once printed, you can't offer a reply in that version. Sometimes, rarely, you may get a letter printed, or an apology even.
The good thing about the web is that it is possible to add a postscript to an article later. That removes a significant imbalance of power. That is why this law is good. The downside is the hassle of making the reply facility work properly. I expect enterprising software engineers can solve that; slashdot have already made the right to reply a standard feature on their site. Another downside is that trolls will reply to any old rubbish they see and cause trouble. I don't know the answer to that one. Maybe that's the price of freedom.
Many users no more 'seek out the materials' than a person who turns on the television and watches the news. As you do when you 'watch' news rolling into slashdot. In any case, the law will not make you take legal or moral responsibility to present contrary views. It will compel you to allow others to post or link thier views on your site. As I am doing now. Slashdot is a great example of this principle at work. Why should you have the right to make public, contentious comments on your site and yet withhold the same right from the other stakeholders?
Slashdot Mirror
Who is this Philo guy? I'm serious, is this Hollywood re-writing history again?
The safest thing to do would be to print them out and stick them in an album. Then you could look at them whenever and wherever you wanted, without the hassle of a computer. Is this a new idea?
It would mean that a lot of work would have to be done to periodically duplicate the material onto new media. Some systems in use will still be relevant in 50 years (if humans survive that long with global warming etc.). The electrical voltage standards would be the same, so it would be possible to bury systems with the archive that could be used to read it. It is also important to bury applications that can read the data, not just the hardware.
Global warming will end civilisation in a few years, so what is the point?
I don't know, but your post makes a lot more sense than Ack! Thpppt!
Don't look in the usual media channels to form an opinion. You are looking in the right place now, on slashdot. You can form an opinon regardless, and vote on that basis. Your vote counts as much as the vote of a moron. Pass the word around that the problem is not the media but the morons who couldn't give a toss about being screwed over by them.
In Britain, politicians are generally perceived as bums, whatever party they are in. Whether they govern or not, they'll get rough treatment from the media, and that goes with the job. Patriotism is reserved for the Queen, and that's about the only reason the brits keep her paid up.
What does illiterate mean?
So? And your point is... ?
In January, 1998, due to ice on the lines, Hydro-Quebec failed to deliver power to the Greater-Montreal region, leaving 4 million people without power in the dead of winter. The outage lasted for a minimum of four days (central Montreal) up to several months in the Eastern Townships. The cost to business, property and lives was enormous. Although I would agree that Hydro-Quebec are a profitable state owned business, they do not shine all the time.
Spot on! Some people might even plant thier emails so that spammers would pick them up, then get paid for nothing. Once you had enough spam to buy the groceries, you could give up work.
We don't have waiters in the UK, they were abolished in pubs a long time back. When you want a beer, you get up and go to the bar. This give you a little exercise each time, so the more you drink, the fitter you get. I guess this idea will go down well in Canada and the USA. A better invention would be a machine which goes for a piss for me without having to get up. That way, drinking could be totally uninterrupted.
To fix this spam problem, combine micro-payments with a (very small) charge to send mail. The charge could be 0.1 penny. It would be charged at the forwarding mail server. Email clients would have a spam button. The reader could press it if it's spam, and she gets to keep the tenth of a penny. What a bonus. That's it... spam gone.
You don't have to be proud. As well as 50% of the world's wealth, North Americans have 60% of the world's debt, and it ain't all in Canada!
I think that XENIX is used in the Radarsat ground system. It is either used by the real-time Spacecraft Operations Consoles or by the Spacecraft Database (telemetry data) systems, most likely the former. The SOCS couldn't last more than a day or two between crashes, and the Spacecraft Database throughput was maxed out from the first pass, so whichever it was, it didn't work too good. There were also lots of compatibility issues related to NFS and Oracle. It took some horrible workarounds to get the data flow to work.
One of the main objects of standards is to reduce the number of ways of doing things. This allows things to be adopted and expanded easily. The basic idea is that we need the fewest number of standards possible that cover the area we are working in. We don't need 10 desktops; this increases the number of ways of doing things, making it hard to adopted and expand.
So its fear by the community that Drobbins will make out big time on the efforts of community, and greed by community members who want something back - this has been the same right through the industrial revolution. Sour grapes of the oppressed majority versus capitalistic exploitation by the people in control. Why does Zach Welsh need to write a (couple of) thousand word to state the obvious?
The long explanation that Zach Welsh posted is unnecessary - it's just a plain, old fashioned case of fear and greed. Same old same old.
Spot on! Why should computer geeks expect to earn more than plumbers? Plumbing is hard and dirty work (like dentistry) and deserves good pay. The world can go on without the Linux Router Project, but quality of life would be much impaired if all the toilets were broken.
It's a bit rich for this bloke to say that Europeans don't understand the Internet when they invented computers, TV and the World Wide Web (SSEM, HREF="http://www.tvdawn.com/tvhist1.htm#Baird">Bai rd and Berners-Lee
, all brits)!
More none-legal definitions of slander. Suggest we invent a new term for multimedia, such as slibelled, or landered or some such word. 2: the act of defaming [syn: aspersion, calumny, defamation] v : charge falsely or with malicious intent; attack the good name and reputation of someone; "The journalists have defamed me!" The article in the paper sullied my reputation" [syn: defame, smirch, asperse, denigrate, calumniate, smear, sully, besmirch]
With respect, the first non-legal definition I found in google says that slander is âa false and malicious statement or report about someoneâ(TM) so I rest my case on that. I agree that (in pre-internet days) there was a concrete difference between slander and libel, but the multi-media oriented Internet will erase this distinction in time. In fact, it is the real-time nature of the Internet that makes it more like having a conversation than reading a newspaper. This in turn makes it reasonable to accept rebuttals, as you would in a discussion over a pint in the pub. What I mean to say, in a nutshell, is that traditional âWebMasterâ(TM) style users treated the Internet like a Newspaper and barred rebuttals, at least as far as they could on their own sites. This law will encourage the use of the Internet as a consensus driven conversational tool, rather than as a mouthpiece for crackpots. It will allow feedback, which is necessary for any system to work.
No. The fellow who said something unkind on the Internet has the right to post it on his OWN web page. At present, the slandered party must find another web page. They are NOT allowed by the mighty WebMasters to post on the same page that slandered them, so they have less freedom of speech. They have to find another forum. This is rather like using a megaphone at a cocktail party. The mighty WebMasters demand the right to censor other contributions by exclusion. What this law is about is making the Internet public property, not the private domain of the mighty WebMasters, who expect to say what they want, in public and one way (i.e. without allowing the other party to respond in the same forum).
I don't understand this yet. I agree that newspapers are immutable - once printed, you can't offer a reply in that version. Sometimes, rarely, you may get a letter printed, or an apology even. The good thing about the web is that it is possible to add a postscript to an article later. That removes a significant imbalance of power. That is why this law is good. The downside is the hassle of making the reply facility work properly. I expect enterprising software engineers can solve that; slashdot have already made the right to reply a standard feature on their site. Another downside is that trolls will reply to any old rubbish they see and cause trouble. I don't know the answer to that one. Maybe that's the price of freedom.
Many users no more 'seek out the materials' than a person who turns on the television and watches the news. As you do when you 'watch' news rolling into slashdot. In any case, the law will not make you take legal or moral responsibility to present contrary views. It will compel you to allow others to post or link thier views on your site. As I am doing now. Slashdot is a great example of this principle at work. Why should you have the right to make public, contentious comments on your site and yet withhold the same right from the other stakeholders?