I couldn't get this to work with netscape 6.2 on Windows 98 (prefs.js was a user preferences file and deleted the "pref(..." line when I quit, and the all-ns.js is apparently ignored), but this worked for me:
1) Edit C:\Program Files\Netscape\Netscape 6\searchplugins\SBWeb_0?.src, where the question mark is a single digit (there is one file for each search option).
2) change the "action=..." line so it no longer has "http://info.netscape.com/fwd/(something)/", but just has "http://(search engine)".
IANAL, but I think that you are introducing an assumption that makes "preferred" seem poorly defined when it really isn't. Here's what I'd agrue:
The subject of the verb "prefer", that is, the entity or entities doing the preferring, is not specified. Therefore we have to infer it.
I would say you have shown that when "people in general" or "people in the industry" are the preferrers, the word has no objective meaning. I agree, and note that any definition we give here could cause the unmodified distribution to be in a non-preferred form, and thus not source.
However, there is another reasonable grammatical possibility for who the preferrer is, namely the person(s) modifying the code.
Now, if the modifier is the preferrer, preference is easily determined by his/her/their past actions. We can ask what form they used to modify the code (i.e. put them on the stand, and if they lie and say they modified the obfuscated code, ask them to explain what various sections of the obfuscated code do). In this case at least there is exactly one set of documents which fit the criteria.
So we have two interpretations, one of which leads to a meaningless statement, and one of which leads to a meaningful one. This is a common situation in English, and the general convention among English (or other language) speakers is to go with the interpretation which makes sense. Under this ubiquitous convention, I would agrue that the "preferred" form for modifications can only be that which the modifier him/her/thierself has used.
I've copped out a bit and omitted the possibility that it is the original author who is the preferrer (what happens if a word is ambiguous, but every possible interpretation leads to the same conclusion?), but if that could be set aside, would a judge be likely to buy this sort of argument?
One thing that helps Iowa out is that it has not one but *three* high speed infrastructures. INS built one, the government built another (on the grounds that it would connect schools and government offices; Iowans are big on education). I can't recall who has the third network (anyone?). These networks were built by people who didn't really talk to each other and as a result there is a lot of bandwidth to be had in Iowa.
I'm told that McLoed USA got their start in Cedar Rapids, IA by obtaining the use of one of these networks early at really cheap rates and running telephone calls through it.
Another thing to consider is that Iowa has more local telephone cooperatives than every other state in the US combined. At the end of the article it is claimed that this technology probably works best for smaller telephone companies; on the basis of this statement Iowa seems like an ideal place for its adoption.
Slashdot Mirror
I couldn't get this to work with netscape 6.2 on Windows 98 (prefs.js was a user preferences file and deleted the "pref(..." line when I quit, and the all-ns.js is apparently ignored), but this worked for me:
1) Edit C:\Program Files\Netscape\Netscape 6\searchplugins\SBWeb_0?.src, where the question mark is a single digit (there is one file for each search option).
2) change the "action=..." line so it no longer has "http://info.netscape.com/fwd/(something)/", but just has "http://(search engine)".
3) Change updateCheckDays to from 1 to 100000.
4) Cross fingers.
The subject of the verb "prefer", that is, the entity or entities doing the preferring, is not specified. Therefore we have to infer it.
I would say you have shown that when "people in general" or "people in the industry" are the preferrers, the word has no objective meaning. I agree, and note that any definition we give here could cause the unmodified distribution to be in a non-preferred form, and thus not source.
However, there is another reasonable grammatical possibility for who the preferrer is, namely the person(s) modifying the code.
Now, if the modifier is the preferrer, preference is easily determined by his/her/their past actions. We can ask what form they used to modify the code (i.e. put them on the stand, and if they lie and say they modified the obfuscated code, ask them to explain what various sections of the obfuscated code do). In this case at least there is exactly one set of documents which fit the criteria.
So we have two interpretations, one of which leads to a meaningless statement, and one of which leads to a meaningful one. This is a common situation in English, and the general convention among English (or other language) speakers is to go with the interpretation which makes sense. Under this ubiquitous convention, I would agrue that the "preferred" form for modifications can only be that which the modifier him/her/thierself has used.
I've copped out a bit and omitted the possibility that it is the original author who is the preferrer (what happens if a word is ambiguous, but every possible interpretation leads to the same conclusion?), but if that could be set aside, would a judge be likely to buy this sort of argument?
I'm told that McLoed USA got their start in Cedar Rapids, IA by obtaining the use of one of these networks early at really cheap rates and running telephone calls through it.
Another thing to consider is that Iowa has more local telephone cooperatives than every other state in the US combined. At the end of the article it is claimed that this technology probably works best for smaller telephone companies; on the basis of this statement Iowa seems like an ideal place for its adoption.