I can't speak to Windows 7 since I rendered that unbootable (I was mucking around with the boot sector) and haven't fixed it yet, but Windows has LONG included a command-line FTP client.
In addition to that, either IE or Windows Explorer supports FTP in a graphical way. I don't know which it is though so I don't know if removing IE removes that option.
Now, that said, FTP is clearly a non-serious suggestion for most people.
A simple test would be to open a file browser and then type in a URL to see if an internet web page can be shown. If it's there, you will see it that way.
MS got rid of the tie between Windows Explorer and IE with Windows Vista; trying to view a local folder in IE opens Windows explorer, and trying to view an internet URL in Windows Explorer opens your default browser.
My question is if they are removing the blue E icon or actually removing the rendering engine?
My reading is that they basically can't remove the rendering engine completely; too much stuff depends on it. HTML is behind the entire Windows Help system for instance, and I can't see them either altering the technology that radically or disabling help. There's also a lot of third party software (e.g. Steam) that uses it.
I don't know how much IE adds to the rendering engine though. It may be the case that MSHTML (what's used for the help system and such) is actually pretty lightweight and IE adds quite a bit, so this split is actually quite meaningful, but I doubt that's the case.
(Ignore me, I'm just your neighborhood young crotchety old man who hates all of at least the mainstream OSes with equal passion, though for different reasons each.)
I'm arguing that the wording is vague, and my argument is that both sides are reasonable.
I (obviously) think my side (that most of the federal government's anti-drug laws should be considered unconstitutional) is reasonable, and while I personally think the other side is pretty unreasonable, the fact that we have going on a century of similar interpretations of the interstate commerce clause belies that a bit even if the actors are a bit biased.
Hell, Scalia concurred with the majority in Gonzales v. Raich, and my impression is he's one of the biggest strict constructionists on the bench now.
first of all, the 14th amendment was ratified in 1868 and Brown v. Board of Education was tried in 1954, almost 100 years apart and it had problems ranging from effecting the solution to the courts orders for the solution.
If the wording and intent was clear, why does the time difference matter?
But the courts did say that all citizens had the same constitutional rights.
What Brown v. Board also said was that 'separate but equal' schooling was an abridgment of those rights. Was the court right? If so, what in the constitution says that integrated schooling is one of the "privileges and immunities" granted to the 14th amendment?
Any laws against witchcraft (outside sacrifices) shouldn't even be on the books today and if they are, any sensible jury would ignore them.
Of course. But what if a state did have one? Would it be unconstitutional, or just really stupid?
On a less abstract note, what about counterfeiting? By today's standards, I would certainly say that execution would be cruel and unusual punishment for that crime, even if it appears it wasn't considered as much at the time.
My understanding it that it did but people attempted to move away from constitution and the 14th was needed.
This is not really true. I pulled out a text on Constitutional Law (IANAL, law student, etc., but I do have a passing interest; this is by Stephens and Scheb) which says, "With the exception of the right of 'just compensation', the expressive freedoms of speech and press were the earliest to be incorporated into the Fourteenth Amendment and thus made applicable to the states. James Madison had proposed during debates over the original Bill of Rights that constitutional protections in this area be provided against state encroachment, but it was not until well until the twentieth century that this view was written into national public policy by the court."
If you look at the Wikipedia entry on Incorporation, it says, "The genesis of incorporation has been traced back to either Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railroad (1897) in which the Supreme Court appeared to require some form of just compensation for property appropriated by state or local authorities (although there was a state statute on the books that provided the same guarantee) or, more commonly, to Gitlow v. New York (1925), in which the Court expressly held that States were bound to observe First Amendment free speech protections".
Basically, to my knowledge the Bill of Rights was not held to be applicable to states before the 20th century, and there's Barron v. Baltimore which decided explicitly against this opinion.
Freedom of speech is primarily speech that is useful.
What do you mean by "useful"? Is art useful? Can inflammatory statements be useful?
What source material does the notion of "useful" speech being protected come from?
Slander and libel can only be prosecuted if either the intent is a lie or malicious with no value to society.
This isn't quite true. First, against public figures, most of the time actual malice needs to be proved as an element of defamation, but this isn't true for non-public figures.
Is prohibiting personal possession of a few ounces of marijuana "necessary and proper" for regulating interstate commerce? I think it's not. Congress, The President, and The Supreme Court thinks it is. Who's being unreasonable?
Why did the Supreme Court order a rehearing of Brown v. Board of Education and related cases on the grounds of determining what was intended by the 14th Amendment, only to not reach any real conclusion? ("This discussion and our own investigation convince us that, although these sources cast some light, it is not enough to resolve the problem with which we are faced.")
Is capital punishment "cruel and unusual"? What about for witchcraft (for which at least one person was hung around the time of the nation's founding)? Counterfeiting (for which someone was hung in 1822)?
Do the Bill of Rights apply to the states too? (My question is really "did they apply before the 14th amendment" since that's the basis for most of the incorporation.) What in the 5th amendment indicates that it is only a restriction on the federal government? I think nothing, and would argue that you don't need the 14th amendment to apply those restrictions to states. SCOTUS (in Barron v Baltimore) disagreed. Who's being unreasonable?
What exactly is freedom of speech after all? After all, the Bill of Rights leaves nothing to interpretation seemingly -- "Congress shall make no law...or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press" -- yet libel and slander laws are basically not in question, nor are copyright laws, and the 1798 congress even passed the Alien and Sedition acts, so clearly even the founding fathers didn't agree on what the Constitution meant (or at least didn't respect it).
I other words, the constitution itself was supposed to be the exclusive list of what the government was allowed or required to do where the bill of rights was the most obvious concerns over potential abuse.
Except that the Constitution doesn't otherwise prohibit a lot of the activities that the Bill of Rights prohibits. For instance, without the 5th amendment, why would presuming guilt in a trial of someone accused of being in violation of a federal law be prohibited?
Many of the Bill of Rights's restrictions are necessary even without the sort of twisting of the loose interpretations of "necessary and proper" and stuff like that which has allowed the federal government to expand in power over the decades.
This isn't really a problem is the government would stick to their roles and follow the constitution.
That's like saying "this isn't really a problem if everyone in the country would agree."
First, reasonable people can disagree about what the Constitution says. It isn't exactly lacking in vague wording.
Second, just because the Constitution doesn't have a prohibition on a particular type of law doesn't mean it should still be allowed, at least IMO. That people would interpret the Bill of Rights as an exclusive list is why some founding fathers didn't WANT to have it. For instance, I feel that the result of Roe v Wade was the correct decision even though there's nothing in the Constitution explicitly to prevent anti-abortion laws.
Did "imply" come to mean "say the exact opposite"?
The hardest part of the search technology, the processing of massive amounts of data and the indexing of that was open sourced as well.
Wow, that's very wrong in at least two respects.
First, what company is the largest contributor to Hadoop? (Hint: not Google. Their MapReduce implementation is still unreleased.)
Second, MapReduce itself is "merely" a tool, albeit a nifty one, not "the hardest part of the search technology". The hardest part would be coming up with the applications that run on MapReduce and actually handle the data. What does Google index on? How does pagerank actually work? These are questions that, to my knowledge, are still Google trade secrets.
If you gave me a few months I could write a fairly unoptimized, fairly poorly-performing MapReduce implementation, but one that still got fairly decent scaleup. If you then gave me a few more months, couple Google engineers, access to their code base, and four times the processing power of Google, I could probably more or less duplicate Google with my MapReduce implementation as a replacement for theirs.
If you gave me a server farm and a few years, I could come up with a crappy search engine, but I suspect no better. Certainly not anything that I could put on Google's MapReduce implementation and have anything that produced something close to the quality of results Google, MSN, or Yahoo produces nowadays.
There's also the fact that once you get to some number probably no higher than the low hundreds, no one cares how many hits get returned. Most people don't even go beyond the first page. So no one is actually going to look at any of the additional 800,000 pages that Google "returns" to that query. Maybe the top 372,000 hits are the same.
The only times measurement like that actually matters are: 1) If it's a symptom of other problems -- not having crawled enough of the web, poor search function, etc. 2) If you are looking at the number of results themselves for some reason (googlefight!)
The only thing that matters is the quality of hits on the first page or two, which is probably somewhat hard to measure.
I'm not saying Bing is there; I still use Google. But measuring number of hits to gauge search engine quality is a poor measure at best and misleading at worst.
It does absolutely nothing for students who are uncompetitive or who view competition as something negative.
While the rest of your arguments are reasonable, this one is pretty dumb. Getting money is motivation for almost anyone whether or not they are competitive. The fact that the kids are making it competitive is just additional motivation on top of that.
Oh, I agree; there's a lot to be seen for whether or not it catches on at all, and it's definitely not mainstream yet.
That said, for Microsoft shops, the overhead of using F# is probably less than almost any other functional language now, so there's a small chance it will actually take a little bit of a hold.
(There are other things like SISC -- a Scheme implementation that runs on the JVM -- and IronPython (not really functional but definitely closer than, say, C) which runs on.Net, but none have the name behind it. Unfortunate as it is, that may may a small difference.)
I don't expect F# to become mainstream, but it'd be nice to see it get some use.
Not to disagree, but the nice thing about this is that if you're doing.Net programming, my impression is it should be pretty easy to integrate F# code into your project, easier than most foreign function interfaces since F# is complied to.Net classes behind the scenes anyway.
Here's another hint: 'zero G' doesn't mean 'zero gravity' (which is actually an incorrect term even for space). It means that the body is experiencing the equivalent of zero G. Just like a fighter pilot in a tight turn might be at eight Gs doesn't mean that he went to Neptune or some place where the gravitational force is eight times as strong. (Disclaimer: Neptune is actually 17x the Mass of Earth.)
From Wikipedia: "The g-force of an object is 0 g in any weightless environment such as free-fall or an orbiting satellite" (emphasis mine).
This was pretty damn stupid of the teacher, who should probably be charged with child endangerment or something similar, or at least fired for complete lack of judgement.
Galaxy Quest does actually qualify to a surprising extent... not only is it a basically a Star Trek parody, but it's probably a better Star Trek movie than a couple of the actual Trek movies. It's not at the level of Star Trek itself, Red Dwarf, etc., but I would say it does qualify. If you haven't seen it I rather recommend it.
I'm in a similar situation as the submitter of this story, and I think you're dumb to take offense or have so little imagination.
First, just because I don't have much to put up on the main page doesn't mean that there's nothing there at all. I have some photos hosted and stuff and you just need to know the URL to get to them.
The main thing I use it for is email, which I think is a perfectly reasonable reason to have a domain name. Gosh, that sounds just like the submitter.
For me, mostly force of habit. I figured that "okay" was the original form and that it was shortened to "OK" in particularly informal writing, so I used "okay". (I later found out that this isn't the case and that O.K. is the original form.)
Also, no dictionary I've looked in recognizes "ok" (lowercase; it 'must' be "OK"), so using "okay" allows it to fit more smoothly into a sentence flow IMO.
Even the dictionary for Firefox doesn't recognise bel as a word.
To be fair, the dictionary for Firefox at least for a long time didn't recognize "okay" as a word. (I don't know whether it doesn't now because they've added it in FF3 or because it's in my personal dictionary.)
The dictionary for Firefox is about the last place I'd turn to see if something is actually a word.
First, the ocean might simply be good at blocking transmissions.
I don't have direct knowledge of the behavior of radio waves in water, but I would strongly guess this.
Even sunlight peters out at depths measured in dozens of feet, and that you need pretty strong lights to illuminate even 10 feet in front of you if you're at the bottom. Going through two miles of water would likely be quite a feat.
Further, I'm pretty sure that the reason water is "blue" is that blue light tends to penetrate better (think looking up from the perspective of a SCUBA diver 20 or 30 feet down), which suggests that longer wavelengths get blocked more, which is exactly the opposite of what you would want for radio penetration.
Slashdot Mirror
I can't speak to Windows 7 since I rendered that unbootable (I was mucking around with the boot sector) and haven't fixed it yet, but Windows has LONG included a command-line FTP client.
In addition to that, either IE or Windows Explorer supports FTP in a graphical way. I don't know which it is though so I don't know if removing IE removes that option.
Now, that said, FTP is clearly a non-serious suggestion for most people.
A simple test would be to open a file browser and then type in a URL to see if an internet web page can be shown. If it's there, you will see it that way.
MS got rid of the tie between Windows Explorer and IE with Windows Vista; trying to view a local folder in IE opens Windows explorer, and trying to view an internet URL in Windows Explorer opens your default browser.
My question is if they are removing the blue E icon or actually removing the rendering engine?
My reading is that they basically can't remove the rendering engine completely; too much stuff depends on it. HTML is behind the entire Windows Help system for instance, and I can't see them either altering the technology that radically or disabling help. There's also a lot of third party software (e.g. Steam) that uses it.
I don't know how much IE adds to the rendering engine though. It may be the case that MSHTML (what's used for the help system and such) is actually pretty lightweight and IE adds quite a bit, so this split is actually quite meaningful, but I doubt that's the case.
As opposed to inventing it poorly the first time?
(Ignore me, I'm just your neighborhood young crotchety old man who hates all of at least the mainstream OSes with equal passion, though for different reasons each.)
Are you arguing vague or reasonable?
I'm arguing that the wording is vague, and my argument is that both sides are reasonable.
I (obviously) think my side (that most of the federal government's anti-drug laws should be considered unconstitutional) is reasonable, and while I personally think the other side is pretty unreasonable, the fact that we have going on a century of similar interpretations of the interstate commerce clause belies that a bit even if the actors are a bit biased.
Hell, Scalia concurred with the majority in Gonzales v. Raich, and my impression is he's one of the biggest strict constructionists on the bench now.
first of all, the 14th amendment was ratified in 1868 and Brown v. Board of Education was tried in 1954, almost 100 years apart and it had problems ranging from effecting the solution to the courts orders for the solution.
If the wording and intent was clear, why does the time difference matter?
But the courts did say that all citizens had the same constitutional rights.
What Brown v. Board also said was that 'separate but equal' schooling was an abridgment of those rights. Was the court right? If so, what in the constitution says that integrated schooling is one of the "privileges and immunities" granted to the 14th amendment?
Any laws against witchcraft (outside sacrifices) shouldn't even be on the books today and if they are, any sensible jury would ignore them.
Of course. But what if a state did have one? Would it be unconstitutional, or just really stupid?
On a less abstract note, what about counterfeiting? By today's standards, I would certainly say that execution would be cruel and unusual punishment for that crime, even if it appears it wasn't considered as much at the time.
My understanding it that it did but people attempted to move away from constitution and the 14th was needed.
This is not really true. I pulled out a text on Constitutional Law (IANAL, law student, etc., but I do have a passing interest; this is by Stephens and Scheb) which says, "With the exception of the right of 'just compensation', the expressive freedoms of speech and press were the earliest to be incorporated into the Fourteenth Amendment and thus made applicable to the states. James Madison had proposed during debates over the original Bill of Rights that constitutional protections in this area be provided against state encroachment, but it was not until well until the twentieth century that this view was written into national public policy by the court."
If you look at the Wikipedia entry on Incorporation, it says, "The genesis of incorporation has been traced back to either Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railroad (1897) in which the Supreme Court appeared to require some form of just compensation for property appropriated by state or local authorities (although there was a state statute on the books that provided the same guarantee) or, more commonly, to Gitlow v. New York (1925), in which the Court expressly held that States were bound to observe First Amendment free speech protections".
Basically, to my knowledge the Bill of Rights was not held to be applicable to states before the 20th century, and there's Barron v. Baltimore which decided explicitly against this opinion.
Freedom of speech is primarily speech that is useful.
What do you mean by "useful"? Is art useful? Can inflammatory statements be useful?
What source material does the notion of "useful" speech being protected come from?
Slander and libel can only be prosecuted if either the intent is a lie or malicious with no value to society.
This isn't quite true. First, against public figures, most of the time actual malice needs to be proved as an element of defamation, but this isn't true for non-public figures.
Second, a lie
Actually, it isn't vague at all.
Really?
Is prohibiting personal possession of a few ounces of marijuana "necessary and proper" for regulating interstate commerce? I think it's not. Congress, The President, and The Supreme Court thinks it is. Who's being unreasonable?
Why did the Supreme Court order a rehearing of Brown v. Board of Education and related cases on the grounds of determining what was intended by the 14th Amendment, only to not reach any real conclusion? ("This discussion and our own investigation convince us that, although these sources cast some light, it is not enough to resolve the problem with which we are faced.")
Is capital punishment "cruel and unusual"? What about for witchcraft (for which at least one person was hung around the time of the nation's founding)? Counterfeiting (for which someone was hung in 1822)?
Do the Bill of Rights apply to the states too? (My question is really "did they apply before the 14th amendment" since that's the basis for most of the incorporation.) What in the 5th amendment indicates that it is only a restriction on the federal government? I think nothing, and would argue that you don't need the 14th amendment to apply those restrictions to states. SCOTUS (in Barron v Baltimore) disagreed. Who's being unreasonable?
What exactly is freedom of speech after all? After all, the Bill of Rights leaves nothing to interpretation seemingly -- "Congress shall make no law ...or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press" -- yet libel and slander laws are basically not in question, nor are copyright laws, and the 1798 congress even passed the Alien and Sedition acts, so clearly even the founding fathers didn't agree on what the Constitution meant (or at least didn't respect it).
I other words, the constitution itself was supposed to be the exclusive list of what the government was allowed or required to do where the bill of rights was the most obvious concerns over potential abuse.
Except that the Constitution doesn't otherwise prohibit a lot of the activities that the Bill of Rights prohibits. For instance, without the 5th amendment, why would presuming guilt in a trial of someone accused of being in violation of a federal law be prohibited?
Many of the Bill of Rights's restrictions are necessary even without the sort of twisting of the loose interpretations of "necessary and proper" and stuff like that which has allowed the federal government to expand in power over the decades.
This isn't really a problem is the government would stick to their roles and follow the constitution.
That's like saying "this isn't really a problem if everyone in the country would agree."
First, reasonable people can disagree about what the Constitution says. It isn't exactly lacking in vague wording.
Second, just because the Constitution doesn't have a prohibition on a particular type of law doesn't mean it should still be allowed, at least IMO. That people would interpret the Bill of Rights as an exclusive list is why some founding fathers didn't WANT to have it. For instance, I feel that the result of Roe v Wade was the correct decision even though there's nothing in the Constitution explicitly to prevent anti-abortion laws.
A STREET vigilante was jailed for six years...
Six years? For what should have been murder? Six years is even light for manslaughter.
Sheesh.
You seem to imply that Android is closed source?
Did "imply" come to mean "say the exact opposite"?
The hardest part of the search technology, the processing of massive amounts of data and the indexing of that was open sourced as well.
Wow, that's very wrong in at least two respects.
First, what company is the largest contributor to Hadoop? (Hint: not Google. Their MapReduce implementation is still unreleased.)
Second, MapReduce itself is "merely" a tool, albeit a nifty one, not "the hardest part of the search technology". The hardest part would be coming up with the applications that run on MapReduce and actually handle the data. What does Google index on? How does pagerank actually work? These are questions that, to my knowledge, are still Google trade secrets.
If you gave me a few months I could write a fairly unoptimized, fairly poorly-performing MapReduce implementation, but one that still got fairly decent scaleup. If you then gave me a few more months, couple Google engineers, access to their code base, and four times the processing power of Google, I could probably more or less duplicate Google with my MapReduce implementation as a replacement for theirs.
If you gave me a server farm and a few years, I could come up with a crappy search engine, but I suspect no better. Certainly not anything that I could put on Google's MapReduce implementation and have anything that produced something close to the quality of results Google, MSN, or Yahoo produces nowadays.
There's also the fact that once you get to some number probably no higher than the low hundreds, no one cares how many hits get returned. Most people don't even go beyond the first page. So no one is actually going to look at any of the additional 800,000 pages that Google "returns" to that query. Maybe the top 372,000 hits are the same.
The only times measurement like that actually matters are:
1) If it's a symptom of other problems -- not having crawled enough of the web, poor search function, etc.
2) If you are looking at the number of results themselves for some reason (googlefight!)
The only thing that matters is the quality of hits on the first page or two, which is probably somewhat hard to measure.
I'm not saying Bing is there; I still use Google. But measuring number of hits to gauge search engine quality is a poor measure at best and misleading at worst.
So you think I'm dumb then, because I was never motivated by money, either at home through allowances nor in the workplace.
Not dumb, just weird.
It does absolutely nothing for students who are uncompetitive or who view competition as something negative.
While the rest of your arguments are reasonable, this one is pretty dumb. Getting money is motivation for almost anyone whether or not they are competitive. The fact that the kids are making it competitive is just additional motivation on top of that.
Oh, I agree; there's a lot to be seen for whether or not it catches on at all, and it's definitely not mainstream yet.
That said, for Microsoft shops, the overhead of using F# is probably less than almost any other functional language now, so there's a small chance it will actually take a little bit of a hold.
(There are other things like SISC -- a Scheme implementation that runs on the JVM -- and IronPython (not really functional but definitely closer than, say, C) which runs on .Net, but none have the name behind it. Unfortunate as it is, that may may a small difference.)
I don't expect F# to become mainstream, but it'd be nice to see it get some use.
Not to disagree, but the nice thing about this is that if you're doing .Net programming, my impression is it should be pretty easy to integrate F# code into your project, easier than most foreign function interfaces since F# is complied to .Net classes behind the scenes anyway.
Parabolic flights are simulated zero G.
How do you simulate zero G?
Here's another hint: 'zero G' doesn't mean 'zero gravity' (which is actually an incorrect term even for space). It means that the body is experiencing the equivalent of zero G. Just like a fighter pilot in a tight turn might be at eight Gs doesn't mean that he went to Neptune or some place where the gravitational force is eight times as strong. (Disclaimer: Neptune is actually 17x the Mass of Earth.)
From Wikipedia: "The g-force of an object is 0 g in any weightless environment such as free-fall or an orbiting satellite" (emphasis mine).
That was my reaction too.
This was pretty damn stupid of the teacher, who should probably be charged with child endangerment or something similar, or at least fired for complete lack of judgement.
Um, why single out Windows? It looks the same for me on RHEL.
Um, not the one I had replied to. Read again.
In my mental scan of the movies I didn't ever think of that one -- I don't always acknowledge that one exists. :-)
Galaxy Quest does actually qualify to a surprising extent... not only is it a basically a Star Trek parody, but it's probably a better Star Trek movie than a couple of the actual Trek movies. It's not at the level of Star Trek itself, Red Dwarf, etc., but I would say it does qualify. If you haven't seen it I rather recommend it.
I would like to second this post.
I'm in a similar situation as the submitter of this story, and I think you're dumb to take offense or have so little imagination.
First, just because I don't have much to put up on the main page doesn't mean that there's nothing there at all. I have some photos hosted and stuff and you just need to know the URL to get to them.
The main thing I use it for is email, which I think is a perfectly reasonable reason to have a domain name. Gosh, that sounds just like the submitter.
I don't recognise okay as a word either.
Doesn't make you right... dictionaries all do.
Why write two extra letters when ok works fine?
For me, mostly force of habit. I figured that "okay" was the original form and that it was shortened to "OK" in particularly informal writing, so I used "okay". (I later found out that this isn't the case and that O.K. is the original form.)
Also, no dictionary I've looked in recognizes "ok" (lowercase; it 'must' be "OK"), so using "okay" allows it to fit more smoothly into a sentence flow IMO.
Even the dictionary for Firefox doesn't recognise bel as a word.
To be fair, the dictionary for Firefox at least for a long time didn't recognize "okay" as a word. (I don't know whether it doesn't now because they've added it in FF3 or because it's in my personal dictionary.)
The dictionary for Firefox is about the last place I'd turn to see if something is actually a word.
That would be Peak Performance from Season 2.
First, the ocean might simply be good at blocking transmissions.
I don't have direct knowledge of the behavior of radio waves in water, but I would strongly guess this.
Even sunlight peters out at depths measured in dozens of feet, and that you need pretty strong lights to illuminate even 10 feet in front of you if you're at the bottom. Going through two miles of water would likely be quite a feat.
Further, I'm pretty sure that the reason water is "blue" is that blue light tends to penetrate better (think looking up from the perspective of a SCUBA diver 20 or 30 feet down), which suggests that longer wavelengths get blocked more, which is exactly the opposite of what you would want for radio penetration.