Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that 9/11 required no use of WMD. That is unless we're now classifying airline jets as WMD.
Further, I was under the impression that Saddam genuinely disliked Bin Laden and his extremist group. Just because two guys are bad, doesn't mean they're on the same team.
Clinton made it clear that we wouldn't stand for Saddam's belligerence regarding weapons inspections.
Bush just invaded.
And what did we find when we got there? We found what the weapons inspectors told us we would find. Little or nothing.
The only relationship between Bin-Laden and Saddam is that they were both war-mongering tyrants that loved to hurt/kill people, and the fact that Bush hated them.
You tell me we couldn't wait for a smoking gun. Fine. Wise words if I've ever heard them. However, is it in our best interest to pre-empt said smoke, when there is no gun?
This is still the center of a heated debate. With modern genetic science we've determined that trolls lay somewhere between the rodent and the lawyer ( with SCO executives up next). Yet there's clearly still a large difference between rodents and trolls, and many scientists feel that the only way to settle the debate will be to find a half-rodent half-troll step. The deep jungles of Africa and Redmond, WA are focal points for this search currently.
One thing remains clear, your modern homosapien very clearly branches off from the modern SCO executive at the rodent.
I'm primarily interested in extracting the inner workings and modifying them for another use. A nice webcam is a good suggestion. It all most likely comes down to the size.
I don't know if any of you remember the slashdot article where some guy modified his scanner to be an (odd) digital camera. But I figure if he can do that, I can certainly get a working picture out of the CCD...
Well thanks to this whole "wireless thing" we've got going recently, us pasty-white geeks have had to draw straws for who gets to climb the mountain to set up the tower. It's about 1 in 700 geeks that has to hike to some obscure area to set up the tower, and that's approximately.014 percent more than we had hiking in the past. So I think it has noticably increased the number of mountain hiking geeks. At least you can't say it's noticably DECREASED.
Ports for the TCP/IP protocol. When programs talk to each other, they do so for ports. So when your browser communicates with a web server they go between your address and the server address on port 80 (usually). This is how you prevent network programs from being run on your network. Say you wish to stop kazaa, you close off the ports kazaa can use to communicate. Thus kazaa can't request information from kazaa servers, and servers can't establish a connection to the kazaa client to send it information.
Who doesn't want to go out and do a little probing? Don't go telling me that the first thing you did when you got a new puppy or kitty wasn't probing their anus. We're all adults here, let's be serious...
Alright, sure, you gave a friend a copy of a song once so he could see if he liked it. And these guys are out to get you. That's all they want. Their relationship with their wife has atrophied to null because they won't even associate with them. They're either at their desk tracking down more evidence so they can get you and throw you behind bars or they're at home masturbating to the imagery of you behind bars. It's all they want it's all they think about.
Look, if you think some guy with ten thousand different isos of industry standard software such as Photoshop, Lightwave, Amaya, 3DSMax, Flash, and so on and so forth that has an FTP open requiring you to upload some other big name iso in order to download a few from him, if you think this guy's average joe american you're really off...
That's the difference here. Sure everyone has traded a song, downloaded a copy of software, and made copies available to other people. However, most people don't do so on such a scale. A criminal scale.
Essentially what they're saying is, if you wish to legally copyright and distribute works where the copyright has expired, you should assure that these works are not obscured by a method which requires a tool. A tool which has only the single purpose of making the contents of this previously copyrighted work open to copying and distribution.
To put it another way: Don't buy copy-protected CDs!
Allow me to explain further: Suppose 90 years from now this (popular-band) cd which has DRM applied to it loses its copyright. This is ninety years in the future, so suppose you had some device which made perfect physical copies of the cd itself, down to the atomic level. It would be legal to copy and distribute that cd for free or profit. However, under the DMCA, circumventing the DRM measures used in that CD would still be illegal.
Actually, they mentioned numerous times that most of what they deal with are extremely serious offenses where the copyright holders intellectual property is quite obviously violated. If you actually read the thing you'd have noticed that they're not to blame for the attacks on the "little people." Those matters are settled in civil courts, not criminal courts.
I guess the big question is, what's the next big thing? I mean your examples relied on the bigger better technology being based here in the U.S. Well what's the bigger and better thing all these programmers can do here in the U.S.? We're not being replaced by super effecienting programming machines that we should learn to operate... there's no new jobs being made in this manner. The jobs are being shipped overseas before the next big thing for employment of people skilled in this sector has appeared here in the U.S. It's very different.
The other respondant was correct in his assesment of my post. But I'd like to further clarify my position here.
I urge people to read W3C's specs, because it's a model for moving beyond the broadcast age. That's why I resist the notion of the internet turning into television, that's why I dislike the standard web site; the "look at me, I'm pretty" website. In the beginning, outside of e-mail, the web more closely resembled television, or a book, than it does now. We have many options for making our content useful for our users. The one problem is that "web-designers" usually got the job by being good graphic designers, or good marketers. They're used to pushing their content out, and assuming users view it. That's all that's important to them.
I believe the internet can play a large role in business. Shopping online could be a new experience. By this I mean, the intrinsic nature of the internet makes for a new, exciting, and very profitable point of sale. It can provide the ultimate comfort zone for a customer. However, we must resist the urge to think in terms of broadcast. It's this thought process that produced everything that we complain about on the net today. Spam, banner-ads, pop-up windows. The story is the same from every user, tech-savvy or not. "The internet sure is cool when I finally close everything I don't want so I can see what I do."
Imagine online shopping, if the W3C had been calling the shots at every company. Products would be listed, according to category, in a corresponding XML standard format. Some web-front businesses could sell products based on the subject. Say, they specialize in PDA's running the Palm OS. These sites would offer convenience for the customer. They could organize products dynamically by features relevant to them, or by price. Businesses would attempt to list every bit of information about the product, making it possible for the customer to choose specifically what it is they want. After a customer finds out what features they do want, and what features they don't, they filter their search to include all desired features, then sort by price.
It would be a completely new twist on the business/consumer relationship. The problem with this system is that it is the essence of capitalism. It streamlines the purchasing process by a factor that most marketers and CEOs can't fathom. In a matter of minutes a customer has educated themselves about the features possible in the product they're interested in. They've decided what features they need, and what they don't, and after leveling the playing field they've selected the unit that's most affordably priced. That's the whole problem with running internet-businesses the way the internet wants them to be run. It's capitalism in its purist form. If you're not feature rich, and affordably priced, you're dead, and no amount of advertising can change that.
Indeed, it's easier for a company to go by the current system, it's safer. With all the confusion they've caused, a customer will end up buying the product they've seen in advertising the most.
This is advantageous to the big companies, as it makes the whole system quite simple. Put more money into marketing, make more money.
I look forward to a system slightly more complex for the company, but infinitely more simple for the customer. One where the world is a database just waiting to be searched.
Besides, in such a system, when a user searches for an operating system, and comes to learn that linux does everything they want it to, all for the low low price of $0.00. Which "add-to-cart" buttond do you think they're going to push?
Hmm, educated consumers, a monopoly's greatest fear...
...only webdesigners had not collaborated to turn the web into the graphics orgy it is today. I mean, have these kids coming out of graphics school even browsed the relevant w3c specifications?
News Flash !
The internet is for information, not television!
Web sites can look pretty and function better without being a giant photoshop mural!
Creating a clean design that's easily searchable, retrievable, and most of all, usable is a work of art!
Slashdot Mirror
...
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that 9/11 required no use of WMD. That is unless we're now classifying airline jets as WMD.
Further, I was under the impression that Saddam genuinely disliked Bin Laden and his extremist group. Just because two guys are bad, doesn't mean they're on the same team.
Clinton made it clear that we wouldn't stand for Saddam's belligerence regarding weapons inspections.
Bush just invaded.
And what did we find when we got there? We found what the weapons inspectors told us we would find. Little or nothing.
The only relationship between Bin-Laden and Saddam is that they were both war-mongering tyrants that loved to hurt/kill people, and the fact that Bush hated them.
You tell me we couldn't wait for a smoking gun. Fine. Wise words if I've ever heard them. However, is it in our best interest to pre-empt said smoke, when there is no gun?
This is still the center of a heated debate. With modern genetic science we've determined that trolls lay somewhere between the rodent and the lawyer ( with SCO executives up next). Yet there's clearly still a large difference between rodents and trolls, and many scientists feel that the only way to settle the debate will be to find a half-rodent half-troll step. The deep jungles of Africa and Redmond, WA are focal points for this search currently.
One thing remains clear, your modern homosapien very clearly branches off from the modern SCO executive at the rodent.
Yes, I agree, Afghanistan was a sensible target after 9/11. How does Iraq fit into the equation though?
Shouldn't India be using the OS with the lowest TCO so they can spend money on fighting poverty?
They'll just remind people that he played Mr. Freeze in Batman & Robin.
Bush: God is in his heaven, and all is right with the world.
Point taken. I'd change it, if I could, but... Well nevermind it, I'd prefer not to bash a team I'm trying to support.
...until the blurb includes "ogg vorbis."
Or the wheel... I mean, talk about beating a dead horse.
I'm primarily interested in extracting the inner workings and modifying them for another use. A nice webcam is a good suggestion. It all most likely comes down to the size.
I don't know if any of you remember the slashdot article where some guy modified his scanner to be an (odd) digital camera. But I figure if he can do that, I can certainly get a working picture out of the CCD...
I'll take it! Just don't expect me to return it...
Well thanks to this whole "wireless thing" we've got going recently, us pasty-white geeks have had to draw straws for who gets to climb the mountain to set up the tower. It's about 1 in 700 geeks that has to hike to some obscure area to set up the tower, and that's approximately .014 percent more than we had hiking in the past. So I think it has noticably increased the number of mountain hiking geeks. At least you can't say it's noticably DECREASED.
Ports for the TCP/IP protocol. When programs talk to each other, they do so for ports. So when your browser communicates with a web server they go between your address and the server address on port 80 (usually). This is how you prevent network programs from being run on your network. Say you wish to stop kazaa, you close off the ports kazaa can use to communicate. Thus kazaa can't request information from kazaa servers, and servers can't establish a connection to the kazaa client to send it information.
Well I don't vote now.
Who doesn't want to go out and do a little probing? Don't go telling me that the first thing you did when you got a new puppy or kitty wasn't probing their anus. We're all adults here, let's be serious...
Didn't that article say they use WinCE, which some would say is worse...
Alright, sure, you gave a friend a copy of a song once so he could see if he liked it. And these guys are out to get you. That's all they want. Their relationship with their wife has atrophied to null because they won't even associate with them. They're either at their desk tracking down more evidence so they can get you and throw you behind bars or they're at home masturbating to the imagery of you behind bars. It's all they want it's all they think about. Look, if you think some guy with ten thousand different isos of industry standard software such as Photoshop, Lightwave, Amaya, 3DSMax, Flash, and so on and so forth that has an FTP open requiring you to upload some other big name iso in order to download a few from him, if you think this guy's average joe american you're really off... That's the difference here. Sure everyone has traded a song, downloaded a copy of software, and made copies available to other people. However, most people don't do so on such a scale. A criminal scale.
It's far more complicated than that.
Essentially what they're saying is, if you wish to legally copyright and distribute works where the copyright has expired, you should assure that these works are not obscured by a method which requires a tool. A tool which has only the single purpose of making the contents of this previously copyrighted work open to copying and distribution.
To put it another way: Don't buy copy-protected CDs!
Allow me to explain further: Suppose 90 years from now this (popular-band) cd which has DRM applied to it loses its copyright. This is ninety years in the future, so suppose you had some device which made perfect physical copies of the cd itself, down to the atomic level. It would be legal to copy and distribute that cd for free or profit. However, under the DMCA, circumventing the DRM measures used in that CD would still be illegal.
Actually, they mentioned numerous times that most of what they deal with are extremely serious offenses where the copyright holders intellectual property is quite obviously violated. If you actually read the thing you'd have noticed that they're not to blame for the attacks on the "little people." Those matters are settled in civil courts, not criminal courts.
I believe Prof. Usher would have to bring charges against them.
I guess the big question is, what's the next big thing? I mean your examples relied on the bigger better technology being based here in the U.S. Well what's the bigger and better thing all these programmers can do here in the U.S.? We're not being replaced by super effecienting programming machines that we should learn to operate... there's no new jobs being made in this manner. The jobs are being shipped overseas before the next big thing for employment of people skilled in this sector has appeared here in the U.S. It's very different.
I keep wanting to think that, but then I look at Bush and my mind just won't allow it...
I do the same thing, except I harvest e-mail addresses from slashdot and post those.
The other respondant was correct in his assesment of my post. But I'd like to further clarify my position here.
I urge people to read W3C's specs, because it's a model for moving beyond the broadcast age. That's why I resist the notion of the internet turning into television, that's why I dislike the standard web site; the "look at me, I'm pretty" website. In the beginning, outside of e-mail, the web more closely resembled television, or a book, than it does now. We have many options for making our content useful for our users. The one problem is that "web-designers" usually got the job by being good graphic designers, or good marketers. They're used to pushing their content out, and assuming users view it. That's all that's important to them.
I believe the internet can play a large role in business. Shopping online could be a new experience. By this I mean, the intrinsic nature of the internet makes for a new, exciting, and very profitable point of sale. It can provide the ultimate comfort zone for a customer. However, we must resist the urge to think in terms of broadcast. It's this thought process that produced everything that we complain about on the net today. Spam, banner-ads, pop-up windows. The story is the same from every user, tech-savvy or not. "The internet sure is cool when I finally close everything I don't want so I can see what I do."
Imagine online shopping, if the W3C had been calling the shots at every company. Products would be listed, according to category, in a corresponding XML standard format. Some web-front businesses could sell products based on the subject. Say, they specialize in PDA's running the Palm OS. These sites would offer convenience for the customer. They could organize products dynamically by features relevant to them, or by price. Businesses would attempt to list every bit of information about the product, making it possible for the customer to choose specifically what it is they want. After a customer finds out what features they do want, and what features they don't, they filter their search to include all desired features, then sort by price.
It would be a completely new twist on the business/consumer relationship. The problem with this system is that it is the essence of capitalism. It streamlines the purchasing process by a factor that most marketers and CEOs can't fathom. In a matter of minutes a customer has educated themselves about the features possible in the product they're interested in. They've decided what features they need, and what they don't, and after leveling the playing field they've selected the unit that's most affordably priced. That's the whole problem with running internet-businesses the way the internet wants them to be run. It's capitalism in its purist form. If you're not feature rich, and affordably priced, you're dead, and no amount of advertising can change that.
Indeed, it's easier for a company to go by the current system, it's safer. With all the confusion they've caused, a customer will end up buying the product they've seen in advertising the most.
This is advantageous to the big companies, as it makes the whole system quite simple. Put more money into marketing, make more money.
I look forward to a system slightly more complex for the company, but infinitely more simple for the customer. One where the world is a database just waiting to be searched.
Besides, in such a system, when a user searches for an operating system, and comes to learn that linux does everything they want it to, all for the low low price of $0.00. Which "add-to-cart" buttond do you think they're going to push?
Hmm, educated consumers, a monopoly's greatest fear...
...only webdesigners had not collaborated to turn the web into the graphics orgy it is today. I mean, have these kids coming out of graphics school even browsed the relevant w3c specifications?
News Flash !