Neither Bush nor Gore received a majority of the votes (and less than 50% of eligible voters actually voted), so that's far from clear.
It's only the voice of the powerful that matters to Dubya
Yeah, good thing Democrats were in power for most of the last decade. Otherwise we might have gotten stuff like the CDA, DMCA, infinite copyright extentions, and Carnivore. Oh wait.
Not to defend the more idiotic things the US government has done, but it works both ways. As I recall a stated goal of the Sonny Bono Infinite Copyright Act was to "harmonize" copyright lengths with Europe.
My argument for using a NAT is that the place of origin was me, my account, my system.
Exactly. I don't think these bills can be construed to ban NATs. Which in a way is unfortunate, because they're still terrible laws and the more unreasonable they are the better the chance of getting serious opposition.
No, you can thank the undemocratic Electoral College system
Regardless of the merits of the Electoral College (and there are some), it's incorrect to assume that if we used a direct popular vote then Gore would have won. Both Bush and Gore would have campaigned much differently; for example, they spent hardly any time in Texas or New York because the electoral results were a foregone conclusion. Voters would act differently as well; probably quite a few in TX or NY either didn't vote or voted for a 3rd party candidate because it was obvious who would win.
That's a good one. Republicans should also consider whether they want the powers of the Patriot Act wielded by a future President Hillary Clinton. (And note that many conservatives do in fact oppose it).
In the media consortium sponsored recount, Gore won.
Using one specific method. In other methods, including the one that the Gore campaign argued for, Bush won. The election was a statistical tie, and was always going to be decided via lawyerball. The US Supreme Court may have been tilted toward Bush, but the Florida Supreme Court was definitely tilted towards Gore.
Notice that, in contrast, railing against Bush's legitimacy gets one's microphone taken away, metaphorically and really.
Sorry to disappoint you, but you are not oppressed and the secret police will not be coming for you tonight. If most people choose to ignore your rantings, that's your problem.
Bush's people ignored Clinton's anti-terrorism advisor who beggedthem to make bin-Laden the number one problem.
Ah, so 9/11 is now Bush's fault because he didn't do in 8 months what Clinton failed to do in 8 years. Gotcha.
The USA has committed massive war crimes - not that anyone here cares - by invading another nation without provocation.
Iraq invaded Kuwait. We kicked them out. In exchange for staying in power, Saddam agreed to a cease-fire. He has repeatedly and consistently violated those terms, which was sufficient cause to renew hostilities. But I'm sure the Iraqis celebrating their liberation in Baghdad today are glad to know that you would have preferred they remain under Saddam's tyranny.
And yes, I oppose the Patriot Act, as do many conservatives. Sometimes it's useful to consider that maybe not everything "your" party does is right.
We all know the DMCA was meant as a good intentioned law for piracy/IP protection
I certainly don't know that. All evidence so far is that it was intended to cripple consumers' fair use and first sale rights. You're right to point out the problems with lawyer infestations, and one of the main ones is that it's extremely difficult to tell whether inane laws/regulations/TOS are due to malice or stupidity. I believe the DMCA is clearly in the "malice" category. These TOS I'm not sure about, but it looks like it's just stupidity.
but geez why doesn't Cocoa offer Java and C++ direct integration
Because C++ is not sufficiently dynamic. The Cocoa runtime needs to invoke dynamically determined methods on arbitrary objects. Objective C does this very easily, Java can do it with a bit of coaxing, C++ not at all.
How many think xbox mod chips should be legal, because just because they can be used for piracy, they have other legal uses?
I do. And nobody is talking about outlawing DRM, just observing that it cannot work unless control of our systems is taken from us (which is the goal of Palladium and Fritz's legislation).
It already exists anyways. Noone stops anyone from streaming a netradio over an SSL tunnel, or archiving their files with a password.
Siracusa's comments are a bit unfocused, but I agree with much of what he said. I don't share his belief that spatial views are the One True Way (I'd be happy if Apple fixed the obvious bugs in the Finder and added a shelf), but he's absolutely right on metadata. His most insightful comment was that about half of iTunes and iPhoto is metadata management. This functionality belongs in the OS and filesystem, rather than being reimplemented in each app.
If your ISP charges this way, then it's already a breach of contract to use NAT.
My argument would be that there is precisely one "computer" connected to the ISP: the NAT box. Sure, once it receives the data from the ISP it may send it to another machine on my internal network, but that's none of their business, any more than it would be if I typed a message on one machine, copied it to another machine directly connected to the ISP, and emailed it from there. All NAT does is make that process more efficient.
charging only the users which increase the company's cost
It is not at all true that use of a NAT inherently increases cost to the provider. One could even make an argument that it decreases costs; Code Red would have been far less damaging if most ISP customers had firewalled NAT boxes.
The obvious solution is to charge by actual bandwidth used; the ISP has no reason to know or care what you're using it for or the configuration of your internal network.
Ridiculous. If we wanted Iraqi oil, we'd just lift the sanctions and buy it, which would be far cheaper than than the billions we'll spend on the war. As for racism and hate, we're going to great lengths to minimize civilian casualties, hardly what we would do if our goal was to kill the filthy Arabs. There are reasonable arguments against the war, but these aren't.
Take the common case of dereferencing a null or invalid pointer. In Java, the program throws an exception immediately and dies if it's not caught. In C, the program may die, or it may end up overwriting memory with random bytes. Same thing with writing past the end of an array or string.
Duh. And if your needs include security, then consider the drawbacks of C/C++ in that regard.
It's just as easy to write buggy Java as it is to write buggy C++
The difference being that a buggy Java app is far less likely to result in an exploit.
In general, I'd say people should use the tools they enjoy using, and write the kind of stuff they like to write -- then, spend some time vetting your code before they release it.
This is how stuff like Windows gets produced. Security just can't be bolted on as an afterthought.
And it's not nonsensical to say that Apple has a monopoly on Apple products
Yes it is. It's meaningless to speak of a monopoly on a specific brand; using that definition every single manufacturer has a monopoly on their own product. Microsoft has been found to have a monopoly not on Windows, but on desktop operating systems.
you never purchase software, you only license software
IANAL either, but I don't believe this is true. See Softman vs Adobe, where Adobe's "not for individual resale" statement was found to be meaningless. Adobe tried and failed to argue that the defendant "licensed" the software instead of purchasing it. We're getting closer, but we haven't quite reached the point where the law is whatever a publisher says it is.
This is separate from the issue of EULAs which restrict the usage of software, which I also believe are invalid in most cases as there is no consideration (you lose rights and get nothing in return).
especially not with the absolutely crappy SDRAM Apple is still using
Actually the new towers do have DDR, but it's of very limited benefit since the G4 processor can't take advantage of it (thanks Motorola). However, the forthcoming PowerPC 970 supports 6.4GB/sec bandwidth compared to the G4's 1.0. That should make a slight difference.
The flaw in this scheme is that it requires imprisoning evil hackers who attempt to regain control of "their" computers. In the tradition established by the War on Drugs, it will likely also be deemed necessary to prohibit or strictly regulate "hacker tools" (compilers, debuggers, hex editors, etc).
Network applications would now only process messages that are signed by code that your palladium chip certifies as meeting certain criteria.
This can only happen if you somehow prohibit software-based routers, or require that everything is encrypted so the user can't examine or modify the stream. The latter case would be great for spyware distributors.
For instance, the application could be a movie player that decrypts a spiffy new high definition format
In which case it has to become illegal to write screen capture software, or open source implementations of the video format.
The problem with DRM is that once you peel back the utopian promises you find lots of guys with guns pointed at the heads of developers.
Slashdot Mirror
Neither Bush nor Gore received a majority of the votes (and less than 50% of eligible voters actually voted), so that's far from clear.
It's only the voice of the powerful that matters to Dubya
Yeah, good thing Democrats were in power for most of the last decade. Otherwise we might have gotten stuff like the CDA, DMCA, infinite copyright extentions, and Carnivore. Oh wait.
Not to defend the more idiotic things the US government has done, but it works both ways. As I recall a stated goal of the Sonny Bono Infinite Copyright Act was to "harmonize" copyright lengths with Europe.
Exactly. I don't think these bills can be construed to ban NATs. Which in a way is unfortunate, because they're still terrible laws and the more unreasonable they are the better the chance of getting serious opposition.
From what I've seen the Finder has that honor.
For me middle clicking opens links in new tabs in both Camino and Safari.
There was no vertical aiming in Doom.
And I have every right to work around those limitations. (Possibly not anymore, but I should).
Regardless of the merits of the Electoral College (and there are some), it's incorrect to assume that if we used a direct popular vote then Gore would have won. Both Bush and Gore would have campaigned much differently; for example, they spent hardly any time in Texas or New York because the electoral results were a foregone conclusion. Voters would act differently as well; probably quite a few in TX or NY either didn't vote or voted for a 3rd party candidate because it was obvious who would win.
That's a good one. Republicans should also consider whether they want the powers of the Patriot Act wielded by a future President Hillary Clinton. (And note that many conservatives do in fact oppose it).
Using one specific method. In other methods, including the one that the Gore campaign argued for, Bush won. The election was a statistical tie, and was always going to be decided via lawyerball. The US Supreme Court may have been tilted toward Bush, but the Florida Supreme Court was definitely tilted towards Gore.
Notice that, in contrast, railing against Bush's legitimacy gets one's microphone taken away, metaphorically and really.
Sorry to disappoint you, but you are not oppressed and the secret police will not be coming for you tonight. If most people choose to ignore your rantings, that's your problem.
Bush's people ignored Clinton's anti-terrorism advisor who beggedthem to make bin-Laden the number one problem.
Ah, so 9/11 is now Bush's fault because he didn't do in 8 months what Clinton failed to do in 8 years. Gotcha.
The USA has committed massive war crimes - not that anyone here cares - by invading another nation without provocation.
Iraq invaded Kuwait. We kicked them out. In exchange for staying in power, Saddam agreed to a cease-fire. He has repeatedly and consistently violated those terms, which was sufficient cause to renew hostilities. But I'm sure the Iraqis celebrating their liberation in Baghdad today are glad to know that you would have preferred they remain under Saddam's tyranny.
And yes, I oppose the Patriot Act, as do many conservatives. Sometimes it's useful to consider that maybe not everything "your" party does is right.
I must have missed the part where they were arrested for expressing their views.
I certainly don't know that. All evidence so far is that it was intended to cripple consumers' fair use and first sale rights. You're right to point out the problems with lawyer infestations, and one of the main ones is that it's extremely difficult to tell whether inane laws/regulations/TOS are due to malice or stupidity. I believe the DMCA is clearly in the "malice" category. These TOS I'm not sure about, but it looks like it's just stupidity.
Because C++ is not sufficiently dynamic. The Cocoa runtime needs to invoke dynamically determined methods on arbitrary objects. Objective C does this very easily, Java can do it with a bit of coaxing, C++ not at all.
NSString -drawAtPoint: ?
I do. And nobody is talking about outlawing DRM, just observing that it cannot work unless control of our systems is taken from us (which is the goal of Palladium and Fritz's legislation).
It already exists anyways. Noone stops anyone from streaming a netradio over an SSL tunnel, or archiving their files with a password.
Encryption is not DRM.
Siracusa's comments are a bit unfocused, but I agree with much of what he said. I don't share his belief that spatial views are the One True Way (I'd be happy if Apple fixed the obvious bugs in the Finder and added a shelf), but he's absolutely right on metadata. His most insightful comment was that about half of iTunes and iPhoto is metadata management. This functionality belongs in the OS and filesystem, rather than being reimplemented in each app.
My argument would be that there is precisely one "computer" connected to the ISP: the NAT box. Sure, once it receives the data from the ISP it may send it to another machine on my internal network, but that's none of their business, any more than it would be if I typed a message on one machine, copied it to another machine directly connected to the ISP, and emailed it from there. All NAT does is make that process more efficient.
charging only the users which increase the company's cost
It is not at all true that use of a NAT inherently increases cost to the provider. One could even make an argument that it decreases costs; Code Red would have been far less damaging if most ISP customers had firewalled NAT boxes.
The obvious solution is to charge by actual bandwidth used; the ISP has no reason to know or care what you're using it for or the configuration of your internal network.
Ridiculous. If we wanted Iraqi oil, we'd just lift the sanctions and buy it, which would be far cheaper than than the billions we'll spend on the war. As for racism and hate, we're going to great lengths to minimize civilian casualties, hardly what we would do if our goal was to kill the filthy Arabs. There are reasonable arguments against the war, but these aren't.
Take the common case of dereferencing a null or invalid pointer. In Java, the program throws an exception immediately and dies if it's not caught. In C, the program may die, or it may end up overwriting memory with random bytes. Same thing with writing past the end of an array or string.
Duh. And if your needs include security, then consider the drawbacks of C/C++ in that regard.
It's just as easy to write buggy Java as it is to write buggy C++
The difference being that a buggy Java app is far less likely to result in an exploit.
In general, I'd say people should use the tools they enjoy using, and write the kind of stuff they like to write -- then, spend some time vetting your code before they release it.
This is how stuff like Windows gets produced. Security just can't be bolted on as an afterthought.
Yes it is. It's meaningless to speak of a monopoly on a specific brand; using that definition every single manufacturer has a monopoly on their own product. Microsoft has been found to have a monopoly not on Windows, but on desktop operating systems.
IANAL either, but I don't believe this is true. See Softman vs Adobe, where Adobe's "not for individual resale" statement was found to be meaningless. Adobe tried and failed to argue that the defendant "licensed" the software instead of purchasing it. We're getting closer, but we haven't quite reached the point where the law is whatever a publisher says it is.
This is separate from the issue of EULAs which restrict the usage of software, which I also believe are invalid in most cases as there is no consideration (you lose rights and get nothing in return).
Actually the new towers do have DDR, but it's of very limited benefit since the G4 processor can't take advantage of it (thanks Motorola). However, the forthcoming PowerPC 970 supports 6.4GB/sec bandwidth compared to the G4's 1.0. That should make a slight difference.
Two words: PowerPC 970.
Network applications would now only process messages that are signed by code that your palladium chip certifies as meeting certain criteria.
This can only happen if you somehow prohibit software-based routers, or require that everything is encrypted so the user can't examine or modify the stream. The latter case would be great for spyware distributors.
For instance, the application could be a movie player that decrypts a spiffy new high definition format
In which case it has to become illegal to write screen capture software, or open source implementations of the video format.
The problem with DRM is that once you peel back the utopian promises you find lots of guys with guns pointed at the heads of developers.