Being "closed minded" and throwing out thoughts and opinions before the entire message is understood is quite childish.
Might this apply to your response as well? You say "the opposite sides of the coin reflect the differences in opinion necessary to show the entire scope of the idea" but if "the entire message [was] understood" you would understand that the point was that there are not just two sides -- it's not a coin, it's more like a ball. How many sides to a perfect sphere? How many perceptions of an idea? A coin does not even begin to describe the scope. But instead you "[threw] out thoughts and opinions" because in your "'closed minded'" viewpoint there are only two sides to the issue.
What I believe the original responder was trying to communicate is that this issue, like politics, cannot be accurately represented on a line. As with politics, you need more dimensions, a matrix if you will. (Example) By limiting the representation to just Left vs Right you miss a vast amount of critical data.
Everything is "political" these days...
As has always been the case; you can always cast everything from a political perspective, just as you can cast them from a social perspective, just as you can cast them from a financial perspective. But I do agree that one must see it from the political perspective (amongst others) to avoid missing opportunities, risks, etc. that are only apparent from that perspective. The responsible participant in the process (e.g., the responsible company with a defaced site) will find a balance based on multiple viewpoints -- not just political, not just economic, not just how late one must stay to resolve the issue. An irresponsible participant will discard all but the most convenient perspective; I would suggest that the "fix and forget" behavior is a symptom of irresponsibility.
...is to recognize the nature of their audience and the utility of the Open Audio License. All of the colleges I am aware of have a significant population of aspiring musicians eager to be heard, as well as many young, fresh minds open to listening to something other than what "Mom and Dad" listened to at home. So you have willing producers and open consumers, and the Open Audio License allows the college radio stations a way without fees to bring them together.
In such an environment, a college radio station should actively promote the Open Audio License and encourage student musicians to release their work under it -- and then give it plenty of airplay (it costs them nothing). Open Audio might not work well in some markets (i.e., those where listeners expect to be given what the music industry convinces them to listen to via advertising), but I can imagine no market more prime than college radio.
I have a sabbatical scheduled for next summer anyway, and my original plans have already fallen through, so this could be an interesting alternative. It would certainly be unlike any other "summer vacation" I've ever had!
We do have many, sometimes very heated, disputes with EU yet you do not see crazy Frenchmen or Germans blowing up our cities.
And exactly how is this relevant to what I stated? I didn't say that foreign relations cause the battlefield, only that it has at least as much effect on the battlefield as any given act of terrorism. A lack of Europeans using terrorism against the US in response to disputes with the EU disproves nothing other than a specific outcome; i.e., it does not disprove a class of outcomes. It also implies nothing about the class of actions to which terrorism might be used as a response; for example, the US might suffer terrorism from a citizen of a country in South America as a result of disputes between the EU and US. I think you need to understand what I meant by "rich interplay" before attempting to counter my claim.
"even on a battlefield rules apply."
No, they don't.
I'm not sure whether you are naive or intentionally trying to mislead, but clearly your answer is not supported by history. Yes, to some degree, the victor determines justice; however, especially in a time in human history with unprecedented global communication and awareness, only fools would assume that rules could be ignored.
The only thing that matters here is our survival.
Unfortunately, this seemingly-simple soundbite-style comment is meaningless without provision of some definition. What is "our" survival -- is it preservation of human life? Preservation of a system of values? Preservation of the name of the country regardless of what happens to its peoples and laws? Your statement is almost too vacuous to warrant a reply, but I will answer the apparent intent of the statement by pointing out that we could have survived the Cold War by capitulating to the Soviet Union, but a common phrase back then was "Better dead than Red." To word it differently, values are more important than animal survival. By discarding basic protection under the law, we are discarding our values and, in at least the sense of preservation of a system of values, denying our own survival.
When confronted with an enemy - in uniform or out - on a battlefield, a different set of rules apply than would apply in a civil action.
Absolutely. However, we're not talking about somebody who has attacked or is attacking, we're talking about somebody who one person decides might be a risk. You may trust that this won't be abused. I cannot fathom doing so myself, based on past abuses by government.
As you noted, even on a battlefield rules apply. If rules of war are ignored and soldiers go raping innocent women and killing non-threatening non-combatants, it's considered a war crime. Those instances occur when one person decides the victim is unworthy of basic protection that we generally take for granted. That sounds dangerously close to one person deciding here in the US that somebody is unworthy of a basic protection that we generally take for granted.
The battlefield has been defined by the terrorists.
I disagree. The "battlefield" has been shaped over many decades and US citizens who are shocked that this could happen here in the US are simply ignoring (perhaps arrogantly so) that terrorism has always been a worldwide concern, and the rich interplay of foreign relations affects the "battlefield" as much as any given act of terrorism.
(I say this as a US citizen and veteran of overseas military service; I only point this out to derail those who might think that I am passing judgement on US citizens from outside the US.)
Is this another tired attempt at discrediting something you disagree with, without the employment of logic? Or are you unwilling to accept that you are angry and are therefore projecting your emotion on me? My words were not "angry" and I think you need to look up the meaning of "jingoistic" before using it. Nothing in my message referred to any nation, so I'm not sure how it could be seen as "fanatically patriotic" or "extreme nationalism."
Indeed, your message is more applicable to yourself, since I clearly did address your (only) point, i.e., your concept that forfeiture of rights did not occur due to the use of the information obtained. Rather than counter this, you lean on further emotionalism.
Perhaps you should take a rest and collect your thoughts before making another attempt at discussion, or concede either the correctness of my point or at least the fact that you are unable to counter it logically.
It appears to be intended to be used when there is a good possibility of the client-attorney privelege being abused to create more terrorism.
Wonderful. Now you just need to define "good possibility" and explain how this can legitimately be implemented in a way that does not tromp all over the Fourth Amendment. Or, realize instead that powers of government that "appear to be intended" for one purpose are often restricted to that purpose for a relatively short time, only to later become tools for abuse, and see that this <DoubleSpeak>Department of Justice</DoubleSpeak> decision to grant themselves more power offers insufficient control to prevent that abuse.
So you're saying that not only do the ends justify the means, but the ends redefine, or deny the existence of, the means.
Interesting, but I plainly disagree, regardless of your failed attempt to deny the validity of viewpoints other than your own by employing the trite 'knee-jerk' label. The violation of privacy and forfeiture of rights occurs regardless of how the information will ostensibly be used.
Savvy customers may not be their target market -- not a few major companies rely on customer stupidity and write off the savvy minority. I'm not saying that's necessarily the case here, but I'm sure you can come up with your own examples of companies that don't care if they lose the business of the few smart enough to see through their smoke & mirrors.
I'm going to have to take a look at some newer 2-port KVMs. Those I've tried in the past have never lasted long -- not that they've worn out, but they've worn me out with the hassles of setup, troubleshooting, etc. I use 8-port KVMs in the server room at work and have no gripe about them, but the 2-port switches have been a different story entirely.
It will continue to be interesting because we will continue to pay. We pay with money, freedom (i.e., reduction thereof), and hassle. The money flows from our pocket to the pockets of lawyers; the freedom flows away as government mismanages its intrusion into creative fields; the hassle of using buggy software remains high as long as software companies squander resources on legal wrangling, resources that could be redirected into better design, tigher quality control, etc.
You can choose to ignore the impacts, or you can choose to complain about their negative influence while ignoring the root cause, but you can't choose to make it irrelevant, any more than you can choose to make professional wrestling "real."
So are the hassles and confusion surrounding new TLDs and potential (re-)restriction of old TLDs just growing pains of the Internet and, more specifically, the domain name concept? Or are they a death knell as the domain name concept crumbles under the weight of commercialization?
In the former case, we can either hang on for the ride or seek a way to "profit" (not necessarily monetarily) by finding innovative ways to smooth the path. In the latter case, the only way to survive gracefully, and maybe even "profit" (again, not necessarily in terms of money), is to look beyond domain names and prepare for, and possibly even drive, changes toward a more maintainable solution in which there is little or no incentive, commercial or otherwise, to "grab as much as you can get" (which is a frailty of the current system).
Of course, the future method I'm thinking of is Internet Keywords... ha! just kidding.
My point (and I think there is one amongst this prattling) is that TLD concerns should be a timely reminder that we can choose between the easier, but not necessarily safer, reactive stance or a bolder, more difficult proactive position -- and that only the latter will provide any sort of pay off, cash or otherwise.
Students need to be taught... how to figure things out on their own.
This is vital, both in and beyond computers. But if my experience is any indication (based on my schooling and what I've seen of my childrens' schooling), it is also the opposite of how public school teachers approach teaching. Teach students to think? Hell, no, it's much easier to have them memorize some facts long enough to spit them back out for a test. Never mind whether anything is retained six months later.
If they teach students (and support volunteers) to figure things out on their own, I'll be happily surprised.
I was just in the process of acquiring a dial-up account through Qwest... I should have known better than to feed the conglomerate, I guess I'll stick with the small ISP that costs more but isn't a MegaCorp. There's no way I would want to put any money toward MSN. I had my fill of Hotmail, as this Wired article describes.
Given your statement: I'm trying to get a Linux machine (RedHat) to answer only on one of the distinctive rings...
The first thing I thought of was a hardware solution also. You said you want the machine to answer only one of the rings, which would make a software distinctive ring solution irrelevant. More clear wording in the original question might (should) have avoided this tangent. Then again, at least one person found this added info to be useful.
I find it interesting to see discussion of Distinctive Ring these days, since it seems less common (i.e., people seem less aware of it now). I found it a very useful feature in the 90s, but no longer need it. (And yes, that means I have related hardware for sale... {grin})
I could never recommend an article with such a ridiculous statement as "[B]inaries [are] the ones and zeroes that disguise the original code." I mean, really... I can understand the need to make things simpler for the novice (or non-) computer user, but that goes so far that you have to wonder if the person writing it has any clue about computers (or perhaps correct usage of the English language). Disguise the original code? Right... we wouldn't compile code for any purpose but to hide it. Never mind any machine requirements.
I can answer that from the perspective of someone who is looking forward to XML Schema acceptance on a large scale. But first I'm wondering if you're addressing XML in general, or just the Schema specification, because my answer depends on what you're not seeing the sense of. Thus, I'll answer both, as briefly as I can.
First, for XML itself. What is XML? A standard way to store and describe data in a manner that is readily addressable by virtually any computing platform. I could write Vic20 programs that handle XML (to a limited degree, 4K ain't much to work with). What else offers that? Let's examine a couple alternative data formats that, while not a comprehensive sample, illustrate the problem with non-XML formats. First, a comma-delimited format is pretty well standardized and can be addressed on virtually any computing platform -- but the data is not described. A database in Visual FoxPro provides column names that describe the data -- but it's not readily addressable on a wide variety of platforms (at least not directly). Thus, XML provides the data and the description, even including the relationship among data (i.e., the 'name' is a component of the 'customer').
So what's the Schema big deal? Well, with XML alone, you can't give someone a data format to follow which provides type checking, length restrictions, etc. If you're trading data with someone, you not only want to know the names and relationships of the data fields, and the data itself, you also want to know how the data will be formed. Is it an integer? Is it a 20 character field? You could presumably build a proprietary extension to XML that would allow you to describe those constraints, but why go through that trouble to get an end result that works only for you, when you can take a pre-built language for describing those constraints which works for everyone?
If you want to just store your own data, and you're certain that you'll never change your software, then XML doesn't offer much. It's not the most compact format. But if you exchange data with others, and/or if you are likely to change your data management software, XML becomes a valuable tool, and the Schema spec strengthens it considerably.
(Caveat: I'm relatively new to XML and am definitely in learning mode. The above describes the benefits I see from the viewpoint of someone who has several very messy data exchanges to clean up.)
...shaped the car like a carrot! The design they used looks neat, but hey, it's a one-off car intended to make a point, so grab some attention! (Sure, a realistic carrot would probably not perform well, too much drag, but they could have tried for an aerodynamically-efficient carrot parody.)
In a sense, this car is reminiscent of a title from the Dead Kennedys, "Fresh Fruit for Rotting Vegetables" (where the provision of power to a vehicle is the fresh fruit... but I guess "for" should be "from"... ah, whatever).
I can't (or at least haven't bothered to) independently verify that Win2K Pro is vulnerable; however, it does include the.print mapping to the msw3prt.dll. Whether that is the same DLL as the one that ships with the Server versions, I have no idea.
Perhaps someone with more time on their hands can test the exploit against a Win2K Pro machine? For now I have removed the.print mapping, since I won't be using it anyway and I figure the old adage "better safe than sorry" applies here.
...Is hotmail/yahoo not free?... little kids and adults who don't know better, giving out their entire information to whoever for free stuff...
So it's somehow not good to provide personal information for free (physical) stuff but it's OK to provide personal information for "free" Web mail? Hotmail and Yahoo! Mail want your personal info too. So to answer your question, no, they're not free -- you pay with your information, just like other freebies. And unlike a sample of coffee or whatever, once you're locked in to Hotmail and the like, getting out is another story.
FWIW, about three days before I switched over to use Jabber, I tried a "patch" available at NoNags that effectively removed the ad in AIM. It didn't shrink the window, it just left a big chunk of blank space where the ad was. No distracting ads, no accidental clicking on an ad, no bandwidth/CPU spent to retrieve new ads -- and, sorry AOL, no revenue for AOL.
(This is not to argue your point regarding the best approach to forcing AOL to open up -- I agree with most or all of your points. I merely wanted to point out that the AIM client can also be used without sending any revenue on to AOL.)
Who cares about AOL? Isn't AOL a big joke amongst us?
This isn't about AOL's dial-up (dis)service, it's only about their IM system, which is used by many people who otherwise have no tie to AOL. Users of "the Real Internet" can use AOL's AIM without having an AOL dial-up account. Their AIM isn't bad from a user perspective, it has nice bells and whistles that make it a fun and functional tool. My wife has used it with the voice chat option to talk to her Dad in another state -- no long distance charges. Do I "laugh at this" functionality? All the way to the bank.
I've made the switch to Jabber, but I think it utopian at best to think that everyone will switch to Jabber anytime soon, if ever. With a huge volume of "Real Internet" users comfortable with their AIM clients, the openness of AIM is not irrelevant or of interest only to "AOLamers."
I still see a need for pay phones in general, but I think they need some serious upgrades. First on my list would be a revised interface to completely avoid any need to touch the device. The conventional dial pad could be kept to avoid any need to "train" users, just make the "buttons" into non-touch sensors. The "handpiece" should be eliminated entirely. There's certainly no need for a hand-held microphone! I'm not sure about the design of the speaker to avoid touching it and also maintain the privacy of the call, but there must be some way of handling that.
Perhaps the question should be "how would you upgrade a pay phone to make it worth keeping around" rather than whether they should be kept around at all.
Indeed -- although I find the 'remote control' version amusing enough to watch for a few minutes, it's not really what I had in mind when I first tuned in. I would be much more willing to watch something that is programmed once and then unleashed (perhaps with a remote shutdown in case it went in the wrong direction!). That would make the challenge more intriguing, rather than simply building mechanical devices that can take and give a beating.
I agree that over sheltering doesn't do kids a favor and can readily be harmful in the long run. On the other hand, I don't think it's wrong to ease them into things at their speed rather than at the speed intended by the government, or mass media, or whomever. We're not the type to avoid issues they bring up -- they know they can expect frank answers, etc. -- but at their age (under 10) we also don't see a need for them to take on adult worries, jaded attitudes, etc. They'll only be young once, I'd rather they enjoyed it.
FWIW, my parents shielded me more than I would shelter my own kids from the realities of life, but I don't regret that they did so (with the exception that I wish they had introduced me to money concepts much earlier).
Slashdot Mirror
Being "closed minded" and throwing out thoughts and opinions before the entire message is understood is quite childish.
Might this apply to your response as well? You say "the opposite sides of the coin reflect the differences in opinion necessary to show the entire scope of the idea" but if "the entire message [was] understood" you would understand that the point was that there are not just two sides -- it's not a coin, it's more like a ball. How many sides to a perfect sphere? How many perceptions of an idea? A coin does not even begin to describe the scope. But instead you "[threw] out thoughts and opinions" because in your "'closed minded'" viewpoint there are only two sides to the issue.
What I believe the original responder was trying to communicate is that this issue, like politics, cannot be accurately represented on a line. As with politics, you need more dimensions, a matrix if you will. (Example) By limiting the representation to just Left vs Right you miss a vast amount of critical data.
Everything is "political" these days...
As has always been the case; you can always cast everything from a political perspective, just as you can cast them from a social perspective, just as you can cast them from a financial perspective. But I do agree that one must see it from the political perspective (amongst others) to avoid missing opportunities, risks, etc. that are only apparent from that perspective. The responsible participant in the process (e.g., the responsible company with a defaced site) will find a balance based on multiple viewpoints -- not just political, not just economic, not just how late one must stay to resolve the issue. An irresponsible participant will discard all but the most convenient perspective; I would suggest that the "fix and forget" behavior is a symptom of irresponsibility.
...is to recognize the nature of their audience and the utility of the Open Audio License. All of the colleges I am aware of have a significant population of aspiring musicians eager to be heard, as well as many young, fresh minds open to listening to something other than what "Mom and Dad" listened to at home. So you have willing producers and open consumers, and the Open Audio License allows the college radio stations a way without fees to bring them together.
In such an environment, a college radio station should actively promote the Open Audio License and encourage student musicians to release their work under it -- and then give it plenty of airplay (it costs them nothing). Open Audio might not work well in some markets (i.e., those where listeners expect to be given what the music industry convinces them to listen to via advertising), but I can imagine no market more prime than college radio.
I have a sabbatical scheduled for next summer anyway, and my original plans have already fallen through, so this could be an interesting alternative. It would certainly be unlike any other "summer vacation" I've ever had!
And exactly how is this relevant to what I stated? I didn't say that foreign relations cause the battlefield, only that it has at least as much effect on the battlefield as any given act of terrorism. A lack of Europeans using terrorism against the US in response to disputes with the EU disproves nothing other than a specific outcome; i.e., it does not disprove a class of outcomes. It also implies nothing about the class of actions to which terrorism might be used as a response; for example, the US might suffer terrorism from a citizen of a country in South America as a result of disputes between the EU and US. I think you need to understand what I meant by "rich interplay" before attempting to counter my claim.
"even on a battlefield rules apply."
No, they don't.
I'm not sure whether you are naive or intentionally trying to mislead, but clearly your answer is not supported by history. Yes, to some degree, the victor determines justice; however, especially in a time in human history with unprecedented global communication and awareness, only fools would assume that rules could be ignored.
The only thing that matters here is our survival.
Unfortunately, this seemingly-simple soundbite-style comment is meaningless without provision of some definition. What is "our" survival -- is it preservation of human life? Preservation of a system of values? Preservation of the name of the country regardless of what happens to its peoples and laws? Your statement is almost too vacuous to warrant a reply, but I will answer the apparent intent of the statement by pointing out that we could have survived the Cold War by capitulating to the Soviet Union, but a common phrase back then was "Better dead than Red." To word it differently, values are more important than animal survival. By discarding basic protection under the law, we are discarding our values and, in at least the sense of preservation of a system of values, denying our own survival.
Absolutely. However, we're not talking about somebody who has attacked or is attacking, we're talking about somebody who one person decides might be a risk. You may trust that this won't be abused. I cannot fathom doing so myself, based on past abuses by government.
As you noted, even on a battlefield rules apply. If rules of war are ignored and soldiers go raping innocent women and killing non-threatening non-combatants, it's considered a war crime. Those instances occur when one person decides the victim is unworthy of basic protection that we generally take for granted. That sounds dangerously close to one person deciding here in the US that somebody is unworthy of a basic protection that we generally take for granted.
The battlefield has been defined by the terrorists.
I disagree. The "battlefield" has been shaped over many decades and US citizens who are shocked that this could happen here in the US are simply ignoring (perhaps arrogantly so) that terrorism has always been a worldwide concern, and the rich interplay of foreign relations affects the "battlefield" as much as any given act of terrorism.
(I say this as a US citizen and veteran of overseas military service; I only point this out to derail those who might think that I am passing judgement on US citizens from outside the US.)
Indeed, your message is more applicable to yourself, since I clearly did address your (only) point, i.e., your concept that forfeiture of rights did not occur due to the use of the information obtained. Rather than counter this, you lean on further emotionalism.
Perhaps you should take a rest and collect your thoughts before making another attempt at discussion, or concede either the correctness of my point or at least the fact that you are unable to counter it logically.
Wonderful. Now you just need to define "good possibility" and explain how this can legitimately be implemented in a way that does not tromp all over the Fourth Amendment. Or, realize instead that powers of government that "appear to be intended" for one purpose are often restricted to that purpose for a relatively short time, only to later become tools for abuse, and see that this <DoubleSpeak>Department of Justice</DoubleSpeak> decision to grant themselves more power offers insufficient control to prevent that abuse.
Interesting, but I plainly disagree, regardless of your failed attempt to deny the validity of viewpoints other than your own by employing the trite 'knee-jerk' label. The violation of privacy and forfeiture of rights occurs regardless of how the information will ostensibly be used.
Savvy customers may not be their target market -- not a few major companies rely on customer stupidity and write off the savvy minority. I'm not saying that's necessarily the case here, but I'm sure you can come up with your own examples of companies that don't care if they lose the business of the few smart enough to see through their smoke & mirrors.
I'm going to have to take a look at some newer 2-port KVMs. Those I've tried in the past have never lasted long -- not that they've worn out, but they've worn me out with the hassles of setup, troubleshooting, etc. I use 8-port KVMs in the server room at work and have no gripe about them, but the 2-port switches have been a different story entirely.
You can choose to ignore the impacts, or you can choose to complain about their negative influence while ignoring the root cause, but you can't choose to make it irrelevant, any more than you can choose to make professional wrestling "real."
So are the hassles and confusion surrounding new TLDs and potential (re-)restriction of old TLDs just growing pains of the Internet and, more specifically, the domain name concept? Or are they a death knell as the domain name concept crumbles under the weight of commercialization?
In the former case, we can either hang on for the ride or seek a way to "profit" (not necessarily monetarily) by finding innovative ways to smooth the path. In the latter case, the only way to survive gracefully, and maybe even "profit" (again, not necessarily in terms of money), is to look beyond domain names and prepare for, and possibly even drive, changes toward a more maintainable solution in which there is little or no incentive, commercial or otherwise, to "grab as much as you can get" (which is a frailty of the current system).
Of course, the future method I'm thinking of is Internet Keywords... ha! just kidding.
My point (and I think there is one amongst this prattling) is that TLD concerns should be a timely reminder that we can choose between the easier, but not necessarily safer, reactive stance or a bolder, more difficult proactive position -- and that only the latter will provide any sort of pay off, cash or otherwise.
Students need to be taught... how to figure things out on their own.
This is vital, both in and beyond computers. But if my experience is any indication (based on my schooling and what I've seen of my childrens' schooling), it is also the opposite of how public school teachers approach teaching. Teach students to think? Hell, no, it's much easier to have them memorize some facts long enough to spit them back out for a test. Never mind whether anything is retained six months later.
If they teach students (and support volunteers) to figure things out on their own, I'll be happily surprised.
I was just in the process of acquiring a dial-up account through Qwest... I should have known better than to feed the conglomerate, I guess I'll stick with the small ISP that costs more but isn't a MegaCorp. There's no way I would want to put any money toward MSN. I had my fill of Hotmail, as this Wired article describes.
I'm trying to get a Linux machine (RedHat) to answer only on one of the distinctive rings...
The first thing I thought of was a hardware solution also. You said you want the machine to answer only one of the rings, which would make a software distinctive ring solution irrelevant. More clear wording in the original question might (should) have avoided this tangent. Then again, at least one person found this added info to be useful.
I find it interesting to see discussion of Distinctive Ring these days, since it seems less common (i.e., people seem less aware of it now). I found it a very useful feature in the 90s, but no longer need it. (And yes, that means I have related hardware for sale... {grin})
Ugh.
First, for XML itself. What is XML? A standard way to store and describe data in a manner that is readily addressable by virtually any computing platform. I could write Vic20 programs that handle XML (to a limited degree, 4K ain't much to work with). What else offers that? Let's examine a couple alternative data formats that, while not a comprehensive sample, illustrate the problem with non-XML formats. First, a comma-delimited format is pretty well standardized and can be addressed on virtually any computing platform -- but the data is not described. A database in Visual FoxPro provides column names that describe the data -- but it's not readily addressable on a wide variety of platforms (at least not directly). Thus, XML provides the data and the description, even including the relationship among data (i.e., the 'name' is a component of the 'customer').
So what's the Schema big deal? Well, with XML alone, you can't give someone a data format to follow which provides type checking, length restrictions, etc. If you're trading data with someone, you not only want to know the names and relationships of the data fields, and the data itself, you also want to know how the data will be formed. Is it an integer? Is it a 20 character field? You could presumably build a proprietary extension to XML that would allow you to describe those constraints, but why go through that trouble to get an end result that works only for you, when you can take a pre-built language for describing those constraints which works for everyone?
If you want to just store your own data, and you're certain that you'll never change your software, then XML doesn't offer much. It's not the most compact format. But if you exchange data with others, and/or if you are likely to change your data management software, XML becomes a valuable tool, and the Schema spec strengthens it considerably.
(Caveat: I'm relatively new to XML and am definitely in learning mode. The above describes the benefits I see from the viewpoint of someone who has several very messy data exchanges to clean up.)
In a sense, this car is reminiscent of a title from the Dead Kennedys, "Fresh Fruit for Rotting Vegetables" (where the provision of power to a vehicle is the fresh fruit... but I guess "for" should be "from"... ah, whatever).
Perhaps someone with more time on their hands can test the exploit against a Win2K Pro machine? For now I have removed the .print mapping, since I won't be using it anyway and I figure the old adage "better safe than sorry" applies here.
So it's somehow not good to provide personal information for free (physical) stuff but it's OK to provide personal information for "free" Web mail? Hotmail and Yahoo! Mail want your personal info too. So to answer your question, no, they're not free -- you pay with your information, just like other freebies. And unlike a sample of coffee or whatever, once you're locked in to Hotmail and the like, getting out is another story.
(This is not to argue your point regarding the best approach to forcing AOL to open up -- I agree with most or all of your points. I merely wanted to point out that the AIM client can also be used without sending any revenue on to AOL.)
This isn't about AOL's dial-up (dis)service, it's only about their IM system, which is used by many people who otherwise have no tie to AOL. Users of "the Real Internet" can use AOL's AIM without having an AOL dial-up account. Their AIM isn't bad from a user perspective, it has nice bells and whistles that make it a fun and functional tool. My wife has used it with the voice chat option to talk to her Dad in another state -- no long distance charges. Do I "laugh at this" functionality? All the way to the bank.
I've made the switch to Jabber, but I think it utopian at best to think that everyone will switch to Jabber anytime soon, if ever. With a huge volume of "Real Internet" users comfortable with their AIM clients, the openness of AIM is not irrelevant or of interest only to "AOLamers."
I still see a need for pay phones in general, but I think they need some serious upgrades. First on my list would be a revised interface to completely avoid any need to touch the device. The conventional dial pad could be kept to avoid any need to "train" users, just make the "buttons" into non-touch sensors. The "handpiece" should be eliminated entirely. There's certainly no need for a hand-held microphone! I'm not sure about the design of the speaker to avoid touching it and also maintain the privacy of the call, but there must be some way of handling that.
Perhaps the question should be "how would you upgrade a pay phone to make it worth keeping around" rather than whether they should be kept around at all.
Indeed -- although I find the 'remote control' version amusing enough to watch for a few minutes, it's not really what I had in mind when I first tuned in. I would be much more willing to watch something that is programmed once and then unleashed (perhaps with a remote shutdown in case it went in the wrong direction!). That would make the challenge more intriguing, rather than simply building mechanical devices that can take and give a beating.
FWIW, my parents shielded me more than I would shelter my own kids from the realities of life, but I don't regret that they did so (with the exception that I wish they had introduced me to money concepts much earlier).