I have used Mac Word v5.1 almost ever since it came out. After upgrading to Word v6.0 and having my system crash repeatedly, I stopped using it and went back to v5.1. I have never left it since.
I did, when Corel offered me a deal I couldn't refuse, purchase Corel Office for the Mac which had WordPerfect v5.1 in it. I would have to say that for some things WPv5.1 is better than Wv5.1. But in others - it is worse.
I also prefer Canvas v3.54 over WordPerfect, Word, or even PageMaker when it comes to laying out a page. Canvas v3.54 is really a 2D CAD system but you can use it to lay out many different types of pages. It has built in Kerning, as well as many other features which were not found in word processors of the time. (The current version of Canvas is really a combo of PhotoShop and PageMaker. Sort of like a high end PowerPoint program.)
I have also tried MacWrite Plus (crashes system), NisusWriter (good word processor but has its own brand of quirks), MacWrite (Ok - we are going WAY back now!), vi (excellent text editor), emacs (too many macros for me!), Alpha, LaTeX, BBEdit, and many other text editors/Word Processors. Word v5.1 on the Mac can beat them all (except vi and emacs) for ease of use, small footprint, and the ability to use any printer you want. (Remember on the Mac you had the one interface to many printers.)
When I moved from the Mac to the IBM a few years back I found that I really hated having to use the current version of MS-Word. I was always trying to get it to stop correcting what I was typing. (For example - Create an outline using lowercase letters. When you get to "i" MS-Word automatically changes it to "I". How stupid can a word processor be?) Anyway, with my purchase (on eBay) of some slightly faster Macs than what I originally had - I have switched back to Macs somewhat. Instead of using an IBM - I use Virtual PC. So I can now use both Word v5.1 as well as to move it over and incorporate the document into the later version of Word. So I get the best of both worlds now.
The drawbacks to Word v5.1 is that it did not do Kerning, fractional spacing, and antialiased fonts. So sometimes the fonts look jagged. By moving the document, once created, to the later version of Word - these advancements are then included into the document. So long as you do not allow the newer MS-Word program to upgrade the document - you can always go back to using the earlier version. The thing you have to watch out for is that the later versions really try very hard to trick you into writing over the older document. Which, of course, then makes it impossible for you to go back to the older method.
Ok, this (kind of) gives away who I am but I thought it worth it to divulge this bit of history.:-)
The first university I attended had an input/output window at the computing center (like many others). But how the i/o window got created was unique. One of the first Fastran drum memory units (weighing in around 2-4 tons) units from Univac was being slowly but surely brought down the ramp to the underground computing center. Suddenly the ropes broke and the unit went racing down the ramp. It smashed its way through the first wall, the second wall, and the smacked into the solid concrete far wall. The unit rebounded and came to rest.
After checking out the unit the tech person from Univac gave it a thumbs up. Only the end panel was dented - the unit itself still functioned perfectly. So it was wheeled on into the computing center, plugged in, and functioned for many years afterwards.
As for the two new holes? Doors were put where the unit had crashed through the walls thus creating the input/output window for the underground computing center.:-)
The Fastran drum system (if I remember correctly) ran at about the speed of a 33rpm record player and took quite a while to seek for any given record. I believe it took about 1/10 of a second to read or write any record.
Mathematically speaking though, Life + 70 can equal as much as 190 years (if you listen to the MPAA's spokesperson). It still is not 270 years though. Wish I could find that article again about why, under the DMCA, a copyright could last as long as 270 years. It was very enlightening at the time.
Just because it is difficult to regulate the internet, this is no reason to resort to badly crafted forms of regulation, which move the entire burden on to unaccountable actors. Drink driving is also difficult to police, but we wouldn't shift responsibility for this on to private companies, would we?
He obviously has never been to Texas. In Texas it is the responsibility of the person who sold the person the drink. Such as the bar at which the person drank. This is what I call the religious sect's outlook of "I am my brother's keeper". It is a great sentiment but goes against the foundation of the Constitution. (Which is basically that each person is responsible for their own actions.)
The main problem with ISPs being judge, jury, and executioner - is that: 1)There is no common sense being applied in many cases, 2)There are no clear cut laws with regards to this issue, 3)In some cases you are guilty until proven innocent rather than the other way around (and thus sites are pulled before even hearing from the defendants), and 4)Once gone it is very hard, in some cases, to get the ISP to put the site back up without legal intervention.
What should be happening is that there should be a governing body (such as ICANN) where grievances can be heard via IRC or e-mail which lists the problems someone has with a website. The autoresponder should both respond to the plaintiff as well as to contact the defendant and the defendant's ISP. (In case the e-mail for the defendant bounces.) The defendant should be given a reasonable number of days to respond to the complaint and then the case should be tried on the merits of both the plaintiff as well as the defendant. In effect, a virtual system similar to our modern day jury system should be put into place which allows people to help decide what is going on on the internet just as we do in real life.
One of the reasons our judicial system moves so slowly is because sometimes it takes a while to find out the truth about something. By putting the brakes on the immediate gratification process currently in place with ISPs; we could reduce and eliminate many of the problems currently plaguing whether or not a site is a valid site or if it should be taken down. And yes, this could mean an increase in the use of lawyers. But it doesn't necessarily mean that would happen. For instance, it could be decided that common English (and not legal speak) is the only language accepted in the proceedings thus removing the need to hire a lawyer. (But somehow I doubt that would actually happen.)
Still, a trial by a jury of your peers would require a system set up where people are picked, at random, to aid in determining if a website should or should not be removed. I know - many people are going to cry "It can't be done!" or "That would be impossible to set up". The answer is - no it would not be impossible to set up and yes it can be done. It would just be another server which ISPs would be required to have up and running. The server keeps the user's ids and e-mails private. The server can be a secure server. The server would only accept incoming connections from one location on the net (such as ICANN). It selects users at random and requests that they click on link X to participate in the trial and things proceed from there. The ISPs can maintain their lists in private. People who are excluded for whatever reason are kept in a separate list. People who have participated once already are not asked to help again until the entire list has been run through, etc....
It is not "can it be done" but more like "do we want to do it"? Most people (myself included) are lazy and would much rather be doing something enjoyable rather than trying to determine if someone has a website that is infringing on someone else's patent which the USPTO has just given to them without really checking out whether or not that item was patented over a hundred years ago or not. Or if the copyright claim really originated in the late 1500s. Or even if "f
Try again. Under certain conditions (aka Mickey Mouse laws), the maximum number of years is 275 (or maybe 270 - I may be off by five years).
Why do you think so many people are up in arms about the DMCA? It establishes monopolies for most major corporations. Do a Google on it to get some interesting reading.:-)
In the US, due to the DMCA, copyrighted works which would have already fallen into the public domain, are now locked into copyright for a maximum of 275 years. Something I think is appalling.
This means that 15 generations of people will have been born and died before some items ever fall out of copyright. This is a rape of the American people's rights to have works fall into the public domain in a timely manner.
America - The land where the people are raped by the corporations because the corporations have the money to buy the governmental officials who pass the laws which everyone must play by. Even in war the rules are more balanced.
The publisher, in the UK, may own the rights to his book (ie: No one else can say that the book was printed by themselves), but the content of the book is public domain and can be copied verbatim, excluding the publisher's copyright notice et al.
But, should a person copy the entire book from front to back - then it falls into copyright violation. Not because the content is copyrighted but because the book itself is copyrighted. (There is a difference.)
Should the content itself fall under copyright, then the publisher would have to pay Mr. Dickens' heirs for the usage of his work. Publisher's do not have to do this and thus can not claim copyright of the work itself. Only of the book and the few pages given over to their notices and perhaps the forward or preamble if it is written by someone who's work has as of yet to fall into the public domain. (i.e.: Whatever contribution they made which exceeds the originally copyrighted work.)
The whole idea of the "public domain" is that it is a body of work which is readily available for whoever wishes to use it. No money should, shall, nor usually is paid to anyone for the works which have fallen into the public domain. These works are for the benefit of the common good and the people's of the world (or country - whichever way you wish to look at it). No one may ever claim ownership of a work which has passed into the public domain for the benefit of gaining anything other than authorship. (So you can you wrote it because you are brilliant but no one cares except for the fact that you wrote it.) Nor may anyone, without exception, ever restrict another's usage of the information in any way, shape, or form. Thus, even though a publisher may print a book and claim copyright to the book - all they are granted is the limited copyright which only pertains to their contribution to the work and not the work as a whole. (Their contribution being limited to any additional printing beyond that which the original author produced.) Nor may anyone add to the original work in such a way as to make the original work "new" and thus make it fall out of the public domain once the work has entered the public domain.
I believe that is not quite correct. I believe the correct interpretation is:
You can take an "ancient" copy (as in one of the original copies) of Dickens' novel and reproduce it yourself. However, a recently printed copy of the same novel can also be reproduced without the printing company having any recourse to your doing so.
The reason is that the work has fallen into the public domain. Anyone can use it as they see fit. This means that anyone can reproduce the work in full or in part but the person who reproduces it does not gain the right to limit, in any way, shape, or form, anyone else's right to use the work as well.
Similar to the Free and Open Source movement. Of course, you should always give credit where credit is due (ie: to BOTH Mr. Dickens as well as the printing house) - but that is left up to the person and they can (and probably would be) ridiculed by everyone for not having done the proper thing.
Legally speaking though - I do not think you can be sued in any way, shape, or form if you use a book which has fallen out of copyright and/or make copies of said book.
This is one of the reasons why these books are produced so cheaply. So you will not be tempted to photocopy the thing. It is cheaper to just buy another copy of the book.
For instance: "A Tale of Two Cities", by Charles Dickens. On Amazon.com: $4.95. 371 pages.
Kinko's cost per page: $0.05.
371 * 0.05 = $18.55
You can buy four of the books for the same price it would cost to photocopy the book once.
As always - this is just my interpretation of the copyright laws and are not meant to be construed as legal council. It is, instead, just like my saying "My momma said <blah>". You can use it, lose it, or go read the rules and regulations yourself as the case may be. I try to stick to what I've read but you may have interpreted what I read differently than what I read it to mean. So be it! God speed. I ANAL.:-)
No passwords at all to register documents. Instead they use digital signatures. (As in actual GIF images of someone's signature.)
I keep asking them which is easier to change? Passwords or Signatures?
Their complaint: Passwords are insecure. My comeback: Enforce better password security and have spot inspections of how passwords are kept secure. Their comeback: Got the money to do that?
We haven't managed to get a lot farther than that.
I think everyone knows what "WWW" means - so why are we forcing everyone to use that term? True, some people use "WWW" instead of "http://". But tell me - do we really need "http://"? Why not just "h:"? FTP would be just "f:". (Not to sound DOS-ish or anything but I believe there are fewer than 26 types of file transfers around so we could reduce this down a bit.)
If we really wanted to reduce the overal complexity of going to a site we should think of it like a microscope. We want to zoom in on where we want to go. So TLDs should be by nation. Such as US or UK or FR or whatever. Next we should go to the state/province level. (And not knowing the province names in France or England - I'll stick with the US names.) So the two digit TLD should be expanded by having such things as USAZ, USFL, and the like. Last, there could be a local or city code. (Although that might be going a bit far.) Alright - so now we have (for example):
h:/us.ibm.xxx h:/usfl.hp.xxx
So what would the "xxx" be? It should be whatever the item is about. Since both of the above would be corporations it should be "CORP". Like so:
h:/us.ibm.corp h:/us.hp.corp
What about people? How about citizen? Or just ".CIT"?
h:/us.audacious.cit h:/usfl.audacious.cit
Businesses are either 1)Sole Proprietorships, 2)Corporations, 3)Limited Liability Partnerships, and so forth. So now we can name them like they appear when you look them up in the phone book.
h:/usca.usca.col or h:/us.usca.univ or even just h:/us.usca.u
City Services?
h:/usfl.tampa.cserv
The mayor's office?
h:/usfl.tampa.mayors.office h:/usfl.clearwater. mayor
Government stuff?
h:/us.gov or h:/us.irs.gov h:/usin.gov or h:/usfl.tampa.gov
The smaller, two letter TLDs, take precedence and all longer (ie: four letter) TLDs. So they must be first checked before allowing someone to use a name. This prevents duplication. Further, each company only has to register once in each country - just like they do in the real world.
Further, the four letter portion could be broken out by someone and still make it work. Like so:
h:/us.fl.tampa.gov is the same as h:/us.florida.tampa.gov which is the same as h:/UnitedStates.Florida.Tampa.gov
(This is also why maybe the city should be reduced to a two letter code as well. Because then it could just be h:/usfltp.gov.)
So basically, instead of making the TLD on the right end of the line - put it on the left. So the whole thing flows from left to right.
I continue to read about how Linux is doing nice things for people outside of the US and I am truly very glad for them.
But I can't help but wonder: What about the American Indians? Or people living in some of the southern states of America who are doing very poorly. Eskimos maybe? Not to mention those who are coming into the US like the Vietnamese, Chinese, and Hispanic people who can not read or write English in our own country. Is Linux helping those people out? Or are they just out there. Using whatever software they can afford? (Like old versions of DOS, Windows v3.1 and the like because no one has told them about or shown them how to use Linux/BSD?)
It seems to me that maybe some effort should be put towards growing the grass roots of the Linux community within the US as well as without. (Not that it isn't happening, but that it seems to be a non-issue or on a back burner.)
And this is not to say we do not do this at all. It is just that lately I'm reading a lot about what is going on in other countries but not so much about whether or not Linux is making it into the backroads, small towns, and villages within the US. Instead, we hear about these gigantic corporations battling over whether people should be plugged into outlet A(Windows) or outlet B(Linux) or C(BSD) or D(MacOS) and what the voltage should be (ie: Java,.NET, or whatever).
WDW is powered by this method. All of the wastes collected from everyone is sent to their waste processing plant. Energy is produced as well as fertilizer. The fertilizer is put into the fountains where water hyacinths are grown. The Hyacinths absorb nutrients from the fertilizer. The Hyacinths are then removed after flowering and put on composte heaps to rot. The composte is used to grow other flowers and the flowers are removed again and composted. This final composte is then recycled into the hay, grass, and grains that is grown for livestock and other purposes.
The left over soil in the fountains is also cycled through several steps until it finds its way into the farmlands and other areas in WDW.
When WDW's electrical generators went on-line and began taking over the task of providing electricity for all of WDW, the electric company in Orlando Florida sued the Disney Corporation. The suit was thrown out because it wasn't against the law to own and/or operate your own electrical generators.
Seriously though, here are the flaws I see in this:
1. Dirt 2. Rubber rubbed off from tires 3. Cracking from weight 4. Cloudly days 5. Abrasion from sand, rocks, etc... 6. What to do about the huge number of boxes which want to transmit information? If each of these things is trying to send information - how do you sort out where the signal is coming from?
Some ideas:
1. Make the flow of information be one direction (so all of the red sides have to face way from on-coming traffic) on each side of the road. 2. Use TCP/IP to be able to send packets. 3. Make the boxes take turns. (This can be done by having Master boxes which tell each slave in turn when to transmit their data. The slaves transmit back when they are through so the next box can go. Sort of like how multi-system rendering of pictures is performed.) 4. Use the spare bandwidth to allow other TCP/IP packets to be sent over the line. Thus making broadband available to everyone across the nation who has a road with these things on them.
All Patents and Copyrights, once their lives are over, fall into the Public Domain. However, you don't have to get a Patent or Copyright to put something into the PD. You can just put things into it. Further, once something is in the PD - it doesn't mean you can't still make and sell the item. It is just, like the GPL, anyone can use the item in the PD so anyone can make money off of it. (Many companies got their start in just this manner. Like Ben & Jerry's Ice Cream. They didn't invent Ice Cream but they also did not have to pay anyone to start selling it either.)
So remember that the next time you pick up a cold drink. It is very likely that whatever Patent or Copyright was on that cold drink is now in the PD. (Not that that means that they are going to rush out and post exactly what is in their drink or how they make it. Nor does it mean that you can call it "Coke". Because that term is a Trademark - which follows a different set of rules. But the original patents, if any, are retired to the PD.)
So if you want to defeat the rush of software patents - file your patents into the PD. Then if the companies want to say anything they have to first get it back out of the PD. Which is just as hard to do as it is to defend their patents.
On IBM:
I do not think that it would be in IBM's best interest to sue anyone over a patent issue. First, there would be the backlash of everyone else who holds a patent who would then turn around and sue IBM. Second, IBM just got out from under the last of the government's scrutiny from the antitrust case. Last, it would cause a rise in anti-IBM sentiment which would cause software to be written with clauses which states anyone but IBM could use the software. Just like some software used to have the anti-Microsoft clause in it.
The only thing these spreadsheets needs now is a compiler so you can quickly create a set of programs which use a spreadsheet-like interface.
Think of it - pre-defined variables (cA_1, cA_2, etc...), pre-defined functions, pre-defined graphic routines, pre-defined everything just about - except for the stuff written by the user. You don't have to worry about if the program will work or not on a given platform, you could do straight-line programming or oop programming, and displays are already standardized. They all look like spreadsheets.:-)
I work at a government installation and want to pass on some of what is happening here.
In one of the labs here they had a very large Sun system along with a cluster of suns happily working away. That was then. Now the sun systems are gone and in their place is a large Linux cluster of 20 PCs. One of them died recently. They shut the system down, turned off the power, pulled out the unit, took out the motherboard, put in the new motherboard, reconnected everything, and brought it all back up. Took a couple of hours (including all of the tests they did to make sure everything was ok). Under the old system, everything would probably have been down for a day. This is because they would have to call Sun, arrange for someone to come out, let them do the work, and then go on. The time and money saved is tremendous.
In another lab, they had an SGI monster machine. Those people looked around, saw what was going on , and took the hint. The monster machine is being dismantled and they now have two Linux clusters which handle everything.
From a monetary point of view: For what it costs in service contracts you can purchase hundreds of PCs, the stands to hold them, and additional motherboards, hard drives, and anything else you may need. Usually for less than what it costs for a single Sun or SGI. (SGI's service contracts were for 1/3 the price of each unit. So a $50,000.00 unit cost you $15,000.00 a year. In our lab we had 30 units each costing over $150,000.00. So we were paying $45,000.00 per unit or $1,350,000.00 a year in service contracts.) Now we pay $20,000.00 a year in service contracts [for two special PCs] and upgrade the computers as needed by just doing mail orders for the parts. That is a savings of $1,200,000.00 a year. Which is also our biggest gripe. If we are saving this much money - how come we are still so tight for cash? Where did it all go to?
GOTOs don't make spaghetti code - people do. Remember TRACE ON/OFF? That helped to track down problems. But it was nothing compared to the leap everyone made when Turbo Pascal came along.
But for its time, Basic, QBasic, Turbo Basic, PowerBasic, and the hundreds of other basics which have come after - all filled a need everyone had to not have to learn assembly language just to program a computer.
(Not that I'm not partial to assembly language too. After all, I used to write Univac 1108 assembly language programs.)
Remember that the Apple ][+ did not do multiplication or division. Just adding and subtracting. Applesoft gave you those abilities and a lot more.
I actually am an OS hog. I also have installed the Apple ][+ emulator, Apple//e emulator, Bernie to the Rescue (//gs emulator), CP/M emulator, MAME, the Atari emulator, and the Amiga emulator. They are all quite small compared to any of the current day OSs and fit very well onto the MacOS v9.2.1 partition. When I used my Apple ][+,//e, and//gs I had well over 500 diskettes with software on them which I have converted many of them over to disk images which can be run in any of the Apple emulators. My original machines are still in the closet packed away just in case any legal beagle decides to crash my pad (so I can prove I have the original ROMs). All of the original disks are still here as well (but I got rid of my duplicates). About two shelves of them mixed in with my CP/M, Atari, and Amiga software.:-)
(I guess I am more of a pack rat than I thought because I also still have the original Apple books on DOS, ProDOS, et al as well as many of the Beagle Bros. books/pamphlets/etc.... Some day I might give it all away to the Smithsonian [or the trash dump] for posterity or as oddities.)
Ha! No. I don't. But when I was carrying around a Windows laptop and running Linux in another partition I did try to do that.:-)
I just wish I could have two hard drives in my laptop so I could put Yellow Dog Linux or SUSE linux in a partition on that drive. I'd still need the Cygwin program though. Just because I could bring up the Linux partition without having to reboot the system.
Maybe some other Mac person could tell me this though - why is it that Virtual PC runs fine if I'm just running MacOS v9.2.1 but if MacOS X is up and running with MacOS v9.2.1 also running - it won't run? (My version can not run under MacOS X by itself. And please don't say upgrade. It runs fine if I'm just running MacOS v9.2.1. I thought that running the two OSs together meant that you could run both types of applications together. (ie: X and 9.2.1)
If you install it. I install it on all of the OSs because different people want different OSs to run different programs. They want to be assured that a program I write under one OS will work under another. I know - people who program groan because Perl, PHP, Apache, and MySQL all work on the different platforms. But John and Jane Doe out there go "But it's a Mac." or "But it's Windows. How can a program written for the Mac run on my OS?"
I use a Mac and have Virtual PC on it. So I have MacOS X for BSD. V-PC has Win98se installed. Then I put....
-Cygwin so I can run Linux under Windows. -Apache -MySQL -Perl -PHP -Borland's C++ (5.51) -IBasic (to write fun, short programs) -Vim -Various virus stuff -Various web browsers (To check my work against)
(Can you tell I do a lot of programming?)
The hardest thing I find is keeping all of the different key combinations correct. I find that I keep hitting the escape key in NS and IE to try to stop them.:) )
Myself: No degree, few certs. just smart. Making $35/hr.
My younger brother: Lots of Certs (mostly MS but some Novell et al). Making $35/hr. Expects, when he is through with his latest Cert that he will begin making $50/hr.
Certs help. So do degrees. If I would finish my degree I'd probably be making $50/hr also. Too many other things going on though.
On the other hand:
Bill Gates: Makes well over $1 billion per year, never finished college. Was given honorary degree.
Guy who owns Dell: Makes millions per year, never finished college, given honorary degree.
Do you need a degree? No. Do you need Certs? No. You need an idea that will make money.:-)
Too bad colleges see money=degree (or maybe donations=degree).
Hey! Does that mean that those spams where they are offering to give you a fake degree for money mean they just have an in with the colleges? Something to think about!
Slashdot Mirror
I have used Mac Word v5.1 almost ever since it came out. After upgrading to Word v6.0 and having my system crash repeatedly, I stopped using it and went back to v5.1. I have never left it since.
I did, when Corel offered me a deal I couldn't refuse, purchase Corel Office for the Mac which had WordPerfect v5.1 in it. I would have to say that for some things WPv5.1 is better than Wv5.1. But in others - it is worse.
I also prefer Canvas v3.54 over WordPerfect, Word, or even PageMaker when it comes to laying out a page. Canvas v3.54 is really a 2D CAD system but you can use it to lay out many different types of pages. It has built in Kerning, as well as many other features which were not found in word processors of the time. (The current version of Canvas is really a combo of PhotoShop and PageMaker. Sort of like a high end PowerPoint program.)
I have also tried MacWrite Plus (crashes system), NisusWriter (good word processor but has its own brand of quirks), MacWrite (Ok - we are going WAY back now!), vi (excellent text editor), emacs (too many macros for me!), Alpha, LaTeX, BBEdit, and many other text editors/Word Processors. Word v5.1 on the Mac can beat them all (except vi and emacs) for ease of use, small footprint, and the ability to use any printer you want. (Remember on the Mac you had the one interface to many printers.)
When I moved from the Mac to the IBM a few years back I found that I really hated having to use the current version of MS-Word. I was always trying to get it to stop correcting what I was typing. (For example - Create an outline using lowercase letters. When you get to "i" MS-Word automatically changes it to "I". How stupid can a word processor be?) Anyway, with my purchase (on eBay) of some slightly faster Macs than what I originally had - I have switched back to Macs somewhat. Instead of using an IBM - I use Virtual PC. So I can now use both Word v5.1 as well as to move it over and incorporate the document into the later version of Word. So I get the best of both worlds now.
The drawbacks to Word v5.1 is that it did not do Kerning, fractional spacing, and antialiased fonts. So sometimes the fonts look jagged. By moving the document, once created, to the later version of Word - these advancements are then included into the document. So long as you do not allow the newer MS-Word program to upgrade the document - you can always go back to using the earlier version. The thing you have to watch out for is that the later versions really try very hard to trick you into writing over the older document. Which, of course, then makes it impossible for you to go back to the older method.
I know someplace in Arizona which is wireless. Wireless, waterless, bathroomless, phoneless....
:-)
(From someone who just got back from a trip where he was reminded what "Communing with Nature" is really all about!)
Ok, this (kind of) gives away who I am but I thought it worth it to divulge this bit of history. :-)
:-)
The first university I attended had an input/output window at the computing center (like many others). But how the i/o window got created was unique. One of the first Fastran drum memory units (weighing in around 2-4 tons) units from Univac was being slowly but surely brought down the ramp to the underground computing center. Suddenly the ropes broke and the unit went racing down the ramp. It smashed its way through the first wall, the second wall, and the smacked into the solid concrete far wall. The unit rebounded and came to rest.
After checking out the unit the tech person from Univac gave it a thumbs up. Only the end panel was dented - the unit itself still functioned perfectly. So it was wheeled on into the computing center, plugged in, and functioned for many years afterwards.
As for the two new holes? Doors were put where the unit had crashed through the walls thus creating the input/output window for the underground computing center.
The Fastran drum system (if I remember correctly) ran at about the speed of a 33rpm record player and took quite a while to seek for any given record. I believe it took about 1/10 of a second to read or write any record.
(Ok, after I managed to completely delete my reply...)
You are right. I looked for the articles I had read before and can not find them. So I finally wound up at the Copyright Offices' website.
In my journey's I went to Find Law's website, IP Watch.com, and the Copyright Office itself.
So - I'm wrong! Oh well.
Mathematically speaking though, Life + 70 can equal as much as 190 years (if you listen to the MPAA's spokesperson). It still is not 270 years though. Wish I could find that article again about why, under the DMCA, a copyright could last as long as 270 years. It was very enlightening at the time.
Later!
Just because it is difficult to regulate the internet, this is no reason to resort to badly crafted forms of regulation, which move the entire burden on to unaccountable actors. Drink driving is also difficult to police, but we wouldn't shift responsibility for this on to private companies, would we?
He obviously has never been to Texas. In Texas it is the responsibility of the person who sold the person the drink. Such as the bar at which the person drank. This is what I call the religious sect's outlook of "I am my brother's keeper". It is a great sentiment but goes against the foundation of the Constitution. (Which is basically that each person is responsible for their own actions.)
The main problem with ISPs being judge, jury, and executioner - is that: 1)There is no common sense being applied in many cases, 2)There are no clear cut laws with regards to this issue, 3)In some cases you are guilty until proven innocent rather than the other way around (and thus sites are pulled before even hearing from the defendants), and 4)Once gone it is very hard, in some cases, to get the ISP to put the site back up without legal intervention.
What should be happening is that there should be a governing body (such as ICANN) where grievances can be heard via IRC or e-mail which lists the problems someone has with a website. The autoresponder should both respond to the plaintiff as well as to contact the defendant and the defendant's ISP. (In case the e-mail for the defendant bounces.) The defendant should be given a reasonable number of days to respond to the complaint and then the case should be tried on the merits of both the plaintiff as well as the defendant. In effect, a virtual system similar to our modern day jury system should be put into place which allows people to help decide what is going on on the internet just as we do in real life.
One of the reasons our judicial system moves so slowly is because sometimes it takes a while to find out the truth about something. By putting the brakes on the immediate gratification process currently in place with ISPs; we could reduce and eliminate many of the problems currently plaguing whether or not a site is a valid site or if it should be taken down. And yes, this could mean an increase in the use of lawyers. But it doesn't necessarily mean that would happen. For instance, it could be decided that common English (and not legal speak) is the only language accepted in the proceedings thus removing the need to hire a lawyer. (But somehow I doubt that would actually happen.)
Still, a trial by a jury of your peers would require a system set up where people are picked, at random, to aid in determining if a website should or should not be removed. I know - many people are going to cry "It can't be done!" or "That would be impossible to set up". The answer is - no it would not be impossible to set up and yes it can be done. It would just be another server which ISPs would be required to have up and running. The server keeps the user's ids and e-mails private. The server can be a secure server. The server would only accept incoming connections from one location on the net (such as ICANN). It selects users at random and requests that they click on link X to participate in the trial and things proceed from there. The ISPs can maintain their lists in private. People who are excluded for whatever reason are kept in a separate list. People who have participated once already are not asked to help again until the entire list has been run through, etc....
It is not "can it be done" but more like "do we want to do it"? Most people (myself included) are lazy and would much rather be doing something enjoyable rather than trying to determine if someone has a website that is infringing on someone else's patent which the USPTO has just given to them without really checking out whether or not that item was patented over a hundred years ago or not. Or if the copyright claim really originated in the late 1500s. Or even if "f
Try again. Under certain conditions (aka Mickey Mouse laws), the maximum number of years is 275 (or maybe 270 - I may be off by five years).
:-)
Why do you think so many people are up in arms about the DMCA? It establishes monopolies for most major corporations. Do a Google on it to get some interesting reading.
In the US, due to the DMCA, copyrighted works which would have already fallen into the public domain, are now locked into copyright for a maximum of 275 years. Something I think is appalling.
This means that 15 generations of people will have been born and died before some items ever fall out of copyright. This is a rape of the American people's rights to have works fall into the public domain in a timely manner.
America - The land where the people are raped by the corporations because the corporations have the money to buy the governmental officials who pass the laws which everyone must play by. Even in war the rules are more balanced.
The publisher, in the UK, may own the rights to his book (ie: No one else can say that the book was printed by themselves), but the content of the book is public domain and can be copied verbatim, excluding the publisher's copyright notice et al.
But, should a person copy the entire book from front to back - then it falls into copyright violation. Not because the content is copyrighted but because the book itself is copyrighted. (There is a difference.)
Should the content itself fall under copyright, then the publisher would have to pay Mr. Dickens' heirs for the usage of his work. Publisher's do not have to do this and thus can not claim copyright of the work itself. Only of the book and the few pages given over to their notices and perhaps the forward or preamble if it is written by someone who's work has as of yet to fall into the public domain. (i.e.: Whatever contribution they made which exceeds the originally copyrighted work.)
The whole idea of the "public domain" is that it is a body of work which is readily available for whoever wishes to use it. No money should, shall, nor usually is paid to anyone for the works which have fallen into the public domain. These works are for the benefit of the common good and the people's of the world (or country - whichever way you wish to look at it). No one may ever claim ownership of a work which has passed into the public domain for the benefit of gaining anything other than authorship. (So you can you wrote it because you are brilliant but no one cares except for the fact that you wrote it.) Nor may anyone, without exception, ever restrict another's usage of the information in any way, shape, or form. Thus, even though a publisher may print a book and claim copyright to the book - all they are granted is the limited copyright which only pertains to their contribution to the work and not the work as a whole. (Their contribution being limited to any additional printing beyond that which the original author produced.) Nor may anyone add to the original work in such a way as to make the original work "new" and thus make it fall out of the public domain once the work has entered the public domain.
I believe that is not quite correct. I believe the correct interpretation is:
:-)
You can take an "ancient" copy (as in one of the original copies) of Dickens' novel and reproduce it yourself. However, a recently printed copy of the same novel can also be reproduced without the printing company having any recourse to your doing so.
The reason is that the work has fallen into the public domain. Anyone can use it as they see fit. This means that anyone can reproduce the work in full or in part but the person who reproduces it does not gain the right to limit, in any way, shape, or form, anyone else's right to use the work as well.
Similar to the Free and Open Source movement. Of course, you should always give credit where credit is due (ie: to BOTH Mr. Dickens as well as the printing house) - but that is left up to the person and they can (and probably would be) ridiculed by everyone for not having done the proper thing.
Legally speaking though - I do not think you can be sued in any way, shape, or form if you use a book which has fallen out of copyright and/or make copies of said book.
This is one of the reasons why these books are produced so cheaply. So you will not be tempted to photocopy the thing. It is cheaper to just buy another copy of the book.
For instance: "A Tale of Two Cities", by Charles Dickens. On Amazon.com: $4.95. 371 pages.
Kinko's cost per page: $0.05.
371 * 0.05 = $18.55
You can buy four of the books for the same price it would cost to photocopy the book once.
As always - this is just my interpretation of the copyright laws and are not meant to be construed as legal council. It is, instead, just like my saying "My momma said <blah>". You can use it, lose it, or go read the rules and regulations yourself as the case may be. I try to stick to what I've read but you may have interpreted what I read differently than what I read it to mean. So be it! God speed. I ANAL.
No passwords at all to register documents. Instead they use digital signatures. (As in actual GIF images of someone's signature.)
I keep asking them which is easier to change? Passwords or Signatures?
Their complaint: Passwords are insecure.
My comeback: Enforce better password security and have spot inspections of how passwords are kept secure.
Their comeback: Got the money to do that?
We haven't managed to get a lot farther than that.
Ok! How about this:
w eiser.corp
. mayor
I think everyone knows what "WWW" means - so why are we forcing everyone to use that term? True, some people use "WWW" instead of "http://". But tell me - do we really need "http://"? Why not just "h:"? FTP would be just "f:". (Not to sound DOS-ish or anything but I believe there are fewer than 26 types of file transfers around so we could reduce this down a bit.)
If we really wanted to reduce the overal complexity of going to a site we should think of it like a microscope. We want to zoom in on where we want to go. So TLDs should be by nation. Such as US or UK or FR or whatever. Next we should go to the state/province level. (And not knowing the province names in France or England - I'll stick with the US names.) So the two digit TLD should be expanded by having such things as USAZ, USFL, and the like. Last, there could be a local or city code. (Although that might be going a bit far.) Alright - so now we have (for example):
h:/us.ibm.xxx
h:/usfl.hp.xxx
So what would the "xxx" be? It should be whatever the item is about. Since both of the above would be corporations it should be "CORP". Like so:
h:/us.ibm.corp
h:/us.hp.corp
What about people? How about citizen? Or just ".CIT"?
h:/us.audacious.cit
h:/usfl.audacious.cit
Businesses are either 1)Sole Proprietorships, 2)Corporations, 3)Limited Liability Partnerships, and so forth. So now we can name them like they appear when you look them up in the phone book.
h:/usca.bradley.llp
h:/us.coke.corp
h:/us.bud
What about colleges?
h:/usca.usca.col or h:/us.usca.univ or even just h:/us.usca.u
City Services?
h:/usfl.tampa.cserv
The mayor's office?
h:/usfl.tampa.mayors.office
h:/usfl.clearwater
Government stuff?
h:/us.gov or h:/us.irs.gov
h:/usin.gov or h:/usfl.tampa.gov
The smaller, two letter TLDs, take precedence and all longer (ie: four letter) TLDs. So they must be first checked before allowing someone to use a name. This prevents duplication. Further, each company only has to register once in each country - just like they do in the real world.
Further, the four letter portion could be broken out by someone and still make it work. Like so:
h:/us.fl.tampa.gov is the same as h:/us.florida.tampa.gov which is the same as h:/UnitedStates.Florida.Tampa.gov
(This is also why maybe the city should be reduced to a two letter code as well. Because then it could just be h:/usfltp.gov.)
So basically, instead of making the TLD on the right end of the line - put it on the left. So the whole thing flows from left to right.
There! How's that for a suggestion?
I continue to read about how Linux is doing nice things for people outside of the US and I am truly very glad for them.
.NET, or whatever).
:-)
But I can't help but wonder: What about the American Indians? Or people living in some of the southern states of America who are doing very poorly. Eskimos maybe? Not to mention those who are coming into the US like the Vietnamese, Chinese, and Hispanic people who can not read or write English in our own country. Is Linux helping those people out? Or are they just out there. Using whatever software they can afford? (Like old versions of DOS, Windows v3.1 and the like because no one has told them about or shown them how to use Linux/BSD?)
It seems to me that maybe some effort should be put towards growing the grass roots of the Linux community within the US as well as without. (Not that it isn't happening, but that it seems to be a non-issue or on a back burner.)
And this is not to say we do not do this at all. It is just that lately I'm reading a lot about what is going on in other countries but not so much about whether or not Linux is making it into the backroads, small towns, and villages within the US. Instead, we hear about these gigantic corporations battling over whether people should be plugged into outlet A(Windows) or outlet B(Linux) or C(BSD) or D(MacOS) and what the voltage should be (ie: Java,
Just a thought or two.
WDW is powered by this method. All of the wastes collected from everyone is sent to their waste processing plant. Energy is produced as well as fertilizer. The fertilizer is put into the fountains where water hyacinths are grown. The Hyacinths absorb nutrients from the fertilizer. The Hyacinths are then removed after flowering and put on composte heaps to rot. The composte is used to grow other flowers and the flowers are removed again and composted. This final composte is then recycled into the hay, grass, and grains that is grown for livestock and other purposes.
:-)
The left over soil in the fountains is also cycled through several steps until it finds its way into the farmlands and other areas in WDW.
When WDW's electrical generators went on-line and began taking over the task of providing electricity for all of WDW, the electric company in Orlando Florida sued the Disney Corporation. The suit was thrown out because it wasn't against the law to own and/or operate your own electrical generators.
Just a FYI.
...the information highway slogan. :-)
Seriously though, here are the flaws I see in this:
1. Dirt
2. Rubber rubbed off from tires
3. Cracking from weight
4. Cloudly days
5. Abrasion from sand, rocks, etc...
6. What to do about the huge number of boxes which want to transmit information? If each of these things is trying to send information - how do you sort out where the signal is coming from?
Some ideas:
1. Make the flow of information be one direction (so all of the red sides have to face way from on-coming traffic) on each side of the road.
2. Use TCP/IP to be able to send packets.
3. Make the boxes take turns. (This can be done by having Master boxes which tell each slave in turn when to transmit their data. The slaves transmit back when they are through so the next box can go. Sort of like how multi-system rendering of pictures is performed.)
4. Use the spare bandwidth to allow other TCP/IP packets to be sent over the line. Thus making broadband available to everyone across the nation who has a road with these things on them.
All Patents and Copyrights, once their lives are over, fall into the Public Domain. However, you don't have to get a Patent or Copyright to put something into the PD. You can just put things into it. Further, once something is in the PD - it doesn't mean you can't still make and sell the item. It is just, like the GPL, anyone can use the item in the PD so anyone can make money off of it. (Many companies got their start in just this manner. Like Ben & Jerry's Ice Cream. They didn't invent Ice Cream but they also did not have to pay anyone to start selling it either.)
So remember that the next time you pick up a cold drink. It is very likely that whatever Patent or Copyright was on that cold drink is now in the PD. (Not that that means that they are going to rush out and post exactly what is in their drink or how they make it. Nor does it mean that you can call it "Coke". Because that term is a Trademark - which follows a different set of rules. But the original patents, if any, are retired to the PD.)
So if you want to defeat the rush of software patents - file your patents into the PD. Then if the companies want to say anything they have to first get it back out of the PD. Which is just as hard to do as it is to defend their patents.
On IBM:
I do not think that it would be in IBM's best interest to sue anyone over a patent issue. First, there would be the backlash of everyone else who holds a patent who would then turn around and sue IBM. Second, IBM just got out from under the last of the government's scrutiny from the antitrust case. Last, it would cause a rise in anti-IBM sentiment which would cause software to be written with clauses which states anyone but IBM could use the software. Just like some software used to have the anti-Microsoft clause in it.
The only thing these spreadsheets needs now is a compiler so you can quickly create a set of programs which use a spreadsheet-like interface.
:-)
Think of it - pre-defined variables (cA_1, cA_2, etc...), pre-defined functions, pre-defined graphic routines, pre-defined everything just about - except for the stuff written by the user. You don't have to worry about if the program will work or not on a given platform, you could do straight-line programming or oop programming, and displays are already standardized. They all look like spreadsheets.
...those Ad people think their ads really are reaching people.
I work at a government installation and want to pass on some of what is happening here.
In one of the labs here they had a very large Sun system along with a cluster of suns happily working away. That was then. Now the sun systems are gone and in their place is a large Linux cluster of 20 PCs. One of them died recently. They shut the system down, turned off the power, pulled out the unit, took out the motherboard, put in the new motherboard, reconnected everything, and brought it all back up. Took a couple of hours (including all of the tests they did to make sure everything was ok). Under the old system, everything would probably have been down for a day. This is because they would have to call Sun, arrange for someone to come out, let them do the work, and then go on. The time and money saved is tremendous.
In another lab, they had an SGI monster machine. Those people looked around, saw what was going on , and took the hint. The monster machine is being dismantled and they now have two Linux clusters which handle everything.
From a monetary point of view: For what it costs in service contracts you can purchase hundreds of PCs, the stands to hold them, and additional motherboards, hard drives, and anything else you may need. Usually for less than what it costs for a single Sun or SGI. (SGI's service contracts were for 1/3 the price of each unit. So a $50,000.00 unit cost you $15,000.00 a year. In our lab we had 30 units each costing over $150,000.00. So we were paying $45,000.00 per unit or $1,350,000.00 a year in service contracts.) Now we pay $20,000.00 a year in service contracts [for two special PCs] and upgrade the computers as needed by just doing mail orders for the parts. That is a savings of $1,200,000.00 a year. Which is also our biggest gripe. If we are saving this much money - how come we are still so tight for cash? Where did it all go to?
GOTOs don't make spaghetti code - people do. Remember TRACE ON/OFF? That helped to track down problems. But it was nothing compared to the leap everyone made when Turbo Pascal came along.
But for its time, Basic, QBasic, Turbo Basic, PowerBasic, and the hundreds of other basics which have come after - all filled a need everyone had to not have to learn assembly language just to program a computer.
(Not that I'm not partial to assembly language too. After all, I used to write Univac 1108 assembly language programs.)
Remember that the Apple ][+ did not do multiplication or division. Just adding and subtracting. Applesoft gave you those abilities and a lot more.
To tack onto my own post....
//e emulator, Bernie to the Rescue (//gs emulator), CP/M emulator, MAME, the Atari emulator, and the Amiga emulator. They are all quite small compared to any of the current day OSs and fit very well onto the MacOS v9.2.1 partition. When I used my Apple ][+, //e, and //gs I had well over 500 diskettes with software on them which I have converted many of them over to disk images which can be run in any of the Apple emulators. My original machines are still in the closet packed away just in case any legal beagle decides to crash my pad (so I can prove I have the original ROMs). All of the original disks are still here as well (but I got rid of my duplicates). About two shelves of them mixed in with my CP/M, Atari, and Amiga software. :-)
I actually am an OS hog. I also have installed the Apple ][+ emulator, Apple
(I guess I am more of a pack rat than I thought because I also still have the original Apple books on DOS, ProDOS, et al as well as many of the Beagle Bros. books/pamphlets/etc.... Some day I might give it all away to the Smithsonian [or the trash dump] for posterity or as oddities.)
Ha! No. I don't. But when I was carrying around a Windows laptop and running Linux in another partition I did try to do that. :-)
:-)
I just wish I could have two hard drives in my laptop so I could put Yellow Dog Linux or SUSE linux in a partition on that drive. I'd still need the Cygwin program though. Just because I could bring up the Linux partition without having to reboot the system.
Maybe some other Mac person could tell me this though - why is it that Virtual PC runs fine if I'm just running MacOS v9.2.1 but if MacOS X is up and running with MacOS v9.2.1 also running - it won't run? (My version can not run under MacOS X by itself. And please don't say upgrade. It runs fine if I'm just running MacOS v9.2.1. I thought that running the two OSs together meant that you could run both types of applications together. (ie: X and 9.2.1)
TIA to whomever can explain this.
If you install it. I install it on all of the OSs because different people want different OSs to run different programs. They want to be assured that a program I write under one OS will work under another. I know - people who program groan because Perl, PHP, Apache, and MySQL all work on the different platforms. But John and Jane Doe out there go "But it's a Mac." or "But it's Windows. How can a program written for the Mac run on my OS?"
So I just go - "Let me show you."
I use a Mac and have Virtual PC on it. So I have MacOS X for BSD. V-PC has Win98se installed. Then I put....
s C++ (5.51)
:) )
-Cygwin so I can run Linux under Windows.
-Apache
-MySQL
-Perl
-PHP
-Borland'
-IBasic (to write fun, short programs)
-Vim
-Various virus stuff
-Various web browsers (To check my work against)
(Can you tell I do a lot of programming?)
The hardest thing I find is keeping all of the different key combinations correct. I find that I keep hitting the escape key in NS and IE to try to stop them.
Hellboy should be careful how he trademarks himself. ;-)
Myself: No degree, few certs. just smart. Making $35/hr.
:-)
My younger brother: Lots of Certs (mostly MS but some Novell et al). Making $35/hr. Expects, when he is through with his latest Cert that he will begin making $50/hr.
Certs help. So do degrees. If I would finish my degree I'd probably be making $50/hr also. Too many other things going on though.
On the other hand:
Bill Gates: Makes well over $1 billion per year, never finished college. Was given honorary degree.
Guy who owns Dell: Makes millions per year, never finished college, given honorary degree.
Do you need a degree? No. Do you need Certs? No. You need an idea that will make money.
Too bad colleges see money=degree (or maybe donations=degree).
Hey! Does that mean that those spams where they are offering to give you a fake degree for money mean they just have an in with the colleges? Something to think about!