I won't read anything into this, but the page loads fine in Firefox for OSX, but Safari only shows the logo and the blue bar with the search field in it.
I will. It's either crappy coding or deliberate.
In either case, an excellent example of Microsoft's "innovation", wouldn't you say? The bloated content gods at MSN must be biting their nails right about now!
He could have had no conception of the ability today to transfer gigabytes of IP practically instantaneoulsy, or the way vast economic enterprises today are founded on products for which physical presence is more or less irrelevant.
Perhaps not, but that doesn't matter. He certainly had an idea of unstiffled free enterprise, though. Which is certainly more valuable than the ad-hominem attack you masked as a comment.
He has no special insight into patents.
""In the arts, and especially in the mechanical arts, many ingenious improvements are made in consequence of the patent-right giving exclusive use of them for fourteen years."
But now, according to IsraCast, a team of Israeli researchers has discovered that the microwave radiation used by our cell phones could destroy our eyes by causing two kinds of damages to our visual system, including an irreversible one.
Friggin Great.
Pre-adolescent boys risk going blind just playing with other boys ("You're going to put an eye out!").
Adolescent boys risk going blind just playing, err, with themself ("Stop that! You'll go blind!").
Now this... when will the optometrical onslaught end ?!
Not only is the U.S. losing ground in high technology exports, but its very capacity to develop new technologies is declining rapidly with respect to the rest of the world.
So what? In the U.S. we can outlaw evolution. We'll just change science when and if needed.
This kind of stuff always makes me wonder where the following people would rate, prior to actually becoming famous and well known:
Albert Einstein
Sigmund Freud
Bill Gates
Stephen Hawking
steve Jobs
Carl Sagan
Presumably, these folks were known for their relative anti-social behavior because of their passion for what became their life's work. They were 'anti-social' only when compared to those who have no life's work but have many IM contacts.
An interesting longitudinal study would be to document - what I think - is a corresponding decrease in one's chances of becoming famous for one's life work and the number of IM contacts (or perhaps even not having an IM installed!)
I remember cutting out time magazine stories about Congress funding the space station in 1983!
I can also remember, during the height of Cold War rhetoric, how much more advanced the U.S. space program was. Supplies and people now get to and from the ISS via the Russian Space Agency and not the U.S.
How ironic the agency sponsoring Yuri Gagarin - first man in space (Russian) - would trump the agency putting Buzz and Neil into space...
Just like the so-called 'fancy radio buttons' article from last week, this is yet another useless solution to an already solved problem.
Right on. Semantics exist for a reason. The need for a plug-in to interprest hyperlinks is like using secret code words or numbers when referring people to someone else, then giving them a booklet to look the reference up; or giving them a string of results all run together and a tool to decipher.
Hopefully stuff like this - like ActiveX - will soon go away. We need the web to stay clean so we can find stuff!
If you have a band, each member already has the instruments they are proficent at playing. I doubt you'll encounter a guitarist who doesn't own a guitar, or a drummer who doesn't own a drumkit.
Excellent point - that would drive the cost down, already owning something;-)
I think in the future there will be a lot more music floating around for free of *real* quality simply because there's a lot of artists who wont put up with all this corporate bullshit.
I hope you're right, but why haven't we seen the same with films and books? Because for someone to be really good at something and produce really good work they need to do it a lot. That means it's their career - and if they give their work for free how do they pay for the software/hardware/instruments they'll need to produce the good music?
I suppose you can say "good" is a matter of personal preference. Fine and agreed. But what about the cost of recording equipment and the hardware to create good quality sound (regardless of the musician's talent). That all costs money. Something that will be very scarce when their works are given away for free.
So assuming he did it to try and save money, after all what is any other point of doing it...
Maybe he did because he was interested in doing it? Which would make him a fairly clever bastard; because I'm sure there are more people who would criticize's another interest than actually do the work (the interesting part?) themselves.
Rather than see an implicit threat, why don't you think about the implicit statement that if you haven't figured for yourself out why the dhs should not be accepted, its most likely that no amount of painstaking, crayon-drawing-aided explanations are going to help you to understand, so why bother trying?
"Why bother trying?" You've gone to great lengths to explain why you will not articulate your point, including a stab at humor with the crayon remark. What this tells me is: 1) you don't have an argument, 2) you can't articulate your argument, or 3) it's an ideological derivative that you can't articulate because it's based on your political ideology and not an articulated position.
LOL... you have got to be kidding. Though thanks for sparing me "If I told you, I'd have to kill you. " I suppose it's better to be out of the know than dead?
Another exmple would be my home network and the network I have at work. Sometimes I can VPN to the office network. Other times My network is separate. That would be an amazing trick with your so called "borderless" internet.
That's a specific named network though - not unlike my home network and my neighbors'. They're seperate and not necessarily connected. But the 'entire' Internet is a whole different question.
I think the focus on the Internet having borders is quite silly. What borders does Yahoo or Google or Slashdot have? Will there be a google.com.us and google.com.** to distinguish between us and them? What does that mean? Only Americans can access.us? What about Americans travelling abroad?
The article compares phsycial borders and 'virtual' borders. That comparison is just wrong, because the Internet was built to, among many other things, transcend that and ensure communication can happen anywhere anytime - I believe in the event of a catostrophic nuclear war.
Physical geographic borders have very few logical equivalents when we're talking about the Internet. They make perfect sense with home or small networks, but not necessarily a network of networks, which span borders all the time.
"Homeland Security's decision to create an assistant secretary for cybersecurity and telecommunications is expected to be well received by Congress and IT advocates calling for better use of technology in securing the country's physical and virtual borders.
Why do people insist on seeing borders on the Internet? The word itself is composed of "inter" and "network". By applying the metaphor of "border" (either physical or (duck... incoming cliche) "virtual") they're in essence calling the "internet" an "innerlan".
I hope the DHS can move beyond that limited and sophmoric understanding and instead realize we have interests - not borders. There are no borders on the Internet (excusing the valiant if not wrong efforts of the Chineses).
What if DHS instead focused on our interests: a secure platform for business and government and an accessible platform for communication? What they do afterwards is debatable from now until way past the end of time, but I think their metaphors are so misguided they jeopardize later efforts.
In focusing on the concept of 'borders' on the Internet the leave the chute with shaky reasoning and risk all the problems always associated with a poor meta-understanding of their goals.
That means AIM weighs ... 0.00000004% the Internet
on
Weighing the Internet
·
· Score: 1
If users equates weight that means the maximum weight of a buddy list in AIM (which is 150) weighs 0.00000004% the Internet.
(Atkins) Instant Messenger, anyone?
Slashdot Mirror
I won't read anything into this, but the page loads fine in Firefox for OSX, but Safari only shows the logo and the blue bar with the search field in it.
I will. It's either crappy coding or deliberate.
In either case, an excellent example of Microsoft's "innovation", wouldn't you say? The bloated content gods at MSN must be biting their nails right about now!
LOL
I'd say you're wrong on two counts:
He could have had no conception of the ability today to transfer gigabytes of IP practically instantaneoulsy, or the way vast economic enterprises today are founded on products for which physical presence is more or less irrelevant.
Perhaps not, but that doesn't matter. He certainly had an idea of unstiffled free enterprise, though. Which is certainly more valuable than the ad-hominem attack you masked as a comment.
He has no special insight into patents.
""In the arts, and especially in the mechanical arts, many ingenious improvements are made in consequence of the patent-right giving exclusive use of them for fourteen years."
But now, according to IsraCast, a team of Israeli researchers has discovered that the microwave radiation used by our cell phones could destroy our eyes by causing two kinds of damages to our visual system, including an irreversible one.
Friggin Great.
Pre-adolescent boys risk going blind just playing with other boys ("You're going to put an eye out!").
Adolescent boys risk going blind just playing, err, with themself ("Stop that! You'll go blind!").
Now this ... when will the optometrical onslaught end ?!
Not only is the U.S. losing ground in high technology exports, but its very capacity to develop new technologies is declining rapidly with respect to the rest of the world.
So what? In the U.S. we can outlaw evolution. We'll just change science when and if needed.
"Kansas school board's evolution ruling angers science community" [CNN].
This kind of stuff always makes me wonder where the following people would rate, prior to actually becoming famous and well known:
Presumably, these folks were known for their relative anti-social behavior because of their passion for what became their life's work. They were 'anti-social' only when compared to those who have no life's work but have many IM contacts.
An interesting longitudinal study would be to document - what I think - is a corresponding decrease in one's chances of becoming famous for one's life work and the number of IM contacts (or perhaps even not having an IM installed!)
I remember cutting out time magazine stories about Congress funding the space station in 1983!
I can also remember, during the height of Cold War rhetoric, how much more advanced the U.S. space program was. Supplies and people now get to and from the ISS via the Russian Space Agency and not the U.S.
How ironic the agency sponsoring Yuri Gagarin - first man in space (Russian) - would trump the agency putting Buzz and Neil into space ...
why did someone put a penis on the wiki page?
That's not a penis, it's a picture of Deep Impact!
Just like the so-called 'fancy radio buttons' article from last week, this is yet another useless solution to an already solved problem.
Right on. Semantics exist for a reason. The need for a plug-in to interprest hyperlinks is like using secret code words or numbers when referring people to someone else, then giving them a booklet to look the reference up; or giving them a string of results all run together and a tool to decipher.
Hopefully stuff like this - like ActiveX - will soon go away. We need the web to stay clean so we can find stuff!
If you have a band, each member already has the instruments they are proficent at playing. I doubt you'll encounter a guitarist who doesn't own a guitar, or a drummer who doesn't own a drumkit.
Excellent point - that would drive the cost down, already owning something ;-)
So where is music available for download?
You only need a computer and a midi keyboard. Nothing else... Unless you want to go "acoustic" for some reason.
That's it? No microphones, cables, (not to mention a suitably fast computer), guitars, drums, or other instruments?
I think in the future there will be a lot more music floating around for free of *real* quality simply because there's a lot of artists who wont put up with all this corporate bullshit.
I hope you're right, but why haven't we seen the same with films and books? Because for someone to be really good at something and produce really good work they need to do it a lot. That means it's their career - and if they give their work for free how do they pay for the software/hardware/instruments they'll need to produce the good music?
I suppose you can say "good" is a matter of personal preference. Fine and agreed. But what about the cost of recording equipment and the hardware to create good quality sound (regardless of the musician's talent). That all costs money. Something that will be very scarce when their works are given away for free.
So is this the freight train of a bull economy everyone is raving about?
You're probably critical of Bush, too. Why, Rumsfeld and Bush alone have created more than 130,000 full-time jobs in Iraq.
eom
This is gonna kill the fondue pot industry ...
What happens if one of the astronauts blogs somethind deemed innappropriate by the Chinese government? Will their re-entry vehicle be shot down?
So assuming he did it to try and save money, after all what is any other point of doing it...
Maybe he did because he was interested in doing it? Which would make him a fairly clever bastard; because I'm sure there are more people who would criticize's another interest than actually do the work (the interesting part?) themselves.
Rather than see an implicit threat, why don't you think about the implicit statement that if you haven't figured for yourself out why the dhs should not be accepted, its most likely that no amount of painstaking, crayon-drawing-aided explanations are going to help you to understand, so why bother trying?
"Why bother trying?" You've gone to great lengths to explain why you will not articulate your point, including a stab at humor with the crayon remark. What this tells me is: 1) you don't have an argument, 2) you can't articulate your argument, or 3) it's an ideological derivative that you can't articulate because it's based on your political ideology and not an articulated position.
I think it's 3 - so you're right - don't bother.
If I need to tell you, you'll never know.
LOL ... you have got to be kidding. Though thanks for sparing me "If I told you, I'd have to kill you. " I suppose it's better to be out of the know than dead?
Is that you have accepted the existence of the DHS at all.
As opposed to what? Ignoring it? That's a response that doesn't work - even for the ostrich.
Another exmple would be my home network and the network I have at work. Sometimes I can VPN to the office network. Other times My network is separate. That would be an amazing trick with your so called "borderless" internet.
That's a specific named network though - not unlike my home network and my neighbors'. They're seperate and not necessarily connected. But the 'entire' Internet is a whole different question.
I think the focus on the Internet having borders is quite silly. What borders does Yahoo or Google or Slashdot have? Will there be a google.com.us and google.com.** to distinguish between us and them? What does that mean? Only Americans can access .us? What about Americans travelling abroad?
The article compares phsycial borders and 'virtual' borders. That comparison is just wrong, because the Internet was built to, among many other things, transcend that and ensure communication can happen anywhere anytime - I believe in the event of a catostrophic nuclear war.
Physical geographic borders have very few logical equivalents when we're talking about the Internet. They make perfect sense with home or small networks, but not necessarily a network of networks, which span borders all the time.
"Homeland Security's decision to create an assistant secretary for cybersecurity and telecommunications is expected to be well received by Congress and IT advocates calling for better use of technology in securing the country's physical and virtual borders.
Why do people insist on seeing borders on the Internet? The word itself is composed of "inter" and "network". By applying the metaphor of "border" (either physical or (duck ... incoming cliche) "virtual") they're in essence calling the "internet" an "innerlan".
I hope the DHS can move beyond that limited and sophmoric understanding and instead realize we have interests - not borders. There are no borders on the Internet (excusing the valiant if not wrong efforts of the Chineses).
What if DHS instead focused on our interests: a secure platform for business and government and an accessible platform for communication? What they do afterwards is debatable from now until way past the end of time, but I think their metaphors are so misguided they jeopardize later efforts.
In focusing on the concept of 'borders' on the Internet the leave the chute with shaky reasoning and risk all the problems always associated with a poor meta-understanding of their goals.
If users equates weight that means the maximum weight of a buddy list in AIM (which is 150) weighs 0.00000004% the Internet. (Atkins) Instant Messenger, anyone?
If it weren't for Windows ....
Wow ... go from one to 12 inches at a distance of three feet?