I could be wrong, but I think you may be reaching here.
I've never heard the ant analogy used to describe Freenet. Also, it seems likely to me that you haven't tried it and are just assuming that privacy implies slowness (you may be right, but maybe not). Lastly, if a p2p network is just beginning, it's very likely to be slow due to a lack of users rather than inherent technical limitations of the network itself.
Gee, do ya think maybe the American dollar is down due to George W's ridiculous economic policies?
Even my housemate last year (a Pakistani who lived in Saudi Arabia for 10 years then went to high school in the U.S., an econ student, and the most Republican person I know) criticizes Bush's economic decisions, although he goes out of his way to praise him for everything else.
Dammit, this was about Christmas. Now look what's happened.
It'll be interesting (okay, disturbing) when somebody decides to do this with a trusted BIOS.
Perhaps there will be no installing linux, no piracy, no avoiding your ad-watching duty, no viruses, no freedom... And probably no desire for the masses to change because "we already HAVE a computer".
"using some crappy old song they came up with a while ago"
That's pretty much all the record labels do anyway. I think I could name about a billion pop/rock songs from the last decade that use a 1-5-6-4 progression for the verse, chorus or even the entire song, just as an example.
1) Quite a good point. Not much to say to that, really.
2) I don't EXPECT anything. But I'm not buying from Apple or anywhere else until they get their shit together and stop doing what they're doing. However, I think Apple forming an artist-friendly label is MUCH more likely (or at least advantageous) than artists doing it themselves because artists haven't got the money to start it and Apple could split the money gained by muscling out the RIAA (if it somehow could) between themselves and the artists.
Now as soon as it starts making profits in forms other than increased iPod sales and getting more money in the pockets of artists instead of labels, I might consider thinking about becoming interested in using it.:)
Thanks for the offer, but actually KDE (Kwin or KWM I guess) does everything I want, with the single possible exception of allocating screen space to gaim or kopete such that maximizing windows doesn't cover it. On the off chance you know how to do that in KDE by all means please inform me, although this is getting WAY off topic.:)
Actually, one of the main things that I want is a good GUI config tool, which KDE (KWM?) provides ("Control Center").
Also, apologies if I unjustly slandered other WMs. It was unintended.
I suspect the reason they don't endorse anything open source is because if an open source project gives Dell a cut of the sale it's still nothing.
I wonder if the claim they can't reliably test them would fall under false advertising or libel or something similar. Free software has a hard enough time getting accepted without the big companies that the masses haven't yet learned not to trust spreading complete crap like this.
As for FVWM and Enlightenment, if they are indeed as customizeable as you claim, then either the capabilities are not easy to find and change, or the features have been added since I last tried them (about a year ago). However, my impression at the time was that if you wanted a feature-rich WM like KDE (which I do), you might just as soon write one from scratch as start from FVWM or Enlightenment.
Reminds me of what someone called "the gold star effect"... More specifically, when George W. Bush DIDN'T commit several huge linguistic atrocities in a speech, the media would, in effect, give him a gold star.
You know, in general, I have the same ideals for a desktop, and you know what? I don't use Gnome. When I'm using Linux, I use KDE, and I assume you do too given that it's the only remotely customizeable WM.
However, it seems to me that those that care that much about CPU cycles and that little about the UI might be better off with IceWM or XFCE or Blackbox or one of those other WMs (all of which I can't tolerate using myself, but might serve this purpose well). Gnome seems to me to provide a decent balance between the two extremes. Except for the example you mention about dragging things, Gnome seems just a touch faster than KDE to me, probably precisely because of its lack of customizeability. Personally I think it's good to have the choice there, though I doubt I'll use it in the near future.
Is it just me, or does this require the participation of ALL digital content providers to work? For example, how will the downloaded file get a working file from iTunes if Apple doesn't want any part of it?
If I'm right, this seems dead before it starts, since the only real shot it has (IMHO) is being able to provide all songs, where some online sales places can't.
Uh... Correct me if I'm wrong, but the post says "in a window FREE OF...". Doesn't that mean that it's full-screen browsing they're talking about?
Also, does "Windows application" refer to MS Windows specifically or just the concept of windowing generally? The capitalization in the post would seem to suggest the former.
Assuming I'm reading it correctly, the News.com article isn't actually all that related. It would be nice to have a link that clarifies these questions.
Well, that's all well and good, as long as you're prepared to sacrifice a moral society for a functioning one. I'm not.
I'm also pretty sure they aren't mutually exclusive.
As I said, I'm well aware that who's morality gets picked is a problem. What I'm claiming (that I still don't feel is being addressed) is that the only laws that really do good are ones with moral implications (like no murders) rather than those to make us function better (say, steel tariffs, although I suppose it's debatable whether they're meant for that).
I think the best answer I can give you is "the party that gets elected legislates their own morality." Which I realize has its problems. But you still haven't answered MY question: Just what ARE we legislating if not morality? And most importantly, how can it do any good if it's not morality?
Well, it seems to me that this at the very least provides some valuable competition to the phone monopolies. Unfortunately, capitalism being what it is, it seems fairly likely to me that either VoIP or phone (probably VoIP) will eventually destroy the other, and unless we get more competition in the ISP market we'll just end up with another monopoly.
I could be wrong, but I think that one of capitalism's biggest problems is industries that require a large infrastructure. I know that socialist approaches to most things tend to be less efficient (due to the lack of competition), but in a case like this I think it's better, since to get REAL competition we need multiple infrastructures reaching every single house, the cost of which of course would still get passed on to the consumer.
You know, I'm aware that laws can bring order. But really, if we aren't legislating morality, what's the point? An ordered immoral society sounds kinda like the Nazis to me...
Please note that I'm as anti-Republican as the next guy, and generally don't consider them moral. I'm just saying that I don't see any GOOD point of a law doing anything other than legislating morality.
From the article: "He opposes abortion, fights for balanced budgets, and voted for the impeachment of President Clinton. His Web site features photographs of him carrying or firing guns. Through it all, though, Stenholm has remained a member of the Democratic Party"
I wonder what you have to do to be conservative down there.
Also this makes me think that gerrymandering isn't the only threat to democracy in the states. It seems Michael Moore's claim that the Democrats and the Republicans are the same isn't so far off.
Slashdot Mirror
I could be wrong, but I think you may be reaching here.
I've never heard the ant analogy used to describe Freenet. Also, it seems likely to me that you haven't tried it and are just assuming that privacy implies slowness (you may be right, but maybe not). Lastly, if a p2p network is just beginning, it's very likely to be slow due to a lack of users rather than inherent technical limitations of the network itself.
Gee, do ya think maybe the American dollar is down due to George W's ridiculous economic policies?
Even my housemate last year (a Pakistani who lived in Saudi Arabia for 10 years then went to high school in the U.S., an econ student, and the most Republican person I know) criticizes Bush's economic decisions, although he goes out of his way to praise him for everything else.
Dammit, this was about Christmas. Now look what's happened.
It'll be interesting (okay, disturbing) when somebody decides to do this with a trusted BIOS.
Perhaps there will be no installing linux, no piracy, no avoiding your ad-watching duty, no viruses, no freedom... And probably no desire for the masses to change because "we already HAVE a computer".
So mainstream music isn't the only stuff that's derivative and generally useless?
:)
I'm going to get tracked down and killed for this one, aren't I?
"using some crappy old song they came up with a while ago"
That's pretty much all the record labels do anyway. I think I could name about a billion pop/rock songs from the last decade that use a 1-5-6-4 progression for the verse, chorus or even the entire song, just as an example.
1) Quite a good point. Not much to say to that, really.
2) I don't EXPECT anything. But I'm not buying from Apple or anywhere else until they get their shit together and stop doing what they're doing. However, I think Apple forming an artist-friendly label is MUCH more likely (or at least advantageous) than artists doing it themselves because artists haven't got the money to start it and Apple could split the money gained by muscling out the RIAA (if it somehow could) between themselves and the artists.
Well, at the very least, I'm not clueless about THAT particular bit.
I've sworn off buying CDs too.
Now as soon as it starts making profits in forms other than increased iPod sales and getting more money in the pockets of artists instead of labels, I might consider thinking about becoming interested in using it. :)
Thanks for the offer, but actually KDE (Kwin or KWM I guess) does everything I want, with the single possible exception of allocating screen space to gaim or kopete such that maximizing windows doesn't cover it. On the off chance you know how to do that in KDE by all means please inform me, although this is getting WAY off topic. :)
Actually, one of the main things that I want is a good GUI config tool, which KDE (KWM?) provides ("Control Center").
Also, apologies if I unjustly slandered other WMs. It was unintended.
I suspect the reason they don't endorse anything open source is because if an open source project gives Dell a cut of the sale it's still nothing.
I wonder if the claim they can't reliably test them would fall under false advertising or libel or something similar. Free software has a hard enough time getting accepted without the big companies that the masses haven't yet learned not to trust spreading complete crap like this.
I don't think I've heard of KWin...
As for FVWM and Enlightenment, if they are indeed as customizeable as you claim, then either the capabilities are not easy to find and change, or the features have been added since I last tried them (about a year ago). However, my impression at the time was that if you wanted a feature-rich WM like KDE (which I do), you might just as soon write one from scratch as start from FVWM or Enlightenment.
Reminds me of what someone called "the gold star effect"... More specifically, when George W. Bush DIDN'T commit several huge linguistic atrocities in a speech, the media would, in effect, give him a gold star.
Well, it makes ME laugh, anyway.
You know, in general, I have the same ideals for a desktop, and you know what? I don't use Gnome. When I'm using Linux, I use KDE, and I assume you do too given that it's the only remotely customizeable WM.
However, it seems to me that those that care that much about CPU cycles and that little about the UI might be better off with IceWM or XFCE or Blackbox or one of those other WMs (all of which I can't tolerate using myself, but might serve this purpose well). Gnome seems to me to provide a decent balance between the two extremes. Except for the example you mention about dragging things, Gnome seems just a touch faster than KDE to me, probably precisely because of its lack of customizeability. Personally I think it's good to have the choice there, though I doubt I'll use it in the near future.
Wow... First DVD's, then iTunes, and now this... ;)
Is it just me, or does this require the participation of ALL digital content providers to work? For example, how will the downloaded file get a working file from iTunes if Apple doesn't want any part of it?
If I'm right, this seems dead before it starts, since the only real shot it has (IMHO) is being able to provide all songs, where some online sales places can't.
Am I wrong?
Uh... Correct me if I'm wrong, but the post says "in a window FREE OF...". Doesn't that mean that it's full-screen browsing they're talking about?
Also, does "Windows application" refer to MS Windows specifically or just the concept of windowing generally? The capitalization in the post would seem to suggest the former.
Assuming I'm reading it correctly, the News.com article isn't actually all that related. It would be nice to have a link that clarifies these questions.
or perhaps 'debatably'?
Dear God I'm anal today. Apologies.
Is it just me, or is it odd that this isn't even on their official site?
If I'm wrong about this, call me an idiot, but I always had the impression that other companies never provided security patches to Windows.
Maybe they can do the same thing with Windows 98 while they're at it. ;)
Well, that's all well and good, as long as you're prepared to sacrifice a moral society for a functioning one. I'm not.
I'm also pretty sure they aren't mutually exclusive.
As I said, I'm well aware that who's morality gets picked is a problem. What I'm claiming (that I still don't feel is being addressed) is that the only laws that really do good are ones with moral implications (like no murders) rather than those to make us function better (say, steel tariffs, although I suppose it's debatable whether they're meant for that).
I think the best answer I can give you is "the party that gets elected legislates their own morality." Which I realize has its problems. But you still haven't answered MY question: Just what ARE we legislating if not morality? And most importantly, how can it do any good if it's not morality?
Well, it seems to me that this at the very least provides some valuable competition to the phone monopolies. Unfortunately, capitalism being what it is, it seems fairly likely to me that either VoIP or phone (probably VoIP) will eventually destroy the other, and unless we get more competition in the ISP market we'll just end up with another monopoly.
I could be wrong, but I think that one of capitalism's biggest problems is industries that require a large infrastructure. I know that socialist approaches to most things tend to be less efficient (due to the lack of competition), but in a case like this I think it's better, since to get REAL competition we need multiple infrastructures reaching every single house, the cost of which of course would still get passed on to the consumer.
You know, I'm aware that laws can bring order. But really, if we aren't legislating morality, what's the point? An ordered immoral society sounds kinda like the Nazis to me...
Please note that I'm as anti-Republican as the next guy, and generally don't consider them moral. I'm just saying that I don't see any GOOD point of a law doing anything other than legislating morality.
From the article: "He opposes abortion, fights for balanced budgets, and voted for the impeachment of President Clinton. His Web site features photographs of him carrying or firing guns. Through it all, though, Stenholm has remained a member of the Democratic Party"
I wonder what you have to do to be conservative down there.
Also this makes me think that gerrymandering isn't the only threat to democracy in the states. It seems Michael Moore's claim that the Democrats and the Republicans are the same isn't so far off.