Why do people seem to assume that IE is incapable of blocking popups?
My personal kneejerk reaction is that MS has some vested interest in allowing popups. While this seems plausible, I haven't figured out all the intermediate steps, between "1. Allow popups" and "8. Profit!".
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble
I don't quite see why private property and commerce fall under the right to assemble. Due process, possible. I think you are reading the Constitution as basically a defense of private property.
Come on, this country can't even assure its citizens of food, water and electricity. Ripping CDs is the last issue this new "government" is going to be concerned with.
They're actually holding back on electricity right now. They are waiting to get this IP thing worked out. Otherwise, the iraqis might start ripping CDs first.
That would be bad. Bad for Iraq and bad for America.
Corporate America is now an oxymoron. When you mean "Corporate America", you should just say "America". Anything else is redundant.
This is ridiculous, yet shows how the Bush administration intends to administer Iraq: as a colony. Luckily, the administration isn't very good at hiding their evil intentions, so now we know about it.
I don't know what the killer app is going to be, but the next consumer killer app is going to involve the fact that we are reaching critical density on the number of homes that have permanent, fast internet connections. This definitely changes the way people deal with, and perceive the network, and should enable some new services that were unthinkable with dial-up. And it won't just be networked gaming...
My grandmother owns a restaurant/bar, she's allowed to chose who comes in, it's her buisiness. If she doesn't want to let a black man in she's allowed to do that. If she doesn't want to let you use cell phones, she's allowed to do that.
Using cell phones and being black are 2 different things.
Your grandmother can refuse to serve anyone she wants, on an individual basis. However, if she decides to refuse all black people, she is going to get into trouble with the law.
The whole point of private ownership is that the owner of something has control over that something. If they don't have ultimate control, they are not the owner - by definition.
The whole point of private ownership is that no one can take your stuff away from you. They have to buy it. Private ownership doesn't give you ultimate control over anything.
If I own a gun, it doesn't mean I can do whatever I want with it. Ditto for a car, and so on. Private ownership means the gov't shouldn't be able to come along and take those things away from me without some kind of due process.
The basic problem here is that, even if you own something, including a business, you still have to live in society with other people who also have rights. Private ownership doesn't eliminate all concern for other people or their rights, or their aspirations for equality.
However, a business is more than entitled not to sell their product to anyone they want to, if they so choose.
This is just not true...
From a legal point of view, all the court decisions on segregration should be more than enough to prove that. A grocery store can't refuse to sell food to people based on race, a restaurant can't refuse to serve people based on race. You can't refuse to sell your house to someone for racial reasons. Etc. etc.
The rest of your post just shows how far unbridled libertarianism can lead you.
Want to make as much as $3000/week, without leaving home!?! Become a Spam Bounty hunter! Just buy Doctor Bob's 12-step program for hunting down spammers...
Do you really believe that America was not at much greater risk of being subject to terrorist attack from opportunistic extremists as we go to war against an insane regime already proven to be capable ___(Fill in the atrocity)___?
9/11 showed us that we were vulnerable to small, well-organized groups with no direct support from any particular state (unless you call the Talibans a state... in any event they are gone for the time being). The reponse to this newly discovered vulnerability was to attack a traditional nation-state, run by a ruthless tyrant (agreed), but with no visible link to anti-US terr'rist activity.
The opportunists you should be wary of are the repressive dictatorial regimes in the Arab world that squander their countries' resources, enriching themselves, and fomenting religious fervor among their people in hopes that they overlook their own pathetic existence.
Don't forget that many of these dictatorial regimes are our allies that we have more or less propped up: Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Kuweit, Qatar, Jordan...
Well, you failed to see my point: Since initially formed, america has been set up so that there are checks and balances, and that the masses have power over the destiny of the country.
I see what you mean. Technically, the masses do have the power here. My point is that the real power (actual political power) goes to whoever can manipulate the masses. At least that is the strategy of the current administration.
I couldn't agree more, except for the fact that in america, the masses are in power.
The masses are being manipulated by the power. Our beloved U.S. government has been keeping the fear of terr'rism alive in order to manipulate the masses by cowing them into the position of "standing behind the commander in chief".
Days after the end of the Iraq War, the terr'rism alert level was dropped. As if... As if Saddam Hussein had anything to do with Al Quaida, as if the war hadn't sparked more anti-American resentment in the Arab world, resentment that could obviously lead to more terr'rism...
Total, cynical manipulation of the deep fears of the masses. And now other people, ie. advocates of proprietary software, are trying to see for how much they can milk fear of terr'rism for their own interests. Just like the oil companies use the issues to convince us that they need to drill in the Arctic Wilderness. Pretty soon we will hear that imposing mileage restrictions on SUVs would encourage terr'rism.
GPL, while great in it's own way, is not a good liscense for government software because it is too restrictive, and the fruits of development are not shared in an unrestricted manner
The GPL isn't restrictive for anybody, as long as you don't distribute it. You can change the code and lock it up, and as long as you don't distribute anything no one will say a word. Perfect for gov't, which is not supposed to be in the software business anyway.
Kernel Hacker Bob could liscense his changes to it under the GPL, and big bad software company MS could just incorporate it into Windows.
This just means that KH Bob ends up doing free work for MS and gets nothing in return, while MS makes money off of his code. MS wins and KH Bob loses. End of story.
I don't want to see any law enacted that dictates any tools with which to perform a job. The best tool for the job should be decided upon by the individual(s) performing the work or defining the work.
This could be true in business, but we are talking about gov't here. Like it or not, the OSS vs. proprietary debate has become political. I expect to see more proposals like this Oregon law.
I'd rather be a naive idealist than someone who is perpetuating the horrid status quo...
It would be nice if this attitude worked. In fact, it does do some good to have a lunatic-fringe out there, being naive.
Unfortunately, if you actually want to the world to be a better place, you have to play the political game. That is just the way it is. Politics isn't perfect, but that is the way stuff works. If people hadn't voted for Nader, Gore would be president right now.
Tip: the phrase "reduce the size of government" doesn't actually mean anything to most people, except that it makes you sound like a hardcore Libertarian screwball or an anarchist.
He could be just a regular hardcore Reaganite. Reagan talked constantly about reducing the size of government, while running up the biggest deficits anyone had ever seen.
Usually reducing the size of gov't means cutting Welfare and Medicare/Medicaid, but spending tons on defense.
Maybe from a purely practical standpoint, a law like this doesn't change much. Someone who really, really wants to buy Windows can say: I'm closing my eyes, I'm considering OSS...I count to ten, OK... now we can go buy Windows!
But that's all right!
The point of a law like this is making a statement and proving that there is a will on the part of the State government to have an agressive OSS approache.
A law like this also lets The People (tm) have a role in deciding what kind of software their gov't uses. Without tying the hands of state agencies, it sends a message.
The bottom line is the message getting sent. That is why MS is worried. It is more symbolic than anything, because it is another step towards widespread acceptance of OSS. And I think that MS is just as much worried about the symbolism of this law than about actually losing x Windows licences in Oregon.
Just yesterday I was in a train station where the ticket agents had actually taped a little card on the side of their monitor that reminded them of two different system passwords plus login names! And we are talking about a national network! And this was on the customer side of the box, just to be ure that everyone saw it.
s it me or have the submissions gotten lamer and lamer lately? I mean, I know this is slashdot, but this one is TERRIBLE. And its trending that way
While we could be Microsoft bashing as usual: not only have they changed the name of the.NET server (article at The Register), but there is a new bugpatch of a fairly high security level that just came out.
Sorry, but I'm too lazy to go track down links for those though. Saw them both on Googlenews a couple of hours ago.
If someone set off a dirty bomb, something tells me you'd know about it without any goddamned PDA.
You would know that a bomb went off, but hell, that happens all the time. You wouldn't know that it was a dirty bomb though. Unless you had the lab-rat special.
Slashdot Mirror
My personal kneejerk reaction is that MS has some vested interest in allowing popups. While this seems plausible, I haven't figured out all the intermediate steps, between "1. Allow popups" and "8. Profit!".
I don't quite see why private property and commerce fall under the right to assemble. Due process, possible. I think you are reading the Constitution as basically a defense of private property.
Yes, I'm sorry. I definitely should know better. I wanted to say pleonasm, but I wasn't even sure you could in English.
I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry.
Corrected version: Corporate America is now a pleonasm.
They're actually holding back on electricity right now. They are waiting to get this IP thing worked out. Otherwise, the iraqis might start ripping CDs first.
That would be bad. Bad for Iraq and bad for America.
This is ridiculous, yet shows how the Bush administration intends to administer Iraq: as a colony. Luckily, the administration isn't very good at hiding their evil intentions, so now we know about it.
I don't know what the killer app is going to be, but the next consumer killer app is going to involve the fact that we are reaching critical density on the number of homes that have permanent, fast internet connections. This definitely changes the way people deal with, and perceive the network, and should enable some new services that were unthinkable with dial-up. And it won't just be networked gaming...
But what about these chemical weapons I've got in my basement? Can I keep them, as long as I promise not to use them on anyone?
This is just a way for Apple to catch up to the multi-button mouse present, without seeming to cave in on the idea of one button superiority.
My mac enthusiast friends are already going to be talking about how this is actually better than all the 5-button PC mice.
The disc idea seems confusing to me though, since they are introducing multi-button functionality in what is still just one button.
Using cell phones and being black are 2 different things.
Your grandmother can refuse to serve anyone she wants, on an individual basis. However, if she decides to refuse all black people, she is going to get into trouble with the law.
The whole point of private ownership is that no one can take your stuff away from you. They have to buy it. Private ownership doesn't give you ultimate control over anything.
If I own a gun, it doesn't mean I can do whatever I want with it. Ditto for a car, and so on. Private ownership means the gov't shouldn't be able to come along and take those things away from me without some kind of due process.
The basic problem here is that, even if you own something, including a business, you still have to live in society with other people who also have rights. Private ownership doesn't eliminate all concern for other people or their rights, or their aspirations for equality.
This is just not true...
From a legal point of view, all the court decisions on segregration should be more than enough to prove that. A grocery store can't refuse to sell food to people based on race, a restaurant can't refuse to serve people based on race. You can't refuse to sell your house to someone for racial reasons. Etc. etc.
The rest of your post just shows how far unbridled libertarianism can lead you.
Hello [your name spelled wrong]
Want to make as much as $3000/week, without leaving home!?! Become a Spam Bounty hunter! Just buy Doctor Bob's 12-step program for hunting down spammers...
etc.
9/11 showed us that we were vulnerable to small, well-organized groups with no direct support from any particular state (unless you call the Talibans a state... in any event they are gone for the time being). The reponse to this newly discovered vulnerability was to attack a traditional nation-state, run by a ruthless tyrant (agreed), but with no visible link to anti-US terr'rist activity.
The opportunists you should be wary of are the repressive dictatorial regimes in the Arab world that squander their countries' resources, enriching themselves, and fomenting religious fervor among their people in hopes that they overlook their own pathetic existence.
Don't forget that many of these dictatorial regimes are our allies that we have more or less propped up: Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Kuweit, Qatar, Jordan...
I see what you mean. Technically, the masses do have the power here. My point is that the real power (actual political power) goes to whoever can manipulate the masses. At least that is the strategy of the current administration.
The masses are being manipulated by the power. Our beloved U.S. government has been keeping the fear of terr'rism alive in order to manipulate the masses by cowing them into the position of "standing behind the commander in chief".
Days after the end of the Iraq War, the terr'rism alert level was dropped. As if... As if Saddam Hussein had anything to do with Al Quaida, as if the war hadn't sparked more anti-American resentment in the Arab world, resentment that could obviously lead to more terr'rism...
Total, cynical manipulation of the deep fears of the masses. And now other people, ie. advocates of proprietary software, are trying to see for how much they can milk fear of terr'rism for their own interests. Just like the oil companies use the issues to convince us that they need to drill in the Arctic Wilderness. Pretty soon we will hear that imposing mileage restrictions on SUVs would encourage terr'rism.
This is all sickening.
The GPL isn't restrictive for anybody, as long as you don't distribute it. You can change the code and lock it up, and as long as you don't distribute anything no one will say a word. Perfect for gov't, which is not supposed to be in the software business anyway.
Kernel Hacker Bob could liscense his changes to it under the GPL, and big bad software company MS could just incorporate it into Windows.This just means that KH Bob ends up doing free work for MS and gets nothing in return, while MS makes money off of his code. MS wins and KH Bob loses. End of story.
Yeah, I am pretty impressed with the absence of tables, replaced with "containers". Unfortunately, the containers have fixed pixel widths.
It is interesting to see that, in spite of his ingenuity, he wasn't able to match up the columns at the bottom of the page.
All the same an interesting example.
This could be true in business, but we are talking about gov't here. Like it or not, the OSS vs. proprietary debate has become political. I expect to see more proposals like this Oregon law.
It would be nice if this attitude worked. In fact, it does do some good to have a lunatic-fringe out there, being naive.
Unfortunately, if you actually want to the world to be a better place, you have to play the political game. That is just the way it is. Politics isn't perfect, but that is the way stuff works. If people hadn't voted for Nader, Gore would be president right now.
He could be just a regular hardcore Reaganite. Reagan talked constantly about reducing the size of government, while running up the biggest deficits anyone had ever seen.
Usually reducing the size of gov't means cutting Welfare and Medicare/Medicaid, but spending tons on defense.
That reminds me of someone else...
Maybe from a purely practical standpoint, a law like this doesn't change much. Someone who really, really wants to buy Windows can say: I'm closing my eyes, I'm considering OSS...I count to ten, OK... now we can go buy Windows!
But that's all right!
The point of a law like this is making a statement and proving that there is a will on the part of the State government to have an agressive OSS approache.
A law like this also lets The People (tm) have a role in deciding what kind of software their gov't uses. Without tying the hands of state agencies, it sends a message.
The bottom line is the message getting sent. That is why MS is worried. It is more symbolic than anything, because it is another step towards widespread acceptance of OSS. And I think that MS is just as much worried about the symbolism of this law than about actually losing x Windows licences in Oregon.
Go Ducks! Good job on this one.
Just yesterday I was in a train station where the ticket agents had actually taped a little card on the side of their monitor that reminded them of two different system passwords plus login names! And we are talking about a national network! And this was on the customer side of the box, just to be ure that everyone saw it.
While we could be Microsoft bashing as usual: not only have they changed the name of the .NET server (article at The Register), but there is a new bugpatch of a fairly high security level that just came out.
Sorry, but I'm too lazy to go track down links for those though. Saw them both on Googlenews a couple of hours ago.
[ Reply to This ]You would know that a bomb went off, but hell, that happens all the time. You wouldn't know that it was a dirty bomb though. Unless you had the lab-rat special.
Sucks having to carry both a PDA and a radiation detector.