I'm worried about this too, but I figure what the hell, I've got a yahoo email account! I won't see 95% of the spam they sign me up for, so I'll be fine.:)
why would I want to run the any of the 9x-based Windows? 95 is pretty aweful (compared to what is available now); both 98 and Me have a pretty bloated feel.
I'd rather run any Win9x GUI than any X-based GUI. Of course, I'd rather have *nix for lots of other things, but GUI? Give me a Windows PC any day.
Anyway, this isn't a dupe, exactly. It covers the topic of the proposed law, but this article is an expert's response and should bring up issues that/. folk hadn't thought of yet...
Er... how are you determining that this is not "a dupe, exactly"? By the article linked? Did you note that they're the same article?
Journalling makes sure that the state of data, or meta-data is always defined. So even if you turn the computer off while in the middle of a write command the file-system will be in a correct state afterwards. (The write operation will be lost however.) It is basically a way of making HDD operations atomic. Either they succeed or they fail, the in between state is what puts your drive in a corrupted state.
In other words, it's analogous to a transactional database. Nothing actually happens during a write until the whole thing is done and it commits. Or rather, something happens during the write, but that write is removed if a powerdown occurs before the commit is written.
Er... perhaps you miss the point of the law. It's about *public* communication. If you're publishing, i.e. making public, your media wherein you are attacking another, but denying that person the right to refute your statements, you are essentially denying that person's right to speech. If you want association and communication with "like-minded individuals" without worry about opposing viewpoints, make the association private. Private communication is not affected by this law if I read the article correctly.
I disagree. Speech without response is not speech. There is a reason why there are laws that restrict speech; you cannot yell "fire" in a crowded theater. You cannot make baseless claims against another (it's called libel or slander or somesuch;)).
Not so. If you do not want the company's reply to be seen, then you are stifling *their* free speech, not the other way round. That's what the right to reply is all about. It *increases* freedom of speech by forcing debate. One-sided spouting-off must have a counter, or it is worthless.
If I had mod points at the moment, I'd waste them all on your post.:)
I agree, this is probably the biggest reason why people are against it. "It will stifle free speech", they say, because "it will keep people from posting what they really feel if they have to deal with the consequences."
Exactly. You have to deal with the consequences. People in today's society (well, at least the U.S. for you foreign devils out there;)) want to do what they want in a consequence-free environment.
Having read the article and digested the meaning, I have to say I like the idea.
Many people here are taking the stance that the article writer has: Bad Idea(tm). Most seem concerned that this will somehow hamper free speech.
I call bullshit. This will *foster* free speech. Let's be honest; how many of us have gone to blogs or forums where the prevalent opinion is different from our own and been shouted down, had our posts edited or deleted? Apparently not many of you. Well, I have. Almost always it's "It's my site, you'll play by my rules. If I don't like what you have to say, tough shit, you're deleted." Forcing the issue legally allows discussion to take place. Without a right to reply, you merely have one person/group spewing whatever they wish without a dissenting voice.
To deny a right to reply is what will really hamper free speech.
Don't believe me? Well then, don't reply; you don't have the right.;)
Difficult? I think it's a no brainer. Java should not support macros.
Macros and various other types of pre-processing your code are one of the major reasons C/C++ needs to be replaced with a better syntax, like, say.... D.
I personally like programming in Java simply *because* of the lack of Macros. I hate the fact that Java requires a VM to run: I'd rather write native code, but I'd rather write in Java than C/C++ any day.
I'm a study in contrasts, however: I wouldn't mind operator overloading in Java.;)
I'll second that. I love WinRar so much better than WinZip. The only feature Winzip has that I'd like to see in WinRar is the ability to detect and auto decompress sub-archives.
For example:
If I download a tar/gz file, say foo.tar.gz, and I WinRar extract it, it'll give me foo.tar. Winzip, however, will recognize foo.tar and offer to extract it for me, saving me a click or two.
Still, that's just a feature request. On the whole, WinRar knicks Winzip out.
Um.... what's programming doing on that list? IME, unless you're compiling a huge swath of code all at once (which is extremely rare in the real world), effective programming can be still be done with, oh, say, a p2 350 w/ 32MB. Or maybe even lower; that just happens to be the box I code on.:)
Slashdot Mirror
I'm worried about this too, but I figure what the hell, I've got a yahoo email account! I won't see 95% of the spam they sign me up for, so I'll be fine. :)
Alternatively, the admins could just keep an eye on what stories have been done on /. ;)
Thank you. :)
Anyone have it mirrored? I'd love to read/print it.
Er... perhaps you miss the point of the law. It's about *public* communication. If you're publishing, i.e. making public, your media wherein you are attacking another, but denying that person the right to refute your statements, you are essentially denying that person's right to speech. If you want association and communication with "like-minded individuals" without worry about opposing viewpoints, make the association private. Private communication is not affected by this law if I read the article correctly.
I disagree. Speech without response is not speech. There is a reason why there are laws that restrict speech; you cannot yell "fire" in a crowded theater. You cannot make baseless claims against another (it's called libel or slander or somesuch ;)).
Not so. If you do not want the company's reply to be seen, then you are stifling *their* free speech, not the other way round. That's what the right to reply is all about. It *increases* freedom of speech by forcing debate. One-sided spouting-off must have a counter, or it is worthless.
That's only a valid analogy if my house happens to have my opinion about you written all over it.
If I had mod points at the moment, I'd waste them all on your post. :)
;)) want to do what they want in a consequence-free environment.
I agree, this is probably the biggest reason why people are against it. "It will stifle free speech", they say, because "it will keep people from posting what they really feel if they have to deal with the consequences."
Exactly. You have to deal with the consequences. People in today's society (well, at least the U.S. for you foreign devils out there
Having read the article and digested the meaning, I have to say I like the idea.
;)
Many people here are taking the stance that the article writer has: Bad Idea(tm). Most seem concerned that this will somehow hamper free speech.
I call bullshit. This will *foster* free speech. Let's be honest; how many of us have gone to blogs or forums where the prevalent opinion is different from our own and been shouted down, had our posts edited or deleted? Apparently not many of you. Well, I have. Almost always it's "It's my site, you'll play by my rules. If I don't like what you have to say, tough shit, you're deleted." Forcing the issue legally allows discussion to take place. Without a right to reply, you merely have one person/group spewing whatever they wish without a dissenting voice.
To deny a right to reply is what will really hamper free speech.
Don't believe me? Well then, don't reply; you don't have the right.
RTFP. If you had, you'd see that the parent to your post mentioned that.
Yeah.... "Ease on down the road" was originally sung "Easy down, easy down the nose". ;)
No, clearly the problem is sunspots. I suggest an aluminium foil helmet.
My wife is more into Aragorn. To her, Legolas == silly skateboard punk type while Aragorn == rugged ranger type.
Difficult? I think it's a no brainer. Java should not support macros.
;)
Macros and various other types of pre-processing your code are one of the major reasons C/C++ needs to be replaced with a better syntax, like, say.... D.
I personally like programming in Java simply *because* of the lack of Macros. I hate the fact that Java requires a VM to run: I'd rather write native code, but I'd rather write in Java than C/C++ any day.
I'm a study in contrasts, however: I wouldn't mind operator overloading in Java.
I've decided that I'm going to patent the act of retaining a representative to pursue legal actions against another entity.
I'll second that. I love WinRar so much better than WinZip. The only feature Winzip has that I'd like to see in WinRar is the ability to detect and auto decompress sub-archives.
For example:
If I download a tar/gz file, say foo.tar.gz, and I WinRar extract it, it'll give me foo.tar. Winzip, however, will recognize foo.tar and offer to extract it for me, saving me a click or two.
Still, that's just a feature request. On the whole, WinRar knicks Winzip out.
Sooo..... how soon until they have little golden arches in front with a sign on it that says "Over 1 billion served"?
God, I wish I could get a cable modem that cheap! Gotta love legal monopolies, dontcha?
Um.... what's programming doing on that list? IME, unless you're compiling a huge swath of code all at once (which is extremely rare in the real world), effective programming can be still be done with, oh, say, a p2 350 w/ 32MB. Or maybe even lower; that just happens to be the box I code on. :)