Yes, but I don't think you can read FedEx's database with UPS's or DHL's scanner. But with a common reader (web-on-cellphone), you could connect to anybody's backend database anywhere with a single reader.
The difference is a common reader (web-based on cell phone)) as opposed to a proprietery reader (i.e. your scanner might not work with my database backend).
Not Suprising Since AOL owned by Record Company
on
AOL: Amazon Who?
·
· Score: 1
This should not suprise anyone. AOL is part of Time-Warner, which is one of the BIGGEST media and recording companies. This is just Time-Warner using AOL as an in-house storefront and reaping more profit by cutting out the distrubitor and retail middle-men. You should probably start to expect to see other Time-Warner stuff on AOL like movie DVDs and magazine subscriptions. I'm actually suprised this didn't happen earlier.
Put one of these on a shipping container, a box, or a pallet and then tie the returned webpage to a back-end database and you could have a killer app for transportation manifests and shipping invoices.
Bahh... Everyone knows Ginger is "IT" !
on
High Speed Travelator
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
[sarcasim] How can this even get off the ground if future cities are designed around the Segway AKA Ginger? Ginger is the future "Human Transporter" . Ginger is "IT" !. Steve Jobs told me so! There's no place for something like this. [/sarcasim]
Seriously though, I think the *real* future is in hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (whether they be private cars or public buses) for three reasons. First, that's where all the serious R&D money is going right now. Secondly, they require no great leap of concept and will be more psychologically acceptable to the public (i.e. its just a car with a different engine as opposed to something strange and possibly "dangerous"). Third, other than adding hyrdogen pumps to existing gas stations, they requie no expesive and massive public works project because they can use the current road infrastructure. The gas station problem can be handled by a government regulation on the lines of "if you run a gas station and have more than two pumps, at least one has to be for hydrogen".
Now if they could jack up a fuel cell powerful enough for a jet engine capable of inter-city/cross-country transport, we'd be set.
Did Linux steal from SCO or Did SCO steal from Linux or Did they both borrow from BSD? Here is a better way to see who is stealing code from whom.
AT&T/USL/Novell/SCO licensed their SysV source to other Unix vendors for years. Somewhere somebody has a copy of their older stuff. I wouldn't be suprised if IBM or Sun have old archived copies sitting around somewhere. Bascially, subpoena the source to each SCO, Linux, & BSD version and have them examined (under court seal, of course) to determine when the alleged offending code snippets where included. The earlier implementation wins.
Just because two things happen in sequence does not mean that a direct causal relationship exists. The article mentioned a modernization program. I would think that that program entails many changes. Any or all of those changes could be a contributing factor.
A few isolated incidents (which must be condemned) do not rise to pervasive persecution. As far as detention goes, the majority were for immigration violations.
Again, what where 1200 individuals *doing* to cause themselves to be singled out of a population of *millions* of law abiding muslims. The fact that a very few suspicious characters were detained does not rise to the level of pervasive persecution. If muslims *really* felt they were being persecuted in the US, I doubt they would be beatting down the perverbial door to get in. Obviously most muslim aliens in the US feel less "persecuted" in the US than in their home countries or they wouldn't be here.
They were detained because the were *illegal* immigrants. Several *millions* of law abiding muslims were *not* detained. So saying that the dentention of several hundred illegal aliens is ethnic persecution is simply wrong.
Yes, the Mubarak government is nominally secular, but the problem in Egypt goes much deeper than the government. The Mubarak government fights the Islamic Brotherhood to hold on to power, but it does nothing to address the reason that the Brotherhood exists in the first place. The government censorship is just a symptom of a sick society. The problem is that arab society itself allows and supports censorship of minority views and does not teach tolerance in the schools and mosques. The entire Arab world (the people, not the governments) seems to be caught up in a delusion of Nasser type Pan-Arabism Nationalism and support for Islamist violence. If not a majority, large portions of the Arab people think that blowing up buses full of civilians or killing people eating in cafes is a blessed act of a "martyr" who will go to paradise. Until arabs start educating arabs to stop thinking like that, there will always be censorship and terrorism and backwardness. Until arab *people* start thinking differently, arabs will always have dictatorships with censorship instead of a true republic with a free press. Until arabs adopt tolerance as a core value, there will always be people like the Islamic Brotherhood willing to bomb a movie theatre that shows something they don't like.
it is still a protected copyrighted brand name. Other similar products have to call themselves "facial tissues". So just because a name enters general usage to generically refer to a type of product does not mean it's trademark status disappears.
I really wish Apple the best on this but I think they are going to loose. It obvious that they are doing this on principle because the money involved to get the license is minimal to a corporation like them (although the certification testing can be quite expensive I hear). I think it is ridiculous that BSD can't be called Unix when it is really more rightfully "unix" than something like AIX. There is not a single "UNIX (c)" system around today that does not descend from BSD (even SysV decends from BSD/Research Unix).
So. Go Apple Go!... but don't forget you are running uphill on this.
AT&T/USL/Novell/SCO licensed their SysV source to other Unix vendors for years. Somewhere somebody has a copy of their older stuff. I wouldn't be suprised if IBM or Sun have old archived copies sitting around somewhere. Bascially, supoena the source to each version and have it examined (under court seal, of course) to determine when those code snippets where included. Then look at the old copies of Linux. The earlier implementation wins.
Some marketing team is trying to dream up a way to double shipments by making SMP mainstream in desktops. "Hmmm.....," says the Intel marketing drone, " If Apple can do it we can too. Somebody call Bill Gates and have him put even more bloat into MS-Word so it requires more processor power! Then we can run commercials about how every office *absolutely must have* dual 4-Ghz processors with 1GB RAM for word processing "
I think you are misreading him. First, a reference to a "culture in which jihad, honor killings, and female genital mutilation are daily practices approved by a stultifying religion" may not describe *ALL* islam but it certainly is an accurate depiction of the *radical* islam practiced by the Taliban and their Al-Qada buddies in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. And I think you would agree that it *is* fundamentally better to live in a free western society like New York or London than it is to live in a Taliban type theocracy where people are executed for their religious belief (or non-belief). Recognizing this fact does not make one a bigot. Refusing to recognize it in the name of "multi-cultralism" is to exercise purposeful intellectual blindness.
Jihad, in the sense used by Al-Qada, or the group "Islamic Jihad" certainly does mean an armed violent religous war. Yes, in a wider and more generic sense it can sometimes mean struggle, but it in most modern contexts it is religous violence. I can guarantee you that "Islamic Jihad" is not holding tea parties in which they discuss their own introspective struggle for self-realization ; they are plotting violence. Wanting to defend yourself and your society against those outrages does not make you a bigot.
If you want to know about intolerrance, fly to a country like Saudi Arabia, and try to persuade people about the merits of your own atheism. You *will* wind up in jail because doing that in Saudi Arabia is a crime (actually two crimes - Apostacy and Blasphemy - both punishable by death). As a foreigner, they will probably cut you some slack and deport you. If you were a native Saudi, you would be executed.
Um.. because they want world-wide sharia (islamic law). The want to make the entire world into a Taliban-like society. Just read the news about the imposition of Sharia law in places like Nigeria and Pakistan (do a google search). Now imagine an organization that is willing to kill anybody anywhere in the world to accomplish that - and you have just imagined something very real - its called Al-Qada. Be aware that their terminology (like Sharia) is different from ours.
A. For the sickos that flew those plans into the WTC, mass body count has a symbology all its own.
It makes its own statement, like "we hate you, and we can kill thousands of you anytime we want so you must submit to our demands!" The terror is the point of the whole operation; what will strike the most terror in the victims - and a mass body count will do it. If they were only interested in bombing "symbols" they could blow lots of statues in parks with no victims, but instead they choose crowded places, like when Hamas and Islamic Jihad blow up crowded cafes.
Don't confuse the old-style terrorists who hijacked planes for pure publicity with Al-Qada. They old terrorists were not suicidal and they had semi-rational demands (like a prisoner exchange of hostages for terrorists in prision). The modern terrorists of Al-Qada are a new thing, they are suicidal fanatics who hijack planes to kill as many people as possible. They have only one aim, the complete supremacy of islam over the world.
Actually he makes some good points in it. He rejects radical knee-jerk extremism either way.
Basically, he says that the 9/11 attacks were heinous crimes, that the islamic terrorists want to destroy free thought and liberty (no news flash there), and that the reaction of both the Left and Right are wrong.
He seems to thinks the Left is way too lost in its anti-Western multi-culturalism and "blame America First" ideology to the point of actually condoning the terrorist attacks. The Left asks "Why do the Arabs hate us?" and the the Left answers "It must be because America is bad/evil/racist/imperialist/etc/etc/etc". The Left is so consumed with the idea that America is racist, that they think 9/11 was America's fault and (not just apologize for) but justify the terrorists. The left thinks we need more diversity training so we can learn to respect the terrorist and where they come from. The Left never entertains the thought that the terrorists are bigots and are motivated by religous intolerrance and hate.
He also seems to think that the Right's response is to over-react and set up a police state that unneccessarily eats away at our liberty (think about DoD's Total Information Awareness and national id cards). So he rejects the Right's attempt to change us domestically with more and more "security" measure that reduce our freedom.
Instead, he seems to be saying... recognize that the threat is the terrorists and the states that support them. We need to fight them overseas, instead of setting up a police state here.
We all feel we can do it better than Eric so let's engage in some bikeshedding by picking at minor details and criticizing ad-nauseum.
Eric Raymond has spent considerable time and invested a *lot* of work over the years - and not just on the jargon file but as an advocate of open source and hackerdom generally. For-goodness-sake, he was the main author of Fetchmail, so that makes him a *real* unix hacker who has written *real* working open source code that is on just about every unix/linux box around (unlike some wannabe losers as I suspect most of the anti-ESR posters might be). He wrote "The Cathedral & the Bazaar" which has been described as having persuaded Netscape to open source thier browser and thereby create the mozilla project. How many of us can say that ! I can't, so I wont criticize, even if I don't agree with everything he puts in the file. So those wannabes who feel like they have the stature to criticize... go ahead, flame away. Spend all day and night flaming about what color the bikeshed should be.
If the everybody feels that the hacker lexicon should be a "scholarly work" with only substantiated widespread usage included, set up a forum or mail-list and accept submissions for new words and phrases with proof of actual usage (like links to mailing list entries and boards where the word has actually been used). Measure occurances and if an entry gets enough "critical mass", then submit it to Eric for inclusion. Hey - maybe you can get your sociology doctorate that way. Participate, just don't sit there throwing flames.
obscurity will eventually always fail as a security protocol.
Being the cost-minimizing/profit-maximizing organizations that they are, they will always wait forever to incur new costs (like fixing bugs) until somebody "lights a fire under them." That's why quick public disclosures is important, because the bug *will* be discovered by the bad guys sooner or later, so it is better to fix it soon than wait for later.
attempted attemped murder already is a crime
on
Crime Prediction
·
· Score: 1
its call conspiracy.....
True conspiracies are almost never suspected
Suspected conspriacies are almost never true
I thought SGML solved this problem years ago.. (except for the copyright-driven copy-protection schemes that seem to be in vogue with the profit-hounds)
However, I don't think copy-protection is absolutely necessary. Publishers have made billions selling regular old paper books for years with no "copy-protection". Even the advent of easy copying with XeroX machines didn't kill the profit. What makes the same content in a new medium suddenly worthy of copy-protection ?
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, but I don't think you can read FedEx's database with UPS's or DHL's scanner. But with a common reader (web-on-cellphone), you could connect to anybody's backend database anywhere with a single reader.
The difference is a common reader (web-based on cell phone)) as opposed to a proprietery reader (i.e. your scanner might not work with my database backend).
This should not suprise anyone. AOL is part of Time-Warner, which is one of the BIGGEST media and recording companies. This is just Time-Warner using AOL as an in-house storefront and reaping more profit by cutting out the distrubitor and retail middle-men. You should probably start to expect to see other Time-Warner stuff on AOL like movie DVDs and magazine subscriptions. I'm actually suprised this didn't happen earlier.
Put one of these on a shipping container, a box, or a pallet and then tie the returned webpage to a back-end database and you could have a killer app for transportation manifests and shipping invoices.
[sarcasim]
How can this even get off the ground if future cities are designed around the Segway AKA Ginger? Ginger is the future "Human Transporter" . Ginger is "IT" !. Steve Jobs told me so! There's no place for something like this.
[/sarcasim]
Seriously though, I think the *real* future is in hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (whether they be private cars or public buses) for three reasons. First, that's where all the serious R&D money is going right now. Secondly, they require no great leap of concept and will be more psychologically acceptable to the public (i.e. its just a car with a different engine as opposed to something strange and possibly "dangerous"). Third, other than adding hyrdogen pumps to existing gas stations, they requie no expesive and massive public works project because they can use the current road infrastructure. The gas station problem can be handled by a government regulation on the lines of "if you run a gas station and have more than two pumps, at least one has to be for hydrogen".
Now if they could jack up a fuel cell powerful enough for a jet engine capable of inter-city/cross-country transport, we'd be set.
Bingo ! You hit the nail on the head.
Did Linux steal from SCO or Did SCO steal from Linux or Did they both borrow from BSD? Here is a better way to see who is stealing code from whom. AT&T/USL/Novell/SCO licensed their SysV source to other Unix vendors for years. Somewhere somebody has a copy of their older stuff. I wouldn't be suprised if IBM or Sun have old archived copies sitting around somewhere. Bascially, subpoena the source to each SCO, Linux, & BSD version and have them examined (under court seal, of course) to determine when the alleged offending code snippets where included. The earlier implementation wins.
Just because two things happen in sequence does not mean that a direct causal relationship exists. The article mentioned a modernization program. I would think that that program entails many changes. Any or all of those changes could be a contributing factor.
A few isolated incidents (which must be condemned) do not rise to pervasive persecution. As far as detention goes, the majority were for immigration violations.
Again, what where 1200 individuals *doing* to cause themselves to be singled out of a population of *millions* of law abiding muslims. The fact that a very few suspicious characters were detained does not rise to the level of pervasive persecution. If muslims *really* felt they were being persecuted in the US, I doubt they would be beatting down the perverbial door to get in. Obviously most muslim aliens in the US feel less "persecuted" in the US than in their home countries or they wouldn't be here.
They were detained because the were *illegal* immigrants. Several *millions* of law abiding muslims were *not* detained. So saying that the dentention of several hundred illegal aliens is ethnic persecution is simply wrong.
Yes, the Mubarak government is nominally secular, but the problem in Egypt goes much deeper than the government. The Mubarak government fights the Islamic Brotherhood to hold on to power, but it does nothing to address the reason that the Brotherhood exists in the first place. The government censorship is just a symptom of a sick society. The problem is that arab society itself allows and supports censorship of minority views and does not teach tolerance in the schools and mosques. The entire Arab world (the people, not the governments) seems to be caught up in a delusion of Nasser type Pan-Arabism Nationalism and support for Islamist violence. If not a majority, large portions of the Arab people think that blowing up buses full of civilians or killing people eating in cafes is a blessed act of a "martyr" who will go to paradise. Until arabs start educating arabs to stop thinking like that, there will always be censorship and terrorism and backwardness. Until arab *people* start thinking differently, arabs will always have dictatorships with censorship instead of a true republic with a free press. Until arabs adopt tolerance as a core value, there will always be people like the Islamic Brotherhood willing to bomb a movie theatre that shows something they don't like.
it is still a protected copyrighted brand name. Other similar products have to call themselves "facial tissues". So just because a name enters general usage to generically refer to a type of product does not mean it's trademark status disappears.
.
I really wish Apple the best on this but I think they are going to loose. It obvious that they are doing this on principle because the money involved to get the license is minimal to a corporation like them (although the certification testing can be quite expensive I hear). I think it is ridiculous that BSD can't be called Unix when it is really more rightfully "unix" than something like AIX. There is not a single "UNIX (c)" system around today that does not descend from BSD (even SysV decends from BSD/Research Unix)
So. Go Apple Go!... but don't forget you are running uphill on this.
AT&T/USL/Novell/SCO licensed their SysV source to other Unix vendors for years. Somewhere somebody has a copy of their older stuff. I wouldn't be suprised if IBM or Sun have old archived copies sitting around somewhere. Bascially, supoena the source to each version and have it examined (under court seal, of course) to determine when those code snippets where included. Then look at the old copies of Linux. The earlier implementation wins.
Some marketing team is trying to dream up a way to double shipments by making SMP mainstream in desktops. "Hmmm.....," says the Intel marketing drone, " If Apple can do it we can too. Somebody call Bill Gates and have him put even more bloat into MS-Word so it requires more processor power! Then we can run commercials about how every office *absolutely must have* dual 4-Ghz processors with 1GB RAM for word processing "
Doh!
I think you are misreading him. First, a reference to a "culture in which jihad, honor killings, and female genital mutilation are daily practices approved by a stultifying religion" may not describe *ALL* islam but it certainly is an accurate depiction of the *radical* islam practiced by the Taliban and their Al-Qada buddies in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. And I think you would agree that it *is* fundamentally better to live in a free western society like New York or London than it is to live in a Taliban type theocracy where people are executed for their religious belief (or non-belief). Recognizing this fact does not make one a bigot. Refusing to recognize it in the name of "multi-cultralism" is to exercise purposeful intellectual blindness.
Jihad, in the sense used by Al-Qada, or the group "Islamic Jihad" certainly does mean an armed violent religous war. Yes, in a wider and more generic sense it can sometimes mean struggle, but it in most modern contexts it is religous violence. I can guarantee you that "Islamic Jihad" is not holding tea parties in which they discuss their own introspective struggle for self-realization ; they are plotting violence. Wanting to defend yourself and your society against those outrages does not make you a bigot.
If you want to know about intolerrance, fly to a country like Saudi Arabia, and try to persuade people about the merits of your own atheism. You *will* wind up in jail because doing that in Saudi Arabia is a crime (actually two crimes - Apostacy and Blasphemy - both punishable by death). As a foreigner, they will probably cut you some slack and deport you. If you were a native Saudi, you would be executed.
Um.. because they want world-wide sharia (islamic law). The want to make the entire world into a Taliban-like society. Just read the news about the imposition of Sharia law in places like Nigeria and Pakistan (do a google search). Now imagine an organization that is willing to kill anybody anywhere in the world to accomplish that - and you have just imagined something very real - its called Al-Qada. Be aware that their terminology (like Sharia) is different from ours.
A. For the sickos that flew those plans into the WTC, mass body count has a symbology all its own. It makes its own statement, like "we hate you, and we can kill thousands of you anytime we want so you must submit to our demands!" The terror is the point of the whole operation; what will strike the most terror in the victims - and a mass body count will do it. If they were only interested in bombing "symbols" they could blow lots of statues in parks with no victims, but instead they choose crowded places, like when Hamas and Islamic Jihad blow up crowded cafes. Don't confuse the old-style terrorists who hijacked planes for pure publicity with Al-Qada. They old terrorists were not suicidal and they had semi-rational demands (like a prisoner exchange of hostages for terrorists in prision). The modern terrorists of Al-Qada are a new thing, they are suicidal fanatics who hijack planes to kill as many people as possible. They have only one aim, the complete supremacy of islam over the world.
If I was them with their twisted goals, I'd pick a target that would kill as many people as possible, like... oh... the biggest two buildings in town.
Actually he makes some good points in it. He rejects radical knee-jerk extremism either way.
Basically, he says that the 9/11 attacks were heinous crimes, that the islamic terrorists want to destroy free thought and liberty (no news flash there), and that the reaction of both the Left and Right are wrong.
He seems to thinks the Left is way too lost in its anti-Western multi-culturalism and "blame America First" ideology to the point of actually condoning the terrorist attacks. The Left asks "Why do the Arabs hate us?" and the the Left answers "It must be because America is bad/evil/racist/imperialist/etc/etc/etc". The Left is so consumed with the idea that America is racist, that they think 9/11 was America's fault and (not just apologize for) but justify the terrorists. The left thinks we need more diversity training so we can learn to respect the terrorist and where they come from. The Left never entertains the thought that the terrorists are bigots and are motivated by religous intolerrance and hate.
He also seems to think that the Right's response is to over-react and set up a police state that unneccessarily eats away at our liberty (think about DoD's Total Information Awareness and national id cards). So he rejects the Right's attempt to change us domestically with more and more "security" measure that reduce our freedom.
Instead, he seems to be saying... recognize that the threat is the terrorists and the states that support them. We need to fight them overseas, instead of setting up a police state here.
We all feel we can do it better than Eric so let's engage in some bikeshedding by picking at minor details and criticizing ad-nauseum.
Eric Raymond has spent considerable time and invested a *lot* of work over the years - and not just on the jargon file but as an advocate of open source and hackerdom generally. For-goodness-sake, he was the main author of Fetchmail, so that makes him a *real* unix hacker who has written *real* working open source code that is on just about every unix/linux box around (unlike some wannabe losers as I suspect most of the anti-ESR posters might be). He wrote "The Cathedral & the Bazaar" which has been described as having persuaded Netscape to open source thier browser and thereby create the mozilla project. How many of us can say that ! I can't, so I wont criticize, even if I don't agree with everything he puts in the file. So those wannabes who feel like they have the stature to criticize... go ahead, flame away. Spend all day and night flaming about what color the bikeshed should be.
If the everybody feels that the hacker lexicon should be a "scholarly work" with only substantiated widespread usage included, set up a forum or mail-list and accept submissions for new words and phrases with proof of actual usage (like links to mailing list entries and boards where the word has actually been used). Measure occurances and if an entry gets enough "critical mass", then submit it to Eric for inclusion. Hey - maybe you can get your sociology doctorate that way. Participate, just don't sit there throwing flames.
obscurity will eventually always fail as a security protocol.
Being the cost-minimizing/profit-maximizing organizations that they are, they will always wait forever to incur new costs (like fixing bugs) until somebody "lights a fire under them." That's why quick public disclosures is important, because the bug *will* be discovered by the bad guys sooner or later, so it is better to fix it soon than wait for later.
its call conspiracy..... True conspiracies are almost never suspected Suspected conspriacies are almost never true
I thought SGML solved this problem years ago.. (except for the copyright-driven copy-protection schemes that seem to be in vogue with the profit-hounds) However, I don't think copy-protection is absolutely necessary. Publishers have made billions selling regular old paper books for years with no "copy-protection". Even the advent of easy copying with XeroX machines didn't kill the profit. What makes the same content in a new medium suddenly worthy of copy-protection ?