I bought a Compaq Presario R3140US laptop several months ago. It has an AMD64 processor. I would like to fully take advantage of these 32 extra bits so I installed Linux (SUSE to be precise). The only problem is that it comes with a builtin Broadcom wireless chip.
Broadcom doesn't have any linux drivers, much less 64bit linux drivers. And they also keep their card specs secret. For the longest time I was completely out of luck if I wanted to use my wireless card in 64 bit mode. (I had heard ndiswrapper would work in 32 mode with the 32bit windows drivers, but I only tried that briefly and didn't have any luck).
Let's say you said fine, I'll just open it up and pop in another mini-pci wireless chip in there that does have support in linux. Well you're out of luck because the BIOS has a whitelist of allowed wireless cards that you can use. Any thing else and you're out of luck.
The issue has more to due with FCC regulations than anything else though. Anything dealing with radio waves needs to be approved by the FCC. Because the wireless chip is separate from the antenna, only FCC approved combinations of chips and antennas can be used together. The reason you can use any PCMCIA card in any laptop is because the antenna and chip are together and are approved together. Although I'm sure that if HP/Compaq wanted to they could test other combinations and get them approved, I guess they just don't want to.
Eventually Broadcom released 64bit windows drivers, and eventually the wonderful people working on ndiswrapper were able to add support for 64bit windows drivers in linux (those guys are amazing), and I got wireless working on my laptop a few weeks ago... still pissed at HP though.
I play games and use linux exclusively. I have an xbox.
(for the smart arses that are going to point out the xbox runs a custom win2k kernel, i know, that doesn't count)
That doesn't make any sense, you can't just arbitrarily decide what does and doesn't count
I have lots of sex and with women exclusively. I also have sex with other straight guys.
(for the smart arses that are going to point out that having sex with another guy is gay, i know, that doesn't count)
I have a lot of fun and don't do drugs. I like crack cocaine
(for the smart arses that are going to point out that crack is modified cocaine, i know, that doesn't count)
I'm good at solving problems and never use violence against any person to do so. I smack my wife around.
(for the smart arses that are going to point out that women are people too, i know, that doesn't count)
Aw, that's bunk it's not gonna have chromosomes. How could you even have chromosomes that might eventually possibly lead to reproduction? That doesn't make sense, chromosomes need reproduction to exist in the first place, that's what DNA is for to begin with. It's like saying I'll create a network with the hope that some day computers will be invented to hook upto the network.
What they're talking about is just programmed responses.
Say you're listening to All Things Considered and Nina Totenberg is about to make an especially poignant point about the day's oral arguments at the Supreme Court, but nature is urgently calling. Click on the TS button, hit pause, and walk away. Nina is then cut off in midsentence. Once you take care of business, you can then return to your PC, hit play, and Nina takes up right where she left off.
I often listen to NPR as well, not having a radio in my office I just listen to WBUR's real audio stream. With Real you can also pause the live stream and go take care of business. The buffer seems to be pretty large (I haven't hit any ceiling yet).
I live in Boston so WBUR is my local NPR station, which is perfect. But even if your local NPR station isn't online (I think most are) you can just go ahead and listen to one that is.
I know this product can do more, and not just for NPR, but as for that being a selling point, it just doesn't work. And Real seems to be doing a lot better now in terms of not being jerks and actually adding features that are helpful (I know quick time for windows can't pause and resume live streams... and quicktime still annoys you every time you start the application). The Helix Player and the recent Real Player on Linux is great as well. I actually wish them well these days.
So what will they send you if you make a claim then? If you don't want the $7.10 you just get a copy of the same DVD?
Exactly what I was wondering, just looking through the list I saw 3 movies that I have, and I'm not in front of my DVD collection right now, so I probably have more. The site is very low on details and doesn't even really mention what the issue is anywhere, much less what will be fixed if you send your DVD's back. If nothing has been lost and these have exactly the amount of screen space as was presented in the theatre then I want to keep my version. If the issue is just that they were a bit misleading on the packaging about what you got over fullscreen then how will replacing my DVD rectify that issue if I get the exact same DVD?
I'm more than a bit worried that if I return my widescreen versions, I'll get back fullscreen versions.
The grandparent poster, who gave the informative link to the technosound site, claims that none of the films were butchered. But based on the information on the site, it looks like that would only be the case if the original movie was shot in standard 35 or super 35. If it were shot in panavision, there would certainly be a problem, as the original filmed image is widescreen so any further formatting would lose information. Were all MGM films for those 5 years shot in 35mm only? Not being a film geek I don't know if panavision is used much anymore, although the technosound page shows "Mars Attacks" using panavision, so it must still be used. Maybe any panavision MGM films were done correctly (didn't contain misleading marketing) and are not on the eligible list.
It would be nice if there was an authoritative page as part of the settlement site which would explain exactly what the problem is and what you gain by returning your DVD.
If you were smart enough to checkout via anoncvs and to the build yourself that was fine.
I don't think that meets the standards for free software. You have to actually tell your users that they can get the source, and how to get it. It's not enough that it's possible if they happen to know that you have the code in cvs, and that it's accessible from the internet, and that you allow anonymous access.
No idea why this "everyone must migrate to linux" thing is a stated goal of any CS professional. Linux is not the be-all-and-end-all of OS'es.
I don't think anyone said that, these statements are coming from open source/free software developers and advocates... it makes perfect sense for them to want people to stay away from closed systems and embrace open/free ones like Linux or BSD. Why should it be odd for the stated goal of a core open source software developer to convince people to migrate to an open system?
To me the underlying OS kernel should be irrelevant. I should be able to use KDE on an NT kernel
The kernel is just one small piece of software, with a whole bunch of artificial value attached. In the end all it does is send bytes back and forth to the hardware.
There's quite a bit more it needs to do, process scheduling, memory management, etc. It's a lot more complicated than just, "Oh process x wants to get at memory location y... I guess I'll just give it to him then."
Who really gives a shit about the OS? It's about as relevant as the brand of mouse you're using.
I look forward to the day that people dont list experience with "Linux, Windows, OS-X" on their resumes
First of all, you jump back and forth between what you wish a kernel was like and saying that this is how it is now. You use "kernel should be", then "the kernel is", then back with "I look forward to...". And then you jump around between 'kernel' and 'OS' using the terms interchangeably, and different parts of your argument alternatively hold up or fail depending on which definition you really mean.
Second... in order for us to attain this utopia you speak of with hot-swappable kernels, they would all have to have exactly the same API's. What happens when the BSD people want to innovate and implement some new exciting features and make them available to application developers? Are they just supposed to not do so because Microsoft hasn't implemented these features yet?
And if you're just talking about industry agreement to standards like POSIX, it will never work for several social, political, and practical reasons. It's hard to get people within one project to agree (hence this story) much less across organizations. But if they were to, is everyone just supposed to be stuck at that level? I'm guessing there will be different standards as time goes on, and probably various levels of compliance allowed as there already are with POSIX (which windows does conform to, and I don't think we're at the stage you would like to be at yet).
I'm guessing they didn't make a special point to say that "Hey, I'm Judeo-Christianity's God, too!" It's just a given that he's that God
Actually, I'm not sure if you caught the title, but it's: Joan of Arc-adia.
Maybe you're just not familiar with Joan of Arc... She was certainly very christian, from wikipedia: Joan "is a national heroine of France and saint of the Catholic Church". Also, she was "equipped with armour and a white banner depicting God flanked by two angels and the words "Jesus" and "Mary" on the side." One more: "Around 1424 Jeanne said she began receiving visions of Saint Michael the Archangel, St. Catherine, and St. Margaret"
I've never seen the show but the title would certainly give some people the idea that it's about a Judeo-Christian God speaking to a girl. From the sound of what the original poster said, it sounds like the show is a little more in tune with something akin to the Bahai faith (one god but multiple interpretations throughout history and location).
Having a 'viral license' just scares corporate use of our code... At the end of the day the license must continue to protect its most important aspect, that all code changes to the software must be contributed back
Maybe it's just me, but isn't the fact that all derivative code must also be free, where all the 'viral license' FUD comes from? I don't think you can have one without the other (in as far as as long as you have this clause, companies like MS and SCO will call the license viral).
Can anyone explain to me how Sun can open source Solaris which was licensed from SCO while SCO is suing IBM for supposedly putting AIX code (under license from SCO) into Linux? I understand that the licenses to IBM and Sun could very well have different clauses and the open source license Sun is planning to release Solaris under probably won't be GPL-compatible... but still, how is this possible?
So how long until they're pressured by Wired News/Magazine to change their name, and then finally settle on Spectrum only to find out that there already exists a company by the name of Software Spectrum forcing them to once again change their name ala Pheofirebirdfox.
I think your contest should be for "most screwed up query with innocent intentions". And must contain only true stories. Should be interesting...
Well having used LaTeX extensively I often use google to search for proper use of functions and so on... you can imagine the stuff that would come up (bad choice of words) sometimes.
One time I can specifically remember was when I was trying to get help on a specific function... I usually search google with " " when I need information like this (for example: "python assert"). So what do I unthinkingly type into google when trying to find out how to output the date in LaTeX... that's right "latex date". That wasn't what I wanted. (just trying the search again actually yields only genuine LaTeX documents... strange)
Yeah well I think the whole "don't bash microsoft, this is what we've wanted for a while" thing is way out of control. I seriously don't see many people bashing microsoft here even though everyone seems to think so. Most people are saying that this is a good thing and that it demonstrates a lot that microsoft is willing to break a few things in the name of security.
Right in the summary for this article it says, "They are calling this a glitch, but I thought we wanted everything blocked by default so we would have to choose what was unblocked?" So who are you arguing against? Not the submitter obviously, the zdnet article really just lists facts, and big companies (IBM) are just saying, "we're just gonna hold off for a bit on this and make sure all our stuff works okay", they're not saying it's a bad thing.
Maybe I'm just reading at too high a threshold to see all the complaints...
Where is the low latency here? All this peeling/adding layers to peel off must be fairly time consuming.
Well for what it's worth, the internet already has to work through 7 layers of padding on top of the actual data and no one seems to complain about that too much. Just think about a normal http response at the hightest level, you've got several lines of headers before you even get to the content. And each packet, each frame, each [insert-your-favorite-level's-term-for-chunk-o-dat a] has extra bits wrapped around it.
Now that I think about it, it even goes further: if you think about html itself, all the tags are just meta information, the actual content is much smaller than that. It's kinda frightening when you think about much data other than your content is necessary for everything to work.
Of course with the added encryption, this would be a bit more cpu intensive I suppose. But because of layering in the past I don't see that as a reason alone to not like this model.
The libertarian party believes that we should [...] eliminate all environmental regulations
Did you even read the article you referenced? It was about how in certain cases the government has been unable to enforce the laws mostly due to "sovereign immunity" of government agencies (like the military), and previous incorrect policies (killing wolves in parks to increase deer population) which have since been re-evaluated. But nowhere do they claim that all environmental regulations should be eliminated... not even close... In the last paragraph it states:
The third and final step in the libertarian program to save the environment is the use of restitution both as a deterrent and a restorative. (emphasis mine)
Hello... restitutionn 1: a sum of money paid in compensation for loss or injury.
How do you think they're going to collect this restitution without laws and regulations? You think libertarians would want a government where the following could happen:
Government Lawyer: Your Honor, Company X polluted the land around their factory. They need to pay restitution for the harm it caused. Company X Lawyer: There are no laws or regulations saying that it's illegal to do this. Judge: Is this true? Did Company X not break any laws? Government Lawyer: Well no, not really, we don't have *any* laws regarding the environment. But we want to be able to arbitrarily say when law abiding companies should pay us money. Judge: I find in favor of the government.
Yeah... That what libertarians are going after.
I also found this from the same author's column, "Ask Dr. Ruwart":
If government focused on making ALL polluters right their wrongs, businesses, individuals, and public officials would make cost-effective behavioral changes. We'd get more environmental protection for less!
Speaking of this specific author, reading her other columns I found that she seems to try to duck the issue quite a bit but in places she can't avoid it, she ends up coming back to the fact that the government would still have to play a role. She uses quite a bit of straw man arguments, and in general makes very strained conclusions (because some companies and government agencies have gotten away with polluting in the past, we should stop trying to police all companies).
She uses restitution because libertarians only want to the government to protect citizens' private property, so restitution fits in nicely. But what happens when a company pollutes the air... or a river that no one "owns". Or what if a company has since gone out of business, or just doesn't have enough money to pay for what they've done? And what if a company can make more money by polluting than they would have to pay land owners for any damages? What if they just pollute land they own and then abandon it (while still technically owning it)? Or what if you can't really put a dollar price on what the pollution has done. The point is that for future generations and greater good, we really need to stop pollution for the environment's sake, not for any land owners that may happen to be near by.
I consider myself pretty libertarian when it comes to personal rights and smaller government, but when it comes to the environment I want regulations, the tighter the better. And I could really care less about huge corporations that pollute, regulate them to hell, they certainly shouldn't be given the same right's as individuals.
About the only point I agreed with is that the government should also be responsible for pollution it causes, but that means strengthening curren
Two Ideas: First: I love the ability to create a bookmark with something like "http://www.google.com/search?q=%s" and associate a keyword with it like "gg" and be able to type "gg firefox" into the address bar and get a search on "firefox". It would be interesting if the browser could recognize sites you often visit and submit form data on and automatically create these bookmark search shortcut things based on what is submitted. Also, I like using the dictionary at dict.org, but they use a POST form instead of GET, so the search parameters don't show up on the url and makes it impossible to use the current feature for this site, it would be cool if it worked with POSTs as well.
Second idea: Selectively prefetching links based on past experience. For example, I'm at slashdot, I see a story about mozilla, I almost always check it out including most of the links in the post. The browser could look at the words in the links and surrounding words on pages you visit and selectively prefetch pages you're most likely to visit in the future. Saving download time while you view the page, but also eliminating unnecessary downloading.
I would have assumed that "Sid" referred to Sid Vicious if it hadn't been explained.
That was my initial reaction after reading this as well. I think Sid Vicious was much more unstable... although maybe that's what inspired pixar to name their character sid...
It's almost redundant to point out that resisting the setbacks that might result from a ruling involve civil disobedience on quite a wide scale - every sysadmin will fiind himself a potential criminal, and this is a horrifying concept for such a young nation as the United States. But maybe the US can catch a clue from the rest of us, and conclude that not only is the law an ass, but that selective civil disobedience is a walk in the park.
What kind of crap is this? Am I completely insane or is he saying that civil disobedience is something foreign to the US, and that it's greatly followed in the UK?
So then I suppose the person who invented civil disobedience, Henry David Thoreau, wasn't an American. I suppose he didn't write an essay titled Civil Disobedience (originally titled Resistance to Civil Government).
And I suppose it wasn't Ghandi who used civil disobedience against the British.
And there was never anyone named Martin Luther King in the US.
And there were certainly no protests of a civil disobedience nature against the Vietnam War or anything.
For a very short history and some of the ideals of civil disobedience head here.
Slashdot Mirror
Finally found the link on HPs forums that explains this.
I bought a Compaq Presario R3140US laptop several months ago. It has an AMD64 processor. I would like to fully take advantage of these 32 extra bits so I installed Linux (SUSE to be precise). The only problem is that it comes with a builtin Broadcom wireless chip.
Broadcom doesn't have any linux drivers, much less 64bit linux drivers. And they also keep their card specs secret. For the longest time I was completely out of luck if I wanted to use my wireless card in 64 bit mode. (I had heard ndiswrapper would work in 32 mode with the 32bit windows drivers, but I only tried that briefly and didn't have any luck).
Let's say you said fine, I'll just open it up and pop in another mini-pci wireless chip in there that does have support in linux. Well you're out of luck because the BIOS has a whitelist of allowed wireless cards that you can use. Any thing else and you're out of luck.
The issue has more to due with FCC regulations than anything else though. Anything dealing with radio waves needs to be approved by the FCC. Because the wireless chip is separate from the antenna, only FCC approved combinations of chips and antennas can be used together. The reason you can use any PCMCIA card in any laptop is because the antenna and chip are together and are approved together. Although I'm sure that if HP/Compaq wanted to they could test other combinations and get them approved, I guess they just don't want to.
Eventually Broadcom released 64bit windows drivers, and eventually the wonderful people working on ndiswrapper were able to add support for 64bit windows drivers in linux (those guys are amazing), and I got wireless working on my laptop a few weeks ago... still pissed at HP though.
I play games and use linux exclusively. I have an xbox.
(for the smart arses that are going to point out the xbox runs a custom win2k kernel, i know, that doesn't count)
That doesn't make any sense, you can't just arbitrarily decide what does and doesn't count
I have lots of sex and with women exclusively. I also have sex with other straight guys.
(for the smart arses that are going to point out that having sex with another guy is gay, i know, that doesn't count)
I have a lot of fun and don't do drugs. I like crack cocaine
(for the smart arses that are going to point out that crack is modified cocaine, i know, that doesn't count)
I'm good at solving problems and never use violence against any person to do so. I smack my wife around.
(for the smart arses that are going to point out that women are people too, i know, that doesn't count)
Aw, that's bunk it's not gonna have chromosomes. How could you even have chromosomes that might eventually possibly lead to reproduction? That doesn't make sense, chromosomes need reproduction to exist in the first place, that's what DNA is for to begin with. It's like saying I'll create a network with the hope that some day computers will be invented to hook upto the network.
What they're talking about is just programmed responses.
Say you're listening to All Things Considered and Nina Totenberg is about to make an especially poignant point about the day's oral arguments at the Supreme Court, but nature is urgently calling. Click on the TS button, hit pause, and walk away. Nina is then cut off in midsentence. Once you take care of business, you can then return to your PC, hit play, and Nina takes up right where she left off.
I often listen to NPR as well, not having a radio in my office I just listen to WBUR's real audio stream. With Real you can also pause the live stream and go take care of business. The buffer seems to be pretty large (I haven't hit any ceiling yet).
I live in Boston so WBUR is my local NPR station, which is perfect. But even if your local NPR station isn't online (I think most are) you can just go ahead and listen to one that is.
I know this product can do more, and not just for NPR, but as for that being a selling point, it just doesn't work. And Real seems to be doing a lot better now in terms of not being jerks and actually adding features that are helpful (I know quick time for windows can't pause and resume live streams... and quicktime still annoys you every time you start the application). The Helix Player and the recent Real Player on Linux is great as well. I actually wish them well these days.
So what will they send you if you make a claim then? If you don't want the $7.10 you just get a copy of the same DVD?
Exactly what I was wondering, just looking through the list I saw 3 movies that I have, and I'm not in front of my DVD collection right now, so I probably have more. The site is very low on details and doesn't even really mention what the issue is anywhere, much less what will be fixed if you send your DVD's back. If nothing has been lost and these have exactly the amount of screen space as was presented in the theatre then I want to keep my version. If the issue is just that they were a bit misleading on the packaging about what you got over fullscreen then how will replacing my DVD rectify that issue if I get the exact same DVD?
I'm more than a bit worried that if I return my widescreen versions, I'll get back fullscreen versions.
The grandparent poster, who gave the informative link to the technosound site, claims that none of the films were butchered. But based on the information on the site, it looks like that would only be the case if the original movie was shot in standard 35 or super 35. If it were shot in panavision, there would certainly be a problem, as the original filmed image is widescreen so any further formatting would lose information. Were all MGM films for those 5 years shot in 35mm only? Not being a film geek I don't know if panavision is used much anymore, although the technosound page shows "Mars Attacks" using panavision, so it must still be used. Maybe any panavision MGM films were done correctly (didn't contain misleading marketing) and are not on the eligible list.
It would be nice if there was an authoritative page as part of the settlement site which would explain exactly what the problem is and what you gain by returning your DVD.
It's built with Python and SDL, so how long before someone ports this to *nix?"
Good point... I'll take a stab at it:
Okay all set, it now runs on a *nix... what do I get?
If you were smart enough to checkout via anoncvs and to the build yourself that was fine.
I don't think that meets the standards for free software. You have to actually tell your users that they can get the source, and how to get it. It's not enough that it's possible if they happen to know that you have the code in cvs, and that it's accessible from the internet, and that you allow anonymous access.
No idea why this "everyone must migrate to linux" thing is a stated goal of any CS professional. Linux is not the be-all-and-end-all of OS'es.
I don't think anyone said that, these statements are coming from open source/free software developers and advocates... it makes perfect sense for them to want people to stay away from closed systems and embrace open/free ones like Linux or BSD. Why should it be odd for the stated goal of a core open source software developer to convince people to migrate to an open system?
To me the underlying OS kernel should be irrelevant. I should be able to use KDE on an NT kernel
You already can: http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=9144
The kernel is just one small piece of software, with a whole bunch of artificial value attached. In the end all it does is send bytes back and forth to the hardware.
There's quite a bit more it needs to do, process scheduling, memory management, etc. It's a lot more complicated than just, "Oh process x wants to get at memory location y... I guess I'll just give it to him then."
Who really gives a shit about the OS? It's about as relevant as the brand of mouse you're using.
I look forward to the day that people dont list experience with "Linux, Windows, OS-X" on their resumes
First of all, you jump back and forth between what you wish a kernel was like and saying that this is how it is now. You use "kernel should be", then "the kernel is", then back with "I look forward to...". And then you jump around between 'kernel' and 'OS' using the terms interchangeably, and different parts of your argument alternatively hold up or fail depending on which definition you really mean.
Second... in order for us to attain this utopia you speak of with hot-swappable kernels, they would all have to have exactly the same API's. What happens when the BSD people want to innovate and implement some new exciting features and make them available to application developers? Are they just supposed to not do so because Microsoft hasn't implemented these features yet?
And if you're just talking about industry agreement to standards like POSIX, it will never work for several social, political, and practical reasons. It's hard to get people within one project to agree (hence this story) much less across organizations. But if they were to, is everyone just supposed to be stuck at that level? I'm guessing there will be different standards as time goes on, and probably various levels of compliance allowed as there already are with POSIX (which windows does conform to, and I don't think we're at the stage you would like to be at yet).
I'm guessing they didn't make a special point to say that "Hey, I'm Judeo-Christianity's God, too!" It's just a given that he's that God
Actually, I'm not sure if you caught the title, but it's: Joan of Arc-adia.
Maybe you're just not familiar with Joan of Arc... She was certainly very christian, from wikipedia: Joan "is a national heroine of France and saint of the Catholic Church". Also, she was "equipped with armour and a white banner depicting God flanked by two angels and the words "Jesus" and "Mary" on the side." One more: "Around 1424 Jeanne said she began receiving visions of Saint Michael the Archangel, St. Catherine, and St. Margaret"
I've never seen the show but the title would certainly give some people the idea that it's about a Judeo-Christian God speaking to a girl. From the sound of what the original poster said, it sounds like the show is a little more in tune with something akin to the Bahai faith (one god but multiple interpretations throughout history and location).
Maybe it's just me, but isn't the fact that all derivative code must also be free, where all the 'viral license' FUD comes from? I don't think you can have one without the other (in as far as as long as you have this clause, companies like MS and SCO will call the license viral).
Can anyone explain to me how Sun can open source Solaris which was licensed from SCO while SCO is suing IBM for supposedly putting AIX code (under license from SCO) into Linux? I understand that the licenses to IBM and Sun could very well have different clauses and the open source license Sun is planning to release Solaris under probably won't be GPL-compatible... but still, how is this possible?
So how long until they're pressured by Wired News/Magazine to change their name, and then finally settle on Spectrum only to find out that there already exists a company by the name of Software Spectrum forcing them to once again change their name ala Pheofirebirdfox.
I don't believe this, I did the exact same thing. Open in gimp, use the dropper and then move one square next to the other. That's weird.
Well having used LaTeX extensively I often use google to search for proper use of functions and so on... you can imagine the stuff that would come up (bad choice of words) sometimes.
One time I can specifically remember was when I was trying to get help on a specific function... I usually search google with " " when I need information like this (for example: "python assert"). So what do I unthinkingly type into google when trying to find out how to output the date in LaTeX... that's right "latex date". That wasn't what I wanted. (just trying the search again actually yields only genuine LaTeX documents... strange)
That was good, but this one did it for me:
If you want something under the BSD license, you might want to use BSD.Yeah well I think the whole "don't bash microsoft, this is what we've wanted for a while" thing is way out of control. I seriously don't see many people bashing microsoft here even though everyone seems to think so. Most people are saying that this is a good thing and that it demonstrates a lot that microsoft is willing to break a few things in the name of security.
Right in the summary for this article it says, "They are calling this a glitch, but I thought we wanted everything blocked by default so we would have to choose what was unblocked?" So who are you arguing against? Not the submitter obviously, the zdnet article really just lists facts, and big companies (IBM) are just saying, "we're just gonna hold off for a bit on this and make sure all our stuff works okay", they're not saying it's a bad thing.
Maybe I'm just reading at too high a threshold to see all the complaints...
Well for what it's worth, the internet already has to work through 7 layers of padding on top of the actual data and no one seems to complain about that too much. Just think about a normal http response at the hightest level, you've got several lines of headers before you even get to the content. And each packet, each frame, each [insert-your-favorite-level's-term-for-chunk-o-dat a] has extra bits wrapped around it.
Now that I think about it, it even goes further: if you think about html itself, all the tags are just meta information, the actual content is much smaller than that. It's kinda frightening when you think about much data other than your content is necessary for everything to work.
Of course with the added encryption, this would be a bit more cpu intensive I suppose. But because of layering in the past I don't see that as a reason alone to not like this model.
The libertarian party believes that we should [...] eliminate all environmental regulations
Did you even read the article you referenced? It was about how in certain cases the government has been unable to enforce the laws mostly due to "sovereign immunity" of government agencies (like the military), and previous incorrect policies (killing wolves in parks to increase deer population) which have since been re-evaluated. But nowhere do they claim that all environmental regulations should be eliminated... not even close... In the last paragraph it states:
The third and final step in the libertarian program to save the environment is the use of restitution both as a deterrent and a restorative. (emphasis mine)
Hello... restitution n 1: a sum of money paid in compensation for loss or injury.
How do you think they're going to collect this restitution without laws and regulations? You think libertarians would want a government where the following could happen:
Government Lawyer: Your Honor, Company X polluted the land around their factory. They need to pay restitution for the harm it caused.
Company X Lawyer: There are no laws or regulations saying that it's illegal to do this.
Judge: Is this true? Did Company X not break any laws?
Government Lawyer: Well no, not really, we don't have *any* laws regarding the environment. But we want to be able to arbitrarily say when law abiding companies should pay us money.
Judge: I find in favor of the government.
Yeah... That what libertarians are going after.
I also found this from the same author's column, "Ask Dr. Ruwart":
If government focused on making ALL polluters right their wrongs, businesses, individuals, and public officials would make cost-effective behavioral changes. We'd get more environmental protection for less!
government ... making ... polluters ... right ... their ... wrongs
Yeah... that sounds nothing like regulation
Speaking of this specific author, reading her other columns I found that she seems to try to duck the issue quite a bit but in places she can't avoid it, she ends up coming back to the fact that the government would still have to play a role. She uses quite a bit of straw man arguments, and in general makes very strained conclusions (because some companies and government agencies have gotten away with polluting in the past, we should stop trying to police all companies).
She uses restitution because libertarians only want to the government to protect citizens' private property, so restitution fits in nicely. But what happens when a company pollutes the air... or a river that no one "owns". Or what if a company has since gone out of business, or just doesn't have enough money to pay for what they've done? And what if a company can make more money by polluting than they would have to pay land owners for any damages? What if they just pollute land they own and then abandon it (while still technically owning it)? Or what if you can't really put a dollar price on what the pollution has done. The point is that for future generations and greater good, we really need to stop pollution for the environment's sake, not for any land owners that may happen to be near by.
I consider myself pretty libertarian when it comes to personal rights and smaller government, but when it comes to the environment I want regulations, the tighter the better. And I could really care less about huge corporations that pollute, regulate them to hell, they certainly shouldn't be given the same right's as individuals.
About the only point I agreed with is that the government should also be responsible for pollution it causes, but that means strengthening curren
I for one welcome our new simian overlords. (Score:1, Funny)
I, for one, welcome our new Monkey Overlords. (Score:0)
I for one welcome our new super-monkey overlords... (Score:-1)
Lesson? People like simians, don't like monkeys as much, really hate super-monkeys
'The inventor of the gadget, Keiji Koga, said: "We are finally able to experience plants and flowers with all five of our natural senses."'
I'm guessing this guy's never slept...
I totally thought you were going somewhere else with that sentence.
Two Ideas: First: I love the ability to create a bookmark with something like "http://www.google.com/search?q=%s" and associate a keyword with it like "gg" and be able to type "gg firefox" into the address bar and get a search on "firefox". It would be interesting if the browser could recognize sites you often visit and submit form data on and automatically create these bookmark search shortcut things based on what is submitted. Also, I like using the dictionary at dict.org, but they use a POST form instead of GET, so the search parameters don't show up on the url and makes it impossible to use the current feature for this site, it would be cool if it worked with POSTs as well.
Second idea: Selectively prefetching links based on past experience. For example, I'm at slashdot, I see a story about mozilla, I almost always check it out including most of the links in the post. The browser could look at the words in the links and surrounding words on pages you visit and selectively prefetch pages you're most likely to visit in the future. Saving download time while you view the page, but also eliminating unnecessary downloading.
I would have assumed that "Sid" referred to Sid Vicious if it hadn't been explained.
That was my initial reaction after reading this as well. I think Sid Vicious was much more unstable... although maybe that's what inspired pixar to name their character sid...
wow, it's like you read my exact mind from 09/28/03.
From article:
It's almost redundant to point out that resisting the setbacks that might result from a ruling involve civil disobedience on quite a wide scale - every sysadmin will fiind himself a potential criminal, and this is a horrifying concept for such a young nation as the United States. But maybe the US can catch a clue from the rest of us, and conclude that not only is the law an ass, but that selective civil disobedience is a walk in the park.
What kind of crap is this? Am I completely insane or is he saying that civil disobedience is something foreign to the US, and that it's greatly followed in the UK?
So then I suppose the person who invented civil disobedience, Henry David Thoreau, wasn't an American. I suppose he didn't write an essay titled Civil Disobedience (originally titled Resistance to Civil Government).
And I suppose it wasn't Ghandi who used civil disobedience against the British.
And there was never anyone named Martin Luther King in the US.
And there were certainly no protests of a civil disobedience nature against the Vietnam War or anything.
For a very short history and some of the ideals of civil disobedience head here.