I started read/. over a year ago (check my number) and the rate of quality decline has gone exponential. The differnce between my user number and JoeShmoe's is about 30k, so that's about a 50% increase in readership, if each new/.-er's number is the last's plus one and everyone is still here.
I haven't checked how karma works, but it takes less than 50 to be able to post with the +1 bonus. I can, and my karma is less than 50. Check my user info and you'll see that I am presumptuous enough to moderate myself in this regard. >:-)
I have to agree with the seniority system here; though I usually despise such things. I think the karma bonuses would adjust for bright newcomers supremely, especially if there is more than a +1 bonus for high karma (Is there now?).
Incidently, this thread is offtopic. But the lead post was at +5 before I started writing this. I think this is a clear sign of rebellion in the moderatorship.
No, it doesn't work. The servers are apparently overloaded.
When I don't have moderator points I browse at +2, and if there's any story with more than, say, 200 posts among the top 5 stories it is impossible to get through. (And I'm sick of seeing the JunkBuster proxy page when I'm trying to read/.)
When I do have moderator points I go straight to the story with the most posts (unless it's by Katz;-) and read at -1, newest first, ignore threads. I've only seen one post in the last year that sank to -1 undeservedly (IMO); I push it back up to 0.
COM - This domain is intended for commercial entities, that is companies. This domain has grown very large and there is concern about the administrative load and system performance if the current growth pattern is continued. Consideration is being taken to subdivide the COM domain and only allow future commercial registrations in the subdomains.
Why is the website of a politcal campaign under the COM TLD, when it should have been registered under ORG?
ORG - This domain is intended as the miscellaneous TLD for organizations that didn't fit anywhere else [COM,EDU,NET,INT,GOV,MIL, or country codes -/me]. Some non-government organizations may fit here.
There are plenty of things made of paired quarks, they just don't last for long. (No relativity jokes please...oops!). For example: down and anti-up combine to form the pi-negative meson.
(If my naming is archane, I apologize. This is not my forte. I'm stuck in Maxwellian times.;-)
Also, there's more than one periodic table. The one to which is referred in jd's post is the one of elements. There's also the one of nuclides. Changes in the nucleic structure probably wouldn't change much on the elemental level, at least no much more than isotopic nuclei do. What's interesting is what you can do besides atomic chemistry. Nuclear stability is hardly dependent on electric charge, it's not strong enough.;-)
(Hmm... Some might argue than protons and neutrons are not comprised of triplets of quarks, but that they are particular triplets; proton = uud, neutron = udd.)
When you do that you'll see this amendment near the bottom; it's numbered nine.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
This amendment is often forgotten by people and seems to have been completely forgotten by the U.S. government. How often do you hear the phrase 'constitutional rights'? That phrase is an attack on your rights. It's tantamount to saying that you have no rights, except those given to you by law. Well that's not so! You have all your rights by the fact that you're a human being that has to reason in order to live.
As I recall, Tim Berners-Lee created the web to improve communication among researchers. You can see this in many places, but more often than not researchers bury papers in the PDF. (What is the correct setting to launch gv with the file from NS 4.7 anyway? My system always opens a blank page.)
Commercialization has brought the poor advertising strategy of most companies to the web. The strategy is poor because the advertisements aren't advertisements! They are merely product propaganda with little information. Ad designers need to drop the assumption that people are cows; if they don't, they might discover that a raging cow is more fearsome than a bull (female of a non-sentient species and all that...).
Part of the problem is the poor characterization of capitalism that predominates in most people's minds. Capitalism is not about competition. Competition is merely one aspect of the capitalism. But almost everyone, pro and con, thinks they are equivalent. Competition can exist in the absence of a free market; for what people compete is what changes. Under the best system, what competition occurs is to create a better product. Slightly worse is the system in which people compete for market share. And in the worst systems people compete for the favor of a man with power over life or death.
But there is no universal law that says we have to compete. When we chant 'nos morituri te salutamus', there is no one listening. There is no playing field but for that which is encircled by the dogs which would keep themselves in chains.
If only that legendary French baker had said to the king's emissary, "Let me alone, and I'll let everyone else alone." But he didn't, and now people think that laissez-faire is as far as civil society goes. Well, it doesn't; and the reason to be left alone by the government is not so that you try to rule other people. But people have to stop thinking in terms of masters and slaves.
There is no scarcity. Nothing is more than what it is, but there is plenty of everything. One might say that time is scarce, but really you have your whole life. If people stop believing that there is a sum of wealth forever fixed for a slice of which they must fight, then perhaps the competition will end.
When people know what is, they can act upon it. When people can act freely, they can be happy. When people choose to be happy, they can learn many things.
The web was created to improve cooperation. Ignore the forces which would work against that, but don't let them meddle with your affairs. The web, like the software that created and sustains it, is for sharing. Let those who would compete remain chained one to another their cave. But do not go there, and do not let them take you.
I've already seen some complaints about NS 4.7, Motif, and XAW. (Here and attached to other articles.) I don't see what the problem is. I've provided a screenshot of a prepared desktop.
(It appears that my department's server doesn't feed PNG's properly, you may have to your box and display locally. A JPEG was too big for my taste.)
My window manager is UDE. My workspaces/virtual desktops/whatchamacallits are just color schemed and minimal. What apps I use that use xrm always match (colors, fonts, etc.) the workspace in which they are opened, so the desktop is consistent. The screenshot has three windows: (1) At the bottom of the stack (top left of screen) is Netscape 4.7 after running a bit of my own JavaScript. This is the mode which I usually use for reading long documents, except that the window would be maximized. All the functions of NS that I need are available through keystrokes and button 3. (2) In the middle (stack and screen) is GNU emacs running the ansi-term from which I took the screenshot. (3) At the top of the stack, in the bottom right of the screen is NS 4.7 again; this time without my JavaScript. I don't like any thing that uses vertical space since I'm used to reading paper that is taller than it is wide. (Though I may have to get my hands on a green-and-white line printer someday.)
I'm a minimalist (I suppose) so I've cut down on the windowing fluff as much as possible. The screenshot was taken at 1024x768 on my 12" external monitor. That's right 12" external; it can be a relief from running 800x600 on the 10.4" laptop LCD. (No cricks in the neck either.)
What I'd like to figure out is how to make my little JavaScript execute whenever a new browser window is opened. I imagine there's something in preferences.js or netscape.ad that would make it possible, but I haven't found it yet (probably for lack of trying).
Sometimes I think that people who complain about these things are waiting for a magic desktop. That makes me wonder why they don't use CLX. Ever notice . .. Microsoft and its allies assume everyone is stupid.
That shouldn't be a problem for creating artificial limbs. (I.e., the research suggested has already been done.) Animal musculature is usually paired; one muscle moves the limb one way, the other muscle moves it the other way. With this pairing it is possible to constuct the artifical limb so that there is always tension and the signal relaxes one 'muscle' to allow the other to move the limb. I think I've even heard that natural musculature actually works this way to some extent. IIRC, it's a trinary system with continuities in 2 states: off, contract to some degree, relax to some degree. Ever notice . .. Microsoft and its allies assume everyone is stupid.
This doesn't surprise me, and not because I'm cynical about the U.S. population or MS propaganda.
But there is a 'problem' with human intuition. People can only see what is, and they rarely consider what could be. People tend not to think economically, the think like accountants; they fail to consider opportunity costs.
Consider the claim that war is good for business. This is probably true if your business is munitions or reconstruction or if it relies on slave labor. But what really happens is that resources are reallocated to compensate for losses. This reallocation appears like a great boon to the economy as a whole because people do no think of for what those resources could have been used if there had not been a war.
That example isn't really analagous to MS, but the principle is the same. People see that MS has made life better in some way. They do not see how much better it could have been otherwise. If the only historical fact that you change is the existence of MS without considering the effects of that absence, we are better of with MS than without it.
So these results are probably true - i.e., people really believe what is reported. (I've had people ask me, knowing that I dislike MS, why MS is being persecuted for doing a good thing.) Are they right? That's another issue.
Microsoft has been a good thing in some ways. They've also been a bad thing in some ways. On the level of accounting, I think MS has been good (as I indicated above). I suspect that a consideration of economic costs puts society in the red, but I really can't be certain because I simply don't know enough. Ever notice . .. Microsoft and its allies assume everyone is stupid.
If you'd like to have some fun with the X resources, download UDE from either CVS, or the most recent release. (I'll snapshot CVS if anyone is interested. Contact me and I'll point you to the URI.)
The CVS version has integrated (in the C sources) the feature I'm about to describe. (UNIX philosophy lovers may prefer the following method.)
UDE workspaces have an option called ScreenCommmand. Create X resource files with the configuration you'd like for a particular workspace. Create a shell script that executes (at least) the following: xrdb -merge myresourcefile Any app started in that workspace which uses xrm will 'fit' with the workspace. (There are ways to update at runtime, but it's complicated unless the app is specially coded. See editres for more for example.)
I discovered the X resources will learning Xlib. (I'm on to CLX, heh, heh.) I'd have to say that Netscape 4.7 and GNU Emacs 20.5 are presently the best looking apps I've got; at least they are the ones I look at the most. (M-x world-domination;-)
And if you think X resources are great, learn LISP and the LISP interfaces to X ( CLX ~ libX11 ). Once you do that start mucking around with.emacs and feel the AI GUI GNU goodness flow. Mmm. Ever notice . .. Microsoft and its allies assume everyone is stupid.
This is an attempt by Microsoft to have Linus deported to a third-world country with no electricity!
Seriously though, I remember hearing classmates conspiring to have on-campus-political opponents deported, so it might not be unreasonable to suspect that there's more to it than INS bungling.
The other thing is that the decline of U.S. culture is not surprising since we've placed such ridiculous restrictions on immigration. The U.S. has always 'imported its brains', of which it had been proud because it meant that smart people wanted to live here; of course, it has said very little for education here. Ever notice . .. Microsoft and its allies assume everyone is stupid.
What's funny about this story is that it would never have happened if there had been more foresight on the part of the creators of DNS. (The problems are obvious now, but may not have been so when the system was created.)
There should have been, and should be, requirements for registration of a name. The usual examples:
To register sld.com, sld must be a form of your company name or a trademarked product name. This tld is restricted to legally recognized businesses. (Jurisdictions are another problem here.)
To register sld.org, sld must be a form of the name of a recognized non-profit organization.
edu, gov, mil are handled in the obvious way.
sld.net is only for those not falling into the aforementioned tld's.
I used to think (1994) that this was actually the way things were run, until I learned of the peta.org dispute. It seems a fairly intuitive scheme to me, but there's probably many problems I'm overlooking. (And I haven't read the relevant RFC's either, sorry.) One of the possible problems might be resolved this way:
Linux is a trademark of Linus Torvalds. But it is his personally, not that of a business or NPO. Therefore only he may register linux.net, and linux.com and linux.org will not exist, unless he transfers (or licenses somehow?) the trademark to a business or NPO or creates one himself.
Another example: There is no business/NPO/trademark/product/etc called slashdot. Therefor there will be no slashdot.com/slashdot.org/slashdot.net. If someone should register that as a trademark/servicemark/etc then he may create slashdot.net. If he incorporates/entrusts/etc then slashdot.com or slashdot.org may be registered accordingly.
(The IP lawyers would love this, I'm sure. They'd get more clients, but less courtroom arguments. It would be good for a notary public, too.)
Since this scheme was/is not used, I find myself siding with 'cybersquatters' in most cases. In that regard, I think 'speculation' is a more apt description than 'squatting'. (Though I often doubt that, and haven't taken the time to think it through. Hey, I graduate B.S. Physics soon; I'm kinda preoccupied.)
Why do so many geeks/nerds/hackers/etc. dislike wearing suits? Or is there just a conspiracy among the media to make that seem so?;-) (And yes, I've read the jargon files, among others.)
It seems like suits would be much sought after for a few reasons: 1) Quality: Your OS is custom tailored, why aren't your clothes? 2) Slickness: Your GUI is fashionable, why aren't you? 3) Reuse: Your processes rarely raise a stink after running for days/weeks/months/years on end, but after 24hrs. those jeans and t-shirts are another story. 4) Modularity: 2+ piece suits can load or unload modules as needed. Processor too hot? rmmod coat. Packets lost in the stream? rmmod necktie. Change in environment? insmod coat. Expecting PHB attack on port *:brainbox insmod necktie. 5) Efficiency: Since suits/shirts/accessories are interchangeable, there's no need to make your apparel statically linked. (Leave that space on/dev/closet for important things like hardwear^H^H^Hare) 6) Emulation: Fool your boss, get a raise.
Well, enough of that list. Now I'll try to predict some replies (R) and answer (A) them: 1) Quality: (R) Sure, you jerk! Not everyone can afford that! (A) You're in the computer industry and can't afford two good suits, shirts, and dry-cleaning? Either think of them as supplements instead of complements, or get a job that pays you what it should. 2) Slickness: (R) According to the numbers, MS's GUI is fashionable. I like to express my individuality. (A) Fashion isn't about popularity/market-appeal. If you're thinking this way, you're probably missing the point of being an individual. 3) Reuse: (R) I can wear my clothes for days and noone complains. (A) They are being polite, but probably stop that when you're not around. Beside badly affecting you in ways you may not know, it's unhealthy. 4) Modularity: (R) Yeah, and I can do the same thing with a regular jacket and so forth. (A) Sure, but a suit opens more doors. 5) Efficiency: (R) What could be easier than jeans and a t-shirt? How often do you mix-and-match coats and trousers? That sounds like a static link to me. (A) OK, you got me here. But you still can save closet space (and I can pretend I have a/dev/closet:-) 6) Emulation: (R) As if that ever really happens. (A) Try it.
OK, I'm done. Now I'm going to put on my flame-retardant SUIT and wait for replies. In the mean time perhaps someone will come up with open source clothing designs and a sewing machine device driver. Either that or I'll wait for jokes about keyRINGs, softWEAR, jeans, genomes, gnomes; or at least for the server load to drop so I can see the photos.
Frankly, I'm suprised that I haven't seen a program that understands a spoken human language. The rules are codified in millions of textbooks and semantics should be parsable from WordNet, the OED or various other sources. And there are plenty of 'M-x doctor'-like programs that try to emulate conversation; and some of them, like megahal, can 'learn' well enough to fool some people.
I've even played with coding a C library that reads like English without proper writing mechanics. A natural language interpreter shouldn't be too hard, though it would be time consuming and would probably not produce a substantial return on investment to a financial sponsor.
I am inclined to think that the problem is ideological. There are so many disagreements among philosophers, linguists, and computer scientists as to the meaning of 'The cows are brown.' that unless one person is sufficiently savvy of all three and some other disciplines, no consensus or plan will ever be implemented.
Many people interested in physics who mock common sense fail to see how deeply it runs within them.
Study any modern theory of gravity (Einstein's general theory of relativity is the favorite nowadays;). Your unidentified commen sense tells you that, neglecting air resistance et al., the iron ball and the feather will fall at the same rate (ceteris paribus). Well, that uncommon common sense is wrong. The more massive object will fall faster because there is a secondary effect, similar to induction in wires. Just as an electric current has a magnetic field around it, a 'mass current' (read falling object) has a 'gravito-magnetic' field (one of many names for it). That secondary field, which is practically negligible, will cause the more massive object to fall faster.
There is much common sense about Aristotle, but often not enough to get people to read what he wrote; even more rare is the sense that one might question a translation. Aristotle describes inertia quite well and MIT has a classics archive in which you can read a translation of what he actually wrote. Even better would be to learn Latin, Greek and Aramaic so you can read earlier translations and perhaps understand the subtleties of language that often obfuscate the ideas being presented. (If you read English very literally and get the Physics is McKeon's Basic Works of Aristotle, you can save yourself a few years of study.)
It's also common sense that physics is hard or (for the slightly more erudite) unintuitive. But if you learn how to use mathematics and quit reading every other (good-physicist/bad-philosopher)'s interpretation of 'what it all means' then it becomes both easy and intuitive. Reading something about the history of the ideas also helps. ( Special relativity is even 'obvious' if you read Maxwell, Heaviside, Poincare, Lorentz and others. J.S.Bell, of Bell's Inequalities and EPR paradox, has a very good paper about that.)
Importance is twice a relative thing. It relates to something and for something. While the laws of nature affect everything, a study of them (e.g., physics) may be completely unimportant to me for I may make little use of what is not 'common sense'. Perhaps by choosing not to study something I show those who do study it more respect by not assuming that such a study could be done trivially.
Perhaps the only thing important to everyone is the pursuit of happiness for that, as Aristotle can show you, is an end in itself.
I've been wondering...instead of just making apps themable, would it be possible to make them modular/skinable/etc.?
More generally, how far can non-rectangular apps go? For example, could one create a word processor whose main window is a circle? I don't mean just the outer frame with menus or toolbars, but the actual text entry window. Of course, most language don't work that way, but is there the possibility of a meta- or para-language that could utilize such a display?
Granted, it would be weird/alien/scary for a while, but is anyone even considering such things?
I can think of three apps that 'break out of the box'. There's the Hyperbolic Tree apps from Inxight, The Brain from I don't know who, and the file manager I started to write 'FxM' which is currently on hold while I do more planning.
I'm on @home and I've detected attempted telnets onto my box for a few points, one of which is also on @home. The attempts usually come in groups which leads me to think it's probably the same person, and I have to wonder the the @home address is a cracked box. I was going to try email this week since ye olde admins telephone jumps to an eternally full voice mail box.
If anyone else has had similar trouble, I can be reached at merchan@baton.phys.lsu.edu. (I'll update my user info later)
PART II - PATENTABILITY OF INVENTIONS AND GRANT OF PATENTS
CHAPTER 10 - PATENTABILITY OF INVENTIONS
-HEAD-
Sec. 101. Inventions patentable
-STATUTE-
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine,
manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful
improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the
conditions and requirements of this title.
-SOURCE-
(July 19, 1952, ch. 950, 66 Stat. 797.)
Go here to find more. I searched for 'discover' in title 35.
I do not believe that discoveries should be patentable, but the current law allows it. Also recall that the US governemnt's web pages are not always up to date, i.e. H.R. 1907 may have changed this in some way.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm probably sacrificing my karma for this, but the post to which I'm replying sure as hell ought to be higher than this one!
I think it should get points for being informative
and insiteful
Now I've been a good boy and reposted the information. Please don't waste points moderating me down, and instead moderate the other guy up. Thanks.
I concur. (See my other post in this thread.)
/. over a year ago (check my number) and the rate of quality decline has gone exponential. The differnce between my user number and JoeShmoe's is about 30k, so that's about a 50% increase in readership, if each new /.-er's number is the last's plus one and everyone is still here.
I started read
I haven't checked how karma works, but it takes less than 50 to be able to post with the +1 bonus. I can, and my karma is less than 50. Check my user info and you'll see that I am presumptuous enough to moderate myself in this regard. >:-)
I have to agree with the seniority system here; though I usually despise such things. I think the karma bonuses would adjust for bright newcomers supremely, especially if there is more than a +1 bonus for high karma (Is there now?).
Incidently, this thread is offtopic. But the lead post was at +5 before I started writing this. I think this is a clear sign of rebellion in the moderatorship.
Slashdot is dead! Long live Slashdot!
No, it doesn't work. The servers are apparently overloaded.
/.)
;-) and read at -1, newest first, ignore threads. I've only seen one post in the last year that sank to -1 undeservedly (IMO); I push it back up to 0.
When I don't have moderator points I browse at +2, and if there's any story with more than, say, 200 posts among the top 5 stories it is impossible to get through. (And I'm sick of seeing the JunkBuster proxy page when I'm trying to read
When I do have moderator points I go straight to the story with the most posts (unless it's by Katz
Why is the website of a politcal campaign under the COM TLD, when it should have been registered under ORG?
According to `queso www.algore2000.com':
216.35.210.246:80 * Linux 2.1.xx
Why are you using a development kernel? Wasn't the 2.2.xx series available before the site went active?
... and it can be found here.
Just to pick nits...
;-)
;-)
There are plenty of things made of paired quarks, they just don't last for long. (No relativity jokes please...oops!). For example: down and anti-up combine to form the pi-negative meson.
(If my naming is archane, I apologize. This is not my forte. I'm stuck in Maxwellian times.
Also, there's more than one periodic table. The one to which is referred in jd's post is the one of elements. There's also the one of nuclides. Changes in the nucleic structure probably wouldn't change much on the elemental level, at least no much more than isotopic nuclei do. What's interesting is what you can do besides atomic chemistry. Nuclear stability is hardly dependent on electric charge, it's not strong enough.
(Hmm... Some might argue than protons and neutrons are not comprised of triplets of quarks, but that they are particular triplets; proton = uud, neutron = udd.)
Learn to pick nits! And why! Visit The Underground Grammarian. (Check out the license too!)
Yeah! That's right! fsck the Bill of Rights.
When you do that you'll see this amendment near the bottom; it's numbered nine.
This amendment is often forgotten by people and seems to have been completely forgotten by the U.S. government. How often do you hear the phrase 'constitutional rights'? That phrase is an attack on your rights. It's tantamount to saying that you have no rights, except those given to you by law. Well that's not so! You have all your rights by the fact that you're a human being that has to reason in order to live.
Don't win battles to lose the war.
Thanks, I needed that.
(Did anyone get the feeling I was really replying to Katz's article?)
As I recall, Tim Berners-Lee created the web to improve communication among researchers. You can see this in many places, but more often than not researchers bury papers in the PDF. (What is the correct setting to launch gv with the file from NS 4.7 anyway? My system always opens a blank page.)
Commercialization has brought the poor advertising strategy of most companies to the web. The strategy is poor because the advertisements aren't advertisements! They are merely product propaganda with little information. Ad designers need to drop the assumption that people are cows; if they don't, they might discover that a raging cow is more fearsome than a bull (female of a non-sentient species and all that...).
Part of the problem is the poor characterization of capitalism that predominates in most people's minds. Capitalism is not about competition. Competition is merely one aspect of the capitalism. But almost everyone, pro and con, thinks they are equivalent. Competition can exist in the absence of a free market; for what people compete is what changes. Under the best system, what competition occurs is to create a better product. Slightly worse is the system in which people compete for market share. And in the worst systems people compete for the favor of a man with power over life or death.
But there is no universal law that says we have to compete. When we chant 'nos morituri te salutamus', there is no one listening. There is no playing field but for that which is encircled by the dogs which would keep themselves in chains.
If only that legendary French baker had said to the king's emissary, "Let me alone, and I'll let everyone else alone." But he didn't, and now people think that laissez-faire is as far as civil society goes. Well, it doesn't; and the reason to be left alone by the government is not so that you try to rule other people. But people have to stop thinking in terms of masters and slaves.
There is no scarcity. Nothing is more than what it is, but there is plenty of everything. One might say that time is scarce, but really you have your whole life. If people stop believing that there is a sum of wealth forever fixed for a slice of which they must fight, then perhaps the competition will end.
When people know what is, they can act upon it. When people can act freely, they can be happy. When people choose to be happy, they can learn many things.
The web was created to improve cooperation. Ignore the forces which would work against that, but don't let them meddle with your affairs. The web, like the software that created and sustains it, is for sharing. Let those who would compete remain chained one to another their cave. But do not go there, and do not let them take you.
OK, I've decided to share my secrets. ;-)
.
Go here for the configuration used in the screenshot.
Ever notice . .
Microsoft and its allies assume everyone is stupid.
I've already seen some complaints about NS 4.7, Motif, and XAW. (Here and attached to other articles.) I don't see what the problem is. I've provided a screenshot of a prepared desktop.
.
(It appears that my department's server doesn't feed PNG's properly, you may have to your box and display locally. A JPEG was too big for my taste.)
My window manager is UDE. My workspaces/virtual desktops/whatchamacallits are just color schemed and minimal. What apps I use that use xrm always match (colors, fonts, etc.) the workspace in which they are opened, so the desktop is consistent. The screenshot has three windows:
(1) At the bottom of the stack (top left of screen) is Netscape 4.7 after running a bit of my own JavaScript. This is the mode which I usually use for reading long documents, except that the window would be maximized. All the functions of NS that I need are available through keystrokes and button 3.
(2) In the middle (stack and screen) is GNU emacs running the ansi-term from which I took the screenshot.
(3) At the top of the stack, in the bottom right of the screen is NS 4.7 again; this time without my JavaScript. I don't like any thing that uses vertical space since I'm used to reading paper that is taller than it is wide. (Though I may have to get my hands on a green-and-white line printer someday.)
I'm a minimalist (I suppose) so I've cut down on the windowing fluff as much as possible. The screenshot was taken at 1024x768 on my 12" external monitor. That's right 12" external; it can be a relief from running 800x600 on the 10.4" laptop LCD. (No cricks in the neck either.)
What I'd like to figure out is how to make my little JavaScript execute whenever a new browser window is opened. I imagine there's something in preferences.js or netscape.ad that would make it possible, but I haven't found it yet (probably for lack of trying).
Sometimes I think that people who complain about these things are waiting for a magic desktop. That makes me wonder why they don't use CLX.
Ever notice . .
Microsoft and its allies assume everyone is stupid.
That shouldn't be a problem for creating artificial limbs. (I.e., the research suggested has already been done.) Animal musculature is usually paired; one muscle moves the limb one way, the other muscle moves it the other way. With this pairing it is possible to constuct the artifical limb so that there is always tension and the signal relaxes one 'muscle' to allow the other to move the limb. I think I've even heard that natural musculature actually works this way to some extent. IIRC, it's a trinary system with continuities in 2 states: off, contract to some degree, relax to some degree. .
Ever notice . .
Microsoft and its allies assume everyone is stupid.
This doesn't surprise me, and not because I'm cynical about the U.S. population or MS propaganda.
.
But there is a 'problem' with human intuition. People can only see what is, and they rarely consider what could be. People tend not to think economically, the think like accountants; they fail to consider opportunity costs.
Consider the claim that war is good for business. This is probably true if your business is munitions or reconstruction or if it relies on slave labor. But what really happens is that resources are reallocated to compensate for losses. This reallocation appears like a great boon to the economy as a whole because people do no think of for what those resources could have been used if there had not been a war.
That example isn't really analagous to MS, but the principle is the same. People see that MS has made life better in some way. They do not see how much better it could have been otherwise. If the only historical fact that you change is the existence of MS without considering the effects of that absence, we are better of with MS than without it.
So these results are probably true - i.e., people really believe what is reported. (I've had people ask me, knowing that I dislike MS, why MS is being persecuted for doing a good thing.) Are they right? That's another issue.
Microsoft has been a good thing in some ways. They've also been a bad thing in some ways. On the level of accounting, I think MS has been good (as I indicated above). I suspect that a consideration of economic costs puts society in the red, but I really can't be certain because I simply don't know enough.
Ever notice . .
Microsoft and its allies assume everyone is stupid.
This post reminds me of why I prefer free software over open source software. .
Ever notice . .
Microsoft and its allies assume everyone is stupid.
Amen!
;-)
.emacs and feel the AI GUI GNU goodness flow. Mmm. .
If you'd like to have some fun with the X resources, download UDE from either CVS, or the most recent release. (I'll snapshot CVS if anyone is interested. Contact me and I'll point you to the URI.)
The CVS version has integrated (in the C sources) the feature I'm about to describe. (UNIX philosophy lovers may prefer the following method.)
UDE workspaces have an option called ScreenCommmand. Create X resource files with the configuration you'd like for a particular workspace. Create a shell script that executes (at least) the following:
xrdb -merge myresourcefile
Any app started in that workspace which uses xrm will 'fit' with the workspace. (There are ways to update at runtime, but it's complicated unless the app is specially coded. See editres for more for example.)
I discovered the X resources will learning Xlib. (I'm on to CLX, heh, heh.) I'd have to say that Netscape 4.7 and GNU Emacs 20.5 are presently the best looking apps I've got; at least they are the ones I look at the most. (M-x world-domination
And if you think X resources are great, learn LISP and the LISP interfaces to X ( CLX ~ libX11 ). Once you do that start mucking around with
Ever notice . .
Microsoft and its allies assume everyone is stupid.
Two things come to mind:
.
This is an attempt by Microsoft to have Linus deported to a third-world country with no electricity!
Seriously though, I remember hearing classmates conspiring to have on-campus-political opponents deported, so it might not be unreasonable to suspect that there's more to it than INS bungling.
The other thing is that the decline of U.S. culture is not surprising since we've placed such ridiculous restrictions on immigration. The U.S. has always 'imported its brains', of which it had been proud because it meant that smart people wanted to live here; of course, it has said very little for education here.
Ever notice . .
Microsoft and its allies assume everyone is stupid.
What's funny about this story is that it would never have happened if there had been more foresight on the part of the creators of DNS. (The problems are obvious now, but may not have been so when the system was created.)
There should have been, and should be, requirements for registration of a name. The usual examples:
To register sld.com, sld must be a form of your company name or a trademarked product name. This tld is restricted to legally recognized businesses. (Jurisdictions are another problem here.)
To register sld.org, sld must be a form of the name of a recognized non-profit organization.
edu, gov, mil are handled in the obvious way.
sld.net is only for those not falling into the aforementioned tld's.
I used to think (1994) that this was actually the way things were run, until I learned of the peta.org dispute. It seems a fairly intuitive scheme to me, but there's probably many problems I'm overlooking. (And I haven't read the relevant RFC's either, sorry.) One of the possible problems might be resolved this way:
Linux is a trademark of Linus Torvalds. But it is his personally, not that of a business or NPO. Therefore only he may register linux.net, and linux.com and linux.org will not exist, unless he transfers (or licenses somehow?) the trademark to a business or NPO or creates one himself.
Another example:
There is no business/NPO/trademark/product/etc called slashdot. Therefor there will be no slashdot.com/slashdot.org/slashdot.net. If someone should register that as a trademark/servicemark/etc then he may create slashdot.net. If he incorporates/entrusts/etc then slashdot.com or slashdot.org may be registered accordingly.
(The IP lawyers would love this, I'm sure. They'd get more clients, but less courtroom arguments. It would be good for a notary public, too.)
Since this scheme was/is not used, I find myself siding with 'cybersquatters' in most cases. In that regard, I think 'speculation' is a more apt description than 'squatting'. (Though I often doubt that, and haven't taken the time to think it through. Hey, I graduate B.S. Physics soon; I'm kinda preoccupied.)
Why do so many geeks/nerds/hackers/etc. dislike wearing suits? Or is there just a conspiracy among the media to make that seem so? ;-) (And yes, I've read the jargon files, among others.)
/dev/closet for important things like hardwear^H^H^Hare)
/dev/closet :-)
It seems like suits would be much sought after for a few reasons:
1) Quality: Your OS is custom tailored, why aren't your clothes?
2) Slickness: Your GUI is fashionable, why aren't you?
3) Reuse: Your processes rarely raise a stink after running for days/weeks/months/years on end, but after 24hrs. those jeans and t-shirts are another story.
4) Modularity: 2+ piece suits can load or unload modules as needed. Processor too hot? rmmod coat. Packets lost in the stream? rmmod necktie. Change in environment? insmod coat. Expecting PHB attack on port *:brainbox insmod necktie.
5) Efficiency: Since suits/shirts/accessories are interchangeable, there's no need to make your apparel statically linked. (Leave that space on
6) Emulation: Fool your boss, get a raise.
Well, enough of that list. Now I'll try to predict some replies (R) and answer (A) them:
1) Quality:
(R) Sure, you jerk! Not everyone can afford that!
(A) You're in the computer industry and can't afford two good suits, shirts, and dry-cleaning? Either think of them as supplements instead of complements, or get a job that pays you what it should.
2) Slickness:
(R) According to the numbers, MS's GUI is fashionable. I like to express my individuality.
(A) Fashion isn't about popularity/market-appeal. If you're thinking this way, you're probably missing the point of being an individual.
3) Reuse:
(R) I can wear my clothes for days and noone complains.
(A) They are being polite, but probably stop that when you're not around. Beside badly affecting you in ways you may not know, it's unhealthy.
4) Modularity:
(R) Yeah, and I can do the same thing with a regular jacket and so forth.
(A) Sure, but a suit opens more doors.
5) Efficiency:
(R) What could be easier than jeans and a t-shirt? How often do you mix-and-match coats and trousers? That sounds like a static link to me.
(A) OK, you got me here. But you still can save closet space (and I can pretend I have a
6) Emulation:
(R) As if that ever really happens.
(A) Try it.
OK, I'm done. Now I'm going to put on my flame-retardant SUIT and wait for replies. In the mean time perhaps someone will come up with open source clothing designs and a sewing machine device driver. Either that or I'll wait for jokes about keyRINGs, softWEAR, jeans, genomes, gnomes; or at least for the server load to drop so I can see the photos.
Frankly, I'm suprised that I haven't seen a program that understands a spoken human language. The rules are codified in millions of textbooks and semantics should be parsable from WordNet, the OED or various other sources. And there are plenty of 'M-x doctor'-like programs that try to emulate conversation; and some of them, like megahal, can 'learn' well enough to fool some people.
I've even played with coding a C library that reads like English without proper writing mechanics. A natural language interpreter shouldn't be too hard, though it would be time consuming and would probably not produce a substantial return on investment to a financial sponsor.
I am inclined to think that the problem is ideological. There are so many disagreements among philosophers, linguists, and computer scientists as to the meaning of 'The cows are brown.' that unless one person is sufficiently savvy of all three and some other disciplines, no consensus or plan will ever be implemented.
Many people interested in physics who mock common sense fail to see how deeply it runs within them.
;). Your unidentified commen sense tells you that, neglecting air resistance et al., the iron ball and the feather will fall at the same rate (ceteris paribus). Well, that uncommon common sense is wrong. The more massive object will fall faster because there is a secondary effect, similar to induction in wires. Just as an electric current has a magnetic field around it, a 'mass current' (read falling object) has a 'gravito-magnetic' field (one of many names for it). That secondary field, which is practically negligible, will cause the more massive object to fall faster.
Study any modern theory of gravity (Einstein's general theory of relativity is the favorite nowadays
There is much common sense about Aristotle, but often not enough to get people to read what he wrote; even more rare is the sense that one might question a translation. Aristotle describes inertia quite well and MIT has a classics archive in which you can read a translation of what he actually wrote. Even better would be to learn Latin, Greek and Aramaic so you can read earlier translations and perhaps understand the subtleties of language that often obfuscate the ideas being presented. (If you read English very literally and get the Physics is McKeon's Basic Works of Aristotle, you can save yourself a few years of study.)
It's also common sense that physics is hard or (for the slightly more erudite) unintuitive. But if you learn how to use mathematics and quit reading every other (good-physicist/bad-philosopher)'s interpretation of 'what it all means' then it becomes both easy and intuitive. Reading something about the history of the ideas also helps. ( Special relativity is even 'obvious' if you read Maxwell, Heaviside, Poincare, Lorentz and others. J.S.Bell, of Bell's Inequalities and EPR paradox, has a very good paper about that.)
Importance is twice a relative thing. It relates to something and for something. While the laws of nature affect everything, a study of them (e.g., physics) may be completely unimportant to me for I may make little use of what is not 'common sense'. Perhaps by choosing not to study something I show those who do study it more respect by not assuming that such a study could be done trivially.
Perhaps the only thing important to everyone is the pursuit of happiness for that, as Aristotle can show you, is an end in itself.
Or, if you prefer Weird Al, try the Mircosoft Polka!
argv 1/ AX-25 $
I've been wondering...instead of just making apps themable, would it be possible to make them modular/skinable/etc.?
More generally, how far can non-rectangular apps go? For example, could one create a word processor whose main window is a circle? I don't mean just the outer frame with menus or toolbars, but the actual text entry window. Of course, most language don't work that way, but is there the possibility of a meta- or para-language that could utilize such a display?
Granted, it would be weird/alien/scary for a while, but is anyone even considering such things?
I can think of three apps that 'break out of the box'. There's the Hyperbolic Tree apps from Inxight, The Brain from I don't know who, and the file manager I started to write 'FxM' which is currently on hold while I do more planning.
I'm on @home and I've detected attempted telnets onto my box for a few points, one of which is also on @home. The attempts usually come in groups which leads me to think it's probably the same person, and I have to wonder the the @home address is a cracked box. I was going to try email this week since ye olde admins telephone jumps to an eternally full voice mail box.
If anyone else has had similar trouble, I can be reached at merchan@baton.phys.lsu.edu. (I'll update my user info later)
From the U.S. Legal Code here
-CITE-
35 USC Sec. 101 01/26/98
-EXPCITE-
TITLE 35 - PATENTS
PART II - PATENTABILITY OF INVENTIONS AND GRANT OF PATENTS
CHAPTER 10 - PATENTABILITY OF INVENTIONS
-HEAD-
Sec. 101. Inventions patentable
-STATUTE-
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine,
manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful
improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the
conditions and requirements of this title.
-SOURCE-
(July 19, 1952, ch. 950, 66 Stat. 797.)
Go here to find more. I searched for 'discover' in title 35.
I do not believe that discoveries should be patentable, but the current law allows it. Also recall that the US governemnt's web pages are not always up to date, i.e. H.R. 1907 may have changed this in some way.