Re:Oh the possibilities for abuse are amusing
on
Testing ISP Censorship
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
That might also be a good way to demonstrate how fraglantly wrong the law is. I wonder how many sites I could get taken off, for no reason whatsoever, inside of a week.
Of course, I couldn't withstand the legal implications of that sort of abuse, so it won't happen, but it might display how serious the problem is.
Also, I hate to give ideas to Satan, but SCO should try sending these to tons of Linux websites. It'd be a step up from the logic of most their other plans.
"The US ISP followed up on the dubious complaint, made on behalf of the chairman of the non-existent John Stuart Mill Heritage Foundation, with detailed questions. But the UK ISP took the site down almost immediately, effectively censoring legal content without investigation."
"If they succeed it doesn't bode well for the x86 architecture, which seems to be a victim of it's own success. They seem to be trapped into just adding faster clocks instead of changing the architecture."
It seems you haven't been introduced yet. Foidulus, this is x86-64. Him and the opteron family want to have a little talk with you.
"It makes poeple think that prosesor runs faster when it realy doesn't."
Actually, it makes people think the processor runs faster when it really *does*. Which is why I like their numbering scheme: it compensates for consumer ignorance.
"Actually, they may well be VERY relevent, depending on what the message contained."
They may be relevant TO THE TRIAL. The fact of his guilt exists outside of the courts. The courts determine his fate in the legal system. His guilt was determined when he did or did not commit the act.
The phone messages may determine the result of the trial, determine whether he goes to jail, or even allow the jury to determine if he is guilty or not, but they will not determine that he is guilty.
"I don't know about the US, but here in the UK, then if a court has found you guilty, then legally speaking you _are_ guilty, until and unless an higher court overturns that finding. It's called a "legal fiction" -- that is, it may not be true, but it is assumed to be for the purposes of running the legal system."
Yes, it is assumed to be true. Whether or not it is true exists completely independently of any evidence of any sort in any direction.
He is guilty or is not guilty, and has been so for a long time. The evidence will determine nothing, it will only allow the jury to determine something. Due to the meaning of the word, the two usages are not identical, and the one in the article is wrong and wrong in an important way.
"What's in those messages could help determine whether the sex was consensual or whether Bryant is guilty of rape as charged."
The text messages will determine whether his is guilty of rape? How about, they'll determine whether or not he's FOUND guilty of rape.
His guilt is completely separate from those stupid messages. The idea that the courts determine whether or not someone ACTUALLY IS GUILTY is a stupid and common American fallacy. (I don't know what it's like elsewhere.)
Their research is correct, their decision is iffy.
The lower left is the primary target, and they put the destructive option there. Save/Cancel puts cancel, the action which results in non-action, in the target area. If you hit cancel, you can open the dialog again and hit save.
Also, that assumes that the location is the only influence. They also ignored reading order, which in standard English is usually Yes/No, or affirmative and then negative.
Their decision was flawed, but only a little. GNOME's decision, however, was flat-out stupid. GNOME was choosing to make their applications inconsistent with every other application available on UNIX, as KDE and all the older UNIX applications and anything from the older versions of GNOME all used the other button order.
Consistency is essential, and they blew it. It was a stupid decision, period.
Follow this logic: While we can't make vending machines clever enough to tell the difference between real dollars and fake ones, we can make your computer smart enough to not let you do anything with money.
No, you miss the point. Modifying the vending machines would cost corporations money. Instead they'd rather put the onus on the end user -- we should pay to protect their investment. Or, put succinctly, business as usual.
No, you miss the point. Nobody can make the vending machines or the programs differentiate between counterfeit and real money. This program would prevent you from working on counterfeit money or on real money. That's completely different and very much easier.
"As for Linux apparently it's in the GNOME UI guidelines."
And the exact reverse is in the KDE UI guidelines, and KDE has larger marketshare, and KDE has been using that standard longer, and apps made before KDE or GNOME use that standard, and earlier versions of GNOME use that standard.
So, basically, the decision is because they didn't think about it.
Python should not be used for core libraries or core apps like Nautilus. As completely excellent as Python is, it's just a fact that it just doesn't run as fast as C (or even Java or Mono) for nearly any operation. Also, using Nautilus as an example again, while Nautilus is finally fast enough as of 2.6, it still needs work in terms of memory footprint. Going to Java or Mono wouldn't help this, but going with Python for something like Nautilus would probably make it Much Much Worse(TM). Finally, while PyChecker is a beautiful complement to Python, it's simply not a complete replacement for static type checking.
Quite right. The core system should still be completely native. The purpose of the change over, as they originally stated it, was to allow programmers to develop apps faster, and to allow new people to start development sooner. It wasn't for the core apps, so that's not so important.
What you did hit on, though, was that Python (IMHO) ought to be pushed as the Linux equivlant role as VB does for MS - with hooks for it into everything, wherever possible. I don't see any reason why Python shouldn't be A) used like VB is for making quick custom desktop apps, but B) (and I know I'll get flamed for this), like VB, Python makes for a great system *and* web scripting language (ie: why push PHP when Python could do a much better job and offer familiarity between web scripting and system scripting)
Well, PHP is used instead of Python because it truly is almost a thousand times easier to use. It really is, especially for bad programmers like myself. I find Python not-very-hard, but I find PHP trivial.
If Python could get the approximately the same speed, memory footprint, and built-in sanity checking as Java or Mono, then it could be a contender for core app/library programming. Sadly, this isn't likely, and even if a concerted effort were launched to this effect immediately, it still wouldn't materialize for a couple years. Java and Mono, however, are here now.
Python isn't as much slower as people imply, and it's not too important either. Java and C# are that same amount slower than C and C++. What I see happening is Java/C#/Python being used for light development in the coming years, and D replacing C/C++ in about three years. D really does look good (my roommate is working on its STL, so I see a lot of it).
According to a lot of theory, yes. In practice, no. Both C# and Java need their virtual machine to run. Python can be interpreted or compiled. When compiled, it's plenty fast.
Of course, when GCJ is done, this won't be true, and Java will be able to be compiled.
1. The Menus should be much more customizable; treated like folders that you can click and drag into (I hate to say this, but "Like Windows").
Quite right.
2. Better Video control properties; take advantage of XFree's extended features and have options like TV switching and such.
Again, correct.
3. Better preferences; the control panels are quite lacking.
GNOME is a horrible offender on the front that it wants to give the user just a few options, but no real power.
4. Other aesthetic enhancements that will make gnome pretty enough to compete with other window environments (like win XP's or OSX's). Smooth scrolling, the zoom-on-hover icons in OSX are sweet, and _drop shadows on windows_ would be real nice.
Those are being done on the X level in the new x.org server. Not GNOME's problem.
5. Some kind of Linux-version-of-Active-Desktop would be real nice, so I could have an IRC session running as part of my wallpaper,anchor the weather channel radar map to the background, etcetera.
It exists, and has for a very long time. On KDE, you can use SuperKaramba and stick all sorts of things on your desktop. I thought GNOME had something, but I don't know.
------ -- One area in which GNOME has lagged behind other desktop operating systems like Windows and Mac OS X is tight integration with hardware. GNOME is working with the freedesktop.org community to make plug-and-play hardware management just work. --
For me this highlights that Gnome has moved well into position as the premier Linux desktop, and rather than concentrating on what KDE are doing, they are focusing on bigger fish:) Looks like all those Sun corporate installations helped a little bit! Also, the close work the Gnome community is putting in alongside freedesktop.org is a *very* good thing. Integrating the desktop with the hardware is something Windows has been able to (alledgedly) do since '95, and it's about time we had that too! New users certainly need to be able to plug their digicam in and have it "just work", and if this can all be incorporated with Nautilus and the CD burner module, transferring pictures could be as easy as insert camera, insert blank CD and click Go. Gnome could fast be approaching Apple levels of usability!
------
Guess what? When working with freedesktop.org, they're also working with KDE. Just shut up.
Java and C# have been proposed as alternatives. The community is currently discussing the technical, political, and legal ramifications of adopting these languages into the desktop.s
I would like to point out that Python has been proposed ABOUT A HUNDRED TIMES. Guess what: It's easy to use, it's high level, it has no legal ramifications, it's open source. Python solves every problem they have with its alternatives.
Also, using Python paves the way for universally integrated scripting, somewhat like the VB script possibilities in MS-Windows (and, despite waht MicroSoft did, that is a good thing).
Loser pays doesn't work because those who don't have money cannot afford the risk of going to court, and the rich can just throw in money until they win.
That always really bothers me. Those people Should be included, but there should also be some advocates from other groups on there. Why isn't there someone from the EFF on there?
Everyone from every side has an agenda, so we should have some effort to represent every agenda.
Hopefully there are some other people taking part other than those listed. The article may have only mentioned them because the writer believes his audience is uninformed or stupid.
KDE has started doing this. They made a preloader for Konqueror and it now starts faster than IE.
They can do the same for other things, but it causes problems. Windows is faster for light loads, because it preloads things. Linux is faster when I have eight-to-twelve apps running. And, guess what, I usually have ten apps running.
Linux is always faster for usage for me, but slower for loading. I prefer the fast usage.
Slashdot Mirror
That might also be a good way to demonstrate how fraglantly wrong the law is. I wonder how many sites I could get taken off, for no reason whatsoever, inside of a week.
Of course, I couldn't withstand the legal implications of that sort of abuse, so it won't happen, but it might display how serious the problem is.
Also, I hate to give ideas to Satan, but SCO should try sending these to tons of Linux websites. It'd be a step up from the logic of most their other plans.
"The US ISP followed up on the dubious complaint, made on behalf of the chairman of the non-existent John Stuart Mill Heritage Foundation, with detailed questions. But the UK ISP took the site down almost immediately, effectively censoring legal content without investigation."
I'm glad the rest of the world realizes it. I've known I hated looking at people for years now.
"If they succeed it doesn't bode well for the x86 architecture, which seems to be a victim of it's own success. They seem to be trapped into just adding faster clocks instead of changing the architecture."
It seems you haven't been introduced yet. Foidulus, this is x86-64. Him and the opteron family want to have a little talk with you.
"It makes poeple think that prosesor runs faster when it realy doesn't."
Actually, it makes people think the processor runs faster when it really *does*. Which is why I like their numbering scheme: it compensates for consumer ignorance.
"Actually, they may well be VERY relevent, depending on what the message contained."
They may be relevant TO THE TRIAL. The fact of his guilt exists outside of the courts. The courts determine his fate in the legal system. His guilt was determined when he did or did not commit the act.
The phone messages may determine the result of the trial, determine whether he goes to jail, or even allow the jury to determine if he is guilty or not, but they will not determine that he is guilty.
"I don't know about the US, but here in the UK, then if a court has found you guilty, then legally speaking you _are_ guilty, until and unless an higher court overturns that finding. It's called a "legal fiction" -- that is, it may not be true, but it is assumed to be for the purposes of running the legal system."
Yes, it is assumed to be true. Whether or not it is true exists completely independently of any evidence of any sort in any direction.
He is guilty or is not guilty, and has been so for a long time. The evidence will determine nothing, it will only allow the jury to determine something. Due to the meaning of the word, the two usages are not identical, and the one in the article is wrong and wrong in an important way.
"What's in those messages could help determine whether the sex was consensual or whether Bryant is guilty of rape as charged."
The text messages will determine whether his is guilty of rape? How about, they'll determine whether or not he's FOUND guilty of rape.
His guilt is completely separate from those stupid messages. The idea that the courts determine whether or not someone ACTUALLY IS GUILTY is a stupid and common American fallacy. (I don't know what it's like elsewhere.)
Their research is correct, their decision is iffy.
The lower left is the primary target, and they put the destructive option there. Save/Cancel puts cancel, the action which results in non-action, in the target area. If you hit cancel, you can open the dialog again and hit save.
Also, that assumes that the location is the only influence. They also ignored reading order, which in standard English is usually Yes/No, or affirmative and then negative.
Their decision was flawed, but only a little. GNOME's decision, however, was flat-out stupid. GNOME was choosing to make their applications inconsistent with every other application available on UNIX, as KDE and all the older UNIX applications and anything from the older versions of GNOME all used the other button order.
Consistency is essential, and they blew it. It was a stupid decision, period.
Blockquoth the poster:
No, you miss the point. Modifying the vending machines would cost corporations money. Instead they'd rather put the onus on the end user -- we should pay to protect their investment. Or, put succinctly, business as usual.
No, you miss the point. Nobody can make the vending machines or the programs differentiate between counterfeit and real money. This program would prevent you from working on counterfeit money or on real money. That's completely different and very much easier.
No, Firefox is a GTK application. It does not use GNOMElibs, so it is not a GNOME application.
It should follow the standard which is more widely used in Linux, not the GNOME one.
"As for Linux apparently it's in the GNOME UI guidelines."
And the exact reverse is in the KDE UI guidelines, and KDE has larger marketshare, and KDE has been using that standard longer, and apps made before KDE or GNOME use that standard, and earlier versions of GNOME use that standard.
So, basically, the decision is because they didn't think about it.
Yeah, but who the hell starts them with capital letters?!?!?!
Even with tab-completion, I just got my time quadrupled! Frickin' shift keys.
It is compiled to byte-code, the same as Java and .Net, but the Python byte-code interpreter is not a heavy VM like the JavaVM.
GNOME and KDE are not window managers.
Metacity and KWin are window managers.
You aren't even talking about what you're talking about.
According to a lot of theory, yes. In practice, no. Both C# and Java need their virtual machine to run. Python can be interpreted or compiled. When compiled, it's plenty fast.
Of course, when GCJ is done, this won't be true, and Java will be able to be compiled.
Python can be compiled, it just doesn't need to be. So compile it. Problem solved.
1. The Menus should be much more customizable; treated like folders that you can click and drag into (I hate to say this, but "Like Windows").
Quite right.
2. Better Video control properties; take advantage of XFree's extended features and have options like TV switching and such.
Again, correct.
3. Better preferences; the control panels are quite lacking.
GNOME is a horrible offender on the front that it wants to give the user just a few options, but no real power.
4. Other aesthetic enhancements that will make gnome pretty enough to compete with other window environments (like win XP's or OSX's). Smooth scrolling, the zoom-on-hover icons in OSX are sweet, and _drop shadows on windows_ would be real nice.
Those are being done on the X level in the new x.org server. Not GNOME's problem.
5. Some kind of Linux-version-of-Active-Desktop would be real nice, so I could have an IRC session running as part of my wallpaper,anchor the weather channel radar map to the background, etcetera.
It exists, and has for a very long time. On KDE, you can use SuperKaramba and stick all sorts of things on your desktop. I thought GNOME had something, but I don't know.
"KDE isn't standardized/cross platform enough"
Uh, what? GNOME is no more cross-platform. They run on the various *nixes.
"GTK is easily the most painful widget set, both graphically and programmatically, that I have ever used."
Oh, you were talking about the Widget set? Guess what: Qt is the most cross-platform one of those. (In case you didn't know, Qt is what KDE uses.)
------
:) Looks like all those Sun corporate installations helped a little bit! Also, the close work the Gnome community is putting in alongside freedesktop.org is a *very* good thing. Integrating the desktop with the hardware is something Windows has been able to (alledgedly) do since '95, and it's about time we had that too! New users certainly need to be able to plug their digicam in and have it "just work", and if this can all be incorporated with Nautilus and the CD burner module, transferring pictures could be as easy as insert camera, insert blank CD and click Go. Gnome could fast be approaching Apple levels of usability!
--
One area in which GNOME has lagged behind other desktop operating
systems like Windows and Mac OS X is tight integration with hardware.
GNOME is working with the freedesktop.org community to make
plug-and-play hardware management just work.
--
For me this highlights that Gnome has moved well into position as the premier Linux desktop, and rather than concentrating on what KDE are doing, they are focusing on bigger fish
------
Guess what? When working with freedesktop.org, they're also working with KDE. Just shut up.
Also, using Python paves the way for universally integrated scripting, somewhat like the VB script possibilities in MS-Windows (and, despite waht MicroSoft did, that is a good thing).
Loser pays doesn't work because those who don't have money cannot afford the risk of going to court, and the rich can just throw in money until they win.
That always really bothers me. Those people Should be included, but there should also be some advocates from other groups on there. Why isn't there someone from the EFF on there?
Everyone from every side has an agenda, so we should have some effort to represent every agenda.
Hopefully there are some other people taking part other than those listed. The article may have only mentioned them because the writer believes his audience is uninformed or stupid.
KDE has started doing this. They made a preloader for Konqueror and it now starts faster than IE.
They can do the same for other things, but it causes problems. Windows is faster for light loads, because it preloads things. Linux is faster when I have eight-to-twelve apps running. And, guess what, I usually have ten apps running.
Linux is always faster for usage for me, but slower for loading. I prefer the fast usage.