it makes me really doubt the 'security' of our electronic voting systems
Don't worry about it. The only people who use them are the idiots in Florida too stupid to punch a hole in a card. And do you really want the votes of people like that to count anyway?:-)
I don't know, I remember being annoyed at the corny stereotypical "them newfangled computer thangies" attitude the film seemed to take. But maybe I'm remembering it being worse than it was.
I thought Tron was more endurable. Good inside jokes (the "bit" that can only answer yes or no, the Users as gods, the I/O tower).
Not so sure about that. "The body" is not a sentient being.
Correct. The individual is responsible--his or her soul, the non-material aspect of human being. But regardless of this, the body doesn't correspond to the nation in anyway. A nation is a completely abstract concept. It's an imposed idea--we are all supposedly related in some significant way because we happen to live in the same geographic region. This is simply not true: look at all the people in the U.S. who support Islamic terrorism! And all the people in the U.S. who violently oppose it. And of course, all the people in the U.S. who are somewhere in the middle. Ideology is a much more meaningful way of relating people than either geography (nation states) or familial relationship (tribal states).
Which is not to say that nations are useless or that we should dismantle them. They serve their purpose but they aren't solid or sure ways of classifying and identifying people.
No, you've missed my point. "The nation" is not a sentient being. People committed those acts, and people were responsible for them. This whole talk of "the nation" is merely a way to mitigate and soften a sense of guilt. Guilt that the people who are alive now shouldn't even feel in the first place since they weren't there and had nothing to do with the events.
I don't know how things are in Germany, but here in the U.S., there are a lot of people trying to hold modern Americans responsible for what happened 200+ years ago. Not only are we not responsible, but in some cases, even our ancestors weren't responsible. Most of mine didn't show up until after these events had taken place; and some of them were Cherokee Indians who were on the receiving end anyway. And yet, because I'm white, I would be accused of guilt. Seems a little odd, doesn't it?
Wow. You certainly get the prize for quantity. But when it comes to quality, well.... My dad used to know this guy (when I was about 6 or so) who had a house full of obscure and fascinating equipment. Old arcade games, bizarre ham radio equipment, non-descript components of every size, shape, and function, UNIX workstations, you name it. He was a *serious* hardware hacker and there was enough PCB in that house to build a city. That was back in the early to mid 80s.
I don't know what he's doing now but seeing all that cool equipment was one of the things that got me into computers. I remember being inspired to go out and subscribe to Popular Electronics and start building projects because of that guy.
The German people have a deep and abiding guilt complex over the crimes their nation committed in the 1930s and 1940s.
This is silly. These particular people had nothing to do with it and their NATION didn't commit any crimes. The people in CONTROL of their nation committed the crimes! There's a huge difference.
I understand the difficulty of the German government in cracking down on neo-Nazis, but unless they actually violate some law (like smashing shop windows, attacking people, etc.) I don't see why they should bother dealing with them anyway. (I don't know the situation over there--maybe they *are* destroying property and attacking people. But I think that Europe in general, and Germany and France in particular, are *far* too scared of their past.)
when hatred is a fundamental part of an ideology, it is hate speech.
And who decides whether hatred is a fundamental part of any particular ideology? Many people automatically label anything or anyone they disagree with as "hateful." A lot of those people are in positions of power: judges, legislators, lawyers. I guarantee this can and *will* be abused.
I ask, which is more unfortunate, the European who is deprived of rights under law but enjoys the effective liberty of those rights in fact, or the American who's rights are protected by law which is inoperative, disregarded by the system of established governance, and denied to him in practice?
Wow. I wish I had some mod points right now. We've taken a beautiful system and screwed it all up. And now we have police officers riding around with stacks of search warrants in their trunks just in case they run into the occasional Constitution junkie who knows the police don't have a leg to stand on without approval from a court of law. *Sigh*.
I've never heard of *any* kind of hate speech legislation that had *anything* to do with whether or not something was true or false. That's libel or slander. The hate speech we keep hearing about the in the U.S. is of the, "It's going to be illegal to say that homosexuality is wrong" variety.
"If you really want a change, don't vote for either party -- vote Libertarian if you're on the right, Green Party if you're on the left, and independant otherwise.
I googled but couldn't find anything linking lucas and jobs.
Here's where the thread starts (it's hard to follow, Geocrawler's threading sucks). The page where the thread starts is here. It does seem a little odd at first, but keep reading, it's all in there. The post about the WebObjects guy is here. Of course, you can make what you like of these posts, but when you read the entire discussion from beginning to end, it appears to be credible (the fact that Wagner was also around for quite some time before and after the incident, and made some contributions to the project, also lend some legitimacy to the whole affair).
But the code is also apples copyrighted code.
No proprietary code is used in GNUstep or its applications; so we're safe there.
I don't know how you can make a clone without violating the code, even if you just reproduce the apis-- the apis are copyrighted as well.
Well, the API spec is "open" (Sun and NeXT released it on October 19, 1994). The GNUstep project clean-roomed everything from that "open" spec. Thus the conclusion that the project is on solid ground.
I think cocoa developers aren't helping much because they are working on applications and are focused on that.
Well, one way they could help is to make sure that their applications are portable. This does take a little effort, however, and people have said that they don't want to even look at the project unless porting is effortless--and yet, they aren't willing to assist in *making* it effortless. I don't know how accurate that assessment is.
PErsonally, I could help in the future, if Gnustep looks like its going to be viable
Well, it's already in a fully useful state. Applications have been written with it, and they work well; for instance, GNUmail is nice, works extremely well, and runs on OS X as well as GNUstep platforms. There are quite a few other applications already (check out the GNUstep community site). We even have usable Interface Builder and Project Builder clones.
(Which is something I simply haven't researched yet because it isn't the appropriate time to consider porting my app.)
I understand. But the problem is, it can be a difficult job to port later if you don't take some considerations early on in the project. For instance, you can't use QuickTime because of a Sorensen patent--there's not much we can do about that one. But there are some newer clsses in Mac OS X that aren't implemented yet in GNUstep. We need people interested enough to implement, test, or fix them. That means OS X developers, mostly. And they're not interested, as noted before.:-)
I think it would be a strategically good move for apple to move cocoa to windows
NeXT produced Yellow-Box, which was just that. There was a lot of hope that Apple would continue to offer it when they bought NeXT. There were a lot of disappointed OpenStep developers when the decision was made to drop it. It's pretty well established that Apple's main source of revenue is hardware. There's been speculation that they might--*might*--consider porting the OS to x86 (most of the work was done back in the NeXT days) but simply offering people the possibility of using the development environment to write Windows applications is definitely not in their best interest.
Great to hear that you're interested in GNUstep, though. We need all the help we can get, even if it's just allowing the porting of applications. The Cocoa APIs and dev tools are very nice, and would make UNIX development much more fun and productive.
That doesn't mean that significant discusion between those that are interested in a particular area is without value.
Or the instruction of the uninformed. Many of the posters asking "Isn't this a security hole?" also seem to be genuine in their desire to understand what's going on. I like that.
Of course, there's also a lot of crapflooding going on here too--can't deny that. I could start bumping my threshold up to 2 or more; but there are many false, silly, offensive, or stupid posts that get modded up--and many interesting posts that are stuck at 1 (or even 0 sometimes). It's one of the reasons I don't come here much anymore.:-)
Nah, the police wouldn't have a clue what you're talking about. They'd just ask you to leave them alone so they can get some work done. Realistically, the DMCA is never invoked unless some corporation files suit.
Unfortunately, I wasn't the one involved, so I can't give you first-hand evidence. Someone in the GNUstep community did say that they queried several older OpenStep software developers (Omni, for example) about porting their software to GNUstep and supposedly got the answer that, while they would be willing in theory, Apple had already warned them that they would drop all support for them. Maybe that was false, exaggerated, or twisted, I don't know.
Now, one thing I *was* party to was the threatening email that Steve Jobs sent to Lucas Wagner in April of 2000 (there was some discussion on the GNUstep mailing list). He had started a company to offer some kind of commercial support for development of cross-platform apps with GNUstep, and got a threatening letter from Steve Jobs personally. RMS got involved and there was a lot of back-and-forth; I believe it was eventually concluded by FSF lawyers that Apple was just trying to intimidate the guy and didn't have a real case.
Lucas and William Adams did mention a case back in 1995 where someone built a WebObjects clone and was then intimidated and threatened by Steve Jobs (at NeXT, of course), leading him to give up the project.
Now, some of these events may be construed in various ways--and I can't prove that Apple wants to destroy cross-platform development; but considering their core business (hardware), it would certainly not be in their interest to give Mac users any kind of choice.
Non-commercial Cocoa developers are a different story, of course. However, some on the GNUstep mailing list who also belong to Cocoa development lists say that Cocoa developers have no interest in helping GNUstep. Supposedly, they just don't care about having cross-platform applications either. To me, it just seems cool that it can even be done, but I guess we don't march to the same beat....
And I look forward to the day when Apple or someone else makes Cocoa fully crossplatform.
Heh, Apple is scared to death of people writing cross-platform software--they've been quite forceful in discouraging companies from even taking a look at GNUstep, for instance. The idea that people can market their software to users who can buy cheap x86 hardware is frightening to them.
How many great movies could be made based on the works of Faulkner, Hemmingway, and the like that are currently being kept under copyright by the term extensions?
You're scaring me, pal. I shudder to think what Disney would do with Hemmingway. I think that if they tried, it would be time to drink the poison Kool-Aid.
What I don't understand is how Be deluded themselves into thinking that application developers are going to spend valuable resources porting to a completely new operating system without any users just because it's "new and cool".
I think that what *actually* happened was Be deluded themselves into thinking that Apple would buy them and turn BeOS into a next-gen Mac OS. They actually had a shot, but NeXT won that game, thankfully.
Slashdot Mirror
Hehe, why does that sound *so* like Microsoft? :-)
It comes from the Phyrric Wars (280-275 BC). See this.
Well, you have to take it out before you smash it, obviously.
Don't worry about it. The only people who use them are the idiots in Florida too stupid to punch a hole in a card. And do you really want the votes of people like that to count anyway? :-)
What I really want to know from Newton is where the "Uh oh!" sign comes from....
I thought Tron was more endurable. Good inside jokes (the "bit" that can only answer yes or no, the Users as gods, the I/O tower).
Anyway, as for Vegas, I wouldn't miss it. :-)
Well, I disagree with old B.F., of course. :-) But the real point was about the abstract nature of nations.
Correct. The individual is responsible--his or her soul, the non-material aspect of human being. But regardless of this, the body doesn't correspond to the nation in anyway. A nation is a completely abstract concept. It's an imposed idea--we are all supposedly related in some significant way because we happen to live in the same geographic region. This is simply not true: look at all the people in the U.S. who support Islamic terrorism! And all the people in the U.S. who violently oppose it. And of course, all the people in the U.S. who are somewhere in the middle. Ideology is a much more meaningful way of relating people than either geography (nation states) or familial relationship (tribal states).
Which is not to say that nations are useless or that we should dismantle them. They serve their purpose but they aren't solid or sure ways of classifying and identifying people.
I don't know how things are in Germany, but here in the U.S., there are a lot of people trying to hold modern Americans responsible for what happened 200+ years ago. Not only are we not responsible, but in some cases, even our ancestors weren't responsible. Most of mine didn't show up until after these events had taken place; and some of them were Cherokee Indians who were on the receiving end anyway. And yet, because I'm white, I would be accused of guilt. Seems a little odd, doesn't it?
And absolutely *anything* can hurt someone. This stuff is ridiculous, no matter how much lawyers try to spin it.
I don't know what he's doing now but seeing all that cool equipment was one of the things that got me into computers. I remember being inspired to go out and subscribe to Popular Electronics and start building projects because of that guy.
This is silly. These particular people had nothing to do with it and their NATION didn't commit any crimes. The people in CONTROL of their nation committed the crimes! There's a huge difference.
I understand the difficulty of the German government in cracking down on neo-Nazis, but unless they actually violate some law (like smashing shop windows, attacking people, etc.) I don't see why they should bother dealing with them anyway. (I don't know the situation over there--maybe they *are* destroying property and attacking people. But I think that Europe in general, and Germany and France in particular, are *far* too scared of their past.)
And who decides whether hatred is a fundamental part of any particular ideology? Many people automatically label anything or anyone they disagree with as "hateful." A lot of those people are in positions of power: judges, legislators, lawyers. I guarantee this can and *will* be abused.
Wow. I wish I had some mod points right now. We've taken a beautiful system and screwed it all up. And now we have police officers riding around with stacks of search warrants in their trunks just in case they run into the occasional Constitution junkie who knows the police don't have a leg to stand on without approval from a court of law. *Sigh*.
I've never heard of *any* kind of hate speech legislation that had *anything* to do with whether or not something was true or false. That's libel or slander. The hate speech we keep hearing about the in the U.S. is of the, "It's going to be illegal to say that homosexuality is wrong" variety.
Good grief! Now, will someone remind me again why I'm "too inexperienced" to get a job doing basic sysadmin?
Or even the Constitution Party. :-)
Sure. Feel free to drop in anytime. :-)
(Oh, PS: Just as an FYI thing for the future, GNUstep is LGPL'd.)
Here's where the thread starts (it's hard to follow, Geocrawler's threading sucks). The page where the thread starts is here. It does seem a little odd at first, but keep reading, it's all in there. The post about the WebObjects guy is here. Of course, you can make what you like of these posts, but when you read the entire discussion from beginning to end, it appears to be credible (the fact that Wagner was also around for quite some time before and after the incident, and made some contributions to the project, also lend some legitimacy to the whole affair).
But the code is also apples copyrighted code.
No proprietary code is used in GNUstep or its applications; so we're safe there.
I don't know how you can make a clone without violating the code, even if you just reproduce the apis-- the apis are copyrighted as well.
Well, the API spec is "open" (Sun and NeXT released it on October 19, 1994). The GNUstep project clean-roomed everything from that "open" spec. Thus the conclusion that the project is on solid ground.
I think cocoa developers aren't helping much because they are working on applications and are focused on that.
Well, one way they could help is to make sure that their applications are portable. This does take a little effort, however, and people have said that they don't want to even look at the project unless porting is effortless--and yet, they aren't willing to assist in *making* it effortless. I don't know how accurate that assessment is.
PErsonally, I could help in the future, if Gnustep looks like its going to be viable
Well, it's already in a fully useful state. Applications have been written with it, and they work well; for instance, GNUmail is nice, works extremely well, and runs on OS X as well as GNUstep platforms. There are quite a few other applications already (check out the GNUstep community site). We even have usable Interface Builder and Project Builder clones.
(Which is something I simply haven't researched yet because it isn't the appropriate time to consider porting my app.)
I understand. But the problem is, it can be a difficult job to port later if you don't take some considerations early on in the project. For instance, you can't use QuickTime because of a Sorensen patent--there's not much we can do about that one. But there are some newer clsses in Mac OS X that aren't implemented yet in GNUstep. We need people interested enough to implement, test, or fix them. That means OS X developers, mostly. And they're not interested, as noted before. :-)
I think it would be a strategically good move for apple to move cocoa to windows
NeXT produced Yellow-Box, which was just that. There was a lot of hope that Apple would continue to offer it when they bought NeXT. There were a lot of disappointed OpenStep developers when the decision was made to drop it. It's pretty well established that Apple's main source of revenue is hardware. There's been speculation that they might--*might*--consider porting the OS to x86 (most of the work was done back in the NeXT days) but simply offering people the possibility of using the development environment to write Windows applications is definitely not in their best interest.
Great to hear that you're interested in GNUstep, though. We need all the help we can get, even if it's just allowing the porting of applications. The Cocoa APIs and dev tools are very nice, and would make UNIX development much more fun and productive.
Or the instruction of the uninformed. Many of the posters asking "Isn't this a security hole?" also seem to be genuine in their desire to understand what's going on. I like that.
Of course, there's also a lot of crapflooding going on here too--can't deny that. I could start bumping my threshold up to 2 or more; but there are many false, silly, offensive, or stupid posts that get modded up--and many interesting posts that are stuck at 1 (or even 0 sometimes). It's one of the reasons I don't come here much anymore. :-)
Nah, the police wouldn't have a clue what you're talking about. They'd just ask you to leave them alone so they can get some work done. Realistically, the DMCA is never invoked unless some corporation files suit.
Now, one thing I *was* party to was the threatening email that Steve Jobs sent to Lucas Wagner in April of 2000 (there was some discussion on the GNUstep mailing list). He had started a company to offer some kind of commercial support for development of cross-platform apps with GNUstep, and got a threatening letter from Steve Jobs personally. RMS got involved and there was a lot of back-and-forth; I believe it was eventually concluded by FSF lawyers that Apple was just trying to intimidate the guy and didn't have a real case.
Lucas and William Adams did mention a case back in 1995 where someone built a WebObjects clone and was then intimidated and threatened by Steve Jobs (at NeXT, of course), leading him to give up the project.
Now, some of these events may be construed in various ways--and I can't prove that Apple wants to destroy cross-platform development; but considering their core business (hardware), it would certainly not be in their interest to give Mac users any kind of choice.
Non-commercial Cocoa developers are a different story, of course. However, some on the GNUstep mailing list who also belong to Cocoa development lists say that Cocoa developers have no interest in helping GNUstep. Supposedly, they just don't care about having cross-platform applications either. To me, it just seems cool that it can even be done, but I guess we don't march to the same beat....
Heh, Apple is scared to death of people writing cross-platform software--they've been quite forceful in discouraging companies from even taking a look at GNUstep, for instance. The idea that people can market their software to users who can buy cheap x86 hardware is frightening to them.
You're scaring me, pal. I shudder to think what Disney would do with Hemmingway. I think that if they tried, it would be time to drink the poison Kool-Aid.
I think that what *actually* happened was Be deluded themselves into thinking that Apple would buy them and turn BeOS into a next-gen Mac OS. They actually had a shot, but NeXT won that game, thankfully.