It is wanted, as it solves a very pressing issue. With more and more mobile devices and embedded devices requiring their own IP addresses, we are running out of address space. Furthermore, the design of IPv4 relies upon assumptions that are no longer valid, nessesitating such ad hoc and stop gap solutions as NAT. While NAT may be useful in its own right, it should not be used solely to allow for more devices.
As for the comment about W3C validation, it always has been, continues to be and will most likely continue to be very important in the future. Without such a service, how is one to tell what XHTML, HTML, etc. actually are? Machines are not intelligent, and so we cannot be content with the tag soup that passes for HTML on most sites, but we must reqire some sort of standard for quality. I would love to see a browser that, by design, will choke on any non-validating input, since by design such a browser would be simpler and easier to maintain. Without quality control mechanisms such as W3C validation, we would have a very poor Internet indeed.
I suppose what amazes me is how he is seen now. What Bush has done is amazing for anyone even slightly versed in US political history. The ideas of checks and balances and the separation of powers, so essential to the mechanism by which our government is kept from encroaching upon us, do not even give Bush pause. We are discussing a man who called the Constitution a goddamnedpieceofpaper. Remember the Oath of Office? The Constitution specifies that:
Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
How will history remember him is a small consolation for those of us concerned about our liberty.
Wrong. The issue with school-run newspapers is just that; they are school-run, and thus when you make a statement in them, it is done with the name of the university. If you start your own paper and distribute it under your own power, then they can't (legally) do jack. It's the same situation as with license plates. You can't have a license plate saying BLOWME, but you can have the exact same thing on a bumper sticker right next to the plate. Why? The plate is owned by the state issuing it, whereas the bumper sticker is not. Therefore, the state can say, "no, I don't think we want our plates to say BLOWME." As far as the public school argument goes, this is also for a different reason. There, there's a legal gray area as far as determining whether the Constitution guarentees rights for legal minors.
Note that none of this is to justify current practices, but rather to explain them. I don't think it's right to censor student papers, whether or not it's legal to do so. I don't think it's right to oppress primary and secondary students, whether or not it's legal. On the other hand, allowing my ideals to blind me to current reality doesn't help me realize said ideals.
That rule is a holdover from Latin, and makes no sense when applied to English. It restricts what you can and cannot say in some very limiting fashions. Most works I've read on grammar seem to agree that this rule is no longer valid, and to end whatever sentances you want with prepositions.
With respect to (1), OpenOffic.org and KOffice have both announced that OpenDocument will be their new native file format. This is one of the biggest changes in OO.o 2.0. You can try it for youself in the beta, OO.o 1.9. As for KOffice, I don't know when they are planning on having an OpenDoc version out, and as for AbiWord, I haven't heard much (I don't really follow AbiWord).
I've read through enough trolling, and must suspend my lurker status on this issue. Let me be the five hundredth to cry out "bullshit." Forcing someone to add government mandated content to their speech is not compliant with free speech. Furthermore, is there a simple means for a blacklisted site to determine why it was blacklisted? If not, then that is an abridgement of free speech, as the full implications are not made clear to the customer. Also, to block at the ISP level will lead to those with free speech rights being limited by choices made by others without their permission.
Oh, and on the whole Mormon thing, I have every reason to suspect Mormon involvement, as religious fundamentalists are typically the motivators of such idiocy.
Seems to me that the whole issue could be very easily solved by parents actually being responsible and taking an active interest in their children's lives, rather than relegating responsibility to the government and to technology. If parents actually talked to their kids about the 'net, we'd see a large reduction in such idiocy as this; the government is not a Big Daddy- don't treat it as such.
Not at all obvious... the record industry forms a virtual monopoly. If you want mainstream music, then you purchase from a *AA affilliated label. All of these affilliates have similar enough economic interests that they aren't competing primarily on terms of price. Moreover, many people "bite the bullet" for the occasional fulfillment of a vice, to say nothing of teenagers who don't esp. care if they're being ripped off for music. To make a long story short, sales records do nothing to indicate fairness in pricing.
OK... I haven't bitten the trollbait in a while, so here goes.
Copyright law has some major problems in its current form. Regardless of one's views on the morality of having copyrights at all (something I don't see contested here, anyway), one must realize that with things like the Mickey Mouse Preservation Acts, and the *AA redefining of "for hire," copyright law is broken. Does that mean that I am against having copyrights at all? Hell, no. I want them fixed so that they are once again useful to me. Of all the people I'd trust to fix copyright laws, Hatch comes in pretty close to dead last on my list. He has an incredibly blatent disregard for anything other than the *AA propaganda.
Same here. I still welcome this heardily. Why? Choice. If someone wants to use the Nero OEM that came with their burner instead of K3b, let 'em. No harm to me. It knocks down one more barrier to Linux on the desktop. One of the primary reasons for me sticking with a Windows system before was because of Nero's DVD authoring systems (before I realized I had no talent in movies, anyway). Qdvdauthor is kinda sorry, or at least it was, and even if it wasn't, choice is a primarally good thing, right? It'd be hypocritical of us to slam Nero for doing something that helps us with our goals.
No, they don't. The Constitution does not protect the right of a corporation to do anything. There is no fundamental right to make money, to go into business, or anything similar. Witness false advertising laws, which are wholly consistant with free press and free speech. The myth of corporate "rights" is a recent one, and somewhat devestating. Even if you feel that corporations should have rights, there is no fundamental document stating explicitly which rights they do have. This means that any judge ruling on the topic has to navigate solely through precidence, and may override it at whim. Objectively evaluating the standards by which a corporation should be held is damn near impossible.
So, in short, no. Corporations do not presently have rights, but have a set of a sort of "virtual rights," which exist only in court precedent, and in convention. There is no formalism for corporate rights.
As a side note, if you believe that corporate abuse is any less deadly in today's world than government abuse, or even that they aren't in many ways the same thing, I have a nice bridge to sell you.
This isn't about the Internet Bubble, but rather about the purpose of organizations such as the IEEE. They are not a profit-making corporation, but an NPO dedicated to academic and technological pursuits. To them, their goals are best served by free access if they can make it work. Now, the free iPod/Mac Mini/DS/etc. sites smack of dot-com era idiocy. Then again, if I can get one from that, I don't mind taking advantage. Just a shame that I have to buy something at all. But I digress.
Even if we assume that BT4 could reduce the IEEE's bandwidth costs to zero (it can't- they still need a tracker), then there are still costs of publication that have not been addressed, such as editing, compilation, peer-reviewing, etc. The problem is much broader than bandwidth.
Add in that BT4 would only offer a very questionably sized benefit: the IEEE would be transferring files on the order of 10s of MB, not the hundreds which BT typically helps. Furthermore, the files being offered are likely of such a specialized interest compared to the relatively broad interest that most Linux ISOs enjoy.
In light of these factors, it becomes clear that the optimal solution must be social and/or economic in nature, not purely technological.
Exception: entrapment clause. You can't neglect to enforce a patent just so that people adopt it and then sue the pants off of everyone. That is entrapment, and is very much a no-no.
Seems to me that the only way to get r/w access to the entire filesystem is if either a) the backup daemon is running as root, or b) if the backup daemon's user or group has r/w access equal to root's. In either case, the sysadmin would have to be on crack to do that. Not that read-only access is OK by any stretch, but just making the point.
Oh, and before idiots start saying "see, open source isn't secure," let me remind them that this is a commercial product that was comprimised. If anything, I'd take this as further evidence of the virtues of open source.
Putting a pop-up on a site is basically damn near free, and even at a click through rate along the lines of 1e-6 or so, they still make money. Same with spam. There is a single, simple, final solution to spam that will work if applied exactly: don't buy from spam! Unfortunately, I can be almost assured that this will never happen as it requires idiots to stop being idiots. If something makes someone money, they will do it until it ceases to make money. Anyone surprised that MS continues to ignore USDOJ rulings? No, because they make more money by ignoring them than by following. Thus, the pop-up war should continue to follow the patterns set by the spam wars.
I searched for Firefox to test it, and it spit out as the first (sponsored) hit: "Download Secure IE Web Browser and Save." Yep, it's a Microsoft site, all right. Nice that they make it [almost] XHTML compliant- I only got 2 errors on the page- but, still... it doesn't make it a good search tool...
Think of Joe and Jane Blow... do they know how to use the command line? No? Didn't think so. They know that they download an application, and it runs and installs. Unfortunately, this level of transparency is dangerous for security purposes, but it is almost needed for usability. So which is more important? Is there a good graphical interface for these for installing packages? They shouldn't even be told what dependancies are being fetched unless they ask. (Make a giant More Info button.) That information confuses. Anyway, I don't know the solutions, but I know that man and portage aren't among them. They're great tools... for developers, sysadmins and other power users. Nor for Joe and Jane Blow.
What motivation do you have to trust them? I'm not saying it is spyware, but rather that to simply say that since they say it isn't it can't be is a tad naive. As far as things go, yes, they could get sued for false advertising if it is false, but I don't know how much that scares Sharman.
You're naive. OK, sorry. That was rude, but I couldn't resist. Anyway, the difference is that under MacOSX and Linux, you must opt to install spyware... it won't be installed by browsing the net. In fact, someone could create a fully open source spyware program! Then all you'd have to do is convince people to install it. That's the easy part. The other thing is that if one luser installs spyware, the other users are not adversely affected.
Slashdot Mirror
It is wanted, as it solves a very pressing issue. With more and more mobile devices and embedded devices requiring their own IP addresses, we are running out of address space. Furthermore, the design of IPv4 relies upon assumptions that are no longer valid, nessesitating such ad hoc and stop gap solutions as NAT. While NAT may be useful in its own right, it should not be used solely to allow for more devices.
As for the comment about W3C validation, it always has been, continues to be and will most likely continue to be very important in the future. Without such a service, how is one to tell what XHTML, HTML, etc. actually are? Machines are not intelligent, and so we cannot be content with the tag soup that passes for HTML on most sites, but we must reqire some sort of standard for quality. I would love to see a browser that, by design, will choke on any non-validating input, since by design such a browser would be simpler and easier to maintain. Without quality control mechanisms such as W3C validation, we would have a very poor Internet indeed.
I suppose what amazes me is how he is seen now. What Bush has done is amazing for anyone even slightly versed in US political history. The ideas of checks and balances and the separation of powers, so essential to the mechanism by which our government is kept from encroaching upon us, do not even give Bush pause. We are discussing a man who called the Constitution a goddamned piece of paper. Remember the Oath of Office? The Constitution specifies that:
How will history remember him is a small consolation for those of us concerned about our liberty.
Wrong. The issue with school-run newspapers is just that; they are school-run, and thus when you make a statement in them, it is done with the name of the university. If you start your own paper and distribute it under your own power, then they can't (legally) do jack. It's the same situation as with license plates. You can't have a license plate saying BLOWME, but you can have the exact same thing on a bumper sticker right next to the plate. Why? The plate is owned by the state issuing it, whereas the bumper sticker is not. Therefore, the state can say, "no, I don't think we want our plates to say BLOWME." As far as the public school argument goes, this is also for a different reason. There, there's a legal gray area as far as determining whether the Constitution guarentees rights for legal minors.
Note that none of this is to justify current practices, but rather to explain them. I don't think it's right to censor student papers, whether or not it's legal to do so. I don't think it's right to oppress primary and secondary students, whether or not it's legal. On the other hand, allowing my ideals to blind me to current reality doesn't help me realize said ideals.
That would be clever, though... once. Writting an obfusication engine is in fact a clever approach.
That rule is a holdover from Latin, and makes no sense when applied to English. It restricts what you can and cannot say in some very limiting fashions. Most works I've read on grammar seem to agree that this rule is no longer valid, and to end whatever sentances you want with prepositions.
With respect to (1), OpenOffic.org and KOffice have both announced that OpenDocument will be their new native file format. This is one of the biggest changes in OO.o 2.0. You can try it for youself in the beta, OO.o 1.9. As for KOffice, I don't know when they are planning on having an OpenDoc version out, and as for AbiWord, I haven't heard much (I don't really follow AbiWord).
And yet, here you are. What brings you here?
I've read through enough trolling, and must suspend my lurker status on this issue. Let me be the five hundredth to cry out "bullshit." Forcing someone to add government mandated content to their speech is not compliant with free speech. Furthermore, is there a simple means for a blacklisted site to determine why it was blacklisted? If not, then that is an abridgement of free speech, as the full implications are not made clear to the customer. Also, to block at the ISP level will lead to those with free speech rights being limited by choices made by others without their permission.
Oh, and on the whole Mormon thing, I have every reason to suspect Mormon involvement, as religious fundamentalists are typically the motivators of such idiocy.
Seems to me that the whole issue could be very easily solved by parents actually being responsible and taking an active interest in their children's lives, rather than relegating responsibility to the government and to technology. If parents actually talked to their kids about the 'net, we'd see a large reduction in such idiocy as this; the government is not a Big Daddy- don't treat it as such.
Not at all obvious... the record industry forms a virtual monopoly. If you want mainstream music, then you purchase from a *AA affilliated label. All of these affilliates have similar enough economic interests that they aren't competing primarily on terms of price. Moreover, many people "bite the bullet" for the occasional fulfillment of a vice, to say nothing of teenagers who don't esp. care if they're being ripped off for music. To make a long story short, sales records do nothing to indicate fairness in pricing.
OK... I haven't bitten the trollbait in a while, so here goes. Copyright law has some major problems in its current form. Regardless of one's views on the morality of having copyrights at all (something I don't see contested here, anyway), one must realize that with things like the Mickey Mouse Preservation Acts, and the *AA redefining of "for hire," copyright law is broken. Does that mean that I am against having copyrights at all? Hell, no. I want them fixed so that they are once again useful to me. Of all the people I'd trust to fix copyright laws, Hatch comes in pretty close to dead last on my list. He has an incredibly blatent disregard for anything other than the *AA propaganda.
Same here. I still welcome this heardily. Why? Choice. If someone wants to use the Nero OEM that came with their burner instead of K3b, let 'em. No harm to me. It knocks down one more barrier to Linux on the desktop. One of the primary reasons for me sticking with a Windows system before was because of Nero's DVD authoring systems (before I realized I had no talent in movies, anyway). Qdvdauthor is kinda sorry, or at least it was, and even if it wasn't, choice is a primarally good thing, right? It'd be hypocritical of us to slam Nero for doing something that helps us with our goals.
No, they don't. The Constitution does not protect the right of a corporation to do anything. There is no fundamental right to make money, to go into business, or anything similar. Witness false advertising laws, which are wholly consistant with free press and free speech. The myth of corporate "rights" is a recent one, and somewhat devestating. Even if you feel that corporations should have rights, there is no fundamental document stating explicitly which rights they do have. This means that any judge ruling on the topic has to navigate solely through precidence, and may override it at whim. Objectively evaluating the standards by which a corporation should be held is damn near impossible.
So, in short, no. Corporations do not presently have rights, but have a set of a sort of "virtual rights," which exist only in court precedent, and in convention. There is no formalism for corporate rights.
As a side note, if you believe that corporate abuse is any less deadly in today's world than government abuse, or even that they aren't in many ways the same thing, I have a nice bridge to sell you.
Oscillitory.
This isn't about the Internet Bubble, but rather about the purpose of organizations such as the IEEE. They are not a profit-making corporation, but an NPO dedicated to academic and technological pursuits. To them, their goals are best served by free access if they can make it work. Now, the free iPod/Mac Mini/DS/etc. sites smack of dot-com era idiocy. Then again, if I can get one from that, I don't mind taking advantage. Just a shame that I have to buy something at all. But I digress.
Even if we assume that BT4 could reduce the IEEE's bandwidth costs to zero (it can't- they still need a tracker), then there are still costs of publication that have not been addressed, such as editing, compilation, peer-reviewing, etc. The problem is much broader than bandwidth.
Add in that BT4 would only offer a very questionably sized benefit: the IEEE would be transferring files on the order of 10s of MB, not the hundreds which BT typically helps. Furthermore, the files being offered are likely of such a specialized interest compared to the relatively broad interest that most Linux ISOs enjoy.
In light of these factors, it becomes clear that the optimal solution must be social and/or economic in nature, not purely technological.
Exception: entrapment clause. You can't neglect to enforce a patent just so that people adopt it and then sue the pants off of everyone. That is entrapment, and is very much a no-no.
Why not give the daemon read-only access to the source for backups? Seems like it's be a straight-forward enough thing to do.
Seems to me that the only way to get r/w access to the entire filesystem is if either a) the backup daemon is running as root, or b) if the backup daemon's user or group has r/w access equal to root's. In either case, the sysadmin would have to be on crack to do that. Not that read-only access is OK by any stretch, but just making the point. Oh, and before idiots start saying "see, open source isn't secure," let me remind them that this is a commercial product that was comprimised. If anything, I'd take this as further evidence of the virtues of open source.
Putting a pop-up on a site is basically damn near free, and even at a click through rate along the lines of 1e-6 or so, they still make money. Same with spam. There is a single, simple, final solution to spam that will work if applied exactly: don't buy from spam! Unfortunately, I can be almost assured that this will never happen as it requires idiots to stop being idiots. If something makes someone money, they will do it until it ceases to make money. Anyone surprised that MS continues to ignore USDOJ rulings? No, because they make more money by ignoring them than by following. Thus, the pop-up war should continue to follow the patterns set by the spam wars.
Mayhaps this will join the Pornzilla project.
I searched for Firefox to test it, and it spit out as the first (sponsored) hit: "Download Secure IE Web Browser and Save." Yep, it's a Microsoft site, all right. Nice that they make it [almost] XHTML compliant- I only got 2 errors on the page- but, still... it doesn't make it a good search tool...
It is sad that Google gets many more errors.
Think of Joe and Jane Blow... do they know how to use the command line? No? Didn't think so. They know that they download an application, and it runs and installs. Unfortunately, this level of transparency is dangerous for security purposes, but it is almost needed for usability. So which is more important? Is there a good graphical interface for these for installing packages? They shouldn't even be told what dependancies are being fetched unless they ask. (Make a giant More Info button.) That information confuses. Anyway, I don't know the solutions, but I know that man and portage aren't among them. They're great tools... for developers, sysadmins and other power users. Nor for Joe and Jane Blow.
What motivation do you have to trust them? I'm not saying it is spyware, but rather that to simply say that since they say it isn't it can't be is a tad naive. As far as things go, yes, they could get sued for false advertising if it is false, but I don't know how much that scares Sharman.
You're naive. OK, sorry. That was rude, but I couldn't resist. Anyway, the difference is that under MacOSX and Linux, you must opt to install spyware... it won't be installed by browsing the net. In fact, someone could create a fully open source spyware program! Then all you'd have to do is convince people to install it. That's the easy part. The other thing is that if one luser installs spyware, the other users are not adversely affected.
I was the only male figure skater among several mid-pubesent teenage girls. In short, I got humiliated a lot.