... why do you think.NET is around? Cross platform programming is one of the goals of.NET
Microsoft's idea of crossplatform was that it would run on any WINDOWS machine with the.net framework installed..Net does not have MS support on any other platform. That's why the OSS folks had to make Mono
You would think Microsoft wouldn't let people mirror their software
Umm.. it's not a Microsoft product. It was a design project and the guy who started it got employed by Microsoft. Now he still contributes to it--hence the project has help from Microsoft. Sounds like there might be a small Microsoft group that collaborates and/or consults on Paint.net, but it's by no means a Microsoft project.
He's a nutcase, and his calendar is riddled with practical problems (which he even notes on his site amongst the "FAQs", and then brushes aside with illogical retorts)
I like his response to "Well I still don't think it's gonna work". He effectively states "I called my Grandmother in Canada once and she said it's cold there."
you just have to remember that you go to work 350 in switerzerland and 600 in michigan and that hocky night in canada is on at 120, 145 in newfoundland.
Tell me again how you've eliminated time zones? Looks like you've just called them by a different name.
I've been dealing with timezones without a hitch since I was 6 years old. Learn to count, add, and subtract, and your timezone worries will go away.
WTF? How is I vividly remember phoning my elderly mother, in my native Canada, some years before she died: and with astonishment hearing her quite casually say, "it was very hot today, 30 degrees." an answer to the question (statement) Well, I still say you are going to fail.
This man is obviously daft! He's just typing randomly!!!
There could be any number of limits on the price that ICANN wants to impose. Market forces being the most likely to assert itself first.
Ah, there in lies the problem. How can market forces take control if ICANN has a monopoly on domain names. The registrars HAVE to get the names from ICANN, and ICANN can charge whatever they want. People NEED websites and will invariably pay for them. Registrar X might try to sell them for cheaper than registrar Y, but neither can ever drop them below ICANN's fee and still turn a profit.
Market forces only truely apply to the Registrars, as people will always purchase domain names and ICANN can just raise the prices even more for those that are purchasing if the rest of us stop purchasing.
That is, at least, unless we find some way to replace DNS, which would be a natural limit and remove the slippery slope, as market forces could then apply.
If your equation is an accurate description of a situation, then it is true at the $0.00 point and is no more true at the $0.75, $1.00 or $100 point.
So the risk of increasing cost exists regardless of where you are currently. We're at $0 and equation says, we're at risk of a price increase. If the price increases to $0.75, we're still at risk of a price increase.
I'm sorry I even brought up the equation, it's been too long since I've done limits, and the 1/(x) forms that I stated would be wrong. It was really only supposed to be an analogy.
But your quite true, if the situation is currently modeled by x^2, then we are always at risk of infinite price increases regardless of what we do. If ICANN is limited in some way, then the equation would change from x^2 to some other form, hopefully one that either doesn't increase as rapidly or better one that tends to a certain value (and thus having a natural non-infinite limit) as x tends to infinity.
Indeed, in the context of your link, Slippery Slope is an improper use of an if-then statement. It cannot be proven. However, that's assuming that slippery slope states "If this then this will occure" where-as what slippery slope actually states is "If this then this becomes possible"
The reason behind many laws and ammendments to the constitution is to prevent a possible harm. If a slippery slope exists, sometime in the future it COULD "lead us to slavery" as you state. Or nuclear war if your a Policy Debator in highschool or college.
Altering ICANN in some way so as to make it accountable to the general populous wind slow and/or prevent the slippery slope, making the possibility that this will to slavery impossible or more unlikely.
Mathmatically, this compares to the limit of X as X approaches infinity, where the Y axis leads from 0 (ideal conditions) to infinity (slavery). If the limit of X as x approaches infinity is infinity (such as with x^2) then a slippery slope exists.
Accountability is roughly equivilant to the inverse of a slippery function (1/2, 1/x^2, etc)
Well, somebody probably did. But I can't asscertain their interests or whether they are being represented. I know my interests aren't, but I wouldn't expect them to be from representatives I didn't want
And BTW. What the heck/is/ up with news.com.com? I know it's been a joke for years, but does anyone know a reason behind it? Was news.com already taken? Do they just want to be different?
Plus, the camera in this kiosk takes one picture (presumably), so it's more like a stranger briefly glancing at you. Not at all the same as being stared at.
Except the Kiosk stores the picture for 30 days and the person glancing at you does just that, glances at you.
Now, if he glanced at you and then drew your portrait...
Well, they JUST added in 25-cents per year for most domains, and now they'll be adding in 75-cents for.net domains, and when.com,.biz, etc come up for bidding again, they'll probably add 75-cents in for each of those as well. Then perhaps we'll get another 50-cent blanket upcharge, making it $1.50 for.net, etc and 75-cents for everything else.
Notice the trend?
ICANN/ALREADY/ bids off domains the way the FCC bids off airwaves. So now they're setting a precident that if they don't make enough money off the bid, they'll just impose a fee that users can pay directly leveling out the amount to whatever they decide it should be, not what the market decides...
RTFA... it's $0.75 plus $0.25 they snuck in just recently... Notice how they're sneaking those in? You'll be paying a dollar and you thought it was only $0.75... Slippery slope, isn't it?
$0.75 plus the $0.25 cents they are already charging.
From article: the group recently imposed a 25-cent annual charge on.com,.net,.org,.biz,.info, and.name domains. With the forthcoming.net charge, ICANN's cut of those domain name registrations would increase to $1 a year.
and what's to prevent them from adding another fee next year, or in two years. Two years from now you might not remember they're charging a $1 for.net extensions when they impose a $2 additional fee. $2/year isn't bad, you'll say. But by then it will be $3 and they'll just keep sneaking those fees in. And what can we do to stop it?
It'll be added in when you purchase the domain at the registrar. For example, if you purchase a domain for 5 years, they'll charge the 5 year bulk rate registration fee, plus $3.75.
Symantec's very big on acquisition; if they don't already make some product in their market space, they buy someone who does. They've been in the desktop backup space for a while after buying PowerQuest (Norton Ghost), and now they're extending it to the server space with Veritas.
Powerquest was Partition Magic. Norton has had Norton Ghost for ages; it's an drive imaging and backup tool.
I guess I've always looked to Norton for their utilities sweet and AV. They only got a firewall after buying ATGaurd; it's not something I really associate with Symantec personally, esp with much better offerings available from other companies.
In my mind, Symantec == Data protection and recovery, system stability, and leading Antivirus solutions. How does Veritas not fit into this setup?
Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft's idea of crossplatform was that it would run on any WINDOWS machine with the
You would think Microsoft wouldn't let people mirror their software
Umm.. it's not a Microsoft product. It was a design project and the guy who started it got employed by Microsoft. Now he still contributes to it--hence the project has help from Microsoft. Sounds like there might be a small Microsoft group that collaborates and/or consults on Paint.net, but it's by no means a Microsoft project.
He's a nutcase, and his calendar is riddled with practical problems (which he even notes on his site amongst the "FAQs", and then brushes aside with illogical retorts)
I like his response to "Well I still don't think it's gonna work". He effectively states "I called my Grandmother in Canada once and she said it's cold there."
Now that's an answer for a nutcase!
Then your FoUr-CK-four'D
you just have to remember that you go to work 350 in switerzerland and 600 in michigan and that hocky night in canada is on at 120, 145 in newfoundland.
Tell me again how you've eliminated time zones? Looks like you've just called them by a different name.
I've been dealing with timezones without a hitch since I was 6 years old. Learn to count, add, and subtract, and your timezone worries will go away.
Newton Week's no big deal. It's really no different than being born on Feb 29th.
What would suck is a Monday Birthday! Just like the parent said!
WTF? How is I vividly remember phoning my elderly mother, in my native Canada, some years before she died: and with astonishment hearing her quite casually say, "it was very hot today, 30 degrees." an answer to the question (statement) Well, I still say you are going to fail.
This man is obviously daft! He's just typing randomly!!!
No, it doesn't hit swap half as much as you are characterizing
Then you obviously don't know how to use a computer. (what do you use, 1 program at a time??) That or you can't tell when it's using the swap...
More Christmas music which sounds just like all other Christmas music.
I don't know what christmas music you listen to!
There could be any number of limits on the price that ICANN wants to impose. Market forces being the most likely to assert itself first.
Ah, there in lies the problem. How can market forces take control if ICANN has a monopoly on domain names. The registrars HAVE to get the names from ICANN, and ICANN can charge whatever they want. People NEED websites and will invariably pay for them. Registrar X might try to sell them for cheaper than registrar Y, but neither can ever drop them below ICANN's fee and still turn a profit.
Market forces only truely apply to the Registrars, as people will always purchase domain names and ICANN can just raise the prices even more for those that are purchasing if the rest of us stop purchasing.
That is, at least, unless we find some way to replace DNS, which would be a natural limit and remove the slippery slope, as market forces could then apply.
If your equation is an accurate description of a situation, then it is true at the $0.00 point and is no more true at the $0.75, $1.00 or $100 point.
So the risk of increasing cost exists regardless of where you are currently. We're at $0 and equation says, we're at risk of a price increase. If the price increases to $0.75, we're still at risk of a price increase.
I'm sorry I even brought up the equation, it's been too long since I've done limits, and the 1/(x) forms that I stated would be wrong. It was really only supposed to be an analogy.
But your quite true, if the situation is currently modeled by x^2, then we are always at risk of infinite price increases regardless of what we do. If ICANN is limited in some way, then the equation would change from x^2 to some other form, hopefully one that either doesn't increase as rapidly or better one that tends to a certain value (and thus having a natural non-infinite limit) as x tends to infinity.
Indeed, in the context of your link, Slippery Slope is an improper use of an if-then statement. It cannot be proven. However, that's assuming that slippery slope states "If this then this will occure" where-as what slippery slope actually states is "If this then this becomes possible"
The reason behind many laws and ammendments to the constitution is to prevent a possible harm. If a slippery slope exists, sometime in the future it COULD "lead us to slavery" as you state. Or nuclear war if your a Policy Debator in highschool or college.
Altering ICANN in some way so as to make it accountable to the general populous wind slow and/or prevent the slippery slope, making the possibility that this will to slavery impossible or more unlikely.
Mathmatically, this compares to the limit of X as X approaches infinity, where the Y axis leads from 0 (ideal conditions) to infinity (slavery). If the limit of X as x approaches infinity is infinity (such as with x^2) then a slippery slope exists.
Accountability is roughly equivilant to the inverse of a slippery function (1/2, 1/x^2, etc)
I've been thinking about it, but I'm still not sure whether or not a local phone number 4 hours away is close enough..
Well, somebody probably did. But I can't asscertain their interests or whether they are being represented. I know my interests aren't, but I wouldn't expect them to be from representatives I didn't want
Tell me about it! $17/mo to QWest ends up being almost $30 after taxes and fees.
Wouldn't be upsetting if I had more than an occasional use for the phone
That's actually not a half bad idea...
/is/ up with news.com.com? I know it's been a joke for years, but does anyone know a reason behind it? Was news.com already taken? Do they just want to be different?
And BTW. What the heck
Plus, the camera in this kiosk takes one picture (presumably), so it's more like a stranger briefly glancing at you. Not at all the same as being stared at.
Except the Kiosk stores the picture for 30 days and the person glancing at you does just that, glances at you.
Now, if he glanced at you and then drew your portrait...
you mean like this:
http://distributeddns.sourceforge.net/
So how exactly does this cause anyone real grief?
.net domains, and when .com, .biz, etc come up for bidding again, they'll probably add 75-cents in for each of those as well. Then perhaps we'll get another 50-cent blanket upcharge, making it $1.50 for .net, etc and 75-cents for everything else.
/ALREADY/ bids off domains the way the FCC bids off airwaves. So now they're setting a precident that if they don't make enough money off the bid, they'll just impose a fee that users can pay directly leveling out the amount to whatever they decide it should be, not what the market decides...
Well, they JUST added in 25-cents per year for most domains, and now they'll be adding in 75-cents for
Notice the trend?
ICANN
You mean kind of like the United States government? Yeah, those folks did a great job at representing the interests of its constituents.
I wouldn't know. Nobody I voted for won.
RTFA... it's $0.75 plus $0.25 they snuck in just recently... Notice how they're sneaking those in? You'll be paying a dollar and you thought it was only $0.75... Slippery slope, isn't it?
$0.75 plus the $0.25 cents they are already charging.
.com, .net, .org, .biz, .info, and .name domains. With the forthcoming .net charge, ICANN's cut of those domain name registrations would increase to $1 a year.
.net extensions when they impose a $2 additional fee. $2/year isn't bad, you'll say. But by then it will be $3 and they'll just keep sneaking those fees in. And what can we do to stop it?
From article: the group recently imposed a 25-cent annual charge on
and what's to prevent them from adding another fee next year, or in two years. Two years from now you might not remember they're charging a $1 for
It'll be added in when you purchase the domain at the registrar. For example, if you purchase a domain for 5 years, they'll charge the 5 year bulk rate registration fee, plus $3.75.
And where would this trend stop?
It wouldn't stop. Not until ICANN became less of an independant organization and more of an elected body.
The ZDNet article is a fair amount better than the register for this topic as well.
Symantec's very big on acquisition; if they don't already make some product in their market space, they buy someone who does. They've been in the desktop backup space for a while after buying PowerQuest (Norton Ghost), and now they're extending it to the server space with Veritas.
Powerquest was Partition Magic. Norton has had Norton Ghost for ages; it's an drive imaging and backup tool.
I guess I've always looked to Norton for their utilities sweet and AV. They only got a firewall after buying ATGaurd; it's not something I really associate with Symantec personally, esp with much better offerings available from other companies.
In my mind, Symantec == Data protection and recovery, system stability, and leading Antivirus solutions. How does Veritas not fit into this setup?