I use IE5, and you're right, it's much faster. It's also more stable than Netscape or Opera 3.? (7, I think).
I have a Win98/Linux (currently RH5.1, eventually RH6.1, formerly RH6.0, Mandrake something.else, SuSE, yada yada) machine with the most recent Communicator, Opera, and IE browsers. Opera doesn't always render pages completely (lack of support for certain bells-n-whistles), and Navigator 4.7 sometimes crashes when I have too many pages open - let alone the fact that it doesn't recognize many embedded links, so I have to use the mouse after typing my userid and pwd at certain sites.
I downloaded/installed M14 yesterday, and it worked great, except for vertical alignments in some tables, wouldn't let me use the mousewheel, and wouldn't let me type email messages at OperaMail (whose webmail I use). (I'll rut through various files and bugzilla to see what's wrong this weekend, when I have more time.)
Still, none of these compare to the speed of IE. Sure, MS isn't compliant with several HTML & other standards, but during the week (and most weekends) speed and stability matter more to me than my personal preference for Navigator (and now, Mozilla - I really do love this build). People who don't like that fact should work to fix what's broke in other browsers, not deride you or me (or many other people, I'm sure) for using what works better.
The gov't allocates tax revenues: what our elected officials deem in the public interest receives funding. Under the Constitution, no government at any level (federal, state, county, etc.) must provide you with any good or service - even information! The rights of the government are (largely) restricted, rather than granted. Thus, citizens have a right to buy a newspaper, watch TV, or own a gun, but the gov't doesn't have to supply any of it.
The State of Utah has every right to decide what they will spend tax dollars on, and what they won't. We may not like people who want to limit library patrons' access to the Bronte sisters, the Constitution, and porn, but so long as the citizens of Utah elected them, the citizens of Utah get what they asked for.
When the government says I can't use my own money to buy all the copies of the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, Wuthering Heights, and Playboy that I want, then we have injustice. We shouldn't blame elected representatives for doing stupid things if they were elected.
Why not open privately funded libraries and open-access Internet kiosks? Everybody complains about what the government will or won't do, but few people put their money where they say their values lie.
Admittedly, I haven't been a member of a "gaming community" since the last time I played Dungeons & Dragons more than a decade ago. But couldn't this Slade character charge people to access his code/patches/whatever?
I understood the GPL to allow modifiers of source code to charge people for the improved (or merely altered) code, without limiting the right of their customers to give away the new/improved/altered source for free (or for the price of the transmission medium, e.g., burning a CD, paying for bandwidth, etc.).
I haven't seen anyone address this, and wonder whether I misprisioned the GPL.
Lawyers and experienced GPL folk especially encouraged to comment. =)
First, people find ways to express emotions in text-only media. Certainly, these are positive expressions of emotion, but not all emotions so expressed are positive. (Some emoticons, name-calling, and general intellectual disdain are all examples of positive expressions of negative emotions.)
Second, what's so bad about people who don't like interacting like the "average" person? If we had no online chat, and everyone had to interact in "normal" ways, we'd all be the same: BORING.
Third, online chat is just an electronic, high-speed version of the personals pages in many newspapers. People put messages in personals columns, and wait for replies. More and more of this is moving on-line - especially for people who aren't desperately seeking sexual partners - but you still see ads in papers for people looking for roomates, selling cars, etc. It would be a total pain in the ass to sell a car or find a roommate by talking face-to-face with every person you meet.
Finally, the lab-rat analogy (or the exercise example, for that matter) are Old News (tm). Most truckers sit on their asses all day, but nobody conducts studies saying, "The shipping industry will lead to 'a whole new crop of addict, or social problems!'"
I'm sorry you used the Internet as a crutch. I'm glad you figured it out and changed your behavior. But that's your story - not mine, not that of many people.
Should the government ban alcohol because drunks act stupid and do dumb things? Oh, wait, we already tried that.
Well, should we ban newspapers, because people read those "flat" sources of human interaction rather than talking face-to-face with people? Oh, wait, that pesky First Amendment thing.
And so on. Live and let live. Just enjoy the ride, and learn from your mistakes.
Using email definitely isolates me from people. I waste an hour or two every week exchanging email with close friends around the country! I probably spend ten hours every week at coffee shops and bars meeting people I may or may not like. Imagine how many more people would have the opportunity to annoy me if I wouldn't use email so much!
Seriously, several years ago a college roommate dropped out of school because his grades sucked. He spent too much time using MUDs. (Maybe MOOs, too? Dunno, never used 'em myself, so pardon inaccurate monikers.) Some of those people attended our university (UNC-Chapel Hill), and he would go for dinner with them, stay up all night hanging out, and then sleep in the next day. He got kicked out of NROTC, rarely went to class, and finally left for Brazil. (Yes, really, Brazil.)
Now he's back, studying & working. People call it Internet Addiction, but I think he just fucked around too much and didn't get his work done. A lot of people screw around and drop out of school for a while. Baby boomers thought it was cool: tune in, turn on, drop out. Today, they send their kids to therapy.
Wankers, all. Especially Dr. Nie (or whatever) at Stanford.
Cheers!
PS Anybody still have the link to the actual Stanford Study? I lost it, and couldn't find it from the/. story posted a couple days ago. Thanks in advance.:)
C'mon, he had his computer set up to re-access when the connection got dropped. He tried to get in under the President's typist's nic, and it worked. At that point, he could've started thinking, but he didn't.
It was funny. He screwed around, but had he asked a serious question (like so many posts have recommended), CNN still would have deleted it, and he still would have been kicked off.
Smart or no, what happend to Wankel would've happened no matter what he typed. At least he had the decency to post an explanation, in case someone wanted to know what actually happened. (I haven't seen the news story yet that explains how this could happen, and not be malicious.)
The president has advisors who know things about technology, and they explain it all to him. Unfortunately, he also has advisors who know all about the news media, and opnion polls, and other ways for him to do what 50% +1 of the voting public want. And the public generally understands the technology no better than the president.
That's why god invented lobbyists, and a multi-layered representative democracy-cum-republic. It slows things down. The US gov't is an experiment in limiting how quickly people with power can force other people to do stupid things.
In my ideal world, you'd have to have more than an "opinion" to vote - you'd have to be able to identify a logical fallacy.
Throw in advisors who know the difference between a system flaw and deliberate vandalism, and the world would be a better place.
You start off making a wonderful point, but then maul your references.
Fox News reported the story, not CNN. The Fox News story quotes CNN spokeswoman Edna Johnson, "It wasn't a hacker. We were not hacked into. Have you ever participated in an online chat? Anyone can come in and register and participate on site. This person was registered and participating in the chat. He was a prankster. They give themselves a user name."
The title of this story, "CNN.com Chat With President Clinton Infiltrated by 'Prankster'," starts off reasonably enough, until you get to the last two paragraphs of the first section. Then the FoxNews - not CNN - editors-that-be (or somebody) start hyping the DDoS connection.
Q: What do I love most about shoddy journalism? A: Unnamed "experts".
I generally don't read AC posts on Slashdot, but you calling FoxNews "the authorities" is the functional equivalent of me calling a F1rst p0ster a Slashdot editor. (Too bad you can't set comment thresholds when you watch TV!)
Like you, I hate it when case (2) occurs: if you (i.e., CNN) didn't think it through, you shouldn't get upset when it blows up in your face.
But let's not use the erroneously sourced arguments of the things-as-they-are crowd. That's how laws like UCITA get passed, and how Jack Valenti gets his way.
Ivo from distributed.net made a more limited case of the following point: saying, "Nothing is proved by achieving it," you implicitly create an environment where people wander around talking about things rather than adding (albeit in some small way) to the total of human accomplishment. (Sort of like posting to Slashdot all day rather than doing productive tasks.;) "Hey! Why bother taking out the trash?! '[W]e already know exactly how difficult and statistically how long it will take'!"
I agree with you that the folks at Project Lightbulb are doing more interesting things. Then again, I'm more interested in Open Source ("Free", whatever) Software than I am in number theory. (Although I think number theory is neat, and lots of fun.)
But the point needs to be made, and by someone other than our good man Ivo, that no one associated with the OGR project is wasting their time. Some people like numbers more than they like modular programs. At any rate, writing distributed computing programs is a lot different from running distributed computing projects.
#include high_horse.h { Why do people - myself included - think they can blithely dismiss a problem if they know how to classify it? }
Yes, UCITA and other legislative efforts are overt attempts to limit individual freedom to innovate, simultaneously shielding tax-paying software companies from any substantial liability for their products.
And yes, open-source-style legal forums like this one (Harvard's, not Slashdot's) could do much to help the efforts of the open-source/free software communities.
Unfortunately, the Harvard model appears to suffer from a certain lack of - custom? informational infrastructure? Without FAQs to refer obnoxious or immature (or just plain ignorant) people to, or other mechanisms for organizing the input and commentary, the goal of "open source law" could get bogged down by its pursuit.
Perhaps I'm mistaken, or perhaps the folks at FreeLaw are working on such mechanisms. I would prefer either option to the premature end of such a noble pursuit.
Slashdot Mirror
I use IE5, and you're right, it's much faster. It's also more stable than Netscape or Opera 3.? (7, I think).
I have a Win98/Linux (currently RH5.1, eventually RH6.1, formerly RH6.0, Mandrake something.else, SuSE, yada yada) machine with the most recent Communicator, Opera, and IE browsers. Opera doesn't always render pages completely (lack of support for certain bells-n-whistles), and Navigator 4.7 sometimes crashes when I have too many pages open - let alone the fact that it doesn't recognize many embedded links, so I have to use the mouse after typing my userid and pwd at certain sites.
I downloaded/installed M14 yesterday, and it worked great, except for vertical alignments in some tables, wouldn't let me use the mousewheel, and wouldn't let me type email messages at OperaMail (whose webmail I use). (I'll rut through various files and bugzilla to see what's wrong this weekend, when I have more time.)
Still, none of these compare to the speed of IE. Sure, MS isn't compliant with several HTML & other standards, but during the week (and most weekends) speed and stability matter more to me than my personal preference for Navigator (and now, Mozilla - I really do love this build). People who don't like that fact should work to fix what's broke in other browsers, not deride you or me (or many other people, I'm sure) for using what works better.
The gov't allocates tax revenues: what our elected officials deem in the public interest receives funding. Under the Constitution, no government at any level (federal, state, county, etc.) must provide you with any good or service - even information! The rights of the government are (largely) restricted, rather than granted. Thus, citizens have a right to buy a newspaper, watch TV, or own a gun, but the gov't doesn't have to supply any of it.
The State of Utah has every right to decide what they will spend tax dollars on, and what they won't. We may not like people who want to limit library patrons' access to the Bronte sisters, the Constitution, and porn, but so long as the citizens of Utah elected them, the citizens of Utah get what they asked for.
When the government says I can't use my own money to buy all the copies of the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, Wuthering Heights, and Playboy that I want, then we have injustice. We shouldn't blame elected representatives for doing stupid things if they were elected.
Why not open privately funded libraries and open-access Internet kiosks? Everybody complains about what the government will or won't do, but few people put their money where they say their values lie.
Cheers!
Admittedly, I haven't been a member of a "gaming community" since the last time I played Dungeons & Dragons more than a decade ago. But couldn't this Slade character charge people to access his code/patches/whatever?
I understood the GPL to allow modifiers of source code to charge people for the improved (or merely altered) code, without limiting the right of their customers to give away the new/improved/altered source for free (or for the price of the transmission medium, e.g., burning a CD, paying for bandwidth, etc.).
I haven't seen anyone address this, and wonder whether I misprisioned the GPL.
Lawyers and experienced GPL folk especially encouraged to comment. =)
First, people find ways to express emotions in text-only media. Certainly, these are positive expressions of emotion, but not all emotions so expressed are positive. (Some emoticons, name-calling, and general intellectual disdain are all examples of positive expressions of negative emotions.)
Second, what's so bad about people who don't like interacting like the "average" person? If we had no online chat, and everyone had to interact in "normal" ways, we'd all be the same: BORING.
Third, online chat is just an electronic, high-speed version of the personals pages in many newspapers. People put messages in personals columns, and wait for replies. More and more of this is moving on-line - especially for people who aren't desperately seeking sexual partners - but you still see ads in papers for people looking for roomates, selling cars, etc. It would be a total pain in the ass to sell a car or find a roommate by talking face-to-face with every person you meet.
Finally, the lab-rat analogy (or the exercise example, for that matter) are Old News (tm). Most truckers sit on their asses all day, but nobody conducts studies saying, "The shipping industry will lead to 'a whole new crop of addict, or social problems!'"
I'm sorry you used the Internet as a crutch. I'm glad you figured it out and changed your behavior. But that's your story - not mine, not that of many people.
Should the government ban alcohol because drunks act stupid and do dumb things? Oh, wait, we already tried that.
Well, should we ban newspapers, because people read those "flat" sources of human interaction rather than talking face-to-face with people? Oh, wait, that pesky First Amendment thing.
And so on. Live and let live. Just enjoy the ride, and learn from your mistakes.
Using email definitely isolates me from people. I waste an hour or two every week exchanging email with close friends around the country! I probably spend ten hours every week at coffee shops and bars meeting people I may or may not like. Imagine how many more people would have the opportunity to annoy me if I wouldn't use email so much!
/. story posted a couple days ago. Thanks in advance. :)
Seriously, several years ago a college roommate dropped out of school because his grades sucked. He spent too much time using MUDs. (Maybe MOOs, too? Dunno, never used 'em myself, so pardon inaccurate monikers.) Some of those people attended our university (UNC-Chapel Hill), and he would go for dinner with them, stay up all night hanging out, and then sleep in the next day. He got kicked out of NROTC, rarely went to class, and finally left for Brazil. (Yes, really, Brazil.)
Now he's back, studying & working. People call it Internet Addiction, but I think he just fucked around too much and didn't get his work done. A lot of people screw around and drop out of school for a while. Baby boomers thought it was cool: tune in, turn on, drop out. Today, they send their kids to therapy.
Wankers, all. Especially Dr. Nie (or whatever) at Stanford.
Cheers!
PS Anybody still have the link to the actual Stanford Study? I lost it, and couldn't find it from the
C'mon, he had his computer set up to re-access when the connection got dropped. He tried to get in under the President's typist's nic, and it worked. At that point, he could've started thinking, but he didn't.
It was funny. He screwed around, but had he asked a serious question (like so many posts have recommended), CNN still would have deleted it, and he still would have been kicked off.
Smart or no, what happend to Wankel would've happened no matter what he typed. At least he had the decency to post an explanation, in case someone wanted to know what actually happened. (I haven't seen the news story yet that explains how this could happen, and not be malicious.)
The president has advisors who know things about technology, and they explain it all to him. Unfortunately, he also has advisors who know all about the news media, and opnion polls, and other ways for him to do what 50% +1 of the voting public want. And the public generally understands the technology no better than the president.
That's why god invented lobbyists, and a multi-layered representative democracy-cum-republic. It slows things down. The US gov't is an experiment in limiting how quickly people with power can force other people to do stupid things.
In my ideal world, you'd have to have more than an "opinion" to vote - you'd have to be able to identify a logical fallacy.
Throw in advisors who know the difference between a system flaw and deliberate vandalism, and the world would be a better place.
Okay, I'll step out of la-la land now. 8)
Fox News reported the story, not CNN. The Fox News story quotes CNN spokeswoman Edna Johnson, "It wasn't a hacker. We were not hacked into. Have you ever participated in an online chat? Anyone can come in and register and participate on site. This person was registered and participating in the chat. He was a prankster. They give themselves a user name."
The title of this story, "CNN.com Chat With President Clinton Infiltrated by 'Prankster'," starts off reasonably enough, until you get to the last two paragraphs of the first section. Then the FoxNews - not CNN - editors-that-be (or somebody) start hyping the DDoS connection.
Q: What do I love most about shoddy journalism?
A: Unnamed "experts".
I generally don't read AC posts on Slashdot, but you calling FoxNews "the authorities" is the functional equivalent of me calling a F1rst p0ster a Slashdot editor. (Too bad you can't set comment thresholds when you watch TV!)
Like you, I hate it when case (2) occurs: if you (i.e., CNN) didn't think it through, you shouldn't get upset when it blows up in your face.
But let's not use the erroneously sourced arguments of the things-as-they-are crowd. That's how laws like UCITA get passed, and how Jack Valenti gets his way.
I agree with you that the folks at Project Lightbulb are doing more interesting things. Then again, I'm more interested in Open Source ("Free", whatever) Software than I am in number theory. (Although I think number theory is neat, and lots of fun.)
But the point needs to be made, and by someone other than our good man Ivo, that no one associated with the OGR project is wasting their time. Some people like numbers more than they like modular programs. At any rate, writing distributed computing programs is a lot different from running distributed computing projects.
#include high_horse.h
{
Why do people - myself included - think they can blithely dismiss a problem if they know how to classify it?
}
Yes, UCITA and other legislative efforts are overt attempts to limit individual freedom to innovate, simultaneously shielding tax-paying software companies from any substantial liability for their products.
And yes, open-source-style legal forums like this one (Harvard's, not Slashdot's) could do much to help the efforts of the open-source/free software communities.
Unfortunately, the Harvard model appears to suffer from a certain lack of - custom? informational infrastructure? Without FAQs to refer obnoxious or immature (or just plain ignorant) people to, or other mechanisms for organizing the input and commentary, the goal of "open source law" could get bogged down by its pursuit.
Perhaps I'm mistaken, or perhaps the folks at FreeLaw are working on such mechanisms. I would prefer either option to the premature end of such a noble pursuit.