Ok, I see your point, but I think we have different understandings of the phrase "understanding the technology". I think they can be made to understand all those issues quite easily, and I suspect many of them already do. I was interpreting the phrase to mean understanding how things are implemented under the hood, in great detail, which really shouldn't be necessary for them.
You completely missed the point. Understanding the physics of how a car works does not make anyone any more qualified to legislate proper motor vehicle operation, nor doed lack of such understanding make one less qualified. Similarly, the issues being addressed by the legislature regarding the internet do not require an understanding of electronics or the seven OSI layers.
Does it strike anyone else odd that a group of people who, in general, know nothing about mechanical engineering or the internal combustion engine are trying to regulate/create laws regarding motor vehicle safety?
Who are they to tell us how fast we can drive, when and where we need to stop, and whether I have the right of way? They probably don't even change their own oil!
> This bothered me because Visual Basic was treating a
> program not as a complete coherent document,
> but as little snippets of code attached to visual objects.
So true. You can't "read" the program, instead, you can only leap about from handler to handler.
I guess some Unix programmers have never done any widget programming with the Xt intrinsics toolkit.
Why doesn't a similar issue come up with regard to attorney-client privilege? Why can't anyone, who doesn't want to testify against a person, claim attorney-client privilege? Is it because of the need for a law degree? Or the need to be earning a living as a lawyer? If we can accept such constraints on who is allowed to give private counsel, why do we have a problem saying that you need to be in the business of reporting information to the general public?
"Intellectual property" is a term invented by the people you're shilling for. It's not a real thing that can be removed from someone's posession, thus is not a valid target for "theft."
So, I can hack into your bank and initiate an electronic funds transfer from your account to my account, right? I'm not taking away any actual currency from your physical possession, I'm merely shifting bits around inside the bank. I'm not even taking the bits *from you*, but if you're going to be picky about it, I can give you a CD-ROM chock full of bits. This is ok with you, right?
There is as much value inherent in certain kinds of information as there is in certain pieces of material. And you can take value without taking a physical object.
So what do you do?
1. Use a different variable name for each loop. [...]
2. Do exactly what you describe, and reuse i over and over even though it's incorrect.
And what, pray tell, is wrong with doing it the valid, old-fashioned way? I.e.:
int i; for (i=0; i<MAX_A; i++) { do_something(i); } for (i=0; i<MAX_B; i++) { do_something_else(i); }
What's really amazing is that if you take the image of the moon in that enlarged image from the Wikipedia page, rotate it 180 degrees, and give it a slight orange hue, it looks *exactly* like the image of pluto!!! Has there been an investigation into this similarity?:)
Slashdot Mirror
Their propensity to arrange themselves with highly complex interconnections?
I prefer apple turnovers.
You beat me to the punch. Thanks for posting.
I unplug all my clocks when I'm not using them.
Yes, he is in the chain of command. He can relay orders from POTUS to the armed forces. But he can not legally issue those orders himself.
My boss's secretary can relay his orders to me, but she isn't in my chain of command.
Ok, I see your point, but I think we have different understandings of the phrase "understanding the technology". I think they can be made to understand all those issues quite easily, and I suspect many of them already do. I was interpreting the phrase to mean understanding how things are implemented under the hood, in great detail, which really shouldn't be necessary for them.
You completely missed the point. Understanding the physics of how a car works does not make anyone any more qualified to legislate proper motor vehicle operation, nor doed lack of such understanding make one less qualified. Similarly, the issues being addressed by the legislature regarding the internet do not require an understanding of electronics or the seven OSI layers.
He didn't say "decency". He said "decentcy", referring the the ensuing decent into psychological hell.
Does it strike anyone else odd that a group of people who, in general, know nothing about mechanical engineering or the internal combustion engine are trying to regulate/create laws regarding motor vehicle safety?
Who are they to tell us how fast we can drive, when and where we need to stop, and whether I have the right of way? They probably don't even change their own oil!
...to the demand with a single page containing the words "THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK".
[...] supports initialization of [...] all classes in classpath
"He who packs his entire wardrobe for a row across the lake becomes the best-dressed fish around." (Source unknown)
That was the worst attempt at a Haiku I've ever seen.
Frames per eurosecond.
I mean mental problems as in "we the jury find Jack Thompson..."
Not guilty by reason of insanity?
Why doesn't a similar issue come up with regard to attorney-client privilege? Why can't anyone, who doesn't want to testify against a person, claim attorney-client privilege? Is it because of the need for a law degree? Or the need to be earning a living as a lawyer? If we can accept such constraints on who is allowed to give private counsel, why do we have a problem saying that you need to be in the business of reporting information to the general public?
Newsnet is a good example.
What's "Newsnet"? (Other than a word that rhymes with "Usenet", of course.)
"Intellectual property" is a term invented by the people you're shilling for. It's not a real thing that can be removed from someone's posession, thus is not a valid target for "theft."
So, I can hack into your bank and initiate an electronic funds transfer from your account to my account, right? I'm not taking away any actual currency from your physical possession, I'm merely shifting bits around inside the bank. I'm not even taking the bits *from you*, but if you're going to be picky about it, I can give you a CD-ROM chock full of bits. This is ok with you, right?
There is as much value inherent in certain kinds of information as there is in certain pieces of material. And you can take value without taking a physical object.
Most people would agree it is opressive, but why do you expect other people to share your views on good and evil?
Probably because, like most people, he's never met anyone who considered the term "oppressive" to be flattering.
Bill Gates himself gets up on stage at CES in an Elvis suit promising 'a hunka- hunka- burnin protection'. *SHUDDER* Time to take a cold shower.
You *need* a cold shower? Hell, to me, that image *was* the equivalent of a cold shower!
A storage guide I can carry around with me!
There's nothing wrong with that code,[...]
You mean, other than using a variable outside its scope?
What's really amazing is that if you take the image of the moon in that enlarged image from the Wikipedia page, rotate it 180 degrees, and give it a slight orange hue, it looks *exactly* like the image of pluto!!! Has there been an investigation into this similarity? :)
Or, for the /. crowd:
It's pronounced "moag", as in, "Worf, son of".