This idea that Muslims don't belong in the Holy Land because they weren't invited is incredible. Christians weren't invited either; Jesus was a reknowned trouble maker. And it also depends on how wide you define your area. Mohammed may not have been born in Palestine, but he was born a lot closer to it than Christians were to most of Europe, not to mention the Americas. I don't recall the natives inviting the Christians into the Americas. Nor the Philipines, Australia, etc.
As for going back 800 years, keerist (sic) almighty, who said I had to go back that far? Look at current day Ireland; maybe you should go their to fight the infidels. Only problem is, which side is the Christian side? They evidently both think that the other isn't.
So go back and answer your own question: who invited the Christians to own the Holy Land? Hint: they weren't invited.
Further hint: the Jews weren't invited either.
In fact, in almost every case, the current occupants of ANY place weren't invited. They just sort of invited themselves.
Just because a Christian says Christianity is best, that's ok, because they are Christians, so they aren't biased, or even if they are, that's ok too, because the bias is right out front?
But I bet when Osama bin Laden says Islam is best, and sets out to prove it, even though he's way out front with that bias, that's not quite ok, is it?
I think I get the picture. You'd'a done great during the Crusades.
The only problem with relying on TiVo and their automatic software updates is the same problem with any proprietary format. Everyone knows about the problem with Web services and keeping your vital company data on somebody else's platform. What happens if they go out of business? What happens is they decide you shouldn't have access any more because of a bill dispute?
Same with TiVo. While they may be more benign now, what happens if they go under, or get bought up? An automatic update overnight and boom -- no more access to those shows you had saved from 2 years ago.
Most TV isn't worth seeing in the first place, let alone saving, but if I were to roll my own, it would be for that reason.
Suppose I take my home network (2 computers + 1 firewall), all running some form of highly modded Slackware, and switch the internal local net to IPv6 while leaving the connection from the firewall out as IPv4. Thus the 2 computers would be completely IPv6 while the firewall would have one IPv6 nic and one IPv4 nic. I have to change all dotted quad network addresses (such as in/etc/hosts); what else is there to do? Will existing software go along with the change without recompiling? Or even with a simple recompile?
I bet there's some FAQ somewhere that someone will find using Googole. AIA
If for info, then Keep It Simple Stupid. Don't use javascript. Keep graphics to a minimum. Make sure it works with image loading turned off. Make sure it works with text browsers. Don't use image maps. Keep pages short with clear links up and down. Better to navigate 5 simple pages than two complex pages. If a page of links won't fit in a single page without lots of scrolling, consider breaking it up (intelligently).
K.I.S.S.
If for entertainment, I have no advice for you. Entertainment sites are meant to entertain, so I reckon Flash, javascript, animated gifs, audio, and all that stuff, well, it's sort of expected. But when go to a business or info site, I want speed and accuracy and simplicity.
A skeptical Hatch then turned to the Recording Industry Association of America president, Hilary Rosen, a surprise addition to the roster of witnesses. Wedging herself into a space next to MP3.com head Michael Robertson, whom the RIAA recently helped to sue, Rosen found herself subjected to the kind of puzzled questions about fair use -- a notorious legal morass -- that millions of music owners have been asking themselves for the last few months.
''Can I make a copy of a CD that I buy and put it into a car?'' asked Hatch. When Rosen hemmed and hawed, Hatch muttered, ''The answer is yes.''
''Is it fair use to give the copy to my wife for her car?'' Hatch continued. ''Is it fair use for me to rip a CD? Is it fair use if (a computer network) decides for efficiency reasons that one copy is sufficient to serve for storage, instead of keeping 200 separate copies, is that fair use?''
''None of these is fair use,'' Rosen eventually replied. She argued that musicians' willingness to ''tolerate'' people making copies was an instance of ''no good deed goes unpunished.''
In a confrontation with Orrin Hatch, one of the authors of the DMCA, Hillary Rosen of the RIAA said it was illegal to copy your own CD for the car, or your wife, or backup. Mr. Hatch corrected her. She was not amused. These clowns want pay per view on EVERYTHING; they have even attacked libraries.
Government mandated airbags have killed more children than school shootings
And how many children's lives were saved by airbags?
Gun nuts complain all the time about gun control nuts only showing stats on how many people were killed by guns, never showing how many lives were saved by guns. You are guilty of EXACTLY the same crap.
ICANN is in the pocket of the moneyed interests, and has shown no interest at all in a "better" Internet, only one with them having more control. Sort of like Microsoft but worse, because it is arguable that Microsoft actually produces something:-)
For instance, ICANN very much wants to restrict top level domains (.edu.com etc) because the fat cats who "own" them would see their net worth go dot bust if there were real competition, such as letting anybody who wants to run a root server with their own idea of top level domains.
I believe ICANN is also behind the atrocious domain name resolution panels, which you may have heard about. I could be wrong here, I think it was ICANN who set them up, but it might have been someone just as slimy. In case you haven't been following this, people who registered a domain name years before some corp with $$pull$$ still lose the domain name because the complainer gets to choose the judge of their choice, and of course the judge$ with fore$ight $aw the light early on and alway$ rule for the corp$, thu$ en$uring more bu$ine$$ coming their way, a good illustration of positive feedback.
ICANN has stalled at every possible point in every possible way when any smell of true Internet representation comes up. They truly want to be dictators, because they are running an unnecessary bureaucracy, and the only way to perpetuate it and line their pockets is to keep the riff raff out of it.
Their problem is that they are not necessary, a true bureaucratic solution in search of a mission. The Internet could get along better without them. People would choose their own root servers and never know the difference. ICANN only survives because businesses don't want to be bothered, and because teh US gov is also afraid of the riff raff -- some of these riffraff no doubt use crypto to communicate dirty deeds with each other, so best to keep a bureaucracy in charge.
You should care because they are in search of power to perpetuate their useless bureaucracy. The only way to do so is to MAKE themselves necessary, much as prison guard unions HAVE to be against parole and rehabilitation if they want to increase their power, same as lawyers writing laws and DEA thugs setting national drug policy. They need to be nipped in the bud.
After all, you can't bring back the dead, it's not like the murderer can make restitution, so let the murderer get away with it. No use prosecuting, just a waste of the prosecutor's time and taxpayers' taxes.
Unless you are a street bum -- if you have a regular job, there's that pay -- even though it wouldn't be related if the lawsuit involved software you handled in your spare time.
Or allow some minimum amount, say one employee. It would be hard to argue that because you spent $0, the other side couldn't even send an employee.
Anyway, the basic idea is to simply not let one side buy justice when the other side can't afford to match them. Even if one side manages to cook things enough to spend twice as much as the other, that's nothing compared to what happens today.
Prohibit either party from spending more than the other. If MegaCorp sues TeensyCorp, they can't bring ten lawyers to the negotiating table or courtroom unless TeensyCorp also brings ten lawyers. If TeensyCorp wants to spend $1000 total on their defense, that's all MegaCorp can spend. Perhaps MegaCorp is absolutely positively sure that they will win on merit; allow them to loan TeensyCorp as much as they want, but TeensyCorp has the right to refuse the loan, in which case MegaCorp still is limited by what TeensyCorp spends. If TeensyCorp accepts the loan and loses, they owe the loan amount; if TeensyCorp wins, MegaCorp loses the loan in addition to the judgement.
In other words, get money out of the equation of justice. There would certainly be some abuses. MegaCorp could pay a low rate for legal advice on one lawsuit and exagerated rates on unrelated legal matters. But that would show up sooner or later, and it could only be done to a limited extent. MegaCorp still couldn't show up in court with ten lawyers who are only billing $25 an hour, it would be too fishy.
Apply this to all cases, not just civil. It would stop the death penalty abuses, where some poor slob (who probably is also a scumbag, but still deserves justice) is given $350 for his complete defense.
Both markup languages (HTML; embedded link) and escapes are out of band metadata. Escapes allow an xterm, a real terminal, etc, to show bold, underline, and so on. I believe some data terminals use escape to mark protected fields for "editing" a page on the screen, then hitting SEND to send the unprotected fields, or maybe the entire screen, back to the computer. And of course you know all about HTML markup:-)
In both cases, the escaped / embedded metadata is not visible on the screen, yet has important information about the page. It is not far fetched at all to consider escaped data as a link. I don't know if it has ever been done, but it could be.
Suppose I know someone, better off than most, who is always being caught up in one lie or another. Maybe not an outright lie, maybe just a little exageration. He claims to have given me a birthday present, when it actually came from someone else -- and everyone knows that. His proof that he owns a Ferrari is an obviously doctored picture. He takes advantage of others bad luck by loaning a small amount of money for lots of collateral, then finds excuses for not redeeming the loan later. He's always got some new investment scheme, takes people's money, then always has excuses for why the scheme failed and you don't get your money back.
I'm sure most of us know people like that.
Now this acquaintance comes along with yet another great investment scheme. Do you believe him?
Once burned, twice shy.
Burn me once, shame on you. Burn me twice, shame on me.
And if you can't read between the lines, well, you will some day.
A great word processor will do a lot of the annoying things like spellcheck and thesaurus and automatic formatting
Exactly -- and those are not necessary. People used to tolerate typos because they read the message (the forest) and ignored the missing leaves (the trees). Now people fret about perfection in every little useless detail and forget to get the message itself as clear as possible. *That's* his point -- people take just as long to write a letter nowadays, and the letters aren't any clearer, in fact they are worse for all the formatting and useless decoration -- so where's the advance?
Name ANY technology as far reaching as taming fire or the printing press.
Name ANY cultural advance as far reaching as money, the alphabet, language.
All advances build on previous advances. No advance is as simple and elegant as what it is built upon. That's how progress works.
The steam engine was a remarkably simple advance, but Hero from the Greek/Roman era built the first prototype. The advances made from the early 1800s until the end in the mid 1900s were evolutionary, not revolutionary.
Chemical rockets are amazingly simple in concept, and they build on the Chinese concept from 1000 years before. All advances since then are merely refinements.
You can pick any period in history and say that following inventions were not as far reaching. Then compare that period to prior periods, and see if the prior inventions don't make later ones look like mere refinements.
That was a big objection from retailers -- they wanted the punters to come back for returns so they'd have to come inside the store again. And also one of the reasons consumers weren't impressed -- they sure as heck WERE going back, so what was the point?
Slashdot Mirror
This idea that Muslims don't belong in the Holy Land because they weren't invited is incredible. Christians weren't invited either; Jesus was a reknowned trouble maker. And it also depends on how wide you define your area. Mohammed may not have been born in Palestine, but he was born a lot closer to it than Christians were to most of Europe, not to mention the Americas. I don't recall the natives inviting the Christians into the Americas. Nor the Philipines, Australia, etc.
As for going back 800 years, keerist (sic) almighty, who said I had to go back that far? Look at current day Ireland; maybe you should go their to fight the infidels. Only problem is, which side is the Christian side? They evidently both think that the other isn't.
So go back and answer your own question: who invited the Christians to own the Holy Land? Hint: they weren't invited.
Further hint: the Jews weren't invited either.
In fact, in almost every case, the current occupants of ANY place weren't invited. They just sort of invited themselves.
Wasn't too popular with the prevailing opinion, was it? The existing occupants didn't exactly spread their arms in joyous welcome.
Neither were the Christians.
Just because a Christian says Christianity is best, that's ok, because they are Christians, so they aren't biased, or even if they are, that's ok too, because the bias is right out front?
But I bet when Osama bin Laden says Islam is best, and sets out to prove it, even though he's way out front with that bias, that's not quite ok, is it?
I think I get the picture. You'd'a done great during the Crusades.
The only problem with relying on TiVo and their automatic software updates is the same problem with any proprietary format. Everyone knows about the problem with Web services and keeping your vital company data on somebody else's platform. What happens if they go out of business? What happens is they decide you shouldn't have access any more because of a bill dispute?
Same with TiVo. While they may be more benign now, what happens if they go under, or get bought up? An automatic update overnight and boom -- no more access to those shows you had saved from 2 years ago.
Most TV isn't worth seeing in the first place, let alone saving, but if I were to roll my own, it would be for that reason.
Not only do they run tons of commercials on TV and radio, I'd say the very nature of kickbacks, bribes, and fundraising makes it quite commercial.
Suppose I take my home network (2 computers + 1 firewall), all running some form of highly modded Slackware, and switch the internal local net to IPv6 while leaving the connection from the firewall out as IPv4. Thus the 2 computers would be completely IPv6 while the firewall would have one IPv6 nic and one IPv4 nic. I have to change all dotted quad network addresses (such as in /etc/hosts); what else is there to do? Will existing software go along with the change without recompiling? Or even with a simple recompile?
I bet there's some FAQ somewhere that someone will find using Googole. AIA
If for info, then Keep It Simple Stupid. Don't use javascript. Keep graphics to a minimum. Make sure it works with image loading turned off. Make sure it works with text browsers. Don't use image maps. Keep pages short with clear links up and down. Better to navigate 5 simple pages than two complex pages. If a page of links won't fit in a single page without lots of scrolling, consider breaking it up (intelligently).
K.I.S.S.
If for entertainment, I have no advice for you. Entertainment sites are meant to entertain, so I reckon Flash, javascript, animated gifs, audio, and all that stuff, well, it's sort of expected. But when go to a business or info site, I want speed and accuracy and simplicity.
Just to let you know I posted a link and partial extract.
The Link and the interesting part --
A skeptical Hatch then turned to the Recording Industry Association of America president, Hilary Rosen, a surprise addition to the roster of witnesses. Wedging herself into a space next to MP3.com head Michael Robertson, whom the RIAA recently helped to sue, Rosen found herself subjected to the kind of puzzled questions about fair use -- a notorious legal morass -- that millions of music owners have been asking themselves for the last few months.
''Can I make a copy of a CD that I buy and put it into a car?'' asked Hatch. When Rosen hemmed and
hawed, Hatch muttered, ''The answer is yes.''
''Is it fair use to give the copy to my wife for her car?'' Hatch continued. ''Is it fair use for me to rip a CD? Is it fair use if (a computer network) decides for efficiency reasons that one copy is sufficient to serve for storage, instead
of keeping 200 separate copies, is that fair use?''
''None of these is fair use,'' Rosen eventually replied. She argued that musicians' willingness to ''tolerate'' people making copies was an instance of ''no good deed goes unpunished.''
In a confrontation with Orrin Hatch, one of the authors of the DMCA, Hillary Rosen of the RIAA said it was illegal to copy your own CD for the car, or your wife, or backup. Mr. Hatch corrected her. She was not amused. These clowns want pay per view on EVERYTHING; they have even attacked libraries.
Government mandated airbags have killed more children than school shootings
And how many children's lives were saved by airbags?
Gun nuts complain all the time about gun control nuts only showing stats on how many people were killed by guns, never showing how many lives were saved by guns. You are guilty of EXACTLY the same crap.
ICANN is in the pocket of the moneyed interests, and has shown no interest at all in a "better" Internet, only one with them having more control. Sort of like Microsoft but worse, because it is arguable that Microsoft actually produces something :-)
.com etc) because the fat cats who "own" them would see their net worth go dot bust if there were real competition, such as letting anybody who wants to run a root server with their own idea of top level domains.
For instance, ICANN very much wants to restrict top level domains (.edu
I believe ICANN is also behind the atrocious domain name resolution panels, which you may have heard about. I could be wrong here, I think it was ICANN who set them up, but it might have been someone just as slimy. In case you haven't been following this, people who registered a domain name years before some corp with $$pull$$ still lose the domain name because the complainer gets to choose the judge of their choice, and of course the judge$ with fore$ight $aw the light early on and alway$ rule for the corp$, thu$ en$uring more bu$ine$$ coming their way, a good illustration of positive feedback.
ICANN has stalled at every possible point in every possible way when any smell of true Internet representation comes up. They truly want to be dictators, because they are running an unnecessary bureaucracy, and the only way to perpetuate it and line their pockets is to keep the riff raff out of it.
Their problem is that they are not necessary, a true bureaucratic solution in search of a mission. The Internet could get along better without them. People would choose their own root servers and never know the difference. ICANN only survives because businesses don't want to be bothered, and because teh US gov is also afraid of the riff raff -- some of these riffraff no doubt use crypto to communicate dirty deeds with each other, so best to keep a bureaucracy in charge.
You should care because they are in search of power to perpetuate their useless bureaucracy. The only way to do so is to MAKE themselves necessary, much as prison guard unions HAVE to be against parole and rehabilitation if they want to increase their power, same as lawyers writing laws and DEA thugs setting national drug policy. They need to be nipped in the bud.
</rant>
Half a bottle of used beer?
After all, you can't bring back the dead, it's not like the murderer can make restitution, so let the murderer get away with it. No use prosecuting, just a waste of the prosecutor's time and taxpayers' taxes.
Slashdot your box, then nothing gets in or out.
Like ostriches and emus. AM I wrong?
Unless you are a street bum -- if you have a regular job, there's that pay -- even though it wouldn't be related if the lawsuit involved software you handled in your spare time.
Or allow some minimum amount, say one employee. It would be hard to argue that because you spent $0, the other side couldn't even send an employee.
Anyway, the basic idea is to simply not let one side buy justice when the other side can't afford to match them. Even if one side manages to cook things enough to spend twice as much as the other, that's nothing compared to what happens today.
Prohibit either party from spending more than the other. If MegaCorp sues TeensyCorp, they can't bring ten lawyers to the negotiating table or courtroom unless TeensyCorp also brings ten lawyers. If TeensyCorp wants to spend $1000 total on their defense, that's all MegaCorp can spend. Perhaps MegaCorp is absolutely positively sure that they will win on merit; allow them to loan TeensyCorp as much as they want, but TeensyCorp has the right to refuse the loan, in which case MegaCorp still is limited by what TeensyCorp spends. If TeensyCorp accepts the loan and loses, they owe the loan amount; if TeensyCorp wins, MegaCorp loses the loan in addition to the judgement.
In other words, get money out of the equation of justice. There would certainly be some abuses. MegaCorp could pay a low rate for legal advice on one lawsuit and exagerated rates on unrelated legal matters. But that would show up sooner or later, and it could only be done to a limited extent. MegaCorp still couldn't show up in court with ten lawyers who are only billing $25 an hour, it would be too fishy.
Apply this to all cases, not just civil. It would stop the death penalty abuses, where some poor slob (who probably is also a scumbag, but still deserves justice) is given $350 for his complete defense.
Both markup languages (HTML; embedded link) and escapes are out of band metadata. Escapes allow an xterm, a real terminal, etc, to show bold, underline, and so on. I believe some data terminals use escape to mark protected fields for "editing" a page on the screen, then hitting SEND to send the unprotected fields, or maybe the entire screen, back to the computer. And of course you know all about HTML markup :-)
In both cases, the escaped / embedded metadata is not visible on the screen, yet has important information about the page. It is not far fetched at all to consider escaped data as a link. I don't know if it has ever been done, but it could be.
Suppose I know someone, better off than most, who is always being caught up in one lie or another. Maybe not an outright lie, maybe just a little exageration. He claims to have given me a birthday present, when it actually came from someone else -- and everyone knows that. His proof that he owns a Ferrari is an obviously doctored picture. He takes advantage of others bad luck by loaning a small amount of money for lots of collateral, then finds excuses for not redeeming the loan later. He's always got some new investment scheme, takes people's money, then always has excuses for why the scheme failed and you don't get your money back.
I'm sure most of us know people like that.
Now this acquaintance comes along with yet another great investment scheme. Do you believe him?
Once burned, twice shy.
Burn me once, shame on you. Burn me twice, shame on me.
And if you can't read between the lines, well, you will some day.
Or should I say "religi0n"?
A great word processor will do a lot of the annoying things like spellcheck and thesaurus and automatic formatting
Exactly -- and those are not necessary. People used to tolerate typos because they read the message (the forest) and ignored the missing leaves (the trees). Now people fret about perfection in every little useless detail and forget to get the message itself as clear as possible. *That's* his point -- people take just as long to write a letter nowadays, and the letters aren't any clearer, in fact they are worse for all the formatting and useless decoration -- so where's the advance?
Name ANY technology as far reaching as taming fire or the printing press.
Name ANY cultural advance as far reaching as money, the alphabet, language.
All advances build on previous advances. No advance is as simple and elegant as what it is built upon. That's how progress works.
The steam engine was a remarkably simple advance, but Hero from the Greek/Roman era built the first prototype. The advances made from the early 1800s until the end in the mid 1900s were evolutionary, not revolutionary.
Chemical rockets are amazingly simple in concept, and they build on the Chinese concept from 1000 years before. All advances since then are merely refinements.
You can pick any period in history and say that following inventions were not as far reaching. Then compare that period to prior periods, and see if the prior inventions don't make later ones look like mere refinements.
That was a big objection from retailers -- they wanted the punters to come back for returns so they'd have to come inside the store again. And also one of the reasons consumers weren't impressed -- they sure as heck WERE going back, so what was the point?