Uhm, how on earth do you know this guy is American? France is hated throughout the world and for you to assume that everyone is American shows that complete ignorant stereotype that Americans have is justified. You're everything you just spouted and more.
And France is shit for many reasons, not just about the whole Iraq thing, oh and speaking of it, France is stupid because it wouldn't even listen to ANY negotiations at the UN, France said they would veto ANYTHING that was put on the table regardless of its' content, that is why France is hated about Iraq, 'cos what they did was complete stupidity, as for countries that support it, well, there's 14 countries that took part, more than you named that didn't take part, anyway.
Why is parent troll/flamebait? He's simply asking if anyone has installed the 'pure' Gnome as opposed to Gnome from Fedora with Fedora's hacks, and I for another would be interested in any answers from those that have,
OOo can be horrible if you're just starting out, whereas I find Office very easy when I started using computers, but like most things non-MS they just take a little getting used to, and I think we'll see alot more companies switching in the near future, but not at a great level until the LInux desktop has caught up.
But i was wondering, what would happen if MS did, one day, die, and basically it held onto 5% of the operating system market, and Linux, say, had 90%, how would goverments take action against Linux in calling it a monopoly?
It does have a 7-day week, and it hasn't simply not been added, if you look to the top-left there's a ink-ring around nothing, but it's inline with dates, so I'd go along with it being in a different colour which has since faded.
" But Microsoft is now turning its considerable might toward catching up. It's a move that puts Microsoft head to head with Google, the world's most popular Web surfing vehicle, and Yahoo, the Internet's most popular destination, in what many see as an important, growing and lucrative market.
"I think you'll see some good competition in this area," Ballmer said. "
I'm not saying this is impossible, new things come up all the time, and users have no loyalty, they'll switch to whatever is easiest, but the problem with MS and Yahoo! is that they simply won't be as good as Google, Google is fast, simple, it loads fast, has good search results, once again I think both MS and Yahoo! will be focusing on good results, and, while a major thing, it is not everything, their pages will still be full of advertisements, long loads, and anything but simple.
Having said that I hope there will be a rival to Google, I've found Teoma and ZapMeta to be pretty good, and both going for the simple look.
I've read about half of it. So far, the gist is that Trusted Computing will require digital certificates for all executables, documents, emails, and web pages (along with images). He claims that since a repository system of certificates will need to be formed (much like we have SSL certs like Thawte now), the power to deny publishing will be concentrated in the hands of the certificate repositories, which presumably will be large corps and governments. He claims this is the "Good Old Days" of producer/consumer media that the entrenched powers prefer, unlike the supposed new era of peer-to-peer internet publishing, whereby anyone can create their own web pages.
Actually, having signed certificates on documents and email is not a bad thing. I've wondered for years why the US Postal service hasn't created a trusted email system for a small postage fee. I use PGP signatures all the time to verify downloads from the Internet. A certificate/signature repository is just a convenience so I don't have to constantly email or call people asking for their public keys. In all likelyhood these repositories will be competitive-but-cooperative databases like DNS, so there will probably always be alternative or bargain signature repositories.
Yes, things will likely get buckled down as the Internet gets more mainstream and govts get their heads around it, but I don't see the gloomy future he does. Maybe he just had too idealistic dreams of the future. The bottom line is that most people don't want to publish their own content, and wouldn't even if they knew how. Blocking inbound port 80 to consumers is not the equivalent of book-burning or censorship, especially if port 80 is largely unused by consumers except as a vector for worms. If you want to publish, you'll just have to find a plan that allows you to do so. The fact the the large ISPs are figuring out that they can charge an extra $10-20/month for this is not the end of world, so long as more than one competing ISP exists. Also, no matter how much the Internet falls under control of central authorities, new technologies will arise for the tech elite to go about their business as always. After all, we somehow managed to build the Internet and BBS's in spite of the fact that publishers and the media had total control of print and the airwaves. History will repeat.
Unlimited freedom without repsonsibility is equivalent to anarchy, and the net is as close to a functional implementation of anarchy that the world has seen. However, this does not imply that what we have is an ideal. Far from it in fact.
Spam is one immediately obvious result of this freedom. Give yourself a couple minutes and you can think of several other less than desirable outcomes of all this freedom.
By tempering freedoms with responsibility, we can have the free flow of ideas we all have come to expect from the web, but without propogating all those nuisance aspect of the beast.
Unfortunately that means regulation. But regulation is not feasible in the traditional sense. The internet is a global phenomenon, and while some corners of the world act to supress portions of the traffic, by and large the web is a building block of a truly global society.
But a society must have laws to function and sustain itself. In ten short years my own usage patterns have drastically changed, as well as the usages patterns of many of my peers.
Remember the good old days? I remember not having multiple email accounts, or any of a number of other measures I routinely undertake to weed out various garbage I don't want as part of my on-line experience. We've all had to take these measures, to some degree or another.
My question is, is that the way it should be? Is spam and it's unsavoury tribe really an acceptable cost for the freedoms entailed? Most, if not all of us have extreme antipathy to spam. It's the old adage about a right is such only until it infringes on the rights of others. I feel that spam has truly infringed on my web experience, most of us should feel the same way. Even if the measures to avoid it personally are trivial, should the majority who don't want spam have to make such changes to allow safeguard the freedoms of a few individuals who refuse to honor our freedoms?
Regulation is probably inevitable, and in fact is being attempted by governments today. I think this is the bigger concern. If the web is to be regulated, such regulation needs to come from within. The danger is that the regulation will be forced from outside. The reason this will occur is because we have subjugated responsibilites to freedoms. As long as this continues to be the case there will be an increasing impetus to force such regulation on the web. The problem is that the source of such change will be the very people we don't want to make the changes happen. Big business and government.
And it makes sense, why spend money and time and effort dealing with the effects of this (relatively) unabridged freedom with virus scanners, and spam blocking services Et. Al. when the same time and monies and effort can be used to eliminate the problem. For a multinational corporation, it is a relatively trivial exercise to lobby for the legislative changes required. Once that legal environment exists, it becomes easier to implement the rest of your solution. If you can get a couple of your peers to play ball...
Slashdot Mirror
Uhm, how on earth do you know this guy is American? France is hated throughout the world and for you to assume that everyone is American shows that complete ignorant stereotype that Americans have is justified. You're everything you just spouted and more.
And France is shit for many reasons, not just about the whole Iraq thing, oh and speaking of it, France is stupid because it wouldn't even listen to ANY negotiations at the UN, France said they would veto ANYTHING that was put on the table regardless of its' content, that is why France is hated about Iraq, 'cos what they did was complete stupidity, as for countries that support it, well, there's 14 countries that took part, more than you named that didn't take part, anyway.
Fucking liberals.
but today i found that my teacher's hole punch is made by a company called "rapesco", or "Rape SCO".
back to my pit..
If you actually look at Yahoo's search results I think you'll find it's CLEARER than Google's, and I don't even see a single advertisement.
Yahoo is now my #1, goodbye Google.
Why is parent troll/flamebait? He's simply asking if anyone has installed the 'pure' Gnome as opposed to Gnome from Fedora with Fedora's hacks, and I for another would be interested in any answers from those that have,
EXACTLY.
"he US wouldn't exist if it wasn't for the French."
So this is all YOUR fault, dickhead.
OOo can be horrible if you're just starting out, whereas I find Office very easy when I started using computers, but like most things non-MS they just take a little getting used to, and I think we'll see alot more companies switching in the near future, but not at a great level until the LInux desktop has caught up.
But i was wondering, what would happen if MS did, one day, die, and basically it held onto 5% of the operating system market, and Linux, say, had 90%, how would goverments take action against Linux in calling it a monopoly?
It does have a 7-day week, and it hasn't simply not been added, if you look to the top-left there's a ink-ring around nothing, but it's inline with dates, so I'd go along with it being in a different colour which has since faded.
" But Microsoft is now turning its considerable might toward catching up. It's a move that puts Microsoft head to head with Google, the world's most popular Web surfing vehicle, and Yahoo, the Internet's most popular destination, in what many see as an important, growing and lucrative market.
"I think you'll see some good competition in this area," Ballmer said. "
I'm not saying this is impossible, new things come up all the time, and users have no loyalty, they'll switch to whatever is easiest, but the problem with MS and Yahoo! is that they simply won't be as good as Google, Google is fast, simple, it loads fast, has good search results, once again I think both MS and Yahoo! will be focusing on good results, and, while a major thing, it is not everything, their pages will still be full of advertisements, long loads, and anything but simple.
Having said that I hope there will be a rival to Google, I've found Teoma and ZapMeta to be pretty good, and both going for the simple look.
I've read about half of it. So far, the gist is that Trusted Computing will require digital certificates for all executables, documents, emails, and web pages (along with images). He claims that since a repository system of certificates will need to be formed (much like we have SSL certs like Thawte now), the power to deny publishing will be concentrated in the hands of the certificate repositories, which presumably will be large corps and governments. He claims this is the "Good Old Days" of producer/consumer media that the entrenched powers prefer, unlike the supposed new era of peer-to-peer internet publishing, whereby anyone can create their own web pages.
Actually, having signed certificates on documents and email is not a bad thing. I've wondered for years why the US Postal service hasn't created a trusted email system for a small postage fee. I use PGP signatures all the time to verify downloads from the Internet. A certificate/signature repository is just a convenience so I don't have to constantly email or call people asking for their public keys. In all likelyhood these repositories will be competitive-but-cooperative databases like DNS, so there will probably always be alternative or bargain signature repositories.
Yes, things will likely get buckled down as the Internet gets more mainstream and govts get their heads around it, but I don't see the gloomy future he does. Maybe he just had too idealistic dreams of the future. The bottom line is that most people don't want to publish their own content, and wouldn't even if they knew how. Blocking inbound port 80 to consumers is not the equivalent of book-burning or censorship, especially if port 80 is largely unused by consumers except as a vector for worms. If you want to publish, you'll just have to find a plan that allows you to do so. The fact the the large ISPs are figuring out that they can charge an extra $10-20/month for this is not the end of world, so long as more than one competing ISP exists.
Also, no matter how much the Internet falls under control of central authorities, new technologies will arise for the tech elite to go about their business as always. After all, we somehow managed to build the Internet and BBS's in spite of the fact that publishers and the media had total control of print and the airwaves. History will repeat.
Unlimited freedom without repsonsibility is equivalent to anarchy, and the net is as close to a functional implementation of anarchy that the world has seen. However, this does not imply that what we have is an ideal. Far from it in fact.
Spam is one immediately obvious result of this freedom. Give yourself a couple minutes and you can think of several other less than desirable outcomes of all this freedom.
By tempering freedoms with responsibility, we can have the free flow of ideas we all have come to expect from the web, but without propogating all those nuisance aspect of the beast.
Unfortunately that means regulation. But regulation is not feasible in the traditional sense. The internet is a global phenomenon, and while some corners of the world act to supress portions of the traffic, by and large the web is a building block of a truly global society.
But a society must have laws to function and sustain itself. In ten short years my own usage patterns have drastically changed, as well as the usages patterns of many of my peers.
Remember the good old days? I remember not having multiple email accounts, or any of a number of other measures I routinely undertake to weed out various garbage I don't want as part of my on-line experience. We've all had to take these measures, to some degree or another.
My question is, is that the way it should be? Is spam and it's unsavoury tribe really an acceptable cost for the freedoms entailed? Most, if not all of us have extreme antipathy to spam. It's the old adage about a right is such only until it infringes on the rights of others. I feel that spam has truly infringed on my web experience, most of us should feel the same way. Even if the measures to avoid it personally are trivial, should the majority who don't want spam have to make such changes to allow safeguard the freedoms of a few individuals who refuse to honor our freedoms?
Regulation is probably inevitable, and in fact is being attempted by governments today. I think this is the bigger concern. If the web is to be regulated, such regulation needs to come from within. The danger is that the regulation will be forced from outside. The reason this will occur is because we have subjugated responsibilites to freedoms. As long as this continues to be the case there will be an increasing impetus to force such regulation on the web. The problem is that the source of such change will be the very people we don't want to make the changes happen. Big business and government.
And it makes sense, why spend money and time and effort dealing with the effects of this (relatively) unabridged freedom with virus scanners, and spam blocking services Et. Al. when the same time and monies and effort can be used to eliminate the problem. For a multinational corporation, it is a relatively trivial exercise to lobby for the legislative changes required. Once that legal environment exists, it becomes easier to implement the rest of your solution. If you can get a couple of your peers to play ball...