Exactly! Why is this an insanely great idea when Apple does it, and nothing but trouble when Microsoft does it.
For me, a Windows Power User, this is the best news I've had from MS in many, many years. Corporate IT shops will simply disable this "feature" if they don't want to support it; the rest of us will get the benefit anyway.
I must disagree: western governments have historically ruled against the protection of anonymous speech; however, free speech has traditionally been protected.
The poster wrote, "a blow to free speech in Canada". While that's a provocative headline, it's not accurate. Free speech is about being allowed to say whatever you want: you can stand up in the public square, or blabber over the fence to your neighbour, and say whatever you want, without any fear of being persecuted, imprisoned, etc.
Saying something anonymously is not part of that definition.
Exactly. I put up what I thought was the good fight, but it came down to me versus a regular, so I lost by default. My interest in repeating the process is nil, especially since I'm powerless to have any real say in the end result.
That is also exactly my experience. Just this week I've been part of an argument about whether a particular cassette release by a band was worthy enough to rate its own page. The deletion police ruled the day. I keep fighting with the deletion police because---as others have already noted---I'm hopeful that if enough of us complain about being f***ed over that eventually it will stop.
What catches my attention is that the student didn't merely call the principle names, but also accused the principle of engaging in a felony (chile abuse; aka "hitting on kids"). It is never "free speech" to accuse someone of a crime; especially, as is now the case in our society, a crime where society consistently considers the accused to be guilty until proven innocent.
Therefore, it should be his job to keep this document so that he can provide the users(of the proper departments) with their proper access credentials.
There are NO circumstances under which one user should possess another user's password; not even an Administrator. The only exception to this rule ever allowed is when the account is first created: when a one-time use password is assigned by the Administrator; however, in a world-class IT infrastructure (such as an enterprise like the city of SF can afford to implement) an application creates and assigns a random password and then communicates it to the user via secure means (with no person seeing or having access to that password).
I too experience the symptoms you describe; however, rather than colours affecting me I find that it is mostly the ambient lighting that causes me grief.
The quality of the CRT/LCD is definitely also a factor; but, for me, it's not the primary one.
A few years ago, when my employer of that time enacted a work-from-home program, I built a home office and worked fulltime from that home office. I laid out some extra cash for indirect illumination dimmable fluorescent fixtures; specifically, Lithonia Avante Recessed Direct-Indirect. I have never regretted the $600 it cost me.
The specific condition that induces eyestrain and headaches is where I have light that is brighter-than-my-monitor light shining directly into my eyes. Indirect lighting is the primary key to eliminating my eyestrain problem, with overall light levels also being a key (hence, the dimmable fluorescent fixture). Also, use newer fluorescents that have very high refresh frequencies; I used CF40s.
I agree that on each platform OO should support that platform's accepted/native key bindings. This must at least be a configurable option; should the OO team want to make some other set of bindings the default.
One of OO's previous lackings was the ability to use basic Emacs key bindings. Reconfiguring the product to do this was a pain in the butt, and no one in the extended user community had taken the time to create something. I'm not an Emacs-bigot, but with tens of thousands of Emacs users out there, why wouldn't you want to address that market segment?
Hopefull both of these issues are eventually addressed.
The AMD export compliance specifications are a little easier to find on AMD's site than Intel's. Search AMD.com for "CTP calculations". CTPs (Composite Theoretical Performance) are a synthetic benchmark, but do show the relative performance of various CPUs.
US Government regulations require that Intel publish performance numbers for all of their CPUs. See the following links for the relative performance of all of Intel's CPUs. Make your own graphs if you need a pretty picture.
It's amazing what kind of cooperation a warrant will still get.
In our digital PBX and VoIP world, the reason the telco is able to provide wiretaps is because the telecoms manaufacturers (e.g., AT&T, Cisco, Nortel, Siemens, etc.) have configured their equipment to allow these wire taps to be put in place.
This is especially frustrating in a VoIP universe because the implementation of these features degrades the function of the service: a VoIP call should talk to a central "switch" program to make a connection (since it's the easiest way to circumvent firewalls) and thereafter all traffic between the VoIP clients should be point to point; however, commercial VoIP implementations offered by the telecoms manufacturers route all packets through a central "switch".
The press, in castigating the telcom operators have neglected to highlight the fact that the manufacturers are already in bed with the government; which is what enables the carriers to cooperate.
Secure communications are not just a Constitutionally protected right, they are a prerequisite for business.
Since the telecom manufacturers have implemented the feature set(s) necessary to enable wiretapping---even in VoIP switched environments---secure communications are neither possible nor are they anyone's right.
...the GPL is about the freedom of those who receive the code. You're right, but not the way you think you are. GPL is about limiting the freedom of those who receive the code.
But I'm not worried about what is done with my code; which is why I'm not moving to v3. If I was worrying about it then I wouldn't be labelling myself as a hobbiest.
The tagging of my original post as flamebait supports my position: the FOSS fundamentalists think that anyone who doesn't kowtowing at the FSF temple must be flaming and isn't rational.
Here's a more detailed description of my logic:
Public Domain (PD) -- the least restrictive license because there are no strings attached
GPL v2 -- more restrictive than PD because GPL v2 does place some limits on what someone can do with your code
GPL v3 -- more restrictive than GPL v3 in terms of what someone can do with your code
As a developer releasing code, GPL v3 doesn't give me more "freedom", it gives me more "control". It offers sommeone using the code less freedom, because the developer has place limits on what may be done with my code.
I am not interested in controlling my code any more than v2 already controls; hence, my remarks.
Regarding your comment about freedom from patent worries... I am already free of such worries. Patent law already allows me to code anything I want for my own use; regardless of what has been patented. Again, as a "hobbiest" I don't need v3.
As a "hobby" type developer (to use terminology suggested elsewhere in postings to this topic) I have elected to revise the licensing of all of the software I maintain to specifically be licensed under GPL version v2.1.
From my perspective, GPL v3 is overly restrictive and imposes too many limits upon those using my software; that is, v3 released software is no longer "free", it is instead burdened with a lot of FSF philosophy.
Finally, some rational thought about this event. My own take on the firings is the basically the same as Attila's; the headlines should have read, "Political appointees replaced by the party that appointed them." In other words, a non-event.
Regarding the firings, the Democrats are behaving true to political form (which is to say, behaving exactly like the Republicans would behave if the roles were reversed) and objecting to President Bush's administration doing something that the law and political convention allows them to do.
If the Democrats truly believe that the current US Attorneys are fully qualified and should receive nothing but the highest levels of support, then the Democrats should deviate from past practice and not replace all the US Attorneys if they win the Presidency in 2008. The chances of the Democrats not replacing all of the US Attorneys is zero; since politicians will behave like politicians and only make self-interested, self-serving decisions intended to line their own pockets and screw anyone who doesn't kowtow to the party line.
From where I sit it looks to me like she intentionally set up the site so that she could sue one of the big guys. I suspect that she chose to sue archive.org because they don't have any money and so she didn't expected them to fight; then, using that precedent she would take on Google or someone else with money... thus leading to a big cash-in.
I hope that in the end rationality will prevail and she'll have to pay the court costs associated with her greed. That said, we are talking about "American blind justice" (c.f. Alice's Restaurant by Arlo Guthrie) and the most senseless and least rational ruling will probably prevail.
Re:I vote for et cetera
on
Define - /etc?
·
· Score: 3, Informative
"/var" didn't exist until long after "/etc" was created; so, you can't look to/var's use to provide a clue to/etc's origins.
Its pronounciation gives us a clue
on
Define - /etc?
·
· Score: 5, Informative
Long time UNIX hacks---and by that I mean UNIX guys from the early-1980s---pronounce/etc as "slash ett cee"; to me that makes it clear that/etc's origins are as "et cetera".
Slashdot Mirror
...if it had found "intelligent life" that would have been a false positive.
Exactly! Why is this an insanely great idea when Apple does it, and nothing but trouble when Microsoft does it.
For me, a Windows Power User, this is the best news I've had from MS in many, many years. Corporate IT shops will simply disable this "feature" if they don't want to support it; the rest of us will get the benefit anyway.
I must disagree: western governments have historically ruled against the protection of anonymous speech; however, free speech has traditionally been protected.
The poster wrote, "a blow to free speech in Canada". While that's a provocative headline, it's not accurate. Free speech is about being allowed to say whatever you want: you can stand up in the public square, or blabber over the fence to your neighbour, and say whatever you want, without any fear of being persecuted, imprisoned, etc.
Saying something anonymously is not part of that definition.
That is also exactly my experience. Just this week I've been part of an argument about whether a particular cassette release by a band was worthy enough to rate its own page. The deletion police ruled the day. I keep fighting with the deletion police because---as others have already noted---I'm hopeful that if enough of us complain about being f***ed over that eventually it will stop.
Moreover, SMS messages are often *never* delivered; making SMS messaging impossible for use in an environment where the message MUST be delivered.
What catches my attention is that the student didn't merely call the principle names, but also accused the principle of engaging in a felony (chile abuse; aka "hitting on kids"). It is never "free speech" to accuse someone of a crime; especially, as is now the case in our society, a crime where society consistently considers the accused to be guilty until proven innocent.
There are NO circumstances under which one user should possess another user's password; not even an Administrator. The only exception to this rule ever allowed is when the account is first created: when a one-time use password is assigned by the Administrator; however, in a world-class IT infrastructure (such as an enterprise like the city of SF can afford to implement) an application creates and assigns a random password and then communicates it to the user via secure means (with no person seeing or having access to that password).
I too experience the symptoms you describe; however, rather than colours affecting me I find that it is mostly the ambient lighting that causes me grief.
The quality of the CRT/LCD is definitely also a factor; but, for me, it's not the primary one.
A few years ago, when my employer of that time enacted a work-from-home program, I built a home office and worked fulltime from that home office. I laid out some extra cash for indirect illumination dimmable fluorescent fixtures; specifically, Lithonia Avante Recessed Direct-Indirect. I have never regretted the $600 it cost me.
The specific condition that induces eyestrain and headaches is where I have light that is brighter-than-my-monitor light shining directly into my eyes. Indirect lighting is the primary key to eliminating my eyestrain problem, with overall light levels also being a key (hence, the dimmable fluorescent fixture). Also, use newer fluorescents that have very high refresh frequencies; I used CF40s.
Two points:
I agree that on each platform OO should support that platform's accepted/native key bindings. This must at least be a configurable option; should the OO team want to make some other set of bindings the default.
One of OO's previous lackings was the ability to use basic Emacs key bindings. Reconfiguring the product to do this was a pain in the butt, and no one in the extended user community had taken the time to create something. I'm not an Emacs-bigot, but with tens of thousands of Emacs users out there, why wouldn't you want to address that market segment?
Hopefull both of these issues are eventually addressed.
The AMD export compliance specifications are a little easier to find on AMD's site than Intel's. Search AMD.com for "CTP calculations". CTPs (Composite Theoretical Performance) are a synthetic benchmark, but do show the relative performance of various CPUs.
Lots of CPUs (e.g., Intel mobile ULV processors) aren't on this site; which is why I posted the links to the Intel export compliance numbers.
US Government regulations require that Intel publish performance numbers for all of their CPUs. See the following links for the relative performance of all of Intel's CPUs. Make your own graphs if you need a pretty picture.
Intel microprocessor export compliance metrics:
In our digital PBX and VoIP world, the reason the telco is able to provide wiretaps is because the telecoms manaufacturers (e.g., AT&T, Cisco, Nortel, Siemens, etc.) have configured their equipment to allow these wire taps to be put in place.
This is especially frustrating in a VoIP universe because the implementation of these features degrades the function of the service: a VoIP call should talk to a central "switch" program to make a connection (since it's the easiest way to circumvent firewalls) and thereafter all traffic between the VoIP clients should be point to point; however, commercial VoIP implementations offered by the telecoms manufacturers route all packets through a central "switch".
The press, in castigating the telcom operators have neglected to highlight the fact that the manufacturers are already in bed with the government; which is what enables the carriers to cooperate.
Since the telecom manufacturers have implemented the feature set(s) necessary to enable wiretapping---even in VoIP switched environments---secure communications are neither possible nor are they anyone's right.
I guess the people who have rigged the vote have never heard about Correlation Cofficient.
You don't need brains to run a dictatorship, just a rampant willingness to fuck people over. Reminds me of some of our own leaders here in The West!
I would dearly love to have an Outlook plugin that allowed me to edit messages in-place and de-tiny my email messages.
...the GPL is about the freedom of those who receive the code. You're right, but not the way you think you are. GPL is about limiting the freedom of those who receive the code.But I'm not worried about what is done with my code; which is why I'm not moving to v3. If I was worrying about it then I wouldn't be labelling myself as a hobbiest.
The tagging of my original post as flamebait supports my position: the FOSS fundamentalists think that anyone who doesn't kowtowing at the FSF temple must be flaming and isn't rational.
Here's a more detailed description of my logic:
As a developer releasing code, GPL v3 doesn't give me more "freedom", it gives me more "control". It offers sommeone using the code less freedom, because the developer has place limits on what may be done with my code.
I am not interested in controlling my code any more than v2 already controls; hence, my remarks.
Regarding your comment about freedom from patent worries... I am already free of such worries. Patent law already allows me to code anything I want for my own use; regardless of what has been patented. Again, as a "hobbiest" I don't need v3.
As a "hobby" type developer (to use terminology suggested elsewhere in postings to this topic) I have elected to revise the licensing of all of the software I maintain to specifically be licensed under GPL version v2.1.
From my perspective, GPL v3 is overly restrictive and imposes too many limits upon those using my software; that is, v3 released software is no longer "free", it is instead burdened with a lot of FSF philosophy.
Finally, some rational thought about this event. My own take on the firings is the basically the same as Attila's; the headlines should have read, "Political appointees replaced by the party that appointed them." In other words, a non-event.
Regarding the firings, the Democrats are behaving true to political form (which is to say, behaving exactly like the Republicans would behave if the roles were reversed) and objecting to President Bush's administration doing something that the law and political convention allows them to do.
If the Democrats truly believe that the current US Attorneys are fully qualified and should receive nothing but the highest levels of support, then the Democrats should deviate from past practice and not replace all the US Attorneys if they win the Presidency in 2008. The chances of the Democrats not replacing all of the US Attorneys is zero; since politicians will behave like politicians and only make self-interested, self-serving decisions intended to line their own pockets and screw anyone who doesn't kowtow to the party line.
...IBM's Thomas J. Watson, predicts that "there is a world market for about five computers." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_J._Watson
From where I sit it looks to me like she intentionally set up the site so that she could sue one of the big guys. I suspect that she chose to sue archive.org because they don't have any money and so she didn't expected them to fight; then, using that precedent she would take on Google or someone else with money... thus leading to a big cash-in.
I hope that in the end rationality will prevail and she'll have to pay the court costs associated with her greed. That said, we are talking about "American blind justice" (c.f. Alice's Restaurant by Arlo Guthrie) and the most senseless and least rational ruling will probably prevail.
"/var" didn't exist until long after "/etc" was created; so, you can't look to /var's use to provide a clue to /etc's origins.
Long time UNIX hacks---and by that I mean UNIX guys from the early-1980s---pronounce /etc as "slash ett cee"; to me that makes it clear that /etc's origins are as "et cetera".
Re: "...aren't even good marketing."
If Apple was really trying to leverage these ads they would be available in the Video section of iTunes.