Ya know, I keep thinking about the Constitution's mandate to build postal roads, and I'm still having trouble understanding why the national government is not the primary interstate ISP, and why the state and local governments are not the primary state and local ISPs.
I understand the dangers in letting the government bureaucracy develop cutting edge tech, but, if the state is always so bad with infrastructure tech, why aren't more bridges falling down every year?
I've driven for a living, and I'll tell you two things.
Yeah, the seatbelt probably helped when I spun a stepvan full of newspapers down a steep snowy hill. I'm not sure how or why the van didn't roll.
But I was fool enough to go up that hill before the plows in part because I had the seatbelt and was required to wear it.
I've seen more people do stupid things on the road, wearing seatbelts, since the things became mandatory, then I saw before they were madatory. Cars are dangerous, but you make them seem less dangerous and people tend to drive at the limit of their perceptions of danger.
As for child restraints, even the ones that are any good in an accident are bad for children's health. Whether to use them or not is a trade-off, and not one that should be forced by law.
(And, yes, as near as I can tell, my kid was as safe in my wife's lap as he would have been in an infant seat, considering the variety of accidents that might have occurred and their probability. Infant seats can kill, too.)
Sorry I was deliberate slim on identifying details. I'm a little on the paranoid side when putting personal information on the net, and what I gave was probably more than I'm comfortable with.
fyngyrz's explanation of his family's situation helps, I think.
The point is that the corner cases are precisely the ones you have a hard time getting anyone to believe until after people are dead, sometimes until after they are dead several years and medical fads change and you no longer have to fight established medical practice to get the right attention.
My sister was dying in the hospital because they could not feed her (rules wouldn't allow it, even if they could have understood my sister's requests) anything she could keep down. I had to cook meals for her and take them to the hospital. There were a number of reasons we all (family, friends, medical staff) felt it was better getting her home as soon as possible, even though it meant releasing her from the hospital fairly late on a Saturday. The docs weren't mad at her, they just knew by observation that they had done all they could, and that she needed to be home to have the best chance of recovery.
Anyway, I offered my sister's case as an example of why privacy is still important, and will be until every human is able to judge non-standard cases with perfect judgement. As you can see, there are a lot of us non-standard types out there, and when officers of the law have to enforce the standard instead of protect the peace (whatever standard is in vogue this week), people can get hurt.
In this case, we're taunting Microsoft for putting too many features in MSOffice.
The stupic ribbon is a (very poor) attempt to fix a set of menus that had become overburdened by the poorly planned out set of features.
Shoot. for what I do, MSOffice might as well be the hodge-podge of separate apps you suggest is the open/free alternative.
In Claris/Appleworks, I could build a single document that solves some teaching materials needs I have. It's still a little clumsy, but the MSOffice approach is to have two separate documents. I have to open a spreadsheet, sort it, copy/paste into the document that is the template for the worksheet, then print two worksheets at a time. To approach what I can do in Claris/Appleworks, I have to resort to programming. (No, OLE, or whatever they call it these days, does not solve anything with this one.)
I'm not going to bother explaining how it goes with programming, except to note that the old Macintosh System 7, programmed in C, was easier to do this in than VB, and the resultant app was easier to use than what I could build in VB. (VB could approach the useability of the document I created in Claris/Appleworks., But that's about it.)
Microsoft $oftware just plain eat$ your lunch and your $pare time and doesn't give you anything of real value in return.
My sister owns a circa 75 Nova. The body is not in the best condition, but it runs. Every time I go to Utah to visit her and drive that car, the police pull me over and give me a ticket for something ridiculous. Here's a couple of cases in point:
Just after dark, going out for some food with my baby in my wife's lap. Illegal, I know. (A pox on insurance companies.) Dangerous? Maybe, but then cars are dangerous machines. If they're going to make laws against putting children in cars with restraints, they might as well start making up rules about how many minutes a day you can allow a child to be in a car. And when are they going to go after the repeat offender drunk driver without whom the risk of accident would drop like a rock?
(Don't tell me the one about the poor woman in south Florida rush hour traffic crying when she finally gets to the checkpoint because a sudden brake at low speeds put her baby's head against the windshield, and the cop's sob story about having to charge her with negligent homicide. I've heard it before, I draw a different lesson from it.)
Well, the cop pulls us over, uses language along the lines of calling me and my wife wetbacks, asks for me driver's license. I hand him an international permit. It's from Japan. He's never seen an international permit before, apparently. What is a white guy doing with an international permit from Japan? (Now that he's up close he can see that I'm noticeably white. He hasn't yet noticed that my wife is Japanese, which might not be surprising. She looks rather hispanic.)
I explain that I've been in Japan with my wife and kid for several years and my Utah permit has expired. He asks for it anyway, and why didn't I get it renewed? I apologize for not carrying it with me or getting it renewed when I'm only expecting to be in the States for a bit over a week.
Things go downhill from there, because, like many officers, this guy can't admit he's wrong.
He goes back to his car, radios in and we wait at least a half an hour while he discusses things with whomever. (No exaggeration. My kid is really getting hungry, and my parents and my sister are wondering where we are by the time we get back.)
In the end, the only thing he can get me on is the child carrier.
So I'm out $65, which is a week's worth of food back in Japan for my family at the wages I'm earning.
Several years later, my brother and I are in the same car making a late night run to Home Depot, first, to trade a fitting for a pipe so my sister has plumbing that works now that she is out of the hospital, and second, to pick up some medicine she needs within a few hours. We are calculating that Home Depot closes before the place with the pharmacy. It's Saturday night just after Christmas, snowing, the streets are not yet slick but will be a bit slippery in an hour or so.
Coming out of Home Depot, I stop at a traffic light. Full stop, like the law says.
Right turn on red is legal in Utah, but, of course, you must come to a full stop and signal.
Full stop. I signal. I turn. I need to get over to the left as soon as possible for a left turn, so I signal and change lanes. I get pulled over.
The ticket? Not waiting long enough between lane changes. $65 that I could not afford.
We missed the pharmacy.
Fortunately, there was another store that could do the pharmacy thing until midnight, but we had to call from her home to find it. Also, we were really lucky that she didn't end up needing the medicine before I could get back with it.
Can you charge a cop with (negligent?) homicide because he's busy profiling you when you are trying to get necessary medicine back to your sister?
No extenuating circumstances, no arguing the ticket. I'm sure my black, knee length fur coat and bright aquamarine silk trousers didn't help settle that poor cop's nerves when I got out of the car to explain that my sister's life really was in danger.
I can understand some of the ambiguities here. You have to understand, my
I'm thinking that most of the "innovations" in that list are basically fixing features that already exist in ways they didn't need to be fixed, in fact, in ways that would tend to even further discourage the student from thinking for him/herself.
To my way of thinkging, that list is more in the way of proof that the board of education that requires MSOffice 2007 is not living in the real world.
Not that you should tell _them_ that in so many words. There are ways to tactfully tell people they've publically humiliated themselves.
Or, with better grammar (Why the subject line has that length limit is beyond me.):
Good teachers will not willingly cause their students to become addicted to things which stunt mental growth.
So, I disagree. If you want good teachers in your school district, this _is_ one of the important battles. By supporting good tools, you support good teachers who are willing to use good tools.
There are better ways to do this than walking in and insulting Microsoft users indirectly by insulting Microsoft, and there may be timing questions, but this is one of the battles to choose.
Depends on your point of view. Marketing sure thought segments were useful.
But the funny thing was that the segments might have actually been an engineering management benefit. The low ceiling helped keep projects small and manageable while budgets were small.
Of course, management (and marketing) that thought that even initial versions on 68K had to be significantly better than initial versions of comparable products on x86 probably contributed as much to the killing-by-adding-features as the lack of segment ceiling, but ceilings do have a use.
(And, of course, many engineers and managers saw the short address mode as a different kind of hidden ceiling instead of an opportunity for later optimization, especially since long branches weren't available until the 68020. (or was it the 68012? dang wet-ware database.)
As far as the assembly language compatibility, no, that compatibility can no longer be claimed. AMD has provided the path away from the other bottleneck in the x86, which is the lack of useable index registers, and iNTEL is following. x86 compatibility doesn't exist in the parts of the architecture where the "battles" of the future market will take place.
joudanzuki
Someday I'd like to have tens of millions of dollars to throw away trying to prove the 68K is a superior architecture to the x86. I mean, if iNTEL can burn up so much cash shoehorning the x86 into the future,...
One question. Now that you are perfect enough to recognize that other people's opinions don't matter much in the eternal scheme of things, do you think you could have arrived at that conclusion without some privacy?
For my part, I recognize that God's opinion is more important that the opinions of other people. I know there is no hiding from God, but I also have known for a long time that hiding from God is not necessary. God is the originator of the non-interference policy, which is a big part of the reason a lot of people don't think God is there.
Well, I supposed I have poisoned my own well.
But I do have the experience of working out whether other people's opinions are important, and I do have the experience of discovering that other people really don't have the time to spend much of it laughing at or criticizing me. At least people who count don't, and people who might, temporarily, develop a fascination with me, will usually get bored quickly and go take out their frustrations with life somewhere else if I don't try to entertain them too much.
But I needed privacy to figure those things out. And some of that did have to happen in places which were not the privacy of the crowd.
Or maybe you could say Microsoft has the biggest sort of stuttering problem in my house. Their software can't seem to even get started running at all here.
But I _can_ say it never stutters in the middle of a video.
You pay money for systems that track changes to certain files in specific places.
You do not pay good money to monitor every move a user makes. That puts way too much burden on computer resources, and even the decisions it requires of management is way too much of a burden, even if management makes the right decisions (the decision to turn it off).
This is in the same category as the privacy debate.
In another world, where everyone is perfect, we won't mind having no privacy. (We can stand upon the mountain with our flags unfurled, to quote Paul.) There will be two reasons for that: One, no perfect person will need room to recover from calculating blind alleys. The other, no perfect {parent | manager | police | neighbor} is going to look at data that is local to someone else's stewardship unless invited to do so.
This world ain't that, and if you think you're ready to live in that world, I hope you have the chance to get a good enough glimpse of that world before being committed to it. (We do all go there eventually, of course, in spite of John and Ono's insistance to the contrary.)
Not to mention, as has already been pointed out, if software must run on voting machines, the question of who is receiving the software is the key. Unless we are talking about some crazy who wants to send citizens voting applets over the internet, receiving the code is not part of the process of voting on such a machine.
Is, or is there not, a reason for private data and methods in classes and objects?
What we call privacy is actually an artifact of two or three aspects of the real world --
There are too many things going on for any one person to know everything about everyone and everything. Thus, privacy exists and always has.
There are many forms of useful and necessary work that can't be performed without protecting the workplace from the external environment.
Short lines of control and simple interfaces tend to more durable and more reliable.
These are the issues of privacy, and without these principles the Constitution would be completely superfluous and, in fact, evil. These principles are implicit within the (original) Constitution, underlying all the technical features.
My guess (Without knowing you personally, I have no way to tell how good the guess is.) is that you have convinced yourself that the best place to hide what you need to hide is out in the open where everyone can see.
The people who are looking don't matter because they don't really see; the people who might actually see are not looking, perhaps because you have directed their attention elsewhere with some slight-of-hand?
There are more reasons than one for certain semantic entities not to occur in the vocabulary of a specific language.
Living in a society that is supposedly "social", and watching people hide in the anonymity of the crowd, I am familiar with how that works. Also, as I have watched words that supposedly "didn't exist" in Japanese be exposed by more non-Japanese developing a greater familiarity with the so-called common language, I can give you good odds that most of the languages that supposedly don't have words for privacy simply don't tell those words to them funny lookin' furrinyers what you dasn't trust.
No. We do not have any reason to assume that Apple will close CUPS.
"Apple did this with KHTML!!!"
Where have you been for the last two years? Do you want to go list all the stuff Apple has been feeding back to the community and explain why none of it matters?
"Apple did this with Darwin!!!!!"
Yeah, they did keep Darwin under wraps for a certain amount of time. They had their reasons. We may not agree with their reasons and analyses, but they afterward opened their code base back up. They didn't have to, since the BSD allows people to be stupid, but they did.
Apple recognizes that contributing back to the community allows the community to continue to contribute as well.
CUPS, in particular, is one that Apple needs the community to help them with. They are not going to close it up.
(I'm wondering if I can recall any one thing Apple has actually closed up and kept closed.)
So there has been a lot of anti-Apple fud here.
What about GPL3? I see a lot of assertions that GPL3 is poison to Apple, but I don't see any reasons why. My understanding of GPL3 is that it would be _more_ to Apple's advantage to go GPL3 if they want to retain the right to create exceptions than the untested GPL2+quasi-exception it currently has. I need to examine the license and the exception, but the "They couldn't use GPL3 comments show an utter lack of familiarity with the concepts.
One female suicide bomber does not disprove a trend.
It might present an example of at least one case that is obviously not a man looking for a harem in the sky. Maybe. Depends on exactly what her motivations are. I can think of lots of questions I'd have to ask before I could judge, and one of those questions is whether she is coming from a background of abuse.
I am aware of several (in these cases, Christian background) women who at one point would have been ready to commit a suicide attack to escape from an abusive husband or father. From what I know of Muslim traditions, I can't believe Muslim would not be subject to that sort of problem, and if you then mix in the harem-in-the-sky motivation, I can easily imagine a muslim woman who would rather look forward to being a part of a harem in the sky than believe she would have to face taking the husband's not-so-gentle attentions all by herself for all of eternity.
Speculation, yes, but you can't just say that a few female suicide bombers prove that the religious influence here is not relevant.
As far as the Kamikaze pilots? You aren't seriously suggesting that fanatic nationalism in a country where the emperor is considered to be God is substantially different from religion? The harem factor may be absent, but I think it's going to be hard to use Kamikaze to argue that religion is not a significant factor.
I suppose I should read the friendly article before I argue with people arguing with it, but I don't see much use in arguing this direction.
The fact that some service agreements (as in of free service) give the isp the right to create derivative works does not change the fact that it's a derivative work.
I had a MSW2k box that ran well enough when I was using it for php dev a couple of years. Dual-booted freebsd on the box. Had to make sure I cut the MSW2k partitions first and keep the MSW2k partitioning tools away from the desk after I cut the freebsd slices, though. MS's tools would kill the freebsd partitions pretty quickly. I think I even managed to have multiple user accounts on it so I could be running a non-admin user when I went to the web looking for answers.
But the non-admin user was running an English locale.
Different job, different box. I think it was MSWxp. I needed to be in Japanese locale when I hit the web. (I forget why.) I set up a user account to run in Japanese locale, logged out and back in, and wasted a day trying to get the account unfrozen. Logging into that account would freeze the box. I couldn't even get it switched back to English locale. Fortunately, I hadn't saved anything important in that account.
What did my co-workers do when they hit the web? I asked. They looked at me with wide eyes and asked why bother making non-admin accounts? Malware? It wasn't such a problem back then, if you were careful where you visited. Otherwise, they wiped the OS on some machines regularly.
My solution? I would re-boot in Linux when I needed to hit the web in Japanese locale. (Again, I was careful not to touch the partitions with MS's tools after the Linux primary partition was cut.) Ultimately got a dedicated Linux box (and a Mac Mini a little later).
Slashdot Mirror
Ya know, I keep thinking about the Constitution's mandate to build postal roads, and I'm still having trouble understanding why the national government is not the primary interstate ISP, and why the state and local governments are not the primary state and local ISPs.
I understand the dangers in letting the government bureaucracy develop cutting edge tech, but, if the state is always so bad with infrastructure tech, why aren't more bridges falling down every year?
joudanzuki, with reservations
I've driven for a living, and I'll tell you two things.
Yeah, the seatbelt probably helped when I spun a stepvan full of newspapers down a steep snowy hill. I'm not sure how or why the van didn't roll.
But I was fool enough to go up that hill before the plows in part because I had the seatbelt and was required to wear it.
I've seen more people do stupid things on the road, wearing seatbelts, since the things became mandatory, then I saw before they were madatory. Cars are dangerous, but you make them seem less dangerous and people tend to drive at the limit of their perceptions of danger.
As for child restraints, even the ones that are any good in an accident are bad for children's health. Whether to use them or not is a trade-off, and not one that should be forced by law.
(And, yes, as near as I can tell, my kid was as safe in my wife's lap as he would have been in an infant seat, considering the variety of accidents that might have occurred and their probability. Infant seats can kill, too.)
joudanzuki
Sorry I was deliberate slim on identifying details. I'm a little on the paranoid side when putting personal information on the net, and what I gave was probably more than I'm comfortable with.
fyngyrz's explanation of his family's situation helps, I think.
The point is that the corner cases are precisely the ones you have a hard time getting anyone to believe until after people are dead, sometimes until after they are dead several years and medical fads change and you no longer have to fight established medical practice to get the right attention.
My sister was dying in the hospital because they could not feed her (rules wouldn't allow it, even if they could have understood my sister's requests) anything she could keep down. I had to cook meals for her and take them to the hospital. There were a number of reasons we all (family, friends, medical staff) felt it was better getting her home as soon as possible, even though it meant releasing her from the hospital fairly late on a Saturday. The docs weren't mad at her, they just knew by observation that they had done all they could, and that she needed to be home to have the best chance of recovery.
Anyway, I offered my sister's case as an example of why privacy is still important, and will be until every human is able to judge non-standard cases with perfect judgement. As you can see, there are a lot of us non-standard types out there, and when officers of the law have to enforce the standard instead of protect the peace (whatever standard is in vogue this week), people can get hurt.
joudanzuki
In this case, we're taunting Microsoft for putting too many features in MSOffice.
The stupic ribbon is a (very poor) attempt to fix a set of menus that had become overburdened by the poorly planned out set of features.
Shoot. for what I do, MSOffice might as well be the hodge-podge of separate apps you suggest is the open/free alternative.
In Claris/Appleworks, I could build a single document that solves some teaching materials needs I have. It's still a little clumsy, but the MSOffice approach is to have two separate documents. I have to open a spreadsheet, sort it, copy/paste into the document that is the template for the worksheet, then print two worksheets at a time. To approach what I can do in Claris/Appleworks, I have to resort to programming. (No, OLE, or whatever they call it these days, does not solve anything with this one.)
I'm not going to bother explaining how it goes with programming, except to note that the old Macintosh System 7, programmed in C, was easier to do this in than VB, and the resultant app was easier to use than what I could build in VB. (VB could approach the useability of the document I created in Claris/Appleworks., But that's about it.)
Microsoft $oftware just plain eat$ your lunch and your $pare time and doesn't give you anything of real value in return.
joudanzuki
but not the way Microsoft does it.
My sister owns a circa 75 Nova. The body is not in the best condition, but it runs. Every time I go to Utah to visit her and drive that car, the police pull me over and give me a ticket for something ridiculous. Here's a couple of cases in point:
Just after dark, going out for some food with my baby in my wife's lap. Illegal, I know. (A pox on insurance companies.) Dangerous? Maybe, but then cars are dangerous machines. If they're going to make laws against putting children in cars with restraints, they might as well start making up rules about how many minutes a day you can allow a child to be in a car. And when are they going to go after the repeat offender drunk driver without whom the risk of accident would drop like a rock?
(Don't tell me the one about the poor woman in south Florida rush hour traffic crying when she finally gets to the checkpoint because a sudden brake at low speeds put her baby's head against the windshield, and the cop's sob story about having to charge her with negligent homicide. I've heard it before, I draw a different lesson from it.)
Well, the cop pulls us over, uses language along the lines of calling me and my wife wetbacks, asks for me driver's license. I hand him an international permit. It's from Japan. He's never seen an international permit before, apparently. What is a white guy doing with an international permit from Japan? (Now that he's up close he can see that I'm noticeably white. He hasn't yet noticed that my wife is Japanese, which might not be surprising. She looks rather hispanic.)
I explain that I've been in Japan with my wife and kid for several years and my Utah permit has expired. He asks for it anyway, and why didn't I get it renewed? I apologize for not carrying it with me or getting it renewed when I'm only expecting to be in the States for a bit over a week.
Things go downhill from there, because, like many officers, this guy can't admit he's wrong.
He goes back to his car, radios in and we wait at least a half an hour while he discusses things with whomever. (No exaggeration. My kid is really getting hungry, and my parents and my sister are wondering where we are by the time we get back.)
In the end, the only thing he can get me on is the child carrier.
So I'm out $65, which is a week's worth of food back in Japan for my family at the wages I'm earning.
Several years later, my brother and I are in the same car making a late night run to Home Depot, first, to trade a fitting for a pipe so my sister has plumbing that works now that she is out of the hospital, and second, to pick up some medicine she needs within a few hours. We are calculating that Home Depot closes before the place with the pharmacy. It's Saturday night just after Christmas, snowing, the streets are not yet slick but will be a bit slippery in an hour or so.
Coming out of Home Depot, I stop at a traffic light. Full stop, like the law says.
Right turn on red is legal in Utah, but, of course, you must come to a full stop and signal.
Full stop. I signal. I turn. I need to get over to the left as soon as possible for a left turn, so I signal and change lanes. I get pulled over.
The ticket? Not waiting long enough between lane changes. $65 that I could not afford.
We missed the pharmacy.
Fortunately, there was another store that could do the pharmacy thing until midnight, but we had to call from her home to find it. Also, we were really lucky that she didn't end up needing the medicine before I could get back with it.
Can you charge a cop with (negligent?) homicide because he's busy profiling you when you are trying to get necessary medicine back to your sister?
No extenuating circumstances, no arguing the ticket. I'm sure my black, knee length fur coat and bright aquamarine silk trousers didn't help settle that poor cop's nerves when I got out of the car to explain that my sister's life really was in danger.
I can understand some of the ambiguities here. You have to understand, my
I mean, honestly, and not trolling?
I'm thinking that most of the "innovations" in that list are basically fixing features that already exist in ways they didn't need to be fixed, in fact, in ways that would tend to even further discourage the student from thinking for him/herself.
To my way of thinkging, that list is more in the way of proof that the board of education that requires MSOffice 2007 is not living in the real world.
Not that you should tell _them_ that in so many words. There are ways to tactfully tell people they've publically humiliated themselves.
jdz
Or, with better grammar (Why the subject line has that length limit is beyond me.):
Good teachers will not willingly cause their students to become addicted to things which stunt mental growth.
So, I disagree. If you want good teachers in your school district, this _is_ one of the important battles. By supporting good tools, you support good teachers who are willing to use good tools.
There are better ways to do this than walking in and insulting Microsoft users indirectly by insulting Microsoft, and there may be timing questions, but this is one of the battles to choose.
that stands to make a killing from all the students being herded into the corral ... ... for the _mental_ slaughter.
And now you are one more statistic in the report that Microsoft is writing about how Vista uptake has (finally, phew) surpassed Mac OS X uptake.
Breaking the cycle of abuse requires courage.
I just entered that at the command line and I got
/usr/bin/vim: cannot execute binary file
;-P
vim:
Hmm. I guess you meant that as a list of tools rather than as a command line.
Depends on your point of view. Marketing sure thought segments were useful.
...
But the funny thing was that the segments might have actually been an engineering management benefit. The low ceiling helped keep projects small and manageable while budgets were small.
Of course, management (and marketing) that thought that even initial versions on 68K had to be significantly better than initial versions of comparable products on x86 probably contributed as much to the killing-by-adding-features as the lack of segment ceiling, but ceilings do have a use.
(And, of course, many engineers and managers saw the short address mode as a different kind of hidden ceiling instead of an opportunity for later optimization, especially since long branches weren't available until the 68020. (or was it the 68012? dang wet-ware database.)
As far as the assembly language compatibility, no, that compatibility can no longer be claimed. AMD has provided the path away from the other bottleneck in the x86, which is the lack of useable index registers, and iNTEL is following. x86 compatibility doesn't exist in the parts of the architecture where the "battles" of the future market will take place.
joudanzuki
Someday I'd like to have tens of millions of dollars to throw away trying to prove the 68K is a superior architecture to the x86. I mean, if iNTEL can burn up so much cash shoehorning the x86 into the future,
One question. Now that you are perfect enough to recognize that other people's opinions don't matter much in the eternal scheme of things, do you think you could have arrived at that conclusion without some privacy?
For my part, I recognize that God's opinion is more important that the opinions of other people. I know there is no hiding from God, but I also have known for a long time that hiding from God is not necessary. God is the originator of the non-interference policy, which is a big part of the reason a lot of people don't think God is there.
Well, I supposed I have poisoned my own well.
But I do have the experience of working out whether other people's opinions are important, and I do have the experience of discovering that other people really don't have the time to spend much of it laughing at or criticizing me. At least people who count don't, and people who might, temporarily, develop a fascination with me, will usually get bored quickly and go take out their frustrations with life somewhere else if I don't try to entertain them too much.
But I needed privacy to figure those things out. And some of that did have to happen in places which were not the privacy of the crowd.
Hooray for the 6 bit character! (Was the byte 12 bit or 60?)
Or maybe you could say Microsoft has the biggest sort of stuttering problem in my house. Their software can't seem to even get started running at all here.
But I _can_ say it never stutters in the middle of a video.
You pay money for systems that track changes to certain files in specific places.
You do not pay good money to monitor every move a user makes. That puts way too much burden on computer resources, and even the decisions it requires of management is way too much of a burden, even if management makes the right decisions (the decision to turn it off).
This is in the same category as the privacy debate.
In another world, where everyone is perfect, we won't mind having no privacy. (We can stand upon the mountain with our flags unfurled, to quote Paul.) There will be two reasons for that: One, no perfect person will need room to recover from calculating blind alleys. The other, no perfect {parent | manager | police | neighbor} is going to look at data that is local to someone else's stewardship unless invited to do so.
This world ain't that, and if you think you're ready to live in that world, I hope you have the chance to get a good enough glimpse of that world before being committed to it. (We do all go there eventually, of course, in spite of John and Ono's insistance to the contrary.)
joudanzuki
What does that fact do to your theory?
Not to mention, as has already been pointed out, if software must run on voting machines, the question of who is receiving the software is the key. Unless we are talking about some crazy who wants to send citizens voting applets over the internet, receiving the code is not part of the process of voting on such a machine.
Is, or is there not, a reason for private data and methods in classes and objects?
What we call privacy is actually an artifact of two or three aspects of the real world --
There are too many things going on for any one person to know everything about everyone and everything. Thus, privacy exists and always has.
There are many forms of useful and necessary work that can't be performed without protecting the workplace from the external environment.
Short lines of control and simple interfaces tend to more durable and more reliable.
These are the issues of privacy, and without these principles the Constitution would be completely superfluous and, in fact, evil. These principles are implicit within the (original) Constitution, underlying all the technical features.
(Edgar Allan Poe)
My guess (Without knowing you personally, I have no way to tell how good the guess is.) is that you have convinced yourself that the best place to hide what you need to hide is out in the open where everyone can see.
The people who are looking don't matter because they don't really see; the people who might actually see are not looking, perhaps because you have directed their attention elsewhere with some slight-of-hand?
Check yourself. As a foreigner, did you expect to be allowed into their inner sanctum within a mere two and a half years?
There are more reasons than one for certain semantic entities not to occur in the vocabulary of a specific language.
Living in a society that is supposedly "social", and watching people hide in the anonymity of the crowd, I am familiar with how that works. Also, as I have watched words that supposedly "didn't exist" in Japanese be exposed by more non-Japanese developing a greater familiarity with the so-called common language, I can give you good odds that most of the languages that supposedly don't have words for privacy simply don't tell those words to them funny lookin' furrinyers what you dasn't trust.
No. We do not have any reason to assume that Apple will close CUPS.
"Apple did this with KHTML!!!"
Where have you been for the last two years? Do you want to go list all the stuff Apple has been feeding back to the community and explain why none of it matters?
"Apple did this with Darwin!!!!!"
Yeah, they did keep Darwin under wraps for a certain amount of time. They had their reasons. We may not agree with their reasons and analyses, but they afterward opened their code base back up. They didn't have to, since the BSD allows people to be stupid, but they did.
Apple recognizes that contributing back to the community allows the community to continue to contribute as well.
CUPS, in particular, is one that Apple needs the community to help them with. They are not going to close it up.
(I'm wondering if I can recall any one thing Apple has actually closed up and kept closed.)
So there has been a lot of anti-Apple fud here.
What about GPL3? I see a lot of assertions that GPL3 is poison to Apple, but I don't see any reasons why. My understanding of GPL3 is that it would be _more_ to Apple's advantage to go GPL3 if they want to retain the right to create exceptions than the untested GPL2+quasi-exception it currently has. I need to examine the license and the exception, but the "They couldn't use GPL3 comments show an utter lack of familiarity with the concepts.
An awful lot of anti-FSF fud here.
I didn't read the "study". FWIW:
One female suicide bomber does not disprove a trend.
It might present an example of at least one case that is obviously not a man looking for a harem in the sky. Maybe. Depends on exactly what her motivations are. I can think of lots of questions I'd have to ask before I could judge, and one of those questions is whether she is coming from a background of abuse.
I am aware of several (in these cases, Christian background) women who at one point would have been ready to commit a suicide attack to escape from an abusive husband or father. From what I know of Muslim traditions, I can't believe Muslim would not be subject to that sort of problem, and if you then mix in the harem-in-the-sky motivation, I can easily imagine a muslim woman who would rather look forward to being a part of a harem in the sky than believe she would have to face taking the husband's not-so-gentle attentions all by herself for all of eternity.
Speculation, yes, but you can't just say that a few female suicide bombers prove that the religious influence here is not relevant.
As far as the Kamikaze pilots? You aren't seriously suggesting that fanatic nationalism in a country where the emperor is considered to be God is substantially different from religion? The harem factor may be absent, but I think it's going to be hard to use Kamikaze to argue that religion is not a significant factor.
I suppose I should read the friendly article before I argue with people arguing with it, but I don't see much use in arguing this direction.
The fact that some service agreements (as in of free service) give the isp the right to create derivative works does not change the fact that it's a derivative work.
Heh.
Well, I think it depends a lot on what you run.
I had a MSW2k box that ran well enough when I was using it for php dev a couple of years. Dual-booted freebsd on the box. Had to make sure I cut the MSW2k partitions first and keep the MSW2k partitioning tools away from the desk after I cut the freebsd slices, though. MS's tools would kill the freebsd partitions pretty quickly. I think I even managed to have multiple user accounts on it so I could be running a non-admin user when I went to the web looking for answers.
But the non-admin user was running an English locale.
Different job, different box. I think it was MSWxp. I needed to be in Japanese locale when I hit the web. (I forget why.) I set up a user account to run in Japanese locale, logged out and back in, and wasted a day trying to get the account unfrozen. Logging into that account would freeze the box. I couldn't even get it switched back to English locale. Fortunately, I hadn't saved anything important in that account.
What did my co-workers do when they hit the web? I asked. They looked at me with wide eyes and asked why bother making non-admin accounts? Malware? It wasn't such a problem back then, if you were careful where you visited. Otherwise, they wiped the OS on some machines regularly.
My solution? I would re-boot in Linux when I needed to hit the web in Japanese locale. (Again, I was careful not to touch the partitions with MS's tools after the Linux primary partition was cut.) Ultimately got a dedicated Linux box (and a Mac Mini a little later).
So, yeah, Microsoft Windows OS is table.
But I'm much more productive on anything else.