Perhaps the entire question of objective.vs. subjective is an approach to any given topic that may not result in a discourse or communication that enlightens. Please briefly endulge me.
What if, for any given thing discussed, it may be held that subjective can not be considered seprately? Rather than to think of something, such as a truth, as objective or subjective, perhaps think of it as containing a varying amounts of each? Perhaps it may be more harmonizing to think of subjective and objective as two that interact, rather than contradict.
I propose a model of analysis that harmonizes rather than contradicts. Distinction can be had by harmony as well as conflict. Individuality asserted by separation alone is not as complete as individuality reached by both separation and integration. Simply extrapolating this basic notion, a truth which is objective alone is not so useful as a truth which as valid subjectively as well as objectively.
Perhaps the problem arises in that we wonder that our experience is the same as that of the experience of others. This seems a natural question to ponder, I guess. After all, we know how we react to being burnt, for example. We perceive that others react the same way, so we know that there must be a basis for common experience with our fellow human beings. But, then we realize that we react differently to some things from others, as with the flavor of some favorite or despised food. We may not like meat, but we notice others do, for example. These two seem to conflict. However, they are not necessarily opposed. It only means that some things are common, and some things distinct. Commonality and distinction are not in opposition.
In an ecosystem, a myriad of things need to be present, in interaction with each other, and nothing can accurately be considered or studied in separation from its surroundings or context. Subjective and objective are not as useful separated as they are together. Peace is more useful than war for forward movement. Life need not be one step forward and two steps back.
Its important to observe the mental methods used to assert an approach, and detach from them without care to social, logical, or other convention. To do otherwise is to be trapped by ones own mind.
By the way, I realize I skipped some rather large expanses of territory from one statement to another earlier, but brevity has an eloquence all its own. This entire thread seemed to me to be a struggle between objective and subjective, with arguments weighing in on one camp or the other. There must be a way to perceive them as two that modulate, interact, and harmonize.
"Either reality is objectively knowable or reality is not objectively knowable. Either absolute truth exists or absolute truth does not exist. Either there is one way to truth or there is no one way to truth. Either there is one way to God or there is no one way to God. Since the second statements in each of these four sentences are clearly false, we must conclude, therefore, that reality is indeed objectively knowable, that absolute truth does indeed exist, that there is indeed one way to truth, and that there is indeed one way to God. I don't reject everything that the structuralists and poststructuralists say, but I hold the preceding truths to be not only ontologically absolute but also epistemologically self-evident. "
I don't think the way to discredit deconstructionism is to flee into the black depths of dogma.
The government can't be imbued with the traits and character of a human being, good or bad. The government is not a living entity, with a personality and internal moral code. It is an organization with a procedures and laws. It has no mind, heart, or soul to speak of. To say it is benign or malignant is simply not accurate. At its best, the government's moral capacity is the average of the moral integrity of the people who run it. Even this does not reflect its nature, as most will look at the moral character of the highest profile members of the government, and quickly conclude the that moral average has been degraded. The larger the number of people, the harder it is for one to drag the average down (not withstanding the ability of those members with significant amounts of responsibility to do harm).
To say that "the government only wants what is best for its people" casts the government with qualities of a human being, which is simply not true. The government will follow its rules and laws at its best. Trying to describe the goverment in a way that suggests human traits is misleading.
Its probably more accurate to think of the government like a computer (although not completely). Don't tell it to do anything, and it won't accomplish anything. Tell it to do something, and it does exactly that. The computer analogy isn't very good, but its closer than the human analogy.
Appletalk scales better than you think. We've had a network carrying traffic for thousands of appletalk-speaking devices, and we only very rarely have a network-related appletalk problem. However, its worth noting we have a router routing Appletalk, and the network is structured, not flat.
One thing that would make scaling RV better would be to route link-local addresses. We discussed trying this, but haven't tried it yet. This would allow for multiple 'RV' networks. In all probability, RV may not be ready for this kind of thing, but I don't know all there is to know about RV yet.
As for security, that always has been and always will be between the application layer and the network layer. Think about it: if your host and/or application is insecure, then it won't matter if you run ZeroConf/RV or not.
I've seen this as well. It seems that if the only thing someone knows is Windows or the Macintosh GUI, they have a hard time with complicated information. It seems that people who have had to figure out a structured knowlege set like UNIX, networking, or a programming language, they have an easier time figuring out a new structured informations set. I've also found this to be true of people who have a strong background in a physical or logical discipline, like physics or math. The curious thing is that where I work, the 'mac-heads' do seem to have an easier time with complicated information sets, but in all fairness, they are all have degrees in computer science, and some of the windows experts only have degrees in Business. Please don't take that as troll bait, its just my observation of my own corner of the it world.
Oliver Wendel Jones stated that the test of the truth of an idea is its power to get accepted in the marketplace of ideas. While there is some validity to this notion, it lacks familiarity with a physical or logical discipline. Our society is blighted with a tendancy to ascribe anthropomorphic victory to an idea which has achieved greater acceptance. This blight is in part the reason we fall victim to other basic flaws in logical thinking which lead to such phenomenon as bigotry. If one loses the backwards need to declare victory of some kind, one can see that the popularity of an idea is no measure of its accuracy or validity. After all, if enough people think that individuals of african descent are less intelligent than those of european descent, does this make the idea true? Certainly it does not. But, at one time, it was widely accepted. If an idea becomes popular enough, it becomes deemed 'right' by those who have no intellectual ambition to see for themselves what they want to believe.
The intelligent thing to do is simply to point out that VHS was more popular than betamax. The mistake is to confuse popularity with quality. They are actually two different things.
There always the possibility that some at MS realize that the OSS movement is representative of a sea change in the software industry, not a trend shift. There's a possibility that some people realize this, too.
End hosts will forward BPDUs if they turn on bridging between two interfaces, which Windows and virtually every Unix can do. We actually plugged a wireless Dell running XP into a hub and sniffed it. When windows network sharing was turned on, out came BPDUs.
I realize it sounds messed up, and the reason you don't see it very often is that its not easy to set up, except in windows xp, which will do it for you if you turn network sharing. I think it does this because XP supports unroutable protocols.
Its probably not common to need to bridge two interfaces, but we have a 'wireless laptop' initiative, and many professors have wireless laptops that they roam around with, and then bring back to their offices. For whatever reason, they dutifully plug into their wall jack, and sometimes turn on 'network sharing', which actually does bridge two interface, and sends and listens to BPDUs, just like any ethernet bridge should do.
Windows network sharing gets even more interesting. Apparently, windows also advertises itself as a gateway to the Internet for other windows systems, which start using the bridging computer as a gateway as soon as they see it, without telling you. This has the effect of slowing up the subscribing computers, because they are now going through another computer to get to the network. Remember that a wireless access point is just a hub, so there's really no stopping this behaviour.
I think I know why Windows XP does this. I think msoft wants people at home to be able to have one computer conected to the internet, and seamlessly provide wireless access to all the other computers in the home. So, when you click one button, XP bridges the wireless card and whatever other interface is available, like a dsl connection. It then also advertises itself as a gateway to the internet, and other windows computers in your home will start using it as a gateway, automatically, without asking you. This makes sense if you want every windows system in the place to go through one computer automatically. In wireless laptop envronment, it has undesireable results.
We have had similar problems with networks 'going down'. We have many vlans, so just one vlan went down, but the it seemed to be a problem with how Cisco does STP for vlans on their newer equipment. Each vlan gets its own spanning tree, but the root identifiers are all the same, and the ethernet addresses for the vlans on our central switch are all the same. Older Cisco equipment had a different MAC address for each vlan. Thus, the root bridge identifiers were all unique, and when two vlans got bridged, loops didn't happen. Now, however, if two vlans get bridged (a computer with a wire in one vlan, and a wireless card in another vlan), the forwarding tables on the switches get confused because there are multiple paths to the same stp root. This is really confusing to work through, but it really does look like cisco isn't implementing vlans the right way. We can't turn off stp on our whole network, so we turned on bpduguard on as mant switch ports as possible. That way, if someone starts bridging, the port gets shut off as soon as a switch sees a bpdu packet. The down side is that nobody can plug in a hub or switch to our network.
Its worth noting that our problem arose when we installed a new central switch, and ran it redundantly. The new switch confused stp root identifiers wherever a bridge occured.
We have many wireless laptops on our campus, and someone plugged a wireless laptop into a wired connection, which had a differen vlan, and turned on windows network sharing, which started bridging the to interfaces.
The radioactive battery in a pacemaker has enough plutonium to poison 50,000 people. They are put through rigorous crash testing. Still, if you're faced with dying or having a nuclear power source implanted in your chest, you might opt for safe, clean, nuclear power....
When seeing msft trying to place all kinds of restrictions on what people can do on the one hand, and trying like hell to remove every possible inconvenience (to the point of crashing entire networks) on the other, it looks like a case of corporate multiple personality disorder. Makes you wonder which personality you're dealing with at any given moment....
Thus, all science is math. So we can lump all science together, but certainly not as computer 'science'. Actually, all science is auto mechanics, because mathematicians drive cars.
Its been said that any discipline that has the word 'science' added to it isn't 'real' science. That phrase, of course, was no doubt coined by a physicist. But to gain a perspective on the nature of a given theoretical discipline, look at what the discipline in question has produced.
The study of physics has given rise to modern power systems, telecommunications, and nuclear power, to name just a few. Those engaged in study of biology have discovered selective breeding, penecilin, and the nature of how disease is spread and treated. Chemistry has given rise to most of the materials that make most of what we use in the course of our daily pursuits, including computers.
From the study of algorithms and data structures has come . . . Microsoft windows and office. An industry where 'standards' are all but non-existent and most of the products of of a quality so bad that they can no longer be sold. Software makers must get people addicted to their software and then charge for rent and repair. The computer industry is advancing not because software (algorithms and data structures) is improving, but because the hardware is improving. If computer hardware didn't improve, computer software wouldn't improve. Computer science has very little if anything at all to do with computer hardware.
And if you use the argument that computers are being used to design computers, remember that the Pentium IV isn't much faster than a pentium III - in fact for some tasks, its slower.
Physics and chemistry is what builds computers. I have a friend who owns a company that sells a.07 micron process to chip manufacturers. I asked him how he achieved that elusive goal. He said, "I have a very good physicist."
I neglected to mention that I checked to see what each domain's listed mail exchanger was running in addition to which web server they were running for the first 50 sites on the fortune 500 list. Only two were running exchange as their designated mail exchanger to the Internet at large.
For the first 100 on the fortune 500 list, 55 were running Netscape Enterprise versus 26 for IIS.
You can see for yourself if you don't beleive me.
The most telling part of the article is that Steve Ballmer hasen't seen the movie '2001 A Space Odyssey'. He and everyone at Microsoft thinks that HAL means hardware abstraction layer:-)
This will be just another embrace-and-engulf move to try to polute other platforms in addition to making the transition away from other platforms to windows easier. A smart move on their part, but bad for folks in the trenches.
I went to the forbes site and looked at the list of fortune 500 companies, and then checked at netcraft to see what they were running as web servers, and then tallied up the first 100. 55 - Netscape Enterprise, 26 - IIS, 15 - Apache (I didn't count Walmart). Of the first 50, only 2 sites were running Exchange.
.Not will probably make it due to monopoly influence, not, of course, on its own merits. It'll be interesting to watch Microsoft's virus problem mushroom like a nuclear bomb...
I want to submit a patent for the following thing:
an adminstrative entity, with no particular physical configuration, which accepts applications for things, ideas, methods, procedures, or any other random string of thoughts, and records what was registered as belonging to the registering party, granting them (the resistering party) rights to the intellectual property of the thing, idea, method, procedure, or string of random thoughts which was registered.
It is apparent from the nature and inconsistancy in the recently adopted TLDs that the DNS needs to be changed to help simplify the process of resolving a name to the desired address, and shift the DNS away for its bias toward the US.
Maybe the DNS structure could be changed to shift responsibility to nationalities. One possibility may be something like 'host.subdomain.country' (similar to how it is outside the US now), where the subdomains would be '.com', '.org', etc., and optional, and designated by each country respectively. The DNS protocol could updated to append a country code to a DNS query if none was present before resolving the query or passing the query on. Which country code would be appended would depend on the physical origin of the request. The DNS works in a mannor similar to this now, and it would not be difficult to make this kind of system a standard part of how the DNS protocol works.
By making the DNS structure the same for the US as for other countries, the need for one body to administer TLDs for all countries is greatly reduced. By instituting the procedure of appending the country domain to the domain name, things are simplified and there is backward compatability.
The domain names from within the United States, for example, would look something like 'IBM.com.us' (or 'IBM.com' from within the US), 'IBM.info.us', 'IBM.net.us', or 'IBM.us'. United States government sites would look like 'whitehouse.gov.us', or 'whitehouse.us'.
Each country would be free to create and administer its own subdomain structure (for better or worse) thus releiving one organization from the task of administering TLDs for many countries. The only real TLDs would be for countries.
This, of course, would mean that an entity would have to register their domain in every country, but isn't that how trademarks work now, and isn't there an existing body of law to deal with conflicts arising from registering a trademark in use by somebody else in another country. This would releive ICANN from the task of figuring out who should be responsible for which '.com', '.biz' or '.org' TLDs for all countries.
Whether this proposal makes sense or not, it would be better for DNS to be extended now rather than have it supplanted by some closed replacement. Given the direction (or lack thereof) the administering of TLDs is taking, this eventuality is becomming more likely. There is a genuine need to update the DNS.
There is powerpc silicon in most of the new cars, or so I've heard. I think its obvious they are looking at ways to make more efficient embeded processors. Intel and AMD are desktop/'server' only silicon makers. The embeded market is bigger that the desktop ('server') market.
Arguments and comments about whether or not macs are good computers are pretty unrelated to this development. Besides, as long as Apple keeps putting these better-then-Intel-chips in their not-quite-as-good-as-pc-motherboard motherboards, advances in the superior PowerPC cpu with have diminished benefits for Macintosh users.
Were the hell are those non-apple PowerPC motherboards?
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps the entire question of objective .vs. subjective is an approach to any given topic that may not result in a discourse or communication that enlightens. Please briefly endulge me.
What if, for any given thing discussed, it may be held that subjective can not be considered seprately? Rather than to think of something, such as a truth, as objective or subjective, perhaps think of it as containing a varying amounts of each? Perhaps it may be more harmonizing to think of subjective and objective as two that interact, rather than contradict.
I propose a model of analysis that harmonizes rather than contradicts. Distinction can be had by harmony as well as conflict. Individuality asserted by separation alone is not as complete as individuality reached by both separation and integration. Simply extrapolating this basic notion, a truth which is objective alone is not so useful as a truth which as valid subjectively as well as objectively.
Perhaps the problem arises in that we wonder that our experience is the same as that of the experience of others. This seems a natural question to ponder, I guess. After all, we know how we react to being burnt, for example. We perceive that others react the same way, so we know that there must be a basis for common experience with our fellow human beings. But, then we realize that we react differently to some things from others, as with the flavor of some favorite or despised food. We may not like meat, but we notice others do, for example. These two seem to conflict. However, they are not necessarily opposed. It only means that some things are common, and some things distinct. Commonality and distinction are not in opposition.
In an ecosystem, a myriad of things need to be present, in interaction with each other, and nothing can accurately be considered or studied in separation from its surroundings or context. Subjective and objective are not as useful separated as they are together. Peace is more useful than war for forward movement. Life need not be one step forward and two steps back.
Its important to observe the mental methods used to assert an approach, and detach from them without care to social, logical, or other convention. To do otherwise is to be trapped by ones own mind.
By the way, I realize I skipped some rather large expanses of territory from one statement to another earlier, but brevity has an eloquence all its own. This entire thread seemed to me to be a struggle between objective and subjective, with arguments weighing in on one camp or the other. There must be a way to perceive them as two that modulate, interact, and harmonize.
me
"Either reality is objectively knowable or reality is not objectively knowable. Either absolute truth exists or absolute truth does not exist. Either there is one way to truth or there is no one way to truth. Either there is one way to God or there is no one way to God. Since the second statements in each of these four sentences are clearly false, we must conclude, therefore, that reality is indeed objectively knowable, that absolute truth does indeed exist, that there is indeed one way to truth, and that there is indeed one way to God. I don't reject everything that the structuralists and poststructuralists say, but I hold the preceding truths to be not only ontologically absolute but also epistemologically self-evident. "
I don't think the way to discredit deconstructionism is to flee into the black depths of dogma.
Anytime soon?
Don't they realize they've been doing this in Kentucky for a long time?
If ew can get them to arrest the board of MS directors, in cluding BIll Gates, and treat them as POWs, that would help things considerably.
The government can't be imbued with the traits and character of a human being, good or bad. The government is not a living entity, with a personality and internal moral code. It is an organization with a procedures and laws. It has no mind, heart, or soul to speak of. To say it is benign or malignant is simply not accurate. At its best, the government's moral capacity is the average of the moral integrity of the people who run it. Even this does not reflect its nature, as most will look at the moral character of the highest profile members of the government, and quickly conclude the that moral average has been degraded. The larger the number of people, the harder it is for one to drag the average down (not withstanding the ability of those members with significant amounts of responsibility to do harm).
To say that "the government only wants what is best for its people" casts the government with qualities of a human being, which is simply not true. The government will follow its rules and laws at its best. Trying to describe the goverment in a way that suggests human traits is misleading.
Its probably more accurate to think of the government like a computer (although not completely). Don't tell it to do anything, and it won't accomplish anything. Tell it to do something, and it does exactly that. The computer analogy isn't very good, but its closer than the human analogy.
Its a young industry, and it hasen't showed signs of maturity yet. After all, the most successfull software is also one of the worst.
Appletalk scales better than you think. We've had a network carrying traffic for thousands of appletalk-speaking devices, and we only very rarely have a network-related appletalk problem. However, its worth noting we have a router routing Appletalk, and the network is structured, not flat.
One thing that would make scaling RV better would be to route link-local addresses. We discussed trying this, but haven't tried it yet. This would allow for multiple 'RV' networks. In all probability, RV may not be ready for this kind of thing, but I don't know all there is to know about RV yet.
As for security, that always has been and always will be between the application layer and the network layer. Think about it: if your host and/or application is insecure, then it won't matter if you run ZeroConf/RV or not.
I've seen this as well. It seems that if the only thing someone knows is Windows or the Macintosh GUI, they have a hard time with complicated information. It seems that people who have had to figure out a structured knowlege set like UNIX, networking, or a programming language, they have an easier time figuring out a new structured informations set. I've also found this to be true of people who have a strong background in a physical or logical discipline, like physics or math. The curious thing is that where I work, the 'mac-heads' do seem to have an easier time with complicated information sets, but in all fairness, they are all have degrees in computer science, and some of the windows experts only have degrees in Business. Please don't take that as troll bait, its just my observation of my own corner of the it world.
Just quit using explorer. People I know who have have fewer problems on their systems.
When will people learn.
Oliver Wendel Jones stated that the test of the truth of an idea is its power to get accepted in the marketplace of ideas. While there is some validity to this notion, it lacks familiarity with a physical or logical discipline. Our society is blighted with a tendancy to ascribe anthropomorphic victory to an idea which has achieved greater acceptance. This blight is in part the reason we fall victim to other basic flaws in logical thinking which lead to such phenomenon as bigotry. If one loses the backwards need to declare victory of some kind, one can see that the popularity of an idea is no measure of its accuracy or validity. After all, if enough people think that individuals of african descent are less intelligent than those of european descent, does this make the idea true? Certainly it does not. But, at one time, it was widely accepted. If an idea becomes popular enough, it becomes deemed 'right' by those who have no intellectual ambition to see for themselves what they want to believe.
The intelligent thing to do is simply to point out that VHS was more popular than betamax. The mistake is to confuse popularity with quality. They are actually two different things.
And should be forced to live someplace on their own. But, its okay if they go fight a war for us. Where's George Bush when you need him?
There always the possibility that some at MS realize that the OSS movement is representative of a sea change in the software industry, not a trend shift.
There's a possibility that some people realize this, too.
End hosts will forward BPDUs if they turn on bridging between two interfaces, which Windows and virtually every Unix can do. We actually plugged a wireless Dell running XP into a hub and sniffed it. When windows network sharing was turned on, out came BPDUs.
I realize it sounds messed up, and the reason you don't see it very often is that its not easy to set up, except in windows xp, which will do it for you if you turn network sharing. I think it does this because XP supports unroutable protocols.
Its probably not common to need to bridge two interfaces, but we have a 'wireless laptop' initiative, and many professors have wireless laptops that they roam around with, and then bring back to their offices. For whatever reason, they dutifully plug into their wall jack, and sometimes turn on 'network sharing', which actually does bridge two interface, and sends and listens to BPDUs, just like any ethernet bridge should do.
Windows network sharing gets even more interesting. Apparently, windows also advertises itself as a gateway to the Internet for other windows systems, which start using the bridging computer as a gateway as soon as they see it, without telling you. This has the effect of slowing up the subscribing computers, because they are now going through another computer to get to the network. Remember that a wireless access point is just a hub, so there's really no stopping this behaviour.
I think I know why Windows XP does this. I think msoft wants people at home to be able to have one computer conected to the internet, and seamlessly provide wireless access to all the other computers in the home. So, when you click one button, XP bridges the wireless card and whatever other interface is available, like a dsl connection. It then also advertises itself as a gateway to the internet, and other windows computers in your home will start using it as a gateway, automatically, without asking you. This makes sense if you want every windows system in the place to go through one computer automatically. In wireless laptop envronment, it has undesireable results.
We have had similar problems with networks 'going down'. We have many vlans, so just one vlan went down, but the it seemed to be a problem with how Cisco does STP for vlans on their newer equipment. Each vlan gets its own spanning tree, but the root identifiers are all the same, and the ethernet addresses for the vlans on our central switch are all the same. Older Cisco equipment had a different MAC address for each vlan. Thus, the root bridge identifiers were all unique, and when two vlans got bridged, loops didn't happen. Now, however, if two vlans get bridged (a computer with a wire in one vlan, and a wireless card in another vlan), the forwarding tables on the switches get confused because there are multiple paths to the same stp root.
This is really confusing to work through, but it really does look like cisco isn't implementing vlans the right way. We can't turn off stp on our whole network, so we turned on bpduguard on as mant switch ports as possible. That way, if someone starts bridging, the port gets shut off as soon as a switch sees a bpdu packet. The down side is that nobody can plug in a hub or switch to our network.
Its worth noting that our problem arose when we installed a new central switch, and ran it redundantly. The new switch confused stp root identifiers wherever a bridge occured.
We have many wireless laptops on our campus, and someone plugged a wireless laptop into a wired connection, which had a differen vlan, and turned on windows network sharing, which started bridging the to interfaces.
The radioactive battery in a pacemaker has enough plutonium to poison 50,000 people. They are put through rigorous crash testing. Still, if you're faced with dying or having a nuclear power source implanted in your chest, you might opt for safe, clean, nuclear power....
use plutonium power cells. I think a pacemaker counts as a personal electronic device...
When seeing msft trying to place all kinds of restrictions on what people can do on the one hand, and trying like hell to remove every possible inconvenience (to the point of crashing entire networks) on the other, it looks like a case of corporate multiple personality disorder. Makes you wonder which personality you're dealing with at any given moment....
Thus, all science is math. So we can lump all science together, but certainly not as computer 'science'. Actually, all science is auto mechanics, because mathematicians drive cars.
.07 micron process to chip manufacturers. I asked him how he achieved that elusive goal. He said, "I have a very good physicist."
Its been said that any discipline that has the word 'science' added to it isn't 'real' science. That phrase, of course, was no doubt coined by a physicist. But to gain a perspective on the nature of a given theoretical discipline, look at what the discipline in question has produced.
The study of physics has given rise to modern power systems, telecommunications, and nuclear power, to name just a few. Those engaged in study of biology have discovered selective breeding, penecilin, and the nature of how disease is spread and treated. Chemistry has given rise to most of the materials that make most of what we use in the course of our daily pursuits, including computers.
From the study of algorithms and data structures has come . . . Microsoft windows and office. An industry where 'standards' are all but non-existent and most of the products of of a quality so bad that they can no longer be sold. Software makers must get people addicted to their software and then charge for rent and repair. The computer industry is advancing not because software (algorithms and data structures) is improving, but because the hardware is improving. If computer hardware didn't improve, computer software wouldn't improve. Computer science has very little if anything at all to do with computer hardware.
And if you use the argument that computers are being used to design computers, remember that the Pentium IV isn't much faster than a pentium III - in fact for some tasks, its slower.
Physics and chemistry is what builds computers. I have a friend who owns a company that sells a
I neglected to mention that I checked to see what each domain's listed mail exchanger was running in addition to which web server they were running for the first 50 sites on the fortune 500 list. Only two were running exchange as their designated mail exchanger to the Internet at large. For the first 100 on the fortune 500 list, 55 were running Netscape Enterprise versus 26 for IIS. You can see for yourself if you don't beleive me.
The most telling part of the article is that Steve Ballmer hasen't seen the movie '2001 A Space Odyssey'. He and everyone at Microsoft thinks that HAL means hardware abstraction layer :-)
This will be just another embrace-and-engulf move to try to polute other platforms in addition to making the transition away from other platforms to windows easier. A smart move on their part, but bad for folks in the trenches.
I went to the forbes site and looked at the list of fortune 500 companies, and then checked at netcraft to see what they were running as web servers, and then tallied up the first 100. 55 - Netscape Enterprise, 26 - IIS, 15 - Apache (I didn't count Walmart). Of the first 50, only 2 sites were running Exchange.
.Not will probably make it due to monopoly influence, not, of course, on its own merits. It'll be interesting to watch Microsoft's virus problem mushroom like a nuclear bomb...
I want to submit a patent for the following thing:
an adminstrative entity, with no particular physical configuration, which accepts applications for things, ideas, methods, procedures, or any other random string of thoughts, and records what was registered as belonging to the registering party, granting them (the resistering party) rights to the intellectual property of the thing, idea, method, procedure, or string of random thoughts which was registered.
It is apparent from the nature and inconsistancy in the recently adopted TLDs that the DNS needs to be changed to help simplify the process of resolving a name to the desired address, and shift the DNS away for its bias toward the US.
Maybe the DNS structure could be changed to shift responsibility to nationalities. One possibility may be something like 'host.subdomain.country' (similar to how it is outside the US now), where the subdomains would be '.com', '.org', etc., and optional, and designated by each country respectively. The DNS protocol could updated to append a country code to a DNS query if none was present before resolving the query or passing the query on. Which country code would be appended would depend on the physical origin of the request. The DNS works in a mannor similar to this now, and it would not be difficult to make this kind of system a standard part of how the DNS protocol works.
By making the DNS structure the same for the US as for other countries, the need for one body to administer TLDs for all countries is greatly reduced. By instituting the procedure of appending the country domain to the domain name, things are simplified and there is backward compatability.
The domain names from within the United States, for example, would look something like 'IBM.com.us' (or 'IBM.com' from within the US), 'IBM.info.us', 'IBM.net.us', or 'IBM.us'. United States government sites would look like 'whitehouse.gov.us', or 'whitehouse.us'.
Each country would be free to create and administer its own subdomain structure (for better or worse) thus releiving one organization from the task of administering TLDs for many countries. The only real TLDs would be for countries.
This, of course, would mean that an entity would have to register their domain in every country, but isn't that how trademarks work now, and isn't there an existing body of law to deal with conflicts arising from registering a trademark in use by somebody else in another country. This would releive ICANN from the task of figuring out who should be responsible for which '.com', '.biz' or '.org' TLDs for all countries.
Whether this proposal makes sense or not, it would be better for DNS to be extended now rather than have it supplanted by some closed replacement. Given the direction (or lack thereof) the administering of TLDs is taking, this eventuality is becomming more likely. There is a genuine need to update the DNS.
Although not an orwellian phenomenon as such, restriction of books is up his alley. Isn't there anyone out there that understands what is happening?
Apples don't have very much vitamin C. People may actually code faster when they sneeze, due to the velocity of the air expelling from the lungs.
There is powerpc silicon in most of the new cars, or so I've heard. I think its obvious they are looking at ways to make more efficient embeded processors. Intel and AMD are desktop/'server' only silicon makers. The embeded market is bigger that the desktop ('server') market.
Arguments and comments about whether or not macs are good computers are pretty unrelated to this development. Besides, as long as Apple keeps putting these better-then-Intel-chips in their not-quite-as-good-as-pc-motherboard motherboards, advances in the superior PowerPC cpu with have diminished benefits for Macintosh users.
Were the hell are those non-apple PowerPC motherboards?