that the Framers of the U.S. Constitution had in mind when they laid the groundwork for the Patent Office in Article I, clause 8 of that Holy and Magnificent document.
I dare say this beautifully written patent typifies and exemplifies
Their intentions. In fact, Their prescience in creating a way for this magnificent patent to be granted shows just how insightful They were.
Moreover, this patent is probably why They wrote the Constitution. The Revolutionary War, and all wars thereafter, have clearly paved the way for the issuance of this fine piece of work. The preamble to the Constitution:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquillity, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Now, obviously it speaks directly to the issues surrounding this sensible and vital patent. Whether this important patent is the basis for our nation or not, I'm sure my fellow citizens will all agree that the US Patent and Trademark Office has now fulfilled their mission and can close up shop.
What prevents a GUI from having just such a checkbox?
You are so intent on being right that you can't see the plain truth in front of you. It's not that a GUI can't have a checkbox, it's that unless it does, the feature is not available. A CLI tool, on the other hand, needs no check box because the functionality is inherited for all tools.
What prevents a GUI from having a scripting language?
The paradigm. GUIs are intended to be easy, and scripting languages are not "easy" in that sense. Writing a script is an operation most users just won't perform. Besides, I thought your point was that with a GUI you don't need a script? Maybe that wasn't your point.
Just because most of the GUI's you're familiar with don't have such features, doesn't mean that no GUI can have them.
That is correct. In fact:
The GIMP is scriptable.
Many times, especially in old school Unix flavors, the vendor would provide both GUI and CLI access.
NeXTStep (and probably OSX, but I've never used it), for instance, allowed access to the underlying NetInfo database from the command line and the GUI.
Microsoft, in their next-gen scripting language, will apparently allow you to get at the same objects that their GUI tools use.
What all these share, however, is that the GUI tools allow access to a certain set of operations, and the CLI scripting language allows access to a certain set of operations, and one is a proper subset of the other.
There is no similar fundamental difference with GUI vs. CLI.
Your claim is that the two are isomorphic, that is, that there is a mapping of every function of a GUI to a CLI and that all functions of a CLI are met by the GUI.
That is clearly false, since while I can quickly issue a command under a Unix shell that will repeat until I kill it, GUIs never (or seldom) provide a checkbox for that. That's just one example. There is a limitless supply of examples, since I can create ad hoc command scripts to extend the functionality of the CLI.
It's true, but it's like saying it's easier to drive a car than fly a helicopter. With a GUI, you can only do what the GUI-writer allows. With a command line, you're free to do what you want.
GUI is fine for apps. For admin work, give me a CLI any day.
Since it isn't possible for one article to explain how to configure identification, authentication, and authorization for all systems, the article contained links to moreinformation.
That's because you often have to learn about things in order to do them. With flexibility comes a price, and that price is work. Luckily, they pay you for that, if you do it well enough.
Or maybe he should have published a GUI along with the article? Sorry for being flippant, but I think you're expecting too much hand-holding.
I think maybe my post was too circumspect. All I was saying was that the rationale for having.mobi as a top-level domain was that it was analogous to other TLDs like ".nl" or ".us".
Saying that.mobi users would have to "stay in.mobi" makes no sense. Using the DNS address as a criterion for presentation doesn't work, either - will there be no servers in.mobi? If there won't be, that's even worse.
I agree that it's a solution to a problem I don't think exists, or at least it's swatting a fly with dynamite.
Your cynical analysis that it's all about selling more addresses is probably right.
Please, someone make me stop. It's taking up all my time. I've started writing songs about it, so when I lose my job and am out on the street I'll have something to sing while I panhandle.
This is a lot harder to kick than nicotene, crack, heroin, alcohol, meth, overeating, bulemia, and necrophilia were.
Give teachers more authority. Kids don't respect them because they know the teacher can't do anything to them besides make marks in a little book, or make them leave. Whoopee.
Give teachers more autonomy. Having standardized tests, which everyone thinks is the Answer, work against teacher autonomy, leading to bored, dissaffected and ineffective teachers.
- and the biggie -
Get parents to care. If dads took time out of their 70-hour weeks and hectic golf schedule to park the SUV and go over the math homework once in a while, kids would do a lot better. Kids care about what their parents care about, when given a clue what that is.
It's a location, like the country-based TLDs used by the non-US world.
Whether it makes sense to have a mobile-location domain or not is debatable. It certainly isn't necessary, though it may be desirable.
Or maybe there's some pressing need I just don't see.
The question is, who is going to acquire the second-tier domains? Will it be mobile carriers, so that you get a hostname when you sign up for your phone/PDA service? That seems most likely.
But why can't they use their existing domain? Maybe while you're traveling in Europe or East Asia, changing countries a lot, and you need a way to address your phone independent of where you are... no, it still doesn't make sense. Your net connection either comes through someplace you connect to while traveling or it comes through your base back home. In neither case do you need a.mobi address.
That's actually the principle cause of all their problems. They don't have an adequate trust model for modern computing, being stuck in the single-user era.
I'm not going to complain about your spelling, since you might not be a native English speaker.
On the other hand, you're just wrong.
>They do not innovate w/ new tech-ideas.
Yes, they do. For instance, did you know that the first web browser to do page layout decently (in an "innovative" fashion: you put the pictures in line with the text!) was called NCSA Mosaic. It was distributed with source code. A company called Spyglass bought the rights to it. Microsoft used Mosaic as the basis for IE. For reference, in your browser window, click "Help -> About IE".
The web site you're on now is being served by an open source product called Apache, which was based on the NCSA http server. Apache has many innovative features, not the least of which is its open architecture (making it possible for Apache to run programs written in several different programming languages).
The page layout of this site is done by a program called Slashcode, an open source program. Comment moderation, and meta-moderation, are two technical innovations that came from this open source package.
It's written in PERL, through the Apache mod_perl plugin. PERL was a truly paradigm-shattering open source programming language. PERL was designed for handling strings and administering computer systems. When the web exploded, PERL turned out to be almost perfectly suited to it. Even without the web, PERL is great for doing sysadmin work.
The list would go on, and on, and I am not doing it justice by listing only a few.
The point is that all of the really innovative stuff comes from open collaboration. Closed source people are forced to look at what the market wants, and with one finger in the air can't be truly innovative.
Would the book be not as good if someone read it early?
Oh, I remember: last time, there were pirated copies in print before the official one came out. I guess this is just their overreaction to that.
Still, it sounds like a way to generate false interest. Rather than just saying, "Hey, we've got a great book coming out!", they go to all this trouble (and make sure everyone even the slightest bit interested in Harry Potter knows about it).
Once you leave jesusland you see that people don't ride around in pickups all day.
I don't ride around in my pickup all day, either. I only take the pickup if I have stuff to haul, or if I feel like tailgating some Eastern snob in a Prius.
Humans like to find new territory and conquer it. We currently have exhausted the Earth's surface, except for the submerged and frozen parts. So we have to go somewhere.
That said,
Many of our upcoming challenges both earthbound and space bound relate to the safe, efficient, portable, and inexpensive generation of HUGE amounts of power.
Space propulsion may end up being a two-fold operation, with a rocket or rail gun used to break free of the earth or moon's gravity well and a deep-space propulsion unit used for the long haul.
Something like a solar sail or ion drive might fill the bill. An ion drive is relatively inexpensive, but doesn't give much push. If a chemical rocket or magnetic accelerator gets you started, an ion drive could work nicely.
You still need "HUGE" amounts of power for a rail gun or rocket, though.
Feel free to ignore the above. I'm just waiting for an rsync to finish so I can shut down the old server and go home.
I found this to be particularly amusing... "...people like their cabs big..."
I live in the American Midwest, where we all drive our own cars everywhere. I don't take cabs much. When I do, I don't care how big they are, as long as they're clean and there.
I'd say it's the cabbies, who have to ride in them all day, who want the things big. And the cab companies, who want their vehicles to last more than a week. Nah, the companies probably don't care.
Maybe I'm wrong about all of it. Maybe most people would rather ride in the spacious rear cabin of a land yacht than in the cramped back seat of an econobox.
They've taken a nugget of insight, that the reliance on a firewall can make you sloppy, and built a whole mountain of security policy on it. Trouble is, that's upside down architecture.
Good security is about building up as many layers as you can that are easier on you than on your attacker. The goal isn't to be impenetrable, it's to look like too much work so the attacker goes away.
We have a firewall so that we CAN be a little sloppy inside if needed. It's the balance between security and usability. It doesn't mean you rely solely on the firewall. It means that the "firewall", which you should treat more like a window screen, is just another layer of defense.
And when everyone else has a firewall, your unfirewalled network stands out like a house with no window screens.
There is another big picture here, too. If everyone has a firewall, having one doesn't make you look like you've got something to hide. If only 1% of networks were protected, then your firewall makes you look suspicious.
So thanks, but quit telling people they shouldn't use a firewall. Some of them might take your advice.
You're not wrong about China having an ulterior military motive for their space work. A nation (even an Axis of Evil Rogue Nation) has a right to defend its interests against a perceived threat. Of course China has military uses planned for their extraterrestrial technology.
But you're completely wrong in thinking that we could say or do anything to stop China from doing anything they really want to do. Had we shown "leadership" and pushed for a ban on military uses of space, they wouldn't have listened anyway.
We will have weapons in space because we have weapons wherever we go. We are a violent, overconsumptive, power-hungry race.
I know how to turn it off, but I don't have an XP machine of my own. It's on user's machines, on which I'm always fighting the menu.
I don't mind the KDE version of changing the menu, because it's only one level deep. That is, Windows also hides the little-used items on the main Programs menu until you click the arrow on the menu to expand it.
Don't they know (or shouldn't they expect that) I've already got icons for the most-used stuff on my desktop, and the whole reason I'm in the menu is to find the little-used stuff?
I think a sibling post to yours had it right: it's marketing.
Slashdot Mirror
I have a nose, a very fine nose.
But I was born without a WIDTH, you insensitive clod!
that the Framers of the U.S. Constitution had in mind when they laid the groundwork for the Patent Office in Article I, clause 8 of that Holy and Magnificent document.
I dare say this beautifully written patent typifies and exemplifies Their intentions. In fact, Their prescience in creating a way for this magnificent patent to be granted shows just how insightful They were.
Moreover, this patent is probably why They wrote the Constitution. The Revolutionary War, and all wars thereafter, have clearly paved the way for the issuance of this fine piece of work. The preamble to the Constitution:
Now, obviously it speaks directly to the issues surrounding this sensible and vital patent. Whether this important patent is the basis for our nation or not, I'm sure my fellow citizens will all agree that the US Patent and Trademark Office has now fulfilled their mission and can close up shop.
You are so intent on being right that you can't see the plain truth in front of you. It's not that a GUI can't have a checkbox, it's that unless it does, the feature is not available. A CLI tool, on the other hand, needs no check box because the functionality is inherited for all tools.
The paradigm. GUIs are intended to be easy, and scripting languages are not "easy" in that sense. Writing a script is an operation most users just won't perform. Besides, I thought your point was that with a GUI you don't need a script? Maybe that wasn't your point.
That is correct. In fact:What all these share, however, is that the GUI tools allow access to a certain set of operations, and the CLI scripting language allows access to a certain set of operations, and one is a proper subset of the other.
Your claim is that the two are isomorphic, that is, that there is a mapping of every function of a GUI to a CLI and that all functions of a CLI are met by the GUI.
That is clearly false, since while I can quickly issue a command under a Unix shell that will repeat until I kill it, GUIs never (or seldom) provide a checkbox for that. That's just one example. There is a limitless supply of examples, since I can create ad hoc command scripts to extend the functionality of the CLI.
elitist bullshit
Noobie mewling.
>GUI's are easier to use. This is just true.
It's true, but it's like saying it's easier to drive a car than fly a helicopter. With a GUI, you can only do what the GUI-writer allows. With a command line, you're free to do what you want.
GUI is fine for apps. For admin work, give me a CLI any day.
Swoosh.
Since it isn't possible for one article to explain how to configure identification, authentication, and authorization for all systems, the article contained links to more information.
That's because you often have to learn about things in order to do them. With flexibility comes a price, and that price is work. Luckily, they pay you for that, if you do it well enough.
Or maybe he should have published a GUI along with the article? Sorry for being flippant, but I think you're expecting too much hand-holding.
The PHBs will hear "managed solution", "TCO", and the like, and stumble over themselves writing checks.
OT: Did you year about the dyslexic agnostic insomniac? He used to lie awake at night wondering if there were really a dog.
I think maybe my post was too circumspect. All I was saying was that the rationale for having .mobi as a top-level domain was that it was analogous to other TLDs like ".nl" or ".us".
.mobi users would have to "stay in .mobi" makes no sense. Using the DNS address as a criterion for presentation doesn't work, either - will there be no servers in .mobi? If there won't be, that's even worse.
Saying that
I agree that it's a solution to a problem I don't think exists, or at least it's swatting a fly with dynamite.
Your cynical analysis that it's all about selling more addresses is probably right.
with my slashdot addiction.
Please, someone make me stop. It's taking up all my time. I've started writing songs about it, so when I lose my job and am out on the street I'll have something to sing while I panhandle.
This is a lot harder to kick than nicotene, crack, heroin, alcohol, meth, overeating, bulemia, and necrophilia were.
- and the biggie -
It's a location, like the country-based TLDs used by the non-US world.
Whether it makes sense to have a mobile-location domain or not is debatable. It certainly isn't necessary, though it may be desirable. Or maybe there's some pressing need I just don't see.
The question is, who is going to acquire the second-tier domains? Will it be mobile carriers, so that you get a hostname when you sign up for your phone/PDA service? That seems most likely.
But why can't they use their existing domain? Maybe while you're traveling in Europe or East Asia, changing countries a lot, and you need a way to address your phone independent of where you are ... no, it still doesn't make sense. Your net connection either comes through someplace you connect to while traveling or it comes through your base back home. In neither case do you need a .mobi address.
Why don't they just use the sunlight as direct propulsion? Then they'd go really fast.
There's probably some reason they don't. Those people are really smart.
Are there rules against travelling at close to light speed in these races? Oh, I see, they go throught towns. That must be it.
That's actually the principle cause of all their problems. They don't have an adequate trust model for modern computing, being stuck in the single-user era.
The Right to Keep and Bear Nuclear Arms.
Freedom: live for it, or die without it.
He's just sleeping.
I'm not going to complain about your spelling, since you might not be a native English speaker.
On the other hand, you're just wrong.
>They do not innovate w/ new tech-ideas.
Yes, they do. For instance, did you know that the first web browser to do page layout decently (in an "innovative" fashion: you put the pictures in line with the text!) was called NCSA Mosaic. It was distributed with source code. A company called Spyglass bought the rights to it. Microsoft used Mosaic as the basis for IE. For reference, in your browser window, click "Help -> About IE".
The web site you're on now is being served by an open source product called Apache, which was based on the NCSA http server. Apache has many innovative features, not the least of which is its open architecture (making it possible for Apache to run programs written in several different programming languages).
The page layout of this site is done by a program called Slashcode, an open source program. Comment moderation, and meta-moderation, are two technical innovations that came from this open source package.
It's written in PERL, through the Apache mod_perl plugin. PERL was a truly paradigm-shattering open source programming language. PERL was designed for handling strings and administering computer systems. When the web exploded, PERL turned out to be almost perfectly suited to it. Even without the web, PERL is great for doing sysadmin work.
The list would go on, and on, and I am not doing it justice by listing only a few.
The point is that all of the really innovative stuff comes from open collaboration. Closed source people are forced to look at what the market wants, and with one finger in the air can't be truly innovative.
Would the book be not as good if someone read it early?
Oh, I remember: last time, there were pirated copies in print before the official one came out. I guess this is just their overreaction to that.
Still, it sounds like a way to generate false interest. Rather than just saying, "Hey, we've got a great book coming out!", they go to all this trouble (and make sure everyone even the slightest bit interested in Harry Potter knows about it).
I don't ride around in my pickup all day, either. I only take the pickup if I have stuff to haul, or if I feel like tailgating some Eastern snob in a Prius.
Humans like to find new territory and conquer it. We currently have exhausted the Earth's surface, except for the submerged and frozen parts. So we have to go somewhere.
That said,
Space propulsion may end up being a two-fold operation, with a rocket or rail gun used to break free of the earth or moon's gravity well and a deep-space propulsion unit used for the long haul.
Something like a solar sail or ion drive might fill the bill. An ion drive is relatively inexpensive, but doesn't give much push. If a chemical rocket or magnetic accelerator gets you started, an ion drive could work nicely.
You still need "HUGE" amounts of power for a rail gun or rocket, though.
Feel free to ignore the above. I'm just waiting for an rsync to finish so I can shut down the old server and go home.
I live in the American Midwest, where we all drive our own cars everywhere. I don't take cabs much. When I do, I don't care how big they are, as long as they're clean and there.
I'd say it's the cabbies, who have to ride in them all day, who want the things big. And the cab companies, who want their vehicles to last more than a week. Nah, the companies probably don't care.
Maybe I'm wrong about all of it. Maybe most people would rather ride in the spacious rear cabin of a land yacht than in the cramped back seat of an econobox.
Personally, I'd rather drive.
>biggest threat is from within
It would seem so. Unless they try to invade Taiwan or something, I don't see the U.S. doing anything militarily against China.
As a previous poster said, why not do both?
They've taken a nugget of insight, that the reliance on a firewall can make you sloppy, and built a whole mountain of security policy on it. Trouble is, that's upside down architecture.
Good security is about building up as many layers as you can that are easier on you than on your attacker. The goal isn't to be impenetrable, it's to look like too much work so the attacker goes away.
We have a firewall so that we CAN be a little sloppy inside if needed. It's the balance between security and usability. It doesn't mean you rely solely on the firewall. It means that the "firewall", which you should treat more like a window screen, is just another layer of defense.
And when everyone else has a firewall, your unfirewalled network stands out like a house with no window screens.
There is another big picture here, too. If everyone has a firewall, having one doesn't make you look like you've got something to hide. If only 1% of networks were protected, then your firewall makes you look suspicious.
So thanks, but quit telling people they shouldn't use a firewall. Some of them might take your advice.
You're not wrong about China having an ulterior military motive for their space work. A nation (even an Axis of Evil Rogue Nation) has a right to defend its interests against a perceived threat. Of course China has military uses planned for their extraterrestrial technology.
But you're completely wrong in thinking that we could say or do anything to stop China from doing anything they really want to do. Had we shown "leadership" and pushed for a ban on military uses of space, they wouldn't have listened anyway.
We will have weapons in space because we have weapons wherever we go. We are a violent, overconsumptive, power-hungry race.
Get past it. You'll sleep better.
No, it's cell as in "jail cell".
These are inmate call records. Since we're paying for it, we should get to see them all!
Sorry, couldn't stop myself.
Must. Get. Life.
I know how to turn it off, but I don't have an XP machine of my own. It's on user's machines, on which I'm always fighting the menu.
I don't mind the KDE version of changing the menu, because it's only one level deep. That is, Windows also hides the little-used items on the main Programs menu until you click the arrow on the menu to expand it.
Don't they know (or shouldn't they expect that) I've already got icons for the most-used stuff on my desktop, and the whole reason I'm in the menu is to find the little-used stuff?
I think a sibling post to yours had it right: it's marketing.