But that can only be done when people stop treating.com as a first choice and everything else as sub-standard.
Wait, there's more than.com? Where have I been?;-)
Seriously though, non-national domain names are needed for multinational entities, and.com,.net,.org... make perfect sense for them. It would not very nice for web users have to choose between somecompany.us | somecompany.za | somecompany.fr if they had facilities in USA, South Africa, and France.
I didn't know that about Firefox. When I start up Lotus Notes, the splash screen has Java all over it, and occasionally I'll get the Java Console popping up, informing me of something going wrong with Notes. I'm using version 6.5.2.
Also, if I look in the task manager, "javaw.exe" or "java.exe" starts up every time I start Eclipse, Firefox, Notes, and even Matlab.
What about desktop applications? I use Lotus Notes, Firefox, and Eclipse, all Java based, and let me tell you, it can be PAINFULLY slow if I have all three apps running at once.
OTOH, I can run many instances of Word/Excel/Virtually anything linked and not notice a big difference.
Based on my experiences, I want to shy away from interpreted code for desktop applications.
When I was in high school, if things were locked down too tightly, we'd figure a way to break it, and then use the computer like we wanted. We weren't trying to do anything malicious, we just wanted some freedom. Perhaps it's different today?
It seems like these machines were locked down so draconianly that they were not useful.
Hopefully it's not. Hopefully Walmart will be getting less and less money because they are doing this type of thing. Capitalism involves free markets. If consumers don't get what they want from source A, they will look elsewhere, and source A could eventually lose that sector of the market.
But you're right. Between source A imposing marital law and the dust settling it's pretty much what you describe.
Thank you for your informative article. I'm with you. It's just no fair that a lesser-quality, piece of junk that you don't work on is so much more popular than your OS. And their users are just losers. I mean, come on, do they really know anything about computers at all?
Thank you for your informative article. </sacrastic strongbad voice>
Reading it, I first thought it was a joke based on the vitriolic, bitter nature of his comments and how blatantly silly he was.
Okay buddy, so you don't like Linux. DONT USE IT. Okay, so it's more popular than your flavor BSD. Whining like this does not encourage me to give BSD a shot. Demonstrate some features that an end user wants. Don't whine. Give us a reason to want to try it.
Really, I think Linus's reply just about summed it up: Mr. De Raadt is "difficult."
I'd like to amend your statement to say "almost no control over what goes in the cache," instead of "no control."
You're completely right that malicious people could to exactly as you said. However, most sites aren't going to do that sort of thing. If I don't go to any porn sites, it's a pretty safe bet I won't have any problems of that sort with my cache.
But, as you said, blanket laws are very scary. It's obvious this guy (or someone using his computer) viewed those images. From what they say, many of them were illegal. Is the man in possesion of illegal material?
This is a very tricky issue. Could we judge it better if we ask the question: "is the guy technically competent enough to go back through the cache to make use of those pictures?" I don't know.
Anyway, patches are not wrong...! if MS software has an unpatched bug it is his fault and it is bad, then if he releases a patch it is also bad because his software is patched.
I agree. Patches are not wrong. I'm glad that microsoft is releasing them. It makes the net a safer place for many people.
I just look and see 10 patches, and am quietly very glad I've switched to firefox. End of story.
Yeah, but I don't think the "enhancements" on Return of the Jedi should have ever seen the light of day. Have you watched the "enhanced" ending? Come on!
Two-year-olds can do a number on DVDs. I cringe every time I see my niece touch a DVD. With VHS, she can pop in a VeggieTales video, turn on the TV, and watch it all by herself.
You know what? You're right. The market should dictate. Collectively, we all pay for public services and infrastructure we don't use.
Maybe the attourney general makes more than I thought, but the way I saw it, he was the only government person taking any money for this, or did I miss something? It's not much of a cost, is it?
Do you consider seatbelts economic planning, or just good practice?
And in a totally unrelated thought: stlhawkeye, I want to know what you think about farm subsidies, crop price ceilings, and crop price floors (Cause that's what your economic planning comment made me think of and I'm curious)
But that's the only way porn gets into your house, if you ask for it.
That's not true. I haven't asked for it and hope I never will ask for it, but I've seen it on my computer unrequested. Sure, it's rare, just a wacko link or something, but it happens on occasion.
I have a cousin who has struggled for years to overcome his addiction to porn. I don't trust him with something that addictive, and he's trying to quit. Is he a bad person? No. He's a wonderful guy. I've seen the effects, and I don't want to come near it. To me, it's like playing with fire--first it's interesting, then intriguing, then exciting, then dangerous, then out of control. If you play with fire, you're gonna get burned.
You way sounds worse: If you want porn, you can't have it. If you don't want porn, you can't get it anyway. Excuse me? Are you trolling? This is an OPT IN plan. What I said was quite the opposite. Let me restate:
If you want porn, fine. Do what you want. Follow your own moral compass, but let me follow mine. If I don't want porn, I don't have to look at it.
I could bother to configure it. But could my parents? Could yours?
Actually, as a EE, I think I could create a device that would hang up the phone when someone dialed the combination 1-900, but it would take me a lot of time. I'd have to do some research. The telco can do it easy.
It's a help for parents who are not technically elite, not a crack-down on what content is "approved for viewing."
And I thought the burger thing was pretty funny myself. Oh well. Differences in taste.:-)
Amen. As a conservative, I believe in a limited government whose primary role is to preserve my individual liberties, not eliminate them. YOU can enact whatever restrictions YOU want in YOUR home for YOUR family. But don't you dare pass a law that makes it mandatory that I subscribe to the same standards.
The people in Utah wanted a way to do just that. Exactly the same thing as 1-900 number blocking. There is no mandatory about it. Isn't that what local government is all about? Help the people with the things they need? My mom and dad couldn't set up a filter if they had to. (They don't have one.) They don't have the technological prowess to set one up even if they wanted one. Are they dumb? No. Both my parents know TONS more than me about many things, they just aren't technically elite.
So people in Utah have been asking for a little help from the state government to get an option of blocking things they don't want at the ISP level.
Is there anything wrong with that? I say absolutely not.
Protecting porn and other expressions of humanity deemed 'indecent'...
You can have your porn. That's not what this law is about at all. It's about letting me choose to block porn at my ISP.
Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Your potential desire for porn does not trump my freedom. Just because you might want to watch porn doesn't mean I need to allow it into my house. Restricting porn coming into my house via internet DOES NOT inhibit your ability to use such things, and does not abridge your freedom of speech/press.
Just because you might like Star Wars Episode I and watch it every day doesn't mean I have to watch it. If I choose not to watch/see/hear some media, I am well within established rights.
It takes approximately 2.3 minutes to call your phone company and ask them to disable 1-900 numbers from your phone.
The ACLU didn't sue me for it. Nobody on/. said I was censoring my kids' "free expression." No one even told me I should do a better job of "watching my own kids," rather than relying on the phone company do it for me.
If I go to insert your favorite fast-food chain here and order a burger, I'll tell them no mayo. People don't get mad because I chose to not eat mayo. I choose to not consume certain websites, and if I accidentally stumble upon them, I'd like a filter. It would be nice to have a burger filter so I never accidentally ate mayo again. Mayo. Ugh.
So really, come on guys. Choosing what content you like isn't censorship, and it doesn't hurt you.
Impressive. Your deductive powers are good, but you are not a Jedi yet.
FYI, your parenthesis comment is the funniest thing I've seen in a LONG time. The people in the cubes around me are walking by wondering what's going on.
The last line of the article says it all: Crouch said. "This version still has something to offend almost every interest."
I agree something has to be done, but switching to the first to submit an application? Come on! Yes, I know that's what the rest of the world does, and I've often wondered why they do it. It makes no sense to me.
The challenge to a new patent is a good idea though.
Slashdot Mirror
But that can only be done when people stop treating .com as a first choice and everything else as sub-standard.
.com? Where have I been? ;-)
.com, .net, .org... make perfect sense for them. It would not very nice for web users have to choose between somecompany.us | somecompany.za | somecompany.fr if they had facilities in USA, South Africa, and France.
Wait, there's more than
Seriously though, non-national domain names are needed for multinational entities, and
are belong to us!
I didn't know that about Firefox.
When I start up Lotus Notes, the splash screen has Java all over it, and occasionally I'll get the Java Console popping up, informing me of something going wrong with Notes. I'm using version 6.5.2.
Also, if I look in the task manager, "javaw.exe" or "java.exe" starts up every time I start Eclipse, Firefox, Notes, and even Matlab.
What about desktop applications? I use Lotus Notes, Firefox, and Eclipse, all Java based, and let me tell you, it can be PAINFULLY slow if I have all three apps running at once.
OTOH, I can run many instances of Word/Excel/Virtually anything linked and not notice a big difference.
Based on my experiences, I want to shy away from interpreted code for desktop applications.
"Search engines! Search engines! Search engines!"
Did you know that masking my net card's "unique ID" (MAC address) is as easy as a registry edit in XP?
An unchangeable processor id scares me.
Tell me these two links aren't strongly correlated:
a ltech/apple.reut/index.htm e r/index.htm
http://money.cnn.com/2005/06/27/technology/person
http://money.cnn.com/2005/06/27/technology/grokst
When I was in high school, if things were locked down too tightly, we'd figure a way to break it, and then use the computer like we wanted. We weren't trying to do anything malicious, we just wanted some freedom. Perhaps it's different today?
It seems like these machines were locked down so draconianly that they were not useful.
Are you serious? I thought I was abnormal when I could hear up to 25-26 KHz. 50KHz? Serious? How did you measure? (genuinely curious)
Hopefully it's not. Hopefully Walmart will be getting less and less money because they are doing this type of thing. Capitalism involves free markets. If consumers don't get what they want from source A, they will look elsewhere, and source A could eventually lose that sector of the market.
But you're right. Between source A imposing marital law and the dust settling it's pretty much what you describe.
Dear Mr. The Rat,
Thank you for your informative article. I'm with you. It's just no fair that a lesser-quality, piece of junk that you don't work on is so much more popular than your OS. And their users are just losers. I mean, come on, do they really know anything about computers at all?
Thank you for your informative article. </sacrastic strongbad voice>
Reading it, I first thought it was a joke based on the vitriolic, bitter nature of his comments and how blatantly silly he was.
Okay buddy, so you don't like Linux. DONT USE IT. Okay, so it's more popular than your flavor BSD. Whining like this does not encourage me to give BSD a shot. Demonstrate some features that an end user wants. Don't whine. Give us a reason to want to try it.
Really, I think Linus's reply just about summed it up: Mr. De Raadt is "difficult."
I'd like to amend your statement to say "almost no control over what goes in the cache," instead of "no control."
o n.ap/index.html
You're completely right that malicious people could to exactly as you said. However, most sites aren't going to do that sort of thing. If I don't go to any porn sites, it's a pretty safe bet I won't have any problems of that sort with my cache.
But, as you said, blanket laws are very scary. It's obvious this guy (or someone using his computer) viewed those images. From what they say, many of them were illegal. Is the man in possesion of illegal material?
This is a very tricky issue. Could we judge it better if we ask the question: "is the guy technically competent enough to go back through the cache to make use of those pictures?" I don't know.
I do know there are some sickos out there http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/06/16/serial.molestati
and something needs to be done, but just what, I don't know.
"It was just silent," said Stephen Toulouse, a program manager in Microsoft's security unit. "You couldn't hear anybody breathe."
And then some guy in the back stands up and starts yelling "Developers! Developers! Developers..."
Anyway, patches are not wrong...! if MS software has an unpatched bug it is his fault and it is bad, then if he releases a patch it is also bad because his software is patched.
I agree. Patches are not wrong. I'm glad that microsoft is releasing them. It makes the net a safer place for many people.
I just look and see 10 patches, and am quietly very glad I've switched to firefox. End of story.
I for would welcome our new California taxes and uh, uhm, oops. Sorry guys. I have no idea what I was saying.
Yeah, but I don't think the "enhancements" on Return of the Jedi should have ever seen the light of day. Have you watched the "enhanced" ending? Come on!
Two-year-olds can do a number on DVDs. I cringe every time I see my niece touch a DVD. With VHS, she can pop in a VeggieTales video, turn on the TV, and watch it all by herself.
DVDs are too fragile for young kids.
You know what? You're right. The market should dictate. Collectively, we all pay for public services and infrastructure we don't use.
Maybe the attourney general makes more than I thought, but the way I saw it, he was the only government person taking any money for this, or did I miss something? It's not much of a cost, is it?
Do you consider seatbelts economic planning, or just good practice?
And in a totally unrelated thought: stlhawkeye, I want to know what you think about farm subsidies, crop price ceilings, and crop price floors (Cause that's what your economic planning comment made me think of and I'm curious)
But that's the only way porn gets into your house, if you ask for it.
That's not true. I haven't asked for it and hope I never will ask for it, but I've seen it on my computer unrequested. Sure, it's rare, just a wacko link or something, but it happens on occasion.
I have a cousin who has struggled for years to overcome his addiction to porn. I don't trust him with something that addictive, and he's trying to quit. Is he a bad person? No. He's a wonderful guy. I've seen the effects, and I don't want to come near it. To me, it's like playing with fire--first it's interesting, then intriguing, then exciting, then dangerous, then out of control. If you play with fire, you're gonna get burned.
You way sounds worse: If you want porn, you can't have it. If you don't want porn, you can't get it anyway. Excuse me? Are you trolling? This is an OPT IN plan. What I said was quite the opposite. Let me restate:
If you want porn, fine. Do what you want. Follow your own moral compass, but let me follow mine. If I don't want porn, I don't have to look at it.
I could bother to configure it. But could my parents? Could yours?
:-)
Actually, as a EE, I think I could create a device that would hang up the phone when someone dialed the combination 1-900, but it would take me a lot of time. I'd have to do some research. The telco can do it easy.
It's a help for parents who are not technically elite, not a crack-down on what content is "approved for viewing."
And I thought the burger thing was pretty funny myself. Oh well. Differences in taste.
Amen. As a conservative, I believe in a limited government whose primary role is to preserve my individual liberties, not eliminate them. YOU can enact whatever restrictions YOU want in YOUR home for YOUR family. But don't you dare pass a law that makes it mandatory that I subscribe to the same standards.
The people in Utah wanted a way to do just that. Exactly the same thing as 1-900 number blocking. There is no mandatory about it. Isn't that what local government is all about? Help the people with the things they need? My mom and dad couldn't set up a filter if they had to. (They don't have one.) They don't have the technological prowess to set one up even if they wanted one. Are they dumb? No. Both my parents know TONS more than me about many things, they just aren't technically elite.
So people in Utah have been asking for a little help from the state government to get an option of blocking things they don't want at the ISP level.
Is there anything wrong with that? I say absolutely not.
Protecting porn and other expressions of humanity deemed 'indecent'...
You can have your porn. That's not what this law is about at all. It's about letting me choose to block porn at my ISP.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Your potential desire for porn does not trump my freedom. Just because you might want to watch porn doesn't mean I need to allow it into my house. Restricting porn coming into my house via internet DOES NOT inhibit your ability to use such things, and does not abridge your freedom of speech/press.
Just because you might like Star Wars Episode I and watch it every day doesn't mean I have to watch it. If I choose not to watch/see/hear some media, I am well within established rights.
It takes approximately 2.3 minutes to call your phone company and ask them to disable 1-900 numbers from your phone.
/. said I was censoring my kids' "free expression." No one even told me I should do a better job of "watching my own kids," rather than relying on the phone company do it for me.
The ACLU didn't sue me for it. Nobody on
If I go to insert your favorite fast-food chain here and order a burger, I'll tell them no mayo. People don't get mad because I chose to not eat mayo. I choose to not consume certain websites, and if I accidentally stumble upon them, I'd like a filter. It would be nice to have a burger filter so I never accidentally ate mayo again. Mayo. Ugh.
So really, come on guys. Choosing what content you like isn't censorship, and it doesn't hurt you.
Impressive. Your deductive powers are good, but you are not a Jedi yet.
FYI, your parenthesis comment is the funniest thing I've seen in a LONG time. The people in the cubes around me are walking by wondering what's going on.
The last line of the article says it all: Crouch said. "This version still has something to offend almost every interest."
I agree something has to be done, but switching to the first to submit an application? Come on! Yes, I know that's what the rest of the world does, and I've often wondered why they do it. It makes no sense to me.
The challenge to a new patent is a good idea though.