I am afraid that until we force Congress to assert its sole right to legislate
Congress did assert its right to legislate. It created these very departments, and gave them madates to do what they do. These madates, however, are not very specific, which is as it should be, should Congress determine which drugs are safe, or should it be left to the FDA?
Congress also has the power to change there mandates and tell the department to do something else or not to do something. But even when these madates exist they do not go into effect, Congress also has to approve a budget that funds them, or the department cannot carry them out. So Congress approved of them not only once a long time ago but they are approved of every year, in the budget process. If Congress really had a problem with any orginaztions regulations or activities, they could easily do something about it.
However we do not want Congress tied up with things like drug approval or what is "safe food". And nor do we want a system where something like the Federal Reserve Board can easily be compeled to lower intrest rates because somebody needs to win an election.
While I'm all for the spread of Linux as a desktop OS, I'm afraid it will never happen. Most people just want a computer that they can turn on, click on icons, and chat/word-process/etc. An inherently multi-user system, such as linux, *BSD, etc. adds a level of complexity that this type of user will never want to navigate.
The interesting is that after this summer every major OS will be multi-user, I believe. Look at Mac OS X and Windows 2000. But I imagine there default configuration will be set up to look like single user systems by default. I would imagine that IP addresses and such would be changeable and applications will be installable through a gui by the single user, but to do stuff like edit config files by hand a "root" password would be required.
OS X server is already something like this, you supply the root password when you want to change something like network settings, but you do not have to log in as root. It would be good if a Linux user never had to log in as root to do anything involving setting up the system, as long as they used a GUI interface, but could if they needed to edit files directly or do things that could mess us the system.
If Rob deletes this user should he also delete the users who pose as other people for the sake of humor, for eample there are 7 Bill Gates on Slashdot:
While the arguements could be made that no one would really think Bill Gates would be posting on Slashdot, I think it is pretty clear that Slashdot does not protect a persons idenity at all. (oh yeah there are several "CmdrTaco"s as well.
I am not sure but I believe it will be fairly close to standard Unix. Look at Openstep/OS X Server. Basically apps in that are folders with all the pieces inside, but the interface recognizes the folder as an app. Using the Next style browser you can either double click and run it, or just click and open it as a folder.
That being said I have read that it also has a hidden file to keep track of some of the resource stuff. Particullarly the file types and creators. That being said I don't know if Mac OS X will use HFS+ (which supports resource forks) or UFS (which doesn't) I believe all the current build support HFS+ but use UFS as a default and may or may not be able to boot off HFS+.
A bare ground wire shouldn't be a problem, lots of electric equitment and wiring and such has a bare ground (look at your car, somewhere there should be a wire going from the negitive termanal on the battery to the car frame, so effectivly your car is one giant ground wire and it doesn't have any insulation.)
Probably the best solution is to get a repalcement plug and connect a wire from the third prong (the round one) to the rack, this should be perfectly safe (as long as the wire can't come into contact with the other prongs, if it does go into contact with the positive prong your fuse will blow anyway and I don't think the negitive prong really matters)
While women are not the primary money makers it does not mean they are not the ones spending it. Take for example the Olypics. Have you noticed how more and more of Olypic programing focuses on the stories of the atheletes instead of the sports? This is because the networks figured out that the women were controling the remote and thats what they wanted to see. Do a simple test if you are going to watch TV and while you are changing the channels you go past ice skating see if you girlfriend/wife doesn't get you to stop.
The purchasing demographics show that the women are perchasing the games whether or not they are playing. Who makes the money and who spends it are not nessessarly the same.
It is not like people copying tv shows or whatever is new. If people didn't do it why does your vcr have a record feature and a tv tuner? I mean sure you could use the record feature to copy a home movie or something but then why does it have a tuner?
The tighter they tighten their grip the more that slips through...like broken DVD encryption.
1. Wouldn't Lucas make more money bye releasing the movie now and then releasing a DVD version? Kinda like releasing the THX version of the originals right before releasing Special Edition?
2. Don't Libertarian's believe in laissez faire? Wouldn't that mean let Lucas do whatever he wants?
But the point is not only the things we would learn about mars but the technology we would develope in the process. It is really amazing what we developed in the space race. Think when Kennedy said go to the moon would not have been able to make it in that time frame with the current technology...but we did because we had a goal and humanity has been using technologies developed for the space program ever sense.
It stops when the ISPs stop listening to the government. The government can't really make him take the site down...but then the ISP has more descresion then the government. So the goverment (and the RIAA for that matter) are just being intelegent by going to the ISP, or the university. If I am an ISP I am going to think very carefully about defending my user's first amendment rights, because I have to look at my bottom line, and anything that even smells of legal trouble costs money, so I will comply, it just good buisness. So if you run and ISP and want to see this stopped you better think about terminating peoples accounts due to content. Just don't do it.
I agree. What I don't understand is why Disney decided to use that logo in the first place. While there is the obvious "green light means go", I would think they would notice the similarity and not want to use there name recognition to help another company. Its kinda like Microsoft deciding to make their logo look like BE's. It just doesn't make sense.
I have to wonder how useful creating custom CD's really is. It would seem to me that the manufacturing/shipping cost is going to be many times the manufacturing cost of a regular CD and thus the price higher. Since CDNOW has to pay the royalties as well, and just keeping track of those for each CD would increase overhead as well, it seems to me that custom CD's would be substantially more expensive then just buying the CD. Now while it would be nice to be able to pick and choose which songs you want the gain in being able to buy just the custom CD wouldn't offset the increased cost, IMHO. Plus by the time the CD gets to you, you could have downloaded all the MPs anyway. More interesting, and feasable, is the patent for providing custom CDs at record stores as it would tap a market without access to MPs...ect.
I know a guy who gets himself to work everyday, is an insurance agent, plays golf(extremely well), and "watches" travel movies as a hobby. He is also blind. Pretty productive don't you think? You make it sound like blind people are useless parts of society, while the fact is they aren't. I hear alot of complanient about managers ect...being unaware of the net, well here is one of you managers, and he is blind, so do you want to doom to ignorance about your area of society? The net is about making information accessable, why not to the blind? And the law is about not excluding people when it is not difficult to include them, and if AOL used what I consider good design practice they would include the blind anyway, and it really isn't that hard.
Since most of the stuff I have seen about Windows 2000 implies most sys-admins aren't exactly thrilled with it Microsoft has decided to take the brillant strategy of increasing the price. This will doubtlessly decrease anyone's fears about the stability or usefullness of the OS since obviously since it costs say 4 or 5 times as much as Mac OS 9 or an official copy of Red Hat it must be 4 or 5 times better right? I mean that is how our competitive ecoonomy works...you pay more for a better product. So why if Windows 2000 is 4 to 5 times better then the competition are so many people unwilling to use it? Maybe it says something about how competitive the OS market is.
Slashdot Mirror
Congress did assert its right to legislate. It created these very departments, and gave them madates to do what they do. These madates, however, are not very specific, which is as it should be, should Congress determine which drugs are safe, or should it be left to the FDA?
Congress also has the power to change there mandates and tell the department to do something else or not to do something. But even when these madates exist they do not go into effect, Congress also has to approve a budget that funds them, or the department cannot carry them out. So Congress approved of them not only once a long time ago but they are approved of every year, in the budget process. If Congress really had a problem with any orginaztions regulations or activities, they could easily do something about it.
However we do not want Congress tied up with things like drug approval or what is "safe food". And nor do we want a system where something like the Federal Reserve Board can easily be compeled to lower intrest rates because somebody needs to win an election.
The interesting is that after this summer every major OS will be multi-user, I believe. Look at Mac OS X and Windows 2000. But I imagine there default configuration will be set up to look like single user systems by default. I would imagine that IP addresses and such would be changeable and applications will be installable through a gui by the single user, but to do stuff like edit config files by hand a "root" password would be required.
OS X server is already something like this, you supply the root password when you want to change something like network settings, but you do not have to log in as root. It would be good if a Linux user never had to log in as root to do anything involving setting up the system, as long as they used a GUI interface, but could if they needed to edit files directly or do things that could mess us the system.
billgates (75865)
Bill_Gates (1523)
Bill Gates (156)
Bill__Gates (94039)
Bill Gates III (111350)
bill gates1 (113843)
Bill-Gates BillGates@microsoft.com (129481)
and 7 Bruce Perens as well:
Bruce Perens bruce@perens.com (3872)
Bruce Perens. bruce@perens.com (123221)
Bruce_Perens bruce@perens.com (123485)
Bruce.Perens bruce@perens.com (124707)
BrucePerens (145774)
BrucePerens (149861)
! Bruce Perens (150447)
While the arguements could be made that no one would really think Bill Gates would be posting on Slashdot, I think it is pretty clear that Slashdot does not protect a persons idenity at all. (oh yeah there are several "CmdrTaco"s as well.
however, when he said that a revolution included the leading political party changing, or a changing of power in the Whitehouse.
That being said I have read that it also has a hidden file to keep track of some of the resource stuff. Particullarly the file types and creators. That being said I don't know if Mac OS X will use HFS+ (which supports resource forks) or UFS (which doesn't) I believe all the current build support HFS+ but use UFS as a default and may or may not be able to boot off HFS+.
A bare ground wire shouldn't be a problem, lots of electric equitment and wiring and such has a bare ground (look at your car, somewhere there should be a wire going from the negitive termanal on the battery to the car frame, so effectivly your car is one giant ground wire and it doesn't have any insulation.)
Probably the best solution is to get a repalcement plug and connect a wire from the third prong (the round one) to the rack, this should be perfectly safe (as long as the wire can't come into contact with the other prongs, if it does go into contact with the positive prong your fuse will blow anyway and I don't think the negitive prong really matters)
While women are not the primary money makers it does not mean they are not the ones spending it. Take for example the Olypics. Have you noticed how more and more of Olypic programing focuses on the stories of the atheletes instead of the sports? This is because the networks figured out that the women were controling the remote and thats what they wanted to see. Do a simple test if you are going to watch TV and while you are changing the channels you go past ice skating see if you girlfriend/wife doesn't get you to stop.
The purchasing demographics show that the women are perchasing the games whether or not they are playing. Who makes the money and who spends it are not nessessarly the same.
It is not like people copying tv shows or whatever is new. If people didn't do it why does your vcr have a record feature and a tv tuner? I mean sure you could use the record feature to copy a home movie or something but then why does it have a tuner?
The tighter they tighten their grip the more that slips through...like broken DVD encryption.
Ok so they messed up. But this is relaivly minor compared to having one company the sole source for domain names.
The important part is that they are fixing it. Hopefully this will be the worst problem that shows up and competition will continue.
A couple of points...
1. Wouldn't Lucas make more money bye releasing the movie now and then releasing a DVD version? Kinda like releasing the THX version of the originals right before releasing Special Edition?
2. Don't Libertarian's believe in laissez faire? Wouldn't that mean let Lucas do whatever he wants?
But the point is not only the things we would learn about mars but the technology we would develope in the process. It is really amazing what we developed in the space race. Think when Kennedy said go to the moon would not have been able to make it in that time frame with the current technology...but we did because we had a goal and humanity has been using technologies developed for the space program ever sense.
It stops when the ISPs stop listening to the government. The government can't really make him take the site down...but then the ISP has more descresion then the government. So the goverment (and the RIAA for that matter) are just being intelegent by going to the ISP, or the university. If I am an ISP I am going to think very carefully about defending my user's first amendment rights, because I have to look at my bottom line, and anything that even smells of legal trouble costs money, so I will comply, it just good buisness. So if you run and ISP and want to see this stopped you better think about terminating peoples accounts due to content. Just don't do it.
I agree. What I don't understand is why Disney decided to use that logo in the first place. While there is the obvious "green light means go", I would think they would notice the similarity and not want to use there name recognition to help another company. Its kinda like Microsoft deciding to make their logo look like BE's. It just doesn't make sense.
I have to wonder how useful creating custom CD's really is. It would seem to me that the manufacturing/shipping cost is going to be many times the manufacturing cost of a regular CD and thus the price higher. Since CDNOW has to pay the royalties as well, and just keeping track of those for each CD would increase overhead as well, it seems to me that custom CD's would be substantially more expensive then just buying the CD. Now while it would be nice to be able to pick and choose which songs you want the gain in being able to buy just the custom CD wouldn't offset the increased cost, IMHO. Plus by the time the CD gets to you, you could have downloaded all the MPs anyway. More interesting, and feasable, is the patent for providing custom CDs at record stores as it would tap a market without access to MPs...ect.
I know a guy who gets himself to work everyday, is an insurance agent, plays golf(extremely well), and "watches" travel movies as a hobby. He is also blind. Pretty productive don't you think? You make it sound like blind people are useless parts of society, while the fact is they aren't. I hear alot of complanient about managers ect...being unaware of the net, well here is one of you managers, and he is blind, so do you want to doom to ignorance about your area of society? The net is about making information accessable, why not to the blind? And the law is about not excluding people when it is not difficult to include them, and if AOL used what I consider good design practice they would include the blind anyway, and it really isn't that hard.
Since most of the stuff I have seen about Windows 2000 implies most sys-admins aren't exactly thrilled with it Microsoft has decided to take the brillant strategy of increasing the price. This will doubtlessly decrease anyone's fears about the stability or usefullness of the OS since obviously since it costs say 4 or 5 times as much as Mac OS 9 or an official copy of Red Hat it must be 4 or 5 times better right? I mean that is how our competitive ecoonomy works...you pay more for a better product. So why if Windows 2000 is 4 to 5 times better then the competition are so many people unwilling to use it? Maybe it says something about how competitive the OS market is.