I agree that more policing would be nice with new TLDs.
I like the idea of having a set of general (.info..com,.org for example) TLDs that are not at all regulated -- like we have now -- and then a series of very functional types that are highly regulated (private sector registration though).
Actually, something like.info is not Anglo-specific per se since the Romance languages (Spanish and Italian, for sure) use INFO --- informazione, informacion...or something similar.
Biz though is just plain stupid and sounds like something some marketing person came up with thinking that it would be hip-and-cool. Dot Ass would have been better.
In an interview Bill Gates was talking about the distinction between the hubs/areas where technology is used and being away from the PC and near the TV was one that Microsoft is apparently concentrating on. (He indicated that he was disappointed at the lack of broadband in homes though.)
Anyway, I think the XBox is going to evolve into the weapon-of-choice for Microsoft to deal with these so-called entertainment centers that combine various multimedia home-appliances.
XBox/MSN/Windows Media --- all controlled by Microsoft. HP's solution works with media formats HP doesn't control and internet services it doesn't control -- makes evolving the product more difficult when you aren't dictator.
I think Microsoft has a pretty good combination for starting toward domination of the "TV-space" and they control everything they need to progress.
(Personally, I think control of the TV-Space is going to be HUGE since that device will probably control most usage of video-on-demand and music-on-demand services. There will be a lot of hours spent using this appliance.)
Come now, you belittle the Amiga by comparing it with OS/2 and especially BeOS. The Amiga was a very popular system for quite some time and had no shortage of developer support for a number of years.
BeOS never made it anywhere near where the Amiga made it. There never was a "golden period" of BeOS software development. The Amiga had it all for a while. BeOS has always just been a nice OS with limited support from developers.
I don't think "freedom" has anything to do with it. The net is more than free nowadays and there isn't anything like the spirit of the BBS days (I'm coming from an Apple II-perspective - Ascii Express, Apple CAT modems, Locksmith, DDD, EDD, Black Bag Cracks, Copy ][+, Merlin, Call A.P.P.L.E...I'm in tears now.)
It isn't hard to get this type of community though - you really just need a niche OS/product that attracts only a technical crowd (or some other really focused crowd) and some youngsters (the next generation) who are really interested in technology and willing to pay their dues with unsupported/new/difficult systems.
There are just too many no-nothings who like to talk a lot (and loudly) that you really need a somewhat isolated community to get that old BBS-feeling back. Complete freedom also means the freedom to interrupt, spam, mass-advertise, etc. Boring those types with only tech-talk is a good solution for doing away with them.
My prediction, you heard it here first, is that in the next few years there will be a "Forth" (the programming language) uprising (not big, but big enough) that produces a fun and really nice tech oriented community.
Maybe now, but as the article indicates,: "Keep an eye on what the kernel and GCC teams produce though. A couple of releases here and there could really turn the tides on AMD."
If the P4 is a great system for an avid gamer it will be THE system for desktop usage...games can and, I think often, dictate what hardware people buy for their home systems.
I don't think this is a Republican vs. Democrat issue. Neither side is championing space exploration or more NASA funding in anything other than a token way.
One problem is that it isn't as easy to answer the "What's the point?" question as it is for funding for life sciences research like fighting cancer, a vaccine for HIV, etc.
Why explore Mars? Personally I haven't a clue. Why try to find a cure for cancer? Because I might get it. When political pollsters get the mood of people I think Space Research is near the bottom of the list.
New languages like Ruby usually require the programmer to reinvent libraries that have already been developed, tested, revised, retested, etc. in other languages.
In languages like Perl, Java and other really popular languages more than likely someone has already done what you want and you can build off of that. In Ruby, you may find yourself starting from less of a developed base than in other languages.
The good news is that people who want to make a name for themselves in the open source world can jump into the Ruby world and do some good work. Once a well-tested comprehensive base of library code is available then the language will develop some momentum (my opinion).
Also, how many books are there for Ruby...ONE, right? That's not enough to attract attention at a bookstore. It also makes it more difficult for people to learn.
I "played" with Ruby under Windows and have the so-called Pick-axe book and found the language nice but in terms of usage now: how many hosting services allow server side scripting with Ruby? For simple utilities my Perl skills are better than my Ruby skills so I don't change since I want to get tools done fast.
So, my opinion is that Ruby isn't "popular" simply because it needs more time to be accessible to more people and not because of technical reasons.
I think this has been re-hashed quite a bit about more top level domains. It is expensive to domain squatters but also businesses.
If you are a software development boutique named, say, debussy.com now --- are you going to go and register debussy.linux, debussy.perl, debussy.java, debussy.gnu, debussy.php3 etc. to cover all the areas in which you do business or allow someone else to get those domains and set-up shop taking advantage of your coattails, so to speak.
I don't think more domain names are the answer (unless you just want to make registration companies richer) - getting rid of domain names as the central method of finding sites is my preferred route.
That was pretty funny....moral _duty_ to make a profit from inherently valuable things? Why? What if I don't want to take the time and effort to do that and would rather go fishing? Is that immoral?
Capitalism isn't about people desperately trying to earn a few cents every second of their life - it is about having the freedom to choose to live one's life as he or she sees fit, without infringing on the rights of others. That may just well mean not being very interested in profit-seeking behavior and enjoying life on a small salary.
Incidently, under capitalism, no one has a right to make a profit rather one has a right to try and make a profit and one has the right to keep the profits they make. Having a right to make profits is impossible as it would imply that all businesses must make profits or somehow be given money (not possible under capitalism) to ensure a profit.
Well, the other possible gain is that perhaps they are hoping the company's stock drops - even if temporarily - and then they can make some money from that. This is probably a better strategy against companies like eBay which tend to freak investors more when they go off-line. Short the stock, attack the site, see the price dip a bit, close out your position with a gain. Probably too much risk for the reward (it's just easier to buy and hold in today's market!) but people have done stranger things to make money. Plus you get that admiration, etc. you mentioned.
No, it couldn't be that...at least when I was in high school (1980s). To be quite frank, the girls then (at my HS) simply didn't have a clue about computers. It was quite obvious who was a computer nerd by their associations, discussions, hanging out at the computer lab, and ability to fix all the problems the teachers were having with the Apple IIs.
At my high school, a lot of the computer nerds were also heavily into AD&D so that added to the isolation and stereotypical labeling from the rest of the groups.
You can't copyright your personal information per se. You can only copyright something that you've created - such as a document with your personal information; or song containing your personal information; or a video with your personal information; etc.
So, a lot of people can use your personal information in their databases if the source of your personal information wasn't your copyrighted creation but something which they had the right to copy. To __sue__ for copyright infringement you would have to (1) Have the document/recording/etc. registered with the US Copyright Office and then (2) prove in court that a company used your creation to produce a derivative work without your permission...very difficult considering how many sources probably have your personal information.
Likewise, anyone who "copyrights" data in a database can't claim to be the sole owner of the data. They shouldn't be able to win a lawsuit if you are able to demonstrate that you were able to get the same data from other sources.
> I think, whether we have to put up with McCain, Forbes, Gore, or Bradley will be generally okay The only real threatening candidate is Bush. ----- What a load of crap. This is typical rhetoric of a flaming Democrat who is trying to act neutral or above it all. You know Bush will beat the pants off the liberal zeroes that the Democrats are pushing these days. Gore? A flat out liar - and this Mr. Internationl has really show good judgement with Russia! Bradley? At least he's honest - he wants government to be more involved in BIG projects - he says it himself. If you want that fine, vote for him.
If your point was to suggest doing research and voting why throw in the dig on Bush without any substantiation of your position?
Vote Bush and the rest of the republican crew and you'll get a lot of idiots but at least your taxes will go down.
Rather than waste a vote on a Libertarian, vote Republican. They may not be much better than Democrats but they are still better. I wouldn't be concerned about the abortion issue, George W. Bush isn't going to push it and no one in Congress or the Senate that has any clout will either. Libertarians have too many loonies in their camp to be taken seriously. How many people are going to vote for a party that considers child prostitution and child pornography as legal activities so long as the children agree to do it??? I'm not so sure we are ready to accept the privatisation of the police force either. The thought of competing private security agencies worries me a bit for some reason. I'm all for open borders and limited government but having seen the results of the anarchy in Africa and the lack of the rule of law in the former Soviet Union, I would prefer to see an evolutionary path towards a more capitalist society rather than a bungled attempt that ruins the progress that has already been made. Xandis
Slashdot Mirror
I agree that more policing would be nice with new TLDs.
.com, .org for example) TLDs that are not at all regulated -- like we have now -- and then a series of very functional types that are highly regulated (private sector registration though).
I like the idea of having a set of general (.info.
Non-profit regulators would be nice.
Actually, something like .info is not Anglo-specific per se since the Romance languages (Spanish and Italian, for sure) use INFO --- informazione, informacion...or something similar.
Biz though is just plain stupid and sounds like something some marketing person came up with thinking that it would be hip-and-cool. Dot Ass would have been better.
In an interview Bill Gates was talking about the distinction between the hubs/areas where technology is used and being away from the PC and near the TV was one that Microsoft is apparently concentrating on. (He indicated that he was disappointed at the lack of broadband in homes though.)
Anyway, I think the XBox is going to evolve into the weapon-of-choice for Microsoft to deal with these so-called entertainment centers that combine various multimedia home-appliances.
XBox/MSN/Windows Media --- all controlled by Microsoft. HP's solution works with media formats HP doesn't control and internet services it doesn't control -- makes evolving the product more difficult when you aren't dictator.
I think Microsoft has a pretty good combination for starting toward domination of the "TV-space" and they control everything they need to progress.
(Personally, I think control of the TV-Space is going to be HUGE since that device will probably control most usage of video-on-demand and music-on-demand services. There will be a lot of hours spent using this appliance.)
Come now, you belittle the Amiga by comparing it with OS/2 and especially BeOS. The Amiga was a very popular system for quite some time and had no shortage of developer support for a number of years.
BeOS never made it anywhere near where the Amiga made it. There never was a "golden period" of BeOS software development. The Amiga had it all for a while. BeOS has always just been a nice OS with limited support from developers.
Amiga = Big Success
BeOS = Big Disappointment
Therefore I would have to say: Amiga != BeOS
I don't think "freedom" has anything to do with it. The net is more than free nowadays and there isn't anything like the spirit of the BBS days (I'm coming from an Apple II-perspective - Ascii Express, Apple CAT modems, Locksmith, DDD, EDD, Black Bag Cracks, Copy ][+, Merlin, Call A.P.P.L.E...I'm in tears now.)
It isn't hard to get this type of community though - you really just need a niche OS/product that attracts only a technical crowd (or some other really focused crowd) and some youngsters (the next generation) who are really interested in technology and willing to pay their dues with unsupported/new/difficult systems.
There are just too many no-nothings who like to talk a lot (and loudly) that you really need a somewhat isolated community to get that old BBS-feeling back. Complete freedom also means the freedom to interrupt, spam, mass-advertise, etc. Boring those types with only tech-talk is a good solution for doing away with them.
My prediction, you heard it here first, is that in the next few years there will be a "Forth" (the programming language) uprising (not big, but big enough) that produces a fun and really nice tech oriented community.
'A' tiny memory from the old days...
]call -151
*300: a9 c1 20 ed fd 60
Control-C
]call 768
Maybe now, but as the article indicates,: "Keep an eye on what the kernel and GCC teams produce though. A couple of releases here and there could really turn the tides on AMD."
If the P4 is a great system for an avid gamer it will be THE system for desktop usage...games can and, I think often, dictate what hardware people buy for their home systems.
I don't think this is a Republican vs. Democrat issue. Neither side is championing space exploration or more NASA funding in anything other than a token way.
One problem is that it isn't as easy to answer the "What's the point?" question as it is for funding for life sciences research like fighting cancer, a vaccine for HIV, etc.
Why explore Mars? Personally I haven't a clue. Why try to find a cure for cancer? Because I might get it. When political pollsters get the mood of people I think Space Research is near the bottom of the list.
New languages like Ruby usually require the programmer to reinvent libraries that have already been developed, tested, revised, retested, etc. in other languages.
In languages like Perl, Java and other really popular languages more than likely someone has already done what you want and you can build off of that. In Ruby, you may find yourself starting from less of a developed base than in other languages.
The good news is that people who want to make a name for themselves in the open source world can jump into the Ruby world and do some good work. Once a well-tested comprehensive base of library code is available then the language will develop some momentum (my opinion).
Also, how many books are there for Ruby...ONE, right? That's not enough to attract attention at a bookstore. It also makes it more difficult for people to learn.
I "played" with Ruby under Windows and have the so-called Pick-axe book and found the language nice but in terms of usage now: how many hosting services allow server side scripting with Ruby? For simple utilities my Perl skills are better than my Ruby skills so I don't change since I want to get tools done fast.
So, my opinion is that Ruby isn't "popular" simply because it needs more time to be accessible to more people and not because of technical reasons.
I think this has been re-hashed quite a bit about more top level domains. It is expensive to domain squatters but also businesses.
If you are a software development boutique named, say, debussy.com now --- are you going to go and register debussy.linux, debussy.perl, debussy.java, debussy.gnu, debussy.php3 etc. to cover all the areas in which you do business or allow someone else to get those domains and set-up shop taking advantage of your coattails, so to speak.
I don't think more domain names are the answer (unless you just want to make registration companies richer) - getting rid of domain names as the central method of finding sites is my preferred route.
- Xandis
That was pretty funny....moral _duty_ to make a profit from inherently valuable things? Why? What if I don't want to take the time and effort to do that and would rather go fishing? Is that immoral?
Capitalism isn't about people desperately trying to earn a few cents every second of their life - it is about having the freedom to choose to live one's life as he or she sees fit, without infringing on the rights of others. That may just well mean not being very interested in profit-seeking behavior and enjoying life on a small salary.
Incidently, under capitalism, no one has a right to make a profit rather one has a right to try and make a profit and one has the right to keep the profits they make. Having a right to make profits is impossible as it would imply that all businesses must make profits or somehow be given money (not possible under capitalism) to ensure a profit.
- Xandis
Well, the other possible gain is that perhaps they are hoping the company's stock drops - even if temporarily - and then they can make some money from that. This is probably a better strategy against companies like eBay which tend to freak investors more when they go off-line. Short the stock, attack the site, see the price dip a bit, close out your position with a gain. Probably too much risk for the reward (it's just easier to buy and hold in today's market!) but people have done stranger things to make money. Plus you get that admiration, etc. you mentioned.
- Xandis
No, it couldn't be that...at least when I was in high school (1980s). To be quite frank, the girls then (at my HS) simply didn't have a clue about computers. It was quite obvious who was a computer nerd by their associations, discussions, hanging out at the computer lab, and ability to fix all the problems the teachers were having with the Apple IIs.
At my high school, a lot of the computer nerds were also heavily into AD&D so that added to the isolation and stereotypical labeling from the rest of the groups.
Xandis
Similar thing with Abe Vigoda of Fish and Barney Miller fame. Most people think he's dead.
- Xandis
You can't copyright your personal information per se. You can only copyright something that you've created - such as a document with your personal information; or song containing your personal information; or a video with your personal information; etc.
So, a lot of people can use your personal information in their databases if the source of your personal information wasn't your copyrighted creation but something which they had the right to copy. To __sue__ for copyright infringement you would have to (1) Have the document/recording/etc. registered with the US Copyright Office and then (2) prove in court that a company used your creation to produce a derivative work without your permission...very difficult considering how many sources probably have your personal information.
Likewise, anyone who "copyrights" data in a database can't claim to be the sole owner of the data. They shouldn't be able to win a lawsuit if you are able to demonstrate that you were able to get the same data from other sources.
Xandis
> I think, whether we have to put up with McCain, Forbes, Gore, or Bradley will be generally okay The only real threatening candidate is Bush. ----- What a load of crap. This is typical rhetoric of a flaming Democrat who is trying to act neutral or above it all. You know Bush will beat the pants off the liberal zeroes that the Democrats are pushing these days. Gore? A flat out liar - and this Mr. Internationl has really show good judgement with Russia! Bradley? At least he's honest - he wants government to be more involved in BIG projects - he says it himself. If you want that fine, vote for him.
If your point was to suggest doing research and voting why throw in the dig on Bush without any substantiation of your position?
Vote Bush and the rest of the republican crew and you'll get a lot of idiots but at least your taxes will go down.
Xandis - Xandis
Rather than waste a vote on a Libertarian, vote Republican. They may not be much better than Democrats but they are still better. I wouldn't be concerned about the abortion issue, George W. Bush isn't going to push it and no one in Congress or the Senate that has any clout will either. Libertarians have too many loonies in their camp to be taken seriously. How many people are going to vote for a party that considers child prostitution and child pornography as legal activities so long as the children agree to do it??? I'm not so sure we are ready to accept the privatisation of the police force either. The thought of competing private security agencies worries me a bit for some reason. I'm all for open borders and limited government but having seen the results of the anarchy in Africa and the lack of the rule of law in the former Soviet Union, I would prefer to see an evolutionary path towards a more capitalist society rather than a bungled attempt that ruins the progress that has already been made. Xandis