The thing is, the Constitution delegated to Congress the rights to "coin money" for a reason. They have interpreted that instead as a right to delegate the right to print currency, and delegated said right to the Federal Reserve so they dont have to waste time actually doing their jobs. And every time the Fed turns on the printing press, by diluting the pool of currency, it's the same effect as milling coins or flat-out counterfeiting really - it's a hidden, involuntary tax. We all pay the bill through inflation and reduction in value of our savings and retirement. That makes it the people's money just the same if it were revenue taxed openly.
This isnt actually a good strategy for speed (although the security benefits are there if you dont mind working that way,) unless you are running an OS that isnt actually making effective use of a good part of that RAM to begin with. If your OS knows how to use that RAM, it will be keeping your browser in memory anyway when it's being used, but will also be able to free that memory up to hold something else when you move on. You're just keeping it from being freed. You probably have enough memory you would never notice the difference either way of course.
Yes, that's what's keeping me on Firefox 3.6 for now. If it aint broke dont fix it. I have a browser that, with the appropriate set of extensions, ignores the majority of crap on the net, doesnt stress the net by downloading it all, and makes the web usable again. I'm in no hurry to give it up for either Chrome or IE. IE is obvious - but Chrome is produced to serve ads, and the day you see a Chrome that allows for blocking the crap that most ads rely on someone will be very chilly in hell. Mozilla org may have gone totally nuts with their last few releases but it's still free software, and when they stop supporting me I can always switch to IceWeasel.
WordPerfect was by far the best word processing program at the time. WordPerfect for windows sucked, yes, because MS made sure of that, as you would realise very quickly if you would peruse the Novel exhibits in this case. I remember at the time we kept using the DOS version - even running it under Windows was far preferable to rescuing with Word.
That's because today's linkers want to do it all in RAM.
It's more than that, though, because todays developer machines have many orders of magnitude more RAM than our old kilobyte-memory machines had in storage.
Doing it all in RAM is very poor design as well, of course. As much data as possible should always be kept in a generic storage function so that the OS can use the various levels of storage from register to persistent storage intelligently - keeping more in RAM when more RAM is available and intelligently paging less-used stuff out when it is not.
But the code bloat is real and undeniable on its own, and it's primarily a predictable result of the ever-increasing abstraction levels, and reliance on library code, by application programmers over the years. That in turn has been enabled by the overabundance of resources another commenter mentions, in combination with commercial logic (MS and the hardware manufacturers alike have a vested interest in getting people to replace old machines with new.)
Higher level languages and library code enable quicker prototyping, and in the commercial world time to market can be a major issue. And there are definitely advantages to it in other ways - fixing a bug in a dozen different programs by updating a library is a neat trick. But the cost is very real in terms of code bloat. Featuritis and various marketing requirements add to the final bill as well.
The economy has been cratered quite well, reversing the policies that cratered it is clearly a 'nut case' response though, thank you for pointing that out. If you would pay a little attention to the real world instead of your comfortable little ivory tower of consensus, you might notice that the government does NOT provide the citizenry any sort of power against the corporations, quite the opposite, it is through government corruption that they achieve their power in the first place. If you actually read his policies without drinking the war party kool-aid, you might realise just how batcrap crazy everyone ELSE in the field is.
I see they carefully chose their words, implying that the special software that makes it unreadable makes it ok. However, one may assume they have such software and are able to read everything. In addition, when I hear about unreadable by humans, I assume that it is most likely xor rather than aes.
I think of microsoft word's various formats when I hear that phrase, personally.
Nah, the pattern of conduct would work to establish fraudulent intent. Particularly the numerous cases where they try to claim a work, the fact they dont own it is pointed out, and then they try to claim another copy of the same work a few days later. That's what judges call 'knew or should have known' and they really dont give a toot which it is at that point.
But expecting the US DoJ to enforce the law against the people who do this isnt going to work anytime soon. They think the law is only for the lower classes - the people who do this are above the law.
There's been plenty of room to criticise X. As someone whose first computer had 4KB Ram, pretty much all modern software looks insanely bloated and silly to me.
But it does give you massive amounts of freedom. You are free to use whatever toolkit you want - or write to primitives! If you want to install every library known to man, so that you can run all of the enormous library of software available for X, then it's fair to spend some resources on it. If you can assemble all the software you want using a more limited set of libraries you can shrink it a lot. And it's not that X doesnt allow you to put together a consistent GUI, it just doesnt force you to do so. Plus you have support for a huge amount of hardware, the new 3d interfaces work quite well, AND you get network transparency on top of it. So for all the belly-aching about X, and we can all relate at one time or another, it's good enough and it's there and it saves a HUGE amount of effort reinventing the wheel.
I've read that Windowmaker & Afterstep are just windowing managers,
Right. Small programs that do one thing and do it well.
but is there a complete GNUSTEP based DE?
One you can assemble yourself if you do your homework and dont mind to do some programming yourself before it's really all together? Yes, in that sense I guess there is. But not really in the sense most people would understand that language to indicate.
The "hold down mouse button" on menu, drag and release on desired menu item, was a pretty crap idea though. I remember seeing many users struggling with that.
That was an awful design choice. By contrast the right way to do it can be seen in WIndowMaker, where each mouse click is a distinct event and navigating a menu to a certain end can be reduced to a series of clicks - with any meanderings of the mouse irrelevant as long as the clicks occur in the correct regions.
Double-clicking is also hard for most people to learn.
Yes, but at the same time once learned it comes to be very 'intuitive' and any system without it comes to be difficult to use. Which means it is critical that the user be given a choice as to which style of interface to use, no matter how much that freedom of choice may irritate some designer somewhere.
Steve Jobs/Apple only wanted one mouse button.
However the practical vocabulary needs of the interface then forced him to add the concept of using meta-keys on the keyboard to modify mouse clicks. It's hard to seriously argue that using meta-clicks is any more confusing for the poor user than a multi-button mouse. And ergonomically it adds unecessary complication. The user has already paid the price of removing one hand from the keyboard to grasp the mouse, and we know s/he has a hand on said mouse, but may or may not have the other hand on the keyboard.
Lets face it; every prior UI has simply been aping Windows and Mac.
Let' s face it, you dont know what you are talking about.
X-Windows, and window managers for it, have been around a lot longer than you have been aware of them. The aping started in the opposite direction. The first WM I can think of that could be accused of aping one of those toy OSes would be FVWM95, and there were plenty of other options that predated it. Plus it worked a lot better than Windows in any event.
Gnome didnt really start on this path until version 2. That' s when I stopped using it - when they decided to castrate the toolkit and force the Win/Mac UI abominations down the users throat. The last time I took a look at KDE, it still preserved a good set of options and could be configured to operate like a *nix machine, OR to ape Windows, OR to ape Mac, and even if the defaults are idiotic it could still be configured to perform sanely. Best I know, this is still true, though I dont often bother to check. Even though it isnt as bad as GNOME, KDE is still bloated and wedded to this silly 'desktop' paradigm and therefore annoying as well.
WindowMaker is still a far superior alternative, even if it is essentially dead in terms of development. The promise of a GNUStep system was inspiring, it's really maddening to see how all the resources over the past few years have been funnelled into polishing inferior alternatives instead of filling in the gaps to build a slick, professional system out of the box. And yes, WM 'apes' another system - the old NeXTStep system which was far and away superior to both Windows and Mac on many levels, and it isnt simply a slavish copy but an adaption of the best UI elements with improvements.
If you really want new and different, without aping inferior systems, you should check out E. I dont bother with it because WM makes me happy, but it would be hard to argue that E mimics anything else - it's quite unique and progressive.
Mac OSX builds on the old NeXT codebase, but mangles the UI so bad it makes baby cry. There are certainly technical advances under the hood, but the UI was one huge regression - at the same time WM was moving forward, Apple was tacking the worst parts of the Mac, Windows, and NeXT interfaces together. That maneuvre, from what I can see, is really what GNOME keeps trying to ape - tacking the worst parts of as many interfaces as possible together into one hideous whole.
True UI improvement tends to be incremental - you keep the elements that work best, and rethink the ones that cause problems. There is nothing wrong with 'aping' per se - when the alternative is making up something new just for the sake of new 'aping' is a positive thing. Keeping continuity on a system by only changing things that need changing is a big win for usability - the biggest UI aggravation for users on any platform is when elements they have come to rely on get yanked out from under them to make way for new and shiny.
Actually there has been some good work done in the area of usability. Tog (ask Tog) really did lay out some basic principles that make sense and work well when applied - and he is largely responsible for the fact that the old Mac interface was so easy to learn and, for some purposes, to use. (Of course for some purposes it was awful, but for the target audience it was a pretty good tradeoff - making things they were likely to do easy, and things they werent likely to even think about hard.)
But you are largely right. With OSX Apple seemed to largely forget his work, and the whole usability scene such as it is seems to be mostly off in lalaland and engaged in make-work for designers, constantly fixing things that arent broken, and often regressing in the name of progress. The Gnome project seems to have jumped on that bandwagon with both feet.
Change for the sake of change is fundamentally incompatible with any sane usability doctrine. Even experts and 'power users' get angry and frustrated when an 'upgrade' changes their workflow and/or forces them to learn new ways to do things they have been doing just fine for years. Programs that get a reputation for capricious, arbitrary breakage like that (and GNOME I am looking right at you) are only cutting their own throats.
Custom ROMs may have bugs but the 'stock' carrier supplied ROMs appear to be far, far worse in every case.
I had to laugh reading the article, "Furthermore, by putting all this efforts into testing and certification, we ensure that quality and conformance is at a top level, in benefit for all consumers worldwide" - yeah right. If they actually did that I would expect to see some results. In fact uncertified ROMs from amateurs working in their spare time seem to miraculously beat the carriers on quality and conformance, every time.
This quote sounds like it's closer to the truth: "Features like MotoCast, Smart Actions, and our comprehensive enterprise solutions are integral parts of our device experiences, and we want to make sure we continue delivering differentiated experiences for our consumers with these software upgrades." - translation, we need a lot of time to get our bloated crapware that no one wants or needs in place and unremovable, the better to sell our so-called 'customers' as a commodity to other companies.
That is to say, you are right about the Constitution, however your answer is wrong in context of the original question. The Constitution does explicitly define a few rights, and freedom from unreasonable search and seizures is one of them. Freedom of speech is another. Both appear to have been egregiously violated here.
I suspect Hamish will have some interesting things to say on the subject, it's been a few years since I spoke with someone in a similar position but I can say the language was colourful and the message emphatic.:D
I dont disagree at all that they are different species and there could certainly be some difference in behaviour. Whenever we are talking about something that happened 20,000 years ago there will be some gaps in knowledge. It's just that there are so many reasons to believe that humans would not have hunted mammoths, which I have outlined in this thread, and on the other side absolutely zero evidence to the contrary, yet despite this the portrait of our remote ancestors taking on mammoths with stone-tipped spears seems to be such an attractive one that people insist on believing it anyway.
You see, this is exactly the sort of breathless nonsense I am talking about. Particularly in the MSNBC article. It is a mass of bad suppositions and unwarranted conclusions that just arent supported by the actual evidence at all. The point in the rib had been there for years, and clearly did not cause the death of the animal. That mastadon was probably not killed, but died of old age and the corpse was then scavenged. If it was killed, it was already at such an advanced age it would have been half dead and easy prey - and the killer was more likely a large predator than a human even so. Using tools made of mastadon bones does not imply actively hunting them - scavenging the bones after the animals died of natural causes is far more likely and consistent with the evidence.
The site is very important for proving that there were humans living in the area at an earlier date than some wanted to accept, but that isnt enough for some people. They just have to have their 'man-the-hunter' image, facts and evidence and logic be damned. It makes them feel good, apparently.
You do need to get it off the ground, or else every other meat-eater for miles around will be on it quickly. And you dont want to be fighting a pack of dire-wolves, or a sabre-tooth tiger, with a stone spear. You will lose. Which means, just as I originally said, all you can hope for is to slice off as much meat as you can carry and then run for it.
Elephants and mammmoths are different species, true, but they are very closely related and all evidence indicates the same sort of behaviour and intelligence level. That moat is not a trap, and you will notice that elephants are routinely enclosed in that manner with no worry of breaking or even spraining their legs. In the wild they routinely navigate more treacherous obstacles, and it is noteworthy that the Pygmys, master trappers themselves, do not use such tactics when hunting elephants. Their tactics involve large numbers of archers with poison arrows ringing a solo elephant from all sides, with the ones in front of it at any given moment running and dodging for their lives while the others pump arrow after arrow into it from the rear and sides. This will go on for a very long time, with hunters who dont run and dodge fast enough winding up dead or severely injured (which amounts to the same thing, without medical care,) until finally the elephant, resembling by this time an enormous pincushion, begins to succumb to the poison.
The so-called manis mastadon site is entirely consistent with an opportunist scavenging operation, much more so than hunting. The point embedded in the rib *might* be of human origin, but it was certainly not the cause of death, it was an old and long-since healed wound - and one as grievous as the best hunter could possibly be expected to deliver with the tools of the day.
The whole idea of driving a herd into a panic and stampeding them is misplaced. This is exactly how giant bison were hunted, but pachyderms are not bovines and they do not stampede like that. African park rangers have experience in the matter and have learned, at times the hard way, that attempting to herd elephants like cattle is suicidally foolish.
Slashdot Mirror
They could have gotten dollars many other ways. They just would have had to pay market rates for them.
The thing is, the Constitution delegated to Congress the rights to "coin money" for a reason. They have interpreted that instead as a right to delegate the right to print currency, and delegated said right to the Federal Reserve so they dont have to waste time actually doing their jobs. And every time the Fed turns on the printing press, by diluting the pool of currency, it's the same effect as milling coins or flat-out counterfeiting really - it's a hidden, involuntary tax. We all pay the bill through inflation and reduction in value of our savings and retirement. That makes it the people's money just the same if it were revenue taxed openly.
E, *box, and even the venerable WindowMaker are viable alternatives as well.
This isnt actually a good strategy for speed (although the security benefits are there if you dont mind working that way,) unless you are running an OS that isnt actually making effective use of a good part of that RAM to begin with. If your OS knows how to use that RAM, it will be keeping your browser in memory anyway when it's being used, but will also be able to free that memory up to hold something else when you move on. You're just keeping it from being freed. You probably have enough memory you would never notice the difference either way of course.
No, actually, let's not. Let's not build our homebrew scenes to rely on the likes of Sony, thanks.
Yes, that's what's keeping me on Firefox 3.6 for now. If it aint broke dont fix it. I have a browser that, with the appropriate set of extensions, ignores the majority of crap on the net, doesnt stress the net by downloading it all, and makes the web usable again. I'm in no hurry to give it up for either Chrome or IE. IE is obvious - but Chrome is produced to serve ads, and the day you see a Chrome that allows for blocking the crap that most ads rely on someone will be very chilly in hell. Mozilla org may have gone totally nuts with their last few releases but it's still free software, and when they stop supporting me I can always switch to IceWeasel.
WordPerfect was by far the best word processing program at the time. WordPerfect for windows sucked, yes, because MS made sure of that, as you would realise very quickly if you would peruse the Novel exhibits in this case. I remember at the time we kept using the DOS version - even running it under Windows was far preferable to rescuing with Word.
It's more than that, though, because todays developer machines have many orders of magnitude more RAM than our old kilobyte-memory machines had in storage.
Doing it all in RAM is very poor design as well, of course. As much data as possible should always be kept in a generic storage function so that the OS can use the various levels of storage from register to persistent storage intelligently - keeping more in RAM when more RAM is available and intelligently paging less-used stuff out when it is not.
But the code bloat is real and undeniable on its own, and it's primarily a predictable result of the ever-increasing abstraction levels, and reliance on library code, by application programmers over the years. That in turn has been enabled by the overabundance of resources another commenter mentions, in combination with commercial logic (MS and the hardware manufacturers alike have a vested interest in getting people to replace old machines with new.)
Higher level languages and library code enable quicker prototyping, and in the commercial world time to market can be a major issue. And there are definitely advantages to it in other ways - fixing a bug in a dozen different programs by updating a library is a neat trick. But the cost is very real in terms of code bloat. Featuritis and various marketing requirements add to the final bill as well.
The economy has been cratered quite well, reversing the policies that cratered it is clearly a 'nut case' response though, thank you for pointing that out. If you would pay a little attention to the real world instead of your comfortable little ivory tower of consensus, you might notice that the government does NOT provide the citizenry any sort of power against the corporations, quite the opposite, it is through government corruption that they achieve their power in the first place. If you actually read his policies without drinking the war party kool-aid, you might realise just how batcrap crazy everyone ELSE in the field is.
FTFY
I think of microsoft word's various formats when I hear that phrase, personally.
Nah, the pattern of conduct would work to establish fraudulent intent. Particularly the numerous cases where they try to claim a work, the fact they dont own it is pointed out, and then they try to claim another copy of the same work a few days later. That's what judges call 'knew or should have known' and they really dont give a toot which it is at that point.
But expecting the US DoJ to enforce the law against the people who do this isnt going to work anytime soon. They think the law is only for the lower classes - the people who do this are above the law.
There's been plenty of room to criticise X. As someone whose first computer had 4KB Ram, pretty much all modern software looks insanely bloated and silly to me.
But it does give you massive amounts of freedom. You are free to use whatever toolkit you want - or write to primitives! If you want to install every library known to man, so that you can run all of the enormous library of software available for X, then it's fair to spend some resources on it. If you can assemble all the software you want using a more limited set of libraries you can shrink it a lot. And it's not that X doesnt allow you to put together a consistent GUI, it just doesnt force you to do so. Plus you have support for a huge amount of hardware, the new 3d interfaces work quite well, AND you get network transparency on top of it. So for all the belly-aching about X, and we can all relate at one time or another, it's good enough and it's there and it saves a HUGE amount of effort reinventing the wheel.
If he were doing that the machine would actually be an X client. The X server provides display and input.
Right. Small programs that do one thing and do it well.
One you can assemble yourself if you do your homework and dont mind to do some programming yourself before it's really all together? Yes, in that sense I guess there is. But not really in the sense most people would understand that language to indicate.
That was an awful design choice. By contrast the right way to do it can be seen in WIndowMaker, where each mouse click is a distinct event and navigating a menu to a certain end can be reduced to a series of clicks - with any meanderings of the mouse irrelevant as long as the clicks occur in the correct regions.
Yes, but at the same time once learned it comes to be very 'intuitive' and any system without it comes to be difficult to use. Which means it is critical that the user be given a choice as to which style of interface to use, no matter how much that freedom of choice may irritate some designer somewhere.
However the practical vocabulary needs of the interface then forced him to add the concept of using meta-keys on the keyboard to modify mouse clicks. It's hard to seriously argue that using meta-clicks is any more confusing for the poor user than a multi-button mouse. And ergonomically it adds unecessary complication. The user has already paid the price of removing one hand from the keyboard to grasp the mouse, and we know s/he has a hand on said mouse, but may or may not have the other hand on the keyboard.
Let' s face it, you dont know what you are talking about.
X-Windows, and window managers for it, have been around a lot longer than you have been aware of them. The aping started in the opposite direction. The first WM I can think of that could be accused of aping one of those toy OSes would be FVWM95, and there were plenty of other options that predated it. Plus it worked a lot better than Windows in any event.
Gnome didnt really start on this path until version 2. That' s when I stopped using it - when they decided to castrate the toolkit and force the Win/Mac UI abominations down the users throat. The last time I took a look at KDE, it still preserved a good set of options and could be configured to operate like a *nix machine, OR to ape Windows, OR to ape Mac, and even if the defaults are idiotic it could still be configured to perform sanely. Best I know, this is still true, though I dont often bother to check. Even though it isnt as bad as GNOME, KDE is still bloated and wedded to this silly 'desktop' paradigm and therefore annoying as well.
WindowMaker is still a far superior alternative, even if it is essentially dead in terms of development. The promise of a GNUStep system was inspiring, it's really maddening to see how all the resources over the past few years have been funnelled into polishing inferior alternatives instead of filling in the gaps to build a slick, professional system out of the box. And yes, WM 'apes' another system - the old NeXTStep system which was far and away superior to both Windows and Mac on many levels, and it isnt simply a slavish copy but an adaption of the best UI elements with improvements.
If you really want new and different, without aping inferior systems, you should check out E. I dont bother with it because WM makes me happy, but it would be hard to argue that E mimics anything else - it's quite unique and progressive.
Mac OSX builds on the old NeXT codebase, but mangles the UI so bad it makes baby cry. There are certainly technical advances under the hood, but the UI was one huge regression - at the same time WM was moving forward, Apple was tacking the worst parts of the Mac, Windows, and NeXT interfaces together. That maneuvre, from what I can see, is really what GNOME keeps trying to ape - tacking the worst parts of as many interfaces as possible together into one hideous whole.
True UI improvement tends to be incremental - you keep the elements that work best, and rethink the ones that cause problems. There is nothing wrong with 'aping' per se - when the alternative is making up something new just for the sake of new 'aping' is a positive thing. Keeping continuity on a system by only changing things that need changing is a big win for usability - the biggest UI aggravation for users on any platform is when elements they have come to rely on get yanked out from under them to make way for new and shiny.
Do it your way, I dont care.
But only a total incompetent would install X on a server. That's almost as bad as loading it up with an MS Windows OS. :D
Actually there has been some good work done in the area of usability. Tog (ask Tog) really did lay out some basic principles that make sense and work well when applied - and he is largely responsible for the fact that the old Mac interface was so easy to learn and, for some purposes, to use. (Of course for some purposes it was awful, but for the target audience it was a pretty good tradeoff - making things they were likely to do easy, and things they werent likely to even think about hard.)
But you are largely right. With OSX Apple seemed to largely forget his work, and the whole usability scene such as it is seems to be mostly off in lalaland and engaged in make-work for designers, constantly fixing things that arent broken, and often regressing in the name of progress. The Gnome project seems to have jumped on that bandwagon with both feet.
Change for the sake of change is fundamentally incompatible with any sane usability doctrine. Even experts and 'power users' get angry and frustrated when an 'upgrade' changes their workflow and/or forces them to learn new ways to do things they have been doing just fine for years. Programs that get a reputation for capricious, arbitrary breakage like that (and GNOME I am looking right at you) are only cutting their own throats.
Why the heck do you have X on a server?!?!
Custom ROMs may have bugs but the 'stock' carrier supplied ROMs appear to be far, far worse in every case.
I had to laugh reading the article, "Furthermore, by putting all this efforts into testing and certification, we ensure that quality and conformance is at a top level, in benefit for all consumers worldwide" - yeah right. If they actually did that I would expect to see some results. In fact uncertified ROMs from amateurs working in their spare time seem to miraculously beat the carriers on quality and conformance, every time.
This quote sounds like it's closer to the truth: "Features like MotoCast, Smart Actions, and our comprehensive enterprise solutions are integral parts of our device experiences, and we want to make sure we continue delivering differentiated experiences for our consumers with these software upgrades." - translation, we need a lot of time to get our bloated crapware that no one wants or needs in place and unremovable, the better to sell our so-called 'customers' as a commodity to other companies.
You are right but you are wrong.
That is to say, you are right about the Constitution, however your answer is wrong in context of the original question. The Constitution does explicitly define a few rights, and freedom from unreasonable search and seizures is one of them. Freedom of speech is another. Both appear to have been egregiously violated here.
I suspect Hamish will have some interesting things to say on the subject, it's been a few years since I spoke with someone in a similar position but I can say the language was colourful and the message emphatic. :D
I dont disagree at all that they are different species and there could certainly be some difference in behaviour. Whenever we are talking about something that happened 20,000 years ago there will be some gaps in knowledge. It's just that there are so many reasons to believe that humans would not have hunted mammoths, which I have outlined in this thread, and on the other side absolutely zero evidence to the contrary, yet despite this the portrait of our remote ancestors taking on mammoths with stone-tipped spears seems to be such an attractive one that people insist on believing it anyway.
You see, this is exactly the sort of breathless nonsense I am talking about. Particularly in the MSNBC article. It is a mass of bad suppositions and unwarranted conclusions that just arent supported by the actual evidence at all. The point in the rib had been there for years, and clearly did not cause the death of the animal. That mastadon was probably not killed, but died of old age and the corpse was then scavenged. If it was killed, it was already at such an advanced age it would have been half dead and easy prey - and the killer was more likely a large predator than a human even so. Using tools made of mastadon bones does not imply actively hunting them - scavenging the bones after the animals died of natural causes is far more likely and consistent with the evidence.
The site is very important for proving that there were humans living in the area at an earlier date than some wanted to accept, but that isnt enough for some people. They just have to have their 'man-the-hunter' image, facts and evidence and logic be damned. It makes them feel good, apparently.
You do need to get it off the ground, or else every other meat-eater for miles around will be on it quickly. And you dont want to be fighting a pack of dire-wolves, or a sabre-tooth tiger, with a stone spear. You will lose. Which means, just as I originally said, all you can hope for is to slice off as much meat as you can carry and then run for it.
Elephants and mammmoths are different species, true, but they are very closely related and all evidence indicates the same sort of behaviour and intelligence level. That moat is not a trap, and you will notice that elephants are routinely enclosed in that manner with no worry of breaking or even spraining their legs. In the wild they routinely navigate more treacherous obstacles, and it is noteworthy that the Pygmys, master trappers themselves, do not use such tactics when hunting elephants. Their tactics involve large numbers of archers with poison arrows ringing a solo elephant from all sides, with the ones in front of it at any given moment running and dodging for their lives while the others pump arrow after arrow into it from the rear and sides. This will go on for a very long time, with hunters who dont run and dodge fast enough winding up dead or severely injured (which amounts to the same thing, without medical care,) until finally the elephant, resembling by this time an enormous pincushion, begins to succumb to the poison.
The so-called manis mastadon site is entirely consistent with an opportunist scavenging operation, much more so than hunting. The point embedded in the rib *might* be of human origin, but it was certainly not the cause of death, it was an old and long-since healed wound - and one as grievous as the best hunter could possibly be expected to deliver with the tools of the day.
The whole idea of driving a herd into a panic and stampeding them is misplaced. This is exactly how giant bison were hunted, but pachyderms are not bovines and they do not stampede like that. African park rangers have experience in the matter and have learned, at times the hard way, that attempting to herd elephants like cattle is suicidally foolish.