I can see all the pot-bellied CB-Radio freaks now, figuring out how to hook linear amplifiers to their "AirPort"(tm) machines. Blasting Mac-this-n-that documents across the country, making TV screens ripple in response, and babies cry.
Ten-four, good buddy... or whatever they say now...
President Clinton's laptop has probably been factored into the testing and evaluation done on the secured planes that he ever gets to ride on.
When the certification testing was done on the 727s, 737s, and 747s, the only reasonable way to keep the testing from running into the billions of dollars was to limit the combinations of conditions that had to be tested against. And back then, there wasn't the expectation that every suit who walks onto the plane would be carrying a transmitter and a computer more powerful than the workstations used to design the plane. Anything that emits a significant amount of RF just had to be banned from the vulnerable zones around and in the aircraft. This is FAR more likely to include Cellphones than a well-designed laptop, of course. Cellphones by design radiate significant RF emissions.
Using the Steganographic File System basically identifies you as somebody with something to hide. It doesn't matter what it is, it doesn't matter if it makes you guilty or not. The world is not made up out of warm fuzzy inquisitors who give out chocolate bars to people who confess their secrets promptly. It's full of power-mongers and spooks who want to know NOW what you were doing digging around on their server, and want to know NOW what you're hiding that you got off their server on your hard drive. Rubber hoses, to the max, and you're dreaming if you thing there will a Judge at the end of that tunnel.
Clue: Nope!
Have fun setting up a system where you can't prove you didn't do anything wrong. Wave bye-bye before they haul you off in the van.
Thing is, it's made up of what Nixon used to call the "Silent Majority." By this I mean all the hundreds and hundreds of thousands of people who use Windows 95 or 98 to do their daily computing. They don't dink around with the interface, they don't tweak the registry, and they assuredly don't install packages more than one time, or (heaven forbid) install and then remove packages.
Because of this, their machines run fine thank-you-very-much and they think the people decrying Windows stability and reliability are doofuses without lives. If they've even heard about the people decrying Windows.
My new girlfiend lives in southern Iowa, and going down there, it seemed like everyone and her grandmother has a machine hooked to the 'net. I mean, it's incredibly mainstream. Guess what OS they are running? They'd be confused if you suggested there was any reason to run anything else.
I'm sure there are angry little minorities of people in rural southern Iowa who are mad that the 35 games and assorted calendars, screen-savers, and whizzbanger toys they downloaded and installed, which all had conflicting DLL files, etc., made their Windows systems less than reliable. Their moms probably yell at them a lot for screwing up the family computer. And yes, they are likely to then want to rebel by installing something else.
The silent majority doesn't run Linux, though. Not in your most toked-out dreams.
The Montana Freemen need there to be a stable, strong economy of regular productive people they can defraud and steal from. Parasites seldom can live without their host.
Why should my taxes, as a non-parent, go to pay for some kid's Jesus-conditioning?
I agree that the schools have done a fairly poor job in recent decades. It's lead to ignorant people being let loose as adults. People capable of ridiculous statements like "Anything run by the government usually doesn't work."
It's important for some people to bring up Microsoft in as many negative lights as possible on Slashdot, even in discussions where it's irrelevant. This is due to a persecution complex that has set in with certain members of this forum, a malady called Microsoft Hatred(tm). There is a parallel affliction sometimes known as Beowulf Love(tm) which often affects the same individual.
The only cure is simple and direct, but very difficult for the affected to accept. The temporary quarentine procedure known as Complete Computer Removal(tm) while painful in the short run, often leads to a better, more enlightened world in which the former victim of the disease discovers that indeed the Bill Gates Demon(tm) is not untying his/her shoelaces when s/he is not looking. The cure can lead to an empowering experience known as Responsiblity(tm) though in many cases mom still has to make supper.
"(ie: vietnam conflict.. it was never a war right.. )"
Well, if the companies that owned all the rubber plantations in Vietnam owned and controlled the schools, it wouldn't have even been presented as a 'conflict' let alone a 'war.' They certainly didn't consider it a regular war, considering that the US military was forced to compensate them at a considerably higher rate for damaging a rubber tree than they did for the death of an innocent civillian.
It's all just Good Business(tm). Always has been, and always will be, where private interests are concerned. It's important that it stay that way, just as it's important that clear separations between that and public interests must be maintained.
The problem I have with your general question, "Can nations exist within a global internet?" is that it's the kind of utopian "One World Government" question that has to be asked in many places, and answered by many peoples.
No, you are not going to shoehorn in a government-less world through e-commerce. You are not going to take away my right to vote for my representatives in local, state, and national government. Your nihilistic attitude towards government and a bunch of wires draped all over the planet isn't going to end representative government, and the rule of law.
There is already a reaction to this notion arising all over the place. A utopian notion that "government is just not necessary anymore" basically hands all power over to new and more central than ever before forms of social control. People have that figured out. Try something else or be laughed out of any room you try your intellectual trickery in.
Now, there may be some arguments about morality and ethics and all that, but we are after all talking about large corporations, which aren't exactly paragons of virtue.
Why do you think you can say that? Sure, there are abuses in some large corporations.
I don't buy for a moment, however, the sentiment that they can all be painted by the same brush.
If you're going to just offhand throw out moral and ethical arguements, then this discussion is null and void.
. If they do, PCweek or some other bottom-feeding computer magazine is gonna through it on a lab box, test it, and tell the world that the product is crap.
You don't think they will give review copies early in the process to members of the press as well? I suspect journalists (probably select journalists, of course) will get their hands on the beta release as early as anyone else.
I don't know that this is the case. Their Linux WordPerfect is widely available freely in various forms. I bought a magazine awhile ago(PC Plus, May 1999) that had a CD with WordPerfect 8 for Linux taped on the front cover.
I don't think the issue can be rationalized away by claiming they need to protect WordPerfect as bundled in the Beta.
Well, then, there go all sorts of companies who were doubtless planning to develop apps using Linux under the GPL, but who didn't plan on distributing the apps outside their organization. An example of this would be a banking concern who wanted to use embedded Linux in ATM or other kiosk-type applications. Since they retain ownership of the software, but are, as people here state, distributing the software for use by any customer who walks into the lobby, they have to give out the source code of their apps that extend GPL's resources and apps. Maybe a CD-ROM of source code to every customer!
Oh well. I bet businesses all over the world are watching this closely, and noticing the hassles Corel is going through.
To smooth things out I will state that I like Emacs and vi. Emacs is good when I am doing a lot of coding, and need to reach into the text with search tools, have multiple files open, etc. Vi is good when I am telnetted into the OS/2 box that I run our builds off of from my Win32 box just to touch up a script without walking over to the machine.
Xemacs has been ported to Win32 machines, though it does a few scary things to the stability of Windows 95 (it makes it worse!!) once in awhile. And of course everybody has cloned/ported vi to run anywhere. I can even slip a copy of it into the target machines at work (embedded OS/2 hardware) and make it run properly.
Cygwin32 doesn't do anything comparable. They produce a product that runs on top of the Win32 API, with all the compromises that involves. Softway Systems licensed the NT Source code in order to develop an entire Posix API layer that talks directly to the NT Kernel. I suspect that with some work, you could even set up an NT box to run NT and not have anything at all use Win32 except certain admin functions.
Almost any small package that I have tried builds and runs on Interix. Anything that will run, for example, on Linux and on BSD. Applications that are Linux-only are pretty bound to always be Linux-only. Almost anything else can be ported to run on Interix with minimal effort. It uses the GNU C Compiler, after all. In many cases porting simply involves running sh./config and make .
Note that you end up with Posix applications, which can be run in textmode at a Posix prompt (various shells are present, Bash is available as source) or as an X application (displayed locally with eXceed, or remotely over the net on any machine with X. Interix will NOT build binaries that can be run at the regular Win32 command prompt.
Slashdot Mirror
Did you really think I was talking about government thugs?
I wasn't.
You are assuming that all the antennas are concentrated up in the cockpit area of the plane.
Clue: there are antennas and sensitive circuits up and down the chassis of the plane.
I can see all the pot-bellied CB-Radio freaks now, figuring out how to hook linear amplifiers to their "AirPort"(tm) machines. Blasting Mac-this-n-that documents across the country, making TV screens ripple in response, and babies cry.
Ten-four, good buddy... or whatever they say now...
President Clinton's laptop has probably been factored into the testing and evaluation done on the secured planes that he ever gets to ride on.
When the certification testing was done on the 727s, 737s, and 747s, the only reasonable way to keep the testing from running into the billions of dollars was to limit the combinations of conditions that had to be tested against. And back then, there wasn't the expectation that every suit who walks onto the plane would be carrying a transmitter and a computer more powerful than the workstations used to design the plane. Anything that emits a significant amount of RF just had to be banned from the vulnerable zones around and in the aircraft. This is FAR more likely to include Cellphones than a well-designed laptop, of course. Cellphones by design radiate significant RF emissions.
So when your dog rubs up against the panel that the button is mounted on.....
Yes. It makes perfect sense to me.
Using the Steganographic File System basically identifies you as somebody with something to hide. It doesn't matter what it is, it doesn't matter if it makes you guilty or not. The world is not made up out of warm fuzzy inquisitors who give out chocolate bars to people who confess their secrets promptly. It's full of power-mongers and spooks who want to know NOW what you were doing digging around on their server, and want to know NOW what you're hiding that you got off their server on your hard drive. Rubber hoses, to the max, and you're dreaming if you thing there will a Judge at the end of that tunnel.
Clue: Nope!
Have fun setting up a system where you can't prove you didn't do anything wrong. Wave bye-bye before they haul you off in the van.
Yes, there is an anti-Linux conspiracy.
Thing is, it's made up of what Nixon used to call the "Silent Majority." By this I mean all the hundreds and hundreds of thousands of people who use Windows 95 or 98 to do their daily computing. They don't dink around with the interface, they don't tweak the registry, and they assuredly don't install packages more than one time, or (heaven forbid) install and then remove packages.
Because of this, their machines run fine thank-you-very-much and they think the people decrying Windows stability and reliability are doofuses without lives. If they've even heard about the people decrying Windows.
My new girlfiend lives in southern Iowa, and going down there, it seemed like everyone and her grandmother has a machine hooked to the 'net. I mean, it's incredibly mainstream. Guess what OS they are running? They'd be confused if you suggested there was any reason to run anything else.
I'm sure there are angry little minorities of people in rural southern Iowa who are mad that the 35 games and assorted calendars, screen-savers, and whizzbanger toys they downloaded and installed, which all had conflicting DLL files, etc., made their Windows systems less than reliable. Their moms probably yell at them a lot for screwing up the family computer. And yes, they are likely to then want to rebel by installing something else.
The silent majority doesn't run Linux, though. Not in your most toked-out dreams.
Don't you mean that a bunch of priests want 10%?
Don't be blasphemous.
Actually, no.
The Montana Freemen need there to be a stable, strong economy of regular productive people they can defraud and steal from. Parasites seldom can live without their host.
Why should my taxes, as a non-parent, go to pay for some kid's Jesus-conditioning?
I agree that the schools have done a fairly poor job in recent decades. It's lead to ignorant people being let loose as adults. People capable of ridiculous statements like "Anything run by the government usually doesn't work."
It's important for some people to bring up Microsoft in as many negative lights as possible on Slashdot, even in discussions where it's irrelevant. This is due to a persecution complex that has set in with certain members of this forum, a malady called Microsoft Hatred(tm). There is a parallel affliction sometimes known as Beowulf Love(tm) which often affects the same individual.
The only cure is simple and direct, but very difficult for the affected to accept. The temporary quarentine procedure known as Complete Computer Removal(tm) while painful in the short run, often leads to a better, more enlightened world in which the former victim of the disease discovers that indeed the Bill Gates Demon(tm) is not untying his/her shoelaces when s/he is not looking. The cure can lead to an empowering experience known as Responsiblity(tm) though in many cases mom still has to make supper.
"(ie: vietnam conflict.. it was never a war right.. )"
Well, if the companies that owned all the rubber plantations in Vietnam owned and controlled the schools, it wouldn't have even been presented as a 'conflict' let alone a 'war.' They certainly didn't consider it a regular war, considering that the US military was forced to compensate them at a considerably higher rate for damaging a rubber tree than they did for the death of an innocent civillian.
It's all just Good Business(tm). Always has been, and always will be, where private interests are concerned. It's important that it stay that way, just as it's important that clear separations between that and public interests must be maintained.
The problem I have with your general question, "Can nations exist within a global internet?" is that it's the kind of utopian "One World Government" question that has to be asked in many places, and answered by many peoples.
No, you are not going to shoehorn in a government-less world through e-commerce. You are not going to take away my right to vote for my representatives in local, state, and national government. Your nihilistic attitude towards government and a bunch of wires draped all over the planet isn't going to end representative government, and the rule of law.
There is already a reaction to this notion arising all over the place. A utopian notion that "government is just not necessary anymore" basically hands all power over to new and more central than ever before forms of social control. People have that figured out. Try something else or be laughed out of any room you try your intellectual trickery in.
It's ten minutes per GB.
Does anybody know much about the "Business Public License" that he talks about on his homepage?
Now, there may be some arguments about morality and ethics and all that, but we are after all talking about large corporations, which aren't exactly paragons of virtue.
Why do you think you can say that? Sure, there are abuses in some large corporations.
I don't buy for a moment, however, the sentiment that they can all be painted by the same brush.
If you're going to just offhand throw out moral and ethical arguements, then this discussion is null and void.
Hey, that's security through obscurity.
The money should be out on the kitchen table. Near the windows.
heh
Office 2000 does spellcheck email if you use Outlook Express 5. But lots of software exists to spellcheck email. Emacs, for instance.
. If they do, PCweek or some other bottom-feeding computer magazine is gonna through it on a lab box, test it, and tell the world that the product is crap.
You don't think they will give review copies early in the process to members of the press as well? I suspect journalists (probably select journalists, of course) will get their hands on the beta release as early as anyone else.
I don't know that this is the case. Their Linux WordPerfect is widely available freely in various forms. I bought a magazine awhile ago(PC Plus, May 1999) that had a CD with WordPerfect 8 for Linux taped on the front cover.
I don't think the issue can be rationalized away by claiming they need to protect WordPerfect as bundled in the Beta.
Well, then, there go all sorts of companies who were doubtless planning to develop apps using Linux under the GPL, but who didn't plan on distributing the apps outside their organization. An example of this would be a banking concern who wanted to use embedded Linux in ATM or other kiosk-type applications. Since they retain ownership of the software, but are, as people here state, distributing the software for use by any customer who walks into the lobby, they have to give out the source code of their apps that extend GPL's resources and apps. Maybe a CD-ROM of source code to every customer!
Oh well. I bet businesses all over the world are watching this closely, and noticing the hassles Corel is going through.
To smooth things out I will state that I like Emacs and vi. Emacs is good when I am doing a lot of coding, and need to reach into the text with search tools, have multiple files open, etc. Vi is good when I am telnetted into the OS/2 box that I run our builds off of from my Win32 box just to touch up a script without walking over to the machine.
Xemacs has been ported to Win32 machines, though it does a few scary things to the stability of Windows 95 (it makes it worse!!) once in awhile. And of course everybody has cloned/ported vi to run anywhere. I can even slip a copy of it into the target machines at work (embedded OS/2 hardware) and make it run properly.
Really? You've bought a copy of Motif?
I have (SWiM Motif for Linux) but I don't know that many Linux users who have.
Actually, I've been switching over to NetBSD, because I've grown tired of the imperfect Unix compatability of Linux.
(I know, I know, just another bit of kindling..)
Cygwin32 doesn't do anything comparable. They produce a product that runs on top of the Win32 API, with all the compromises that involves. Softway Systems licensed the NT Source code in order to develop an entire Posix API layer that talks directly to the NT Kernel. I suspect that with some work, you could even set up an NT box to run NT and not have anything at all use Win32 except certain admin functions.
Almost any small package that I have tried builds and runs on Interix. Anything that will run, for example, on Linux and on BSD. Applications that are Linux-only are pretty bound to always be Linux-only. Almost anything else can be ported to run on Interix with minimal effort. It uses the GNU C Compiler, after all. In many cases porting simply involves running sh ./config and make .
Note that you end up with Posix applications, which can be run in textmode at a Posix prompt (various shells are present, Bash is available as source) or as an X application (displayed locally with eXceed, or remotely over the net on any machine with X. Interix will NOT build binaries that can be run at the regular Win32 command prompt.