Of course the spreading of disease in the new-world was terrible beyond imagination. Something that I feel is often overlooked in modern history. Native Americans did not have any type of inherited resistance, or medical experience/understanding, against the new diseases, so they died in their millions(apparently, though I would really like any links or reference to anyone that has done serious research on the subject; if anyone knows). As I understand it the prime killers there where; smallpox, measles, influenza and typhoid. In the end probably killing more native Americans than died in violent conflict with the invading Europeans.
However, while I do not thing such a thing is going to happen in our day and age. Mostly due to the fact that modern means of transportation has spread many disease through the world already, at various paces. And our immune system, and medical establishment, have had a good long time to study and eradicate. Still, there are a few nasties out there, and probably a few we don't know much about (diseases evolve to). So any type of precaution would be good. Preferably not to gather that many people together in one place at all, but since that is unavoidable; they should at least give the matter serious consideration.
I guess a gathering of people from all over the world, who stay for a while then go back home, does provide a certain degree of danger when it comes to spreading any type of contagious disease.
Norway has directly invested the money made from our oil resources into our infrastructure. And before the oil platforms made a profit we received loans from a lot of other countries; with security in the oil. It is far from perfect, but the profit from the oil is considered to belong to the people and should therefor be used to build, and provide services, that benefits all. In practical terms this meant that in the sixties, seventies and eighties we build schools, medical facilities, phone lines, roads and started providing free (well almost) medical care for all citizens and public scholarship and loan to all that gained entry to a university or academy (and gaining access have been uncriticized as being too easy).
Newest policy of the state is that at the end of 2007 98% of the population should have access to broadband, and hopefully 100% at the end of 2008 (we have some spots with low population that is kinda hard to reach; but we are getting there). Of course access don't mean that it is free, you still have to pay for it, but at least if you wanted a connection you could have one.
I am not trying to make any type of point with this really. Just make a bit of an explanation before I replied; Norway subsidized their Telecompany to create the infrastructure; though at the time the Telco was operated by the state. Today it is partly privatized with the state still owning a minor controlling part (I think the term is).
The time spent campaigning to get ISO to change would be better spent coming up with APIs and utilities to enable developers to more easily create OOXML files. Neither format is going to go out of usage because of ISO's decision so the best solution for everyone is to support both formats as best as possible. Thew view held my many is that supporting both formants is counterproductive and benefits no one but Microsoft in the end.
As for this civil action. I don't think they have a leg to stand on. What I know of the BSI (who are very well respected) is that they don't come to decisions lightly. There's no real evidence their process was flawed. I can not speak for BSI, who I have little familiarity with, but there is reports from both Norway and Sweden about vote manipulation. And so far there has been little to no official review of these cases; http://stupid.domain.name/node/382 And the technical leader for Standard Norge (the body responsible for Norways ISO vote) quit in protest after the decision. Because of what he called unethical behavior.
Further more there has been other allegations against the process; like new countries joining the ISO and only voting in this one case. It would be undemocratic to at least not have a serious review of the process and the core truths of the case; starting with ones own country. I applaud the UKUUG.
I suddenly envisaged this comment on the CCN forum (if there even is one). "This is whiney trivial crap.... 10,000 news-worthy things happen every day". "This is the Cable News Network; we're reserve the right to select and present the news we want. Are you not aware of what site you are posting a comment on?"
We are crying because ISO made ODF a standard and then they made OOXML a standard because somehow Microsoft convinced ISO that ODF and OOXMl were two different things and that there wouldn't be a conflict. So now we have two standards for storing documents; except one is out there being used; the other is as of yet more or less unused and unseen.
Not to mention that having two document standards is a conflict of terminology.
If the people over at the ISO have any level of logic left within their collective, they would have some respect for ODF and the people who worked on it and drop it. It is impossible for ODF to exist favorably in the face of of MS-OOXML for several, non-technical reasons I would like to see what arguments you have behind these "non-technical reasons". Because as I understand it ODF is an Open Standard and a vastly better choice for education and library services; since it is a standard that does not require you to have expensive Microsoft software. The Minister of Government Administration and Reform in Norway has declared that ODF and other open standards and products will be used predominantly in Norwegian Education, Public Services and Administration. Simply because it is the standard most suited to the needs of the people (free, available, solid).
And perhaps because those that might want them to fail just don't have the technical in sight, at least not until later, on how to stop them.
Or perhaps it's because many technologies are still at an early stage of their potential, and that those with insight and drive manage to find new areas from which they can make a profit. Not to mention the opening of new world markets where innovative companies might find opportunities overlooked by older, more established corporations.
I love it. At the end of the video when the robot has just about reassembled itself, the narrator says the robot will complete its task. The robot then promptly falls over.:-) Trying to give us a false sense of security no doubt.
After decades as a way for humans to release tension, by kicking them; one day they shall form together and assemble into a massive re-assembling mass. Our only hope is to begin researching advance kicking and boot technology now!
(Is there some reason that a fork is necessary? Can't they just maintain a plugin instead?) When two factions believe that their way is absolutely right, and that the way proposed by another party is absolutely false; a split is inevitable. Perhaps both of them will fail, or perhaps not. Hopefully whatever happens everyone will learn an important lesson about life, the universe, and everything (yeah right!).
I was more thinking along the lines that if there is a fork over this; one with the feature and one without the feature; then the user is able to chose. In which case I see two possible outcomes. One where one of the products fail, because of lack of support, and one where both gain enough users to keep the products going.
Indeed. Being able to customize your interface to whatever you find most practical and useful is something I really appreciate, were available, and really miss, were it's lacking.
I would argue that there are many different ways to see, edit and input information; and some prefer one and others another. Giving people the ability to chose is definitively a good feature in any product.
Internet is about to leave it's child stage and enter its rebellious teens. Soon it will be locked in its room playing GTA and Guitar Hero; and it always smells of incense.
Because if processing power goes up way past what you generally need for even heavy apps, Nvidia still want you to believe that you need a separate graphics card. If that model were to change at some point it would be death for graphics card manufacturers. Of course, they could very well be right. What the hell do I know:P
I do not know if this is also true in my country, though I expect that it is so. However, that would entail that I list all my accounts somewhere while I am still alive something I generally disagree with. That being said this is probably exactly what I will do, when I get around to it (hey I am young, I got alllll the time in the world;)
I disagree. Personally I consider the wished of the decease to be paramount. Yes I do know that when you are dead it's supposed to not matter. But I really believe that when it comes to my accounts (wherever they are) is not something my family have any right to open; even if I die accidentally without any warning.
Of course I realize people differ on this matter, but at the end of the day the wishes of the deceased should be honored. If I don't want anyone to go through my accounts, that should be honored; and if someone else have no objection to that; then that should be honored.
Personally nothing would make me happier if I could arrange for some sort of death switch. So the moment I was utterly and permanently dead all my hard drives would fry and all my email accounts would be deleted. For me, personally, I really can't see any need for my family or friends to snoop around in my private files and notes. Not to mention that I don't want anyone to gain access to my rather indecent amount of freakazoid p0rn.
I guess some independently run online database could be made where every piece of music you buy is registered; so you can download a new copy whenever you want, or need one. However, I do not feel it is right to keep such registers as they could far too easily be abused by persons or entities with malicious intent.
Whatever is to be done I am sure that a total re-evaluation of the rules, regulations and concepts that form the basis of the current music industry is necessary. The technological advances of the last years and decades have moved us into territory not foreseen when many of the laws in effect where drafted.
I believe that this is just another sign that the RIAA's backers is still trying to maintain a business model that is clearly failing in the face of modern technological, and perhaps social, realities. We can debate back and forth about technicalities in the law, but what it really comes down to that distributing music the way it has been done for so long is no longer viable. People want another system; a better system. Of course I am no expert, I offer no alternative.. But I do believe another system could be created, (or perhaps is already being created in many minor ways) that could benefit musicians, consumers and those that are needed in between.
At least I think that serious consideration upon that issue should be made, and I am sad to say, the current establishment seem reluctant to do it. However, sooner or later, I am sure, a new way will emerge. People want to make music, and people want to listen, it is not a very difficult concept underneath it all. What is needed is something that is viable, acceptable and fair to all parts involved.
Ah these are facts I will not dispute. I just figured that an USB device that "can dramatically cut the time it takes to gather digital evidence," would aid those with malicious intent as much as the authorities (that always have your best interests in mind; honest!).;)
Slashdot Mirror
Of course the spreading of disease in the new-world was terrible beyond imagination. Something that I feel is often overlooked in modern history. Native Americans did not have any type of inherited resistance, or medical experience/understanding, against the new diseases, so they died in their millions(apparently, though I would really like any links or reference to anyone that has done serious research on the subject; if anyone knows). As I understand it the prime killers there where; smallpox, measles, influenza and typhoid. In the end probably killing more native Americans than died in violent conflict with the invading Europeans.
However, while I do not thing such a thing is going to happen in our day and age. Mostly due to the fact that modern means of transportation has spread many disease through the world already, at various paces. And our immune system, and medical establishment, have had a good long time to study and eradicate. Still, there are a few nasties out there, and probably a few we don't know much about (diseases evolve to). So any type of precaution would be good. Preferably not to gather that many people together in one place at all, but since that is unavoidable; they should at least give the matter serious consideration.
I guess a gathering of people from all over the world, who stay for a while then go back home, does provide a certain degree of danger when it comes to spreading any type of contagious disease.
I wonder how, price and resource related, running fiber through the US compares to running fiber across the ocean.
I still reckon that giving everyone in the US broadband would cost less than the current price per month of War.
Norway has directly invested the money made from our oil resources into our infrastructure. And before the oil platforms made a profit we received loans from a lot of other countries; with security in the oil. It is far from perfect, but the profit from the oil is considered to belong to the people and should therefor be used to build, and provide services, that benefits all. In practical terms this meant that in the sixties, seventies and eighties we build schools, medical facilities, phone lines, roads and started providing free (well almost) medical care for all citizens and public scholarship and loan to all that gained entry to a university or academy (and gaining access have been uncriticized as being too easy).
Newest policy of the state is that at the end of 2007 98% of the population should have access to broadband, and hopefully 100% at the end of 2008 (we have some spots with low population that is kinda hard to reach; but we are getting there). Of course access don't mean that it is free, you still have to pay for it, but at least if you wanted a connection you could have one.
I am not trying to make any type of point with this really. Just make a bit of an explanation before I replied; Norway subsidized their Telecompany to create the infrastructure; though at the time the Telco was operated by the state. Today it is partly privatized with the state still owning a minor controlling part (I think the term is).
As for this civil action. I don't think they have a leg to stand on. What I know of the BSI (who are very well respected) is that they don't come to decisions lightly. There's no real evidence their process was flawed. I can not speak for BSI, who I have little familiarity with, but there is reports from both Norway and Sweden about vote manipulation. And so far there has been little to no official review of these cases;
http://stupid.domain.name/node/382
And the technical leader for Standard Norge (the body responsible for Norways ISO vote) quit in protest after the decision. Because of what he called unethical behavior.
Further more there has been other allegations against the process; like new countries joining the ISO and only voting in this one case. It would be undemocratic to at least not have a serious review of the process and the core truths of the case; starting with ones own country. I applaud the UKUUG.
I suddenly envisaged this comment on the CCN forum (if there even is one). "This is whiney trivial crap.... 10,000 news-worthy things happen every day".
:P
"This is the Cable News Network; we're reserve the right to select and present the news we want. Are you not aware of what site you are posting a comment on?"
Sorry, total digression; but it made me laugh
We are crying because ISO made ODF a standard and then they made OOXML a standard because somehow Microsoft convinced ISO that ODF and OOXMl were two different things and that there wouldn't be a conflict. So now we have two standards for storing documents; except one is out there being used; the other is as of yet more or less unused and unseen.
Not to mention that having two document standards is a conflict of terminology.
And perhaps because those that might want them to fail just don't have the technical in sight, at least not until later, on how to stop them.
Or perhaps it's because many technologies are still at an early stage of their potential, and that those with insight and drive manage to find new areas from which they can make a profit. Not to mention the opening of new world markets where innovative companies might find opportunities overlooked by older, more established corporations.
After decades as a way for humans to release tension, by kicking them; one day they shall form together and assemble into a massive re-assembling mass. Our only hope is to begin researching advance kicking and boot technology now!
I wonder if this impacts the security risk of just running Flash Scripts indiscriminately (love NoScript).
I was more thinking along the lines that if there is a fork over this; one with the feature and one without the feature; then the user is able to chose. In which case I see two possible outcomes. One where one of the products fail, because of lack of support, and one where both gain enough users to keep the products going.
True. But who should decide the right way? The developers or the people using the product?
Indeed. Being able to customize your interface to whatever you find most practical and useful is something I really appreciate, were available, and really miss, were it's lacking.
I would argue that there are many different ways to see, edit and input information; and some prefer one and others another. Giving people the ability to chose is definitively a good feature in any product.
Internet is about to leave it's child stage and enter its rebellious teens. Soon it will be locked in its room playing GTA and Guitar Hero; and it always smells of incense.
Because if processing power goes up way past what you generally need for even heavy apps, Nvidia still want you to believe that you need a separate graphics card. If that model were to change at some point it would be death for graphics card manufacturers. Of course, they could very well be right. What the hell do I know :P
I do not know if this is also true in my country, though I expect that it is so. However, that would entail that I list all my accounts somewhere while I am still alive something I generally disagree with. That being said this is probably exactly what I will do, when I get around to it (hey I am young, I got alllll the time in the world ;)
I disagree. Personally I consider the wished of the decease to be paramount. Yes I do know that when you are dead it's supposed to not matter. But I really believe that when it comes to my accounts (wherever they are) is not something my family have any right to open; even if I die accidentally without any warning.
Of course I realize people differ on this matter, but at the end of the day the wishes of the deceased should be honored. If I don't want anyone to go through my accounts, that should be honored; and if someone else have no objection to that; then that should be honored.
Personally nothing would make me happier if I could arrange for some sort of death switch. So the moment I was utterly and permanently dead all my hard drives would fry and all my email accounts would be deleted. For me, personally, I really can't see any need for my family or friends to snoop around in my private files and notes. Not to mention that I don't want anyone to gain access to my rather indecent amount of freakazoid p0rn.
I guess some independently run online database could be made where every piece of music you buy is registered; so you can download a new copy whenever you want, or need one. However, I do not feel it is right to keep such registers as they could far too easily be abused by persons or entities with malicious intent.
Whatever is to be done I am sure that a total re-evaluation of the rules, regulations and concepts that form the basis of the current music industry is necessary. The technological advances of the last years and decades have moved us into territory not foreseen when many of the laws in effect where drafted.
I believe that this is just another sign that the RIAA's backers is still trying to maintain a business model that is clearly failing in the face of modern technological, and perhaps social, realities. We can debate back and forth about technicalities in the law, but what it really comes down to that distributing music the way it has been done for so long is no longer viable. People want another system; a better system. Of course I am no expert, I offer no alternative.. But I do believe another system could be created, (or perhaps is already being created in many minor ways) that could benefit musicians, consumers and those that are needed in between.
At least I think that serious consideration upon that issue should be made, and I am sad to say, the current establishment seem reluctant to do it. However, sooner or later, I am sure, a new way will emerge. People want to make music, and people want to listen, it is not a very difficult concept underneath it all. What is needed is something that is viable, acceptable and fair to all parts involved.
Ah these are facts I will not dispute. I just figured that an USB device that "can dramatically cut the time it takes to gather digital evidence," would aid those with malicious intent as much as the authorities (that always have your best interests in mind; honest!). ;)
I am sure they are already easily available at a market in Kairo.