No it isn't. It's about choices. The only people who whine about luck are people who make bad choices.
What kind of choice let Microsoft start in 1975 and Linux in 1991?
> stability, speed, price.
Those aren't graphical. How strange that what you call the important parts of the GUI, as opposed to the system, are actually parts of the system. Could it be that the Linux GUI has no redeeming value whatsoever, being nothing more than a half-assed copy of Mac and Windows concepts?
The GUI is part of the system. Beauty is subjective, stability, speed and price can be measured.
> If it's closed source, I could only take it's functionality.
Straw man. We're talking about whether one program can come from another even if it doesn't use any of the same source.
My opinion? No, it can't.
> That is "like", not "from".
Fallacy of the undistributed middle: the concepts are not mutually exclusive.
I wouldn't be so sure whether that middle is undistributed.
> Linux now does run on old hardware while > Microsoft's OS doesn't.
Well, yeah, it does. Because it doesn't do anything new. Everything it does today is pretty much the same stuff it was doing in 1994. There are subtleties and new applications, but fundamentally, it's pretty much the same O/S.
> Linux is getting better, Microsoft OS is > getting worse.
I think volume shadow copy rocks. Every time I show it to someone, they get excited about it. They're like kids. They say "Oh my GOD, that is SO COOL! Hey, Bob, come see this!" and Bob comes over and says "Holy shit, I wish I had that last month! Sharon, come see this!" and before you know it there are a dozen people crowded around the machine who are all but dancing in the aisles over this fantastic new feature.
I've never seen that with Linux. Have you?
Yes, XGL. Also, no crashes. The second is more amazing from the first if you ask me.
I mean, what the FUCK?! Your suspicion is beyong logic. Every man is innocent until proven to be guilty. And this is simply because we have no fucken clue that he did it.
Luck did. It's all about luck. Are you the son of a milionaire? No. Well, nobody prevented you.
No, I'm simply incapable of determining what differences matter to YOU.
Stability, security, reliability, speed, price. And just for the GUI: stability, speed, price.
If you write a utility that does the exact same thing as mine, and I know for a fact you have seen and used mine, did yours come from mine?
If it's closed source, I could only take it's functionality. See GDM and KDM (Gnome/KDE Display Manager). They are both immitating Microsoft's login.
If you write a utility that does the exact same thing as mine, and I know for a fact you have seen and used mine, did yours come from mine? You may not have used my code, but you used all my specifications - input, processing, output, indistinguishable. My utility was certainly your "origin, starting point, or initial reference". How is that not "from"?
That is "like", not "from".
Claiming Linux didn't run on them because they were old is just a straw man.
Maybe. But Linux now does run on old hardware while Microsoft's OS doesn't. Linux is getting better, Microsoft OS is getting worse.
Your choice. Trouble is, that "someone else" is not doing the same thing we're doing. Most people aren't satisfied with the "more reliable, and faster" competition, because it doesn't do what they want or need.
Indeed, you are correct. Lets see why. Some programs and games run only on Windows and cannot be emulated under Linux. Why do some programs and games run on Windows? Because most people have Windows. Why do most people have Windows? Because when the Personal Computer thing started, Microsoft was lucky enough to get that deal with IBM. Microsoft got the PC on it's birth. Think of the competition between the OSes like a race. The one who starts first gets the advantage.
Um... look at it. It's not like we're discussing deep system internals here, it's a GUI.
Ahh, you want to discuss only about asthetics. Aesthetics is a subjective issue such as art and cannot be measured. Innovation means bringing something that hasn't been seen before. Every piece of art is unique (even those immitating other) so if we wanted to use the word "innovation" on art, then all pieces of art are innovative. Nice, now you can get to put the word "innovation" next to "Microsoft".
All of the GNU utilities are 100% compatible drop-in replacements for UNIX utilities. They may not be the same code. They may not have used any of that code. But for all intents and purposes, they are identical to the UNIX utilities. The average user can't tell the difference. Did they build from the code? No. They built from the specification. But in the end, what exactly is the difference?
Here is my definition. And while we are on Slashdot, take a look at the dept. comment on this story: "depends-what-the-meaning-of-is-is". "From" is a really, really simple word.
I meant to say what you just did, the difference is that the code is not the same. That's the key point. They wrote it from scratch and didn't support 16-bit CPUs.
Yes, which is why GNU was certainly not written for Linux. It was written for UNIX.
No, GNU was and is meant for a full replacement.
There wasn't any 16-bit code *in* UNIX.
Let's make it easier. Back then Linux didn't run on old, 16-bit, CPUs, which were 6 years old when Linux first got out. Have you tried run Vista on a 6-year-old PC?
Would you prefer I do nothing, or something? Something is slower. I can do nothing really fast. Look, I'm done already.
There is someone else who is more reliable, and faster. You are out. Better luck next time.
> if everybody is just working on the same > ideas, then Microsoft didn't actually innovate?
Innovation isn't just about what you do, it's about how you do it.
How is Vista GUI different than OSX, XGL, and Looking Glass? Wait, it uses Direct3D for one. It is also much slower. Err... Am I forgeting anything?
> Linux doesn't contain any code from Unix, > it had to start from point zero.
That's a technicality. The Linux kernel started from point zero, but it relied on the GNU project to provide working utilities. They started from point zero, too, but on UNIX. Is the GNU project UNIX code? Technically, no; it's not code that was part of any UNIX vendor's offerings. But it certainly wasn't written for Linux - it was written for UNIX, which might conceivably be said to make it UNIX code.
And since it's rather subjective which point you make with it, most people make whichever point suits their purposes at the time, then switch to the other point whenever it seems to be advantageous.
They started from point zero, too, but on UNIX.
Yes, on Unix, not from Unix.
But it [GNU] certainly wasn't written for Linux - it was written for UNIX, which might conceivably be said to make it UNIX code.
Linux came after GNU. GNU's kernel is named Hurd and wasn't really anything great at that time. The GNU project has as a goal to create a Unix clone without using any Unix code. So any GNU code was not writen for Unix.
And since it's rather subjective which point you make with it, most people make whichever point suits their purposes at the time, then switch to the other point whenever it seems to be advantageous.
The point: that there wasn't any 16-bit code inherited from Unix to Linux. I remind you that we were talking about Linux supporting only 32-bit CPUs while the then-current Microsoft OS supported 16-bit CPUs.
for example, passwords are the perfect example of "acceptable" security through obscurity: they are useful only if the attacker doesn't know them.
The password is the data. The data can and should be remain closed. When we talk about security through obscurity we refer to the procedure, which is the executable code, the algorithm, what the hell the software does and how it does it.
I think that beeing dependent on the software vendor beats any advantage (if there are any) that closed-source may have.
Does the less that the Linux kernel does make a difference? There's a certain mindset that believes having lots of CPU, memory, and disk available is a Good Thing. There's a certain other mindset that classified this available CPU, memory, and disk as "wasted" and therefore a Bad Thing. Most people are somewhere in the middle.
Apparently yes, it's faster. Even you admited that with the Linux kernel more CPU and memory bandwidth are available. Sure, it's always a good thing to have lots of resources. But why waste them while I can put them to work?
Productivity sais take the best advantage of whatever you have. Why would I want slower? I guess, with your prespective I am on the second mindlset. But I would like to know what are the advantages of the first mindset.
It's the same damn idea people have been talking about for years. I understand there were at least three other companies working on the same concept while we were.
Ok, it's just that I have no way to confirm this. Therefore, I take it with a grain of salt. The only thing I know for sure is that OSX did this around 2001, Linux and Windows did something like this around 2006.
> Microsoft just copied it from them
Honestly, everybody's just working on the same damn ideas. There's no "copy from those guys" happening. We've been dreaming about the 3-D desktop since the days of VRML. Go watch "Johnny Mnemonic" - it's an incompetent vision, to be sure, but hardly stolen from Apple.
So... if everybody is just working on the same ideas, then Microsoft didn't actually innovate? And yes, it appears on cinema, but who brought it to the public?
But the Linux world is the UNIX world. Or is that only when it suits YOUR purposes? Twelve years old when you want to be fast, thirty when you want to be first?
The Linux world is the Unix world by the ideology of "do things the productive, secure, and modular way". Linux doesn't contain any code from Unix, it had to start from point zero.
Since the Linux kernel does not do as much as the Windows kernel (not in any way a value judgement), this is to be expected. More CPU and memory bandwidth are available to the game under Linux. This type of benchmark is shortsighted.
The Windows kernel does more? As a desktop user, or a company, will this more make a difference to me?
Translucent windows under X have been developed competently by at least four different teams before OSX. The feature is commonly requested and frequently attempted. Usually, people decide it's not worth the CPU hit. OSX and Vista are the first systems which have implemented this feature through hardware acceleration. Neither invented the idea. Neither is in any way visionary or brilliant for saying "hey, let's use this 3D hardware, then maybe performance won't be teh suck".
Not just translucent windows, check these screenshots:
There were such projects widely available before OSX? Can you tell me the names of these four projects? But even if there were, well, Microsoft just copied it from them.
We did 16-bit platforms when you people were laughing at us and saying "get a real computer". You don't get to bitch about it now that we've pushed you off most of your own home field.
Erm... how is this relevant? I doubt about the worth of providing software for a dying platform. By the time Linux started, 32-bit processors where on the loose for 6 years. Does any of Microsoft's today operating systems run smoothly on a 6-year-old computer? We are talking about running Win2003 (the latest server version) or Vista (the latest desktop version) on a Pentium2 or Pentium3 at 600MHz with 128MB of RAM. What logical person would attempt that? Yet, today, there are Linux distributions that can run really smooth on that machine (I own one in fact). Slackware and Debian to name two. So, Linux improved on vintage-PC support, while Microsoft detoriated.
I agree with you, but not entirely. The OLPC is not for countries that starve, it's for countries that can provide the necessities and just want to provide education education too. I am listening that some US states will be using OLPC.
Yes, but I didn't want to stop there. A game that uses OpenGL in both platforms, Windows and Linux, is faster on Linux.
So, by your saying, Microsoft is always ahead, right?
Yes, if you're just copying what we do. Since we do it before you copy it, and copying it takes nonzero time, we have a nonzero time to keep moving. Mathematically, you can never catch up, because you don't know what to copy until we release it.
You will hear a lot of people saying that Microsoft copied Macintosh. I am not going to take a position on that one. But with the Aero GUI, I think Microsoft tries to copy Mac OS X.
As far as your list goes, why don't we copy the Linux world more? Because... well, we don't want to. We do things when they're a good idea, not when someone else does them.
The Linux world is the Unix world. You now have symbolic links, and the Windows PowerShell (which, as I understand succedded the Windows Script Host). A handy security feature called User Account Control (UAC) which is a copy of the sudo command. And, of course, the hardware-accelarated GUI, with effects, an idea first implemented by Apple in their Mac OS X, then by Linux (Novel) in XGL and Beryl. Let's stay on the GUI for a moment. I tried the Aero Vista on my 3GHz CPU with 1GB RAM and an Nvidia 6800GT and it was barely acceptable, while a 1.6GHz CPU with 512MB RAM and a Nvidia GeForce 4 MX 400 was doing a great job rendering the effects of XGL, and from a liveCD. Talking about efficiency.
I'm talking about 100% Windows-compatible software, just like 100% IBM-compatible hardware. Linux isn't 100% Windows-compatible. If you want to compete with Windows, you can't do "everything Windows does". You have to do something different and call it better. You can't JUST be a copy. You have to be more than that.
Well, again, Windows is a closed API. There is nothing really that can replace Windows. Wine tries hard, but it's a painful and slow process. I am able to run a number of professional made-for-Windows programs and games with Wine and I am satisfied that even this facility is available. The only thing that Windows can do and Linux cannot do is run flawlessly software that was designed to run under Windows (this includes games).
Well, except for the part where it sucks, but you guys are working on that - right?;)
I know, I know. Linux is still more difficult than Windows. There has been a steady improvement over time with this. Additionally, it's different than Windows, so people who have been using Windows for a long time have a hard time learning Linux. For this, there is nothing that the community can do. Perhaps the best thing that one can do is unlearn.
Wasn't five years long enough? XP came out in 2001, DX9 in 2002, why couldn't the industry produce compatible alternatives over that five year period? Doesn't it seem reasonable to conclude that a market which couldn't produce alternatives in five years is not going to produce them at all?
No, it wasn't enough. Finding legal ways to emulate a closed API is difficult.
OpenGL is doing a wonderful job (just look at the upcomming Quake Wars) but most developers prefer Direct3D just because it's made by Microsoft (which also makes the OS that they make games).
Games that run on both, Windows and Linux, run faster on Linux. Bright examples: Doom3, Quake4, Unreal Tournament 2004. There are no anouncements of Unreal Engine 3 supporting OpenGL yet, but time will tell.
Microsoft are constantly innovating. A day doesn't go by that we don't have thousands of people looking at our products and saying "how do we make this better?" - because that's our job. That's not going to stop. Even if we wait ten years to produce an upgrade, we're going to be innovating and improving for that entire ten years.
This sounds like a commercial.
So if the industry does happen to produce a clone of our current generation, we just have to look back and find the last RTM-quality build. Then we dump it on the market, and your alternative immediately becomes obsolete. You may as well have never had one at all.
So, by your saying, Microsoft is always ahead, right? So...
1. Why is it that I cannot have a full recovery liveCD like I have with Linux? I am not refering just to Knoppix, Ubuntu 6.06 and 6.10 are liveCDs that probe your hardware and let you install if you would like. 2. Why is it that symbolic links only got introduced in Vista, when Unix-like system had them for ages? 3. Why is it that a firewall built into the OS was introduced in 2001 with WinXP? (or was it 2002 with the SP1?). 4. Why is it that so many programs require administrator rights to run? Yes, I know it's not your fault, but if you have introduced the limited-user account in the first place, we wouldn't have this phenomenon now. 5. Why can't I administer my system from the command-line? 6. Why isn't the OS modular, so if a part brakes, the rest remains so that I can repair it? (also see #4).
Copying other people is a road to failure. It doesn't lead anywhere else. It's the major reason companies don't want to go open source, because their competition could copy them more easily, and the open source community has a huge body of very intelligent explanations as to why this reason is STUPID. Copying doesn't work. It's a bad business model. It doesn't serve consumers.
The bussiness using FOSS are copying another company using FOSS? Isn't a company using Windows copies all other companies using Windows?
Besides, why would I buy a cheap copy of Windows instead of the real thing? After all, you get what you pay for - or, more precisely, you pay for what you get. What am I not getting when I buy this cheap Windows clone? Clearly I'm not getting SOMETHING, or it would cost the same.
This quote of yours reminds me of those people thinking that Windows is their computer. First of, there are Linux distributions that you can get at no cost. And I don't mean just to download, do you know Ubuntu ShipIt?. Most of the times, when you pay for Linux, it's because of the technical support included. Second, when you are buying (or otherwise, getting) a Linux distribution you are not buying a Windows clone, you are buying another OS. Perhaps working for Microsoft makes you seeing every other OS like a substitute, but for the rest of us, it's high-quality OS that can do more than Windows can. It's more stable, more secure, and more reliable.
That wasn't floppy's fault, it was the fault of the people who designed the installer. I have seen better installers (Doom2 comes into mind). Couldn't you just copy all the floppies on the hard drive and install from there? (if you answer no, they again it's the fault of the designers')
"Registrars play a huge part in keeping the internet safe."
They really shouldn't. Registars are just corporations, and corporations care only for (maximizing) profit (or market share).
"How do you think phishing sites like c1tybank.com would get removed from DNS, or at least taken away from the scammers?"
With Anti-Phishing of course. I am against for letting the registar take care of such things. However, the registar should be able to bring such issues to the attention of a and authority or committee.
Nothing. There is no evidence. I am not in possition to know if a computer, animal or incect can be conscious. Personally, I think that consciousness is gained gradually in an analogy with the complexity of brain (so no black-or-white examples like the one you said). No idea about artificial consciousness.
There is no way I can experience how it is to be an animal, an insect, or a machine. Therefore, I cannot say. But, I know that if a machine will be able to achieve consciousness, it will only be because a human programmer has (successfully) applied a pshychological model made by a human psychologist/psychiatrist. Or, humans will be able to set in activity the first machine that will be able to expand beyond it's capacity, and therefore, reaching consciousness. Again, the credit goes to the humans that set it so. And there is one final posibility, the one of malfunction: humans set a machine in activity, and only by mistake that machine can expand itself. In any case, humans are responsible for the new consciousness.
What matters, in order to convince humans, is that it will look, feel, "smell" conscious, not that it will will actually have to be.
From the summary: "If Windows sucks soooo much, how come more people are familiar with it than Mac OS X? Last time I checked, Windows wasn't just a business operating system. Tons upon tons of people use it and like it.'"
Because once uppon a time Microsoft made a nice deal with IBM? And because from the point they became a monopoly (they got personal computing, a virgin market, on it's birth) they have been intimidating everybody else in the market? (OEMs to name one)
First, I did say "as far as I understand". Even if there is no state in Communism, the point remains that in the free market is not let up to decide what is been produced, how much, and where it will be distributed.
Yes. And as far as I understand, comparing communism with democracy is like comparing oranged with potatoes [1]. Communism means that the state handles the production and distribution of goods, the private sector is small (barbers, bakers, etc). Democracy means that the people can elect their government. A democratic society can also be a communist society, the people elect the government that will handle the production and distribution of goods.
Now, the problem is that when people hear the word "communism", they think of either Russia (the former Soviet Union) or China. Both states were not democratic (for different reasons each: Russia had the Czar before and I don't know about China).
Some of the games that I have played (and enjoyed) include Carmageddon, Doom, Doom2, Unreal Tournament, Quake3, Return to Castle Wolfenstein, Unreal Tournament 2004, Doom3. After all this virtual blood, I can't hurt an ant and I can't stand to even see violence in real.
Some people just don't get it. Real violence is one thing, virtual is another.
And it's not like that violence in movies can be as (or more) graphic as in video/computer games, right? Not that violence in Germany wasn't present before video games either (WWII).
Slashdot Mirror
What kind of choice let Microsoft start in 1975 and Linux in 1991?
The GUI is part of the system. Beauty is subjective, stability, speed and price can be measured.
My opinion? No, it can't.
I wouldn't be so sure whether that middle is undistributed.
Why don't you check a changelog?
Yes, XGL. Also, no crashes. The second is more amazing from the first if you ask me.
I mean, what the FUCK?! Your suspicion is beyong logic. Every man is innocent until proven to be guilty. And this is simply because we have no fucken clue that he did it.
Luck did. It's all about luck. Are you the son of a milionaire? No. Well, nobody prevented you.
Stability, security, reliability, speed, price. And just for the GUI: stability, speed, price.
If it's closed source, I could only take it's functionality. See GDM and KDM (Gnome/KDE Display Manager). They are both immitating Microsoft's login.
That is "like", not "from".
Maybe. But Linux now does run on old hardware while Microsoft's OS doesn't. Linux is getting better, Microsoft OS is getting worse.
Indeed, you are correct. Lets see why. Some programs and games run only on Windows and cannot be emulated under Linux. Why do some programs and games run on Windows? Because most people have Windows. Why do most people have Windows? Because when the Personal Computer thing started, Microsoft was lucky enough to get that deal with IBM. Microsoft got the PC on it's birth. Think of the competition between the OSes like a race. The one who starts first gets the advantage.
Ahh, you want to discuss only about asthetics. Aesthetics is a subjective issue such as art and cannot be measured. Innovation means bringing something that hasn't been seen before. Every piece of art is unique (even those immitating other) so if we wanted to use the word "innovation" on art, then all pieces of art are innovative. Nice, now you can get to put the word "innovation" next to "Microsoft".
Here is my definition. And while we are on Slashdot, take a look at the dept. comment on this story: "depends-what-the-meaning-of-is-is". "From" is a really, really simple word.
I meant to say what you just did, the difference is that the code is not the same. That's the key point. They wrote it from scratch and didn't support 16-bit CPUs.
No, GNU was and is meant for a full replacement.
Let's make it easier. Back then Linux didn't run on old, 16-bit, CPUs, which were 6 years old when Linux first got out. Have you tried run Vista on a 6-year-old PC?
There is someone else who is more reliable, and faster. You are out. Better luck next time.
How is Vista GUI different than OSX, XGL, and Looking Glass? Wait, it uses Direct3D for one. It is also much slower. Err... Am I forgeting anything?
Yes, on Unix, not from Unix.
Linux came after GNU. GNU's kernel is named Hurd and wasn't really anything great at that time. The GNU project has as a goal to create a Unix clone without using any Unix code. So any GNU code was not writen for Unix.
The point: that there wasn't any 16-bit code inherited from Unix to Linux. I remind you that we were talking about Linux supporting only 32-bit CPUs while the then-current Microsoft OS supported 16-bit CPUs.
I think that beeing dependent on the software vendor beats any advantage (if there are any) that closed-source may have.
Productivity sais take the best advantage of whatever you have. Why would I want slower? I guess, with your prespective I am on the second mindlset. But I would like to know what are the advantages of the first mindset. Ok, it's just that I have no way to confirm this. Therefore, I take it with a grain of salt. The only thing I know for sure is that OSX did this around 2001, Linux and Windows did something like this around 2006. So... if everybody is just working on the same ideas, then Microsoft didn't actually innovate? And yes, it appears on cinema, but who brought it to the public? The Linux world is the Unix world by the ideology of "do things the productive, secure, and modular way". Linux doesn't contain any code from Unix, it had to start from point zero.
http://www.zacbowling.com/monodevelop/Desktops/XG
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Compiz_quinn_0
http://www.pro-linux.de/NB2/images/indiv/xgl-shot
http://people.freedesktop.org/~davidr/xgl-compiz-
http://www.idi.ntnu.no/~romnes/xgl.png
http://www.programujte.com/galerie/200606241551_T
http://andy.brisgeek.com/files/xgl-screenshot2.jp
There were such projects widely available before OSX? Can you tell me the names of these four projects? But even if there were, well, Microsoft just copied it from them. Erm... how is this relevant? I doubt about the worth of providing software for a dying platform. By the time Linux started, 32-bit processors where on the loose for 6 years. Does any of Microsoft's today operating systems run smoothly on a 6-year-old computer? We are talking about running Win2003 (the latest server version) or Vista (the latest desktop version) on a Pentium2 or Pentium3 at 600MHz with 128MB of RAM. What logical person would attempt that? Yet, today, there are Linux distributions that can run really smooth on that machine (I own one in fact). Slackware and Debian to name two. So, Linux improved on vintage-PC support, while Microsoft detoriated.
I agree with you, but not entirely. The OLPC is not for countries that starve, it's for countries that can provide the necessities and just want to provide education education too. I am listening that some US states will be using OLPC.
Money is a necessary assumption for happyness, but not sufficient.
OpenGL is doing a wonderful job (just look at the upcomming Quake Wars) but most developers prefer Direct3D just because it's made by Microsoft (which also makes the OS that they make games).
Games that run on both, Windows and Linux, run faster on Linux. Bright examples: Doom3, Quake4, Unreal Tournament 2004. There are no anouncements of Unreal Engine 3 supporting OpenGL yet, but time will tell. This sounds like a commercial. So, by your saying, Microsoft is always ahead, right? So...
1. Why is it that I cannot have a full recovery liveCD like I have with Linux? I am not refering just to Knoppix, Ubuntu 6.06 and 6.10 are liveCDs that probe your hardware and let you install if you would like.
2. Why is it that symbolic links only got introduced in Vista, when Unix-like system had them for ages?
3. Why is it that a firewall built into the OS was introduced in 2001 with WinXP? (or was it 2002 with the SP1?).
4. Why is it that so many programs require administrator rights to run? Yes, I know it's not your fault, but if you have introduced the limited-user account in the first place, we wouldn't have this phenomenon now.
5. Why can't I administer my system from the command-line?
6. Why isn't the OS modular, so if a part brakes, the rest remains so that I can repair it? (also see #4). The bussiness using FOSS are copying another company using FOSS? Isn't a company using Windows copies all other companies using Windows? This quote of yours reminds me of those people thinking that Windows is their computer. First of, there are Linux distributions that you can get at no cost. And I don't mean just to download, do you know Ubuntu ShipIt?. Most of the times, when you pay for Linux, it's because of the technical support included. Second, when you are buying (or otherwise, getting) a Linux distribution you are not buying a Windows clone, you are buying another OS. Perhaps working for Microsoft makes you seeing every other OS like a substitute, but for the rest of us, it's high-quality OS that can do more than Windows can. It's more stable, more secure, and more reliable.
"Can't use them on a dimmer controlled circuit"
/ h tm
Yes you can!:
http://www.grist.org/advice/ask/2006/06/07/dimmer
http://www.eartheasy.com/live_energyeff_lighting.
That wasn't floppy's fault, it was the fault of the people who designed the installer. I have seen better installers (Doom2 comes into mind). Couldn't you just copy all the floppies on the hard drive and install from there? (if you answer no, they again it's the fault of the designers')
"Registrars play a huge part in keeping the internet safe."
They really shouldn't. Registars are just corporations, and corporations care only for (maximizing) profit (or market share).
"How do you think phishing sites like c1tybank.com would get removed from DNS, or at least taken away from the scammers?"
With Anti-Phishing of course. I am against for letting the registar take care of such things. However, the registar should be able to bring such issues to the attention of a and authority or committee.
1. It is not your job to keep the Internet safe, your job is to keep a domain. You will be ordered to take a domain down with a court order.
2. That list of MySpace users is available at several full-disclosure lists. Taking down SecLists.org doesn't change anything.
3. Your customer has e-mail logs to prove his side of the story. Do you?
Nothing. There is no evidence. I am not in possition to know if a computer, animal or incect can be conscious. Personally, I think that consciousness is gained gradually in an analogy with the complexity of brain (so no black-or-white examples like the one you said). No idea about artificial consciousness.
There is no way I can experience how it is to be an animal, an insect, or a machine. Therefore, I cannot say. But, I know that if a machine will be able to achieve consciousness, it will only be because a human programmer has (successfully) applied a pshychological model made by a human psychologist/psychiatrist. Or, humans will be able to set in activity the first machine that will be able to expand beyond it's capacity, and therefore, reaching consciousness. Again, the credit goes to the humans that set it so. And there is one final posibility, the one of malfunction: humans set a machine in activity, and only by mistake that machine can expand itself. In any case, humans are responsible for the new consciousness.
What matters, in order to convince humans, is that it will look, feel, "smell" conscious, not that it will will actually have to be.
Is there something that makes you think that we are not conscious? Or that we are just an incredibly complicated series of IF..THEN statements?
I don't know about Emacs, but someone made a JavaScript terminal which contains a version of VI (striped-down albeit)
From the summary: "If Windows sucks soooo much, how come more people are familiar with it than Mac OS X? Last time I checked, Windows wasn't just a business operating system. Tons upon tons of people use it and like it.'"
Because once uppon a time Microsoft made a nice deal with IBM? And because from the point they became a monopoly (they got personal computing, a virgin market, on it's birth) they have been intimidating everybody else in the market? (OEMs to name one)
Indeed. But I was refering to cow's milk.
Milk and fruits is a nice combination of proteins and hydrocarbonites. Healthy, easy, fast.
First, I did say "as far as I understand". Even if there is no state in Communism, the point remains that in the free market is not let up to decide what is been produced, how much, and where it will be distributed.
Yes. And as far as I understand, comparing communism with democracy is like comparing oranged with potatoes [1]. Communism means that the state handles the production and distribution of goods, the private sector is small (barbers, bakers, etc). Democracy means that the people can elect their government. A democratic society can also be a communist society, the people elect the government that will handle the production and distribution of goods.
:-P
Now, the problem is that when people hear the word "communism", they think of either Russia (the former Soviet Union) or China. Both states were not democratic (for different reasons each: Russia had the Czar before and I don't know about China).
--
[1] lets leave Apples outside of this
Some of the games that I have played (and enjoyed) include Carmageddon, Doom, Doom2, Unreal Tournament, Quake3, Return to Castle Wolfenstein, Unreal Tournament 2004, Doom3. After all this virtual blood, I can't hurt an ant and I can't stand to even see violence in real.
Some people just don't get it. Real violence is one thing, virtual is another.
And it's not like that violence in movies can be as (or more) graphic as in video/computer games, right? Not that violence in Germany wasn't present before video games either (WWII).