Amen, brother. Besides, the standard is power-of-two multiples. So, if people want to deviate from te standard, let them use a different word. I propose Mediabytes (1,000,000 bytes) and Greediabytes (a billion).
Likewise I would like a penny for every faulty URL, per copy. That would probably teach everyone that www.somewhe.re in itself is meaningless, or at least not an URL.
And will hard drive manufacturors decide to stop lying...?
Wrong question: when will corporations stop lying? Answer: when it stops being (seemingly) lucrative.
I mean, we all know that under this USA government no serious measures will be taken against Microsofts law breaking policies and actions. It's nice that some states are still holding out, but that will also soon end as soon as enough political palms are greased in an unobtrusive manner.
The only real way to break Microsofts monopoly is to force and enforce their disclosing their "standards" (and I don't mean business atandards), and to follow the standards laid out by others, primarily the RFCs and such, if they choose to use those standards. (SMTP, etc.)
And it may be a good idea to have an inquiry by a committee of GPL'ed people to look over the code of Microsoft products and point out the parts of the code that are used from open source and have an independant, expert committee reporting to a judge to see if Microsoft has done a baddie there.
But this MS Office bit, that don't impress me much, won't keep me warm in the long, cold...
Sorry, got distracted there.
The federal courts are equipped to handle cyber-terrorism or threats. In fact, they already handle a very similar thing: mail fraud.
Precisely. And I think the only logical and acceptable legislation specifically concerning internet is the extension of existing snailmail and telephone(/-graph) laws. There is not much going on on the internet that has never been done before in another context, so simply extend the appropriate legislation to the similar internet instances, instead of inventing new, outrageously farreaching laws so you can later apply these new powers to the older similar laws.
Because that is going to happen. "Hey look, we can enter and search any packet or computer on the internet, without as much as a warrant, we should have that right with respect to... (mail/telephones/houses/pick a thing, anything) as well!". That kind of thing.
But from the surface, if you expect an ICC or an entity like it to be the supreme arbiter of such matters, the ensuing loss of sovereignty that the US as a nation could expect makes it politically unfeasible. Anything that would infringe on the US Supreme Court's role would effectively require US Constitutional amendments which would require 2/3rds majority in both houses of our congress, as well as approval by 3/4ths of our 50 states.
Well, the systems are not at all that different, here in the Netherlands a change of the constitution takes 2/3 majority of both chambers and then again of the combined chambers. The big difference lies in the fact, that we don't have a head of state with extraordinary powers, if so granted by the parliaments. Those powers go to the cabinet, if granted, which is a groups of people. And with the International court of Justice, a similar institution, these problems did not arise. Why?
I honestly feel a lot of the US/european popular citizenry political rifts come from poor European understanding of how our governmental systems work. Our heavy systems of checks and balances require for reaching changes such as constitutional amendments to take *years* for approval. Europeans should not have been aghast at Bush's views on Kyoto - a few years ago when the Senate (the upper body of our congress who controls the power to approve international treaties by a 2/3rds vote) took an incredibly unpositive view of it = it was effectively screwed in the US.
That's a big difference between the UK and the US on one side, and the Netherlands on the other: the Netherlands is a truely multi-party country, whereas the US and the UK are in effect two party countries. So then, president Bush, representing not the majority in the country, but getting elected by a majority in the voting system, gets to nuke a necessary treaty, which is unpopular with certain rich parties, whom he likes and gets money from, and the planet can go to hell.
We do not have a parliamentary system like the UK (I am not familiar enough on continental variances in parliamentary systems to adequately discuss) where the current sitting body can with a majority vote enact far reaching constitutional change. The US and Europe simply have far different ideas of soveriegnty. Although the average American has no idea as to what the European Union entails, I rest assured that they would be generally horrified at the type of far reaching powers that the EU is garnering.
There lies the rub. Whereas we would not put all our faith in a single person at any time, having done so in the past with ofttimes unpleasant effect, we now sport monarchs with little or no say to any effect.
But you say Americans would be afraid of the kind of powers the EU is garnering, but in what sense do they outreach the powers the US president can have? I grant you that the democratic content of the EU is still too low, but the European Union is still a child being born, like once the USA were born.And have no fear, that the democratic content will be insufficient when the child is there. We will brook no nonsene on that part.
Anyhow, I wouldn't hold much stock in the Taliban's faith in international organizations:
No, but that was not my point, the point was, that not all the peaceful paths had been taken. Also, the path of letting the more sensible Arab and/or muslim countries do the job, with help, seems to have been neglected.
Well, its been several weeks now, and our government has looked for the most peaceful solution possible.
The most peaceful solution would have been a trial of Osama bin Laden (or the Taliban for aiding him) at the International Criminal Court in the Hague, which will be opened in 2003. But, alas, the United States can do no such thing, because they did not want to sign the appriopriate treaty
for fear of getting to be accused themselves. As if the International court of Justice were incapable of delivering true justice, or is the real fear of being rightly accused? I don't know, I only know the USA is one of very,
very few (only seven countries voted against it) in not signing that treaty. And it worries me.
You've created a fallacious false dilemma--as if the only two options were "support the US government" or "support bin Laden."
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it George W. Bush who created that? "Either you're with us, or you are against us." At least, that's what I gleaned from my own newspaper, the Dutch "de Volkskrant". Alas, I can't find the reference, neither in the dead tree nor on the internet. So it may be wrong.
It is hard to sell commercials without an existing user base. Once you have the customers, than you can zap them with ads.
<NIT>You mean "products" instead of "commercials".</NIT> But I think you're wrong. Lots of modern products otherwise would now not exist. For example, the video-recorder would never have gotten off the ground without a lot of advertising. And do I assume correctly, that existing radio-listeners do not constitute a valid user base in your book? Would you care to clarify your statement?
Agreed. There might have been a good point here, but now I'm forced to throw out most of what he said because he's thrown his motives into doubt, and thus the credibility of his facts and interpretations.
So you'd prefer to let your civil liberties to be taken away from you, simply because the man who called your attention to it referred to an incident, where you disagree that a similar instance occurred? That's what I call... No, lets not go there. Let me just say, that I'm glad I can think more clearly.
Subject: Re:Taco, we need new moderation categories
like -1 Dumbass for example
True, but why only name your own category?
Off the top of my head:
Tried to be funny, but failed: -1
Might be true, might be insiteful, but I don't wanna hear it, d'ya hear!: -1.
Eye don' like some bludy furriner critisizing my true blue, lone star, 'merican views: -1
Can't think, can't spell, can annoy a little: -1.
Aaim two bloody boozed up two care: random(-1,0,+1)
And for metamoderation
Moderator might find it insightful, and from their point of view it might be, but their point of view is off.
It is offtopic, but it raises an important point which can never be addressed, unless such a discussion would be started, which might happen when pigs go aviatory.
Ok, if i'd really think about it I would come up with more, and only serious ones, but I'll stop for the nonce.
First my deepest empathy for everyone personally affected by this atrocity.
Aditionally, I just heard, that Barbara Olsen, passenger on one of the planes, told her husband, that the terrorists were armed with no more than "knives and cardboard cutters". To me, this basically spells, that there is, no way, that it is virtually impossible to rule out forever a repeat of this kind of sickness. Of course, any kind of sharp object should and will be banned from any future flight,, but that just means they will have to invent a new type of weapon, one that will go undetected, like a wooden knive sheathed in a wooden sheath, together seeming a simple, harmless stick.
Smuggling simple weapons will be almost impossible to eliminate totally.
Some kind of military type fight seems to have broken out in/around Kabul. See other news sources for details.
Stefan.
Re:What ever happened with holographics?
on
The Future Of 3D
·
· Score: 1
No-one really needs that. Or actually it's the moron majority who has no vision. All they want is beer, tv and big boobs.
Well, who can argue with that.
Apart from the boobs, that is, I tend to go for the more modest ones. Melons I prefer from the grocer's and balloons were never my thing. They blow up, you know.
Ever better: use a polarised film, with alternating pictures for left and right, and synchronised polarising glasses, thus not distorting any colour information. Oh wait! That already exists. Still a bit expensive at the moment, but Bill should have one.
But I'm sure prices will go down, eventually.
Stefan.
What ever happened with holographics?
on
The Future Of 3D
·
· Score: 1
I've seen holographic images ages ago, and in my later teens or early twenties envisioned some sort of machinery capable of displaying holographic colour movies by choosing three different material/laser combinations and rolling films of holographic material. How come this never happened? I know the laser setup needed quite some room at the time, but surely progression has been made in that area, hasn't there? So how come there were truly threedimensional (static/monogrammatic) images decennia past, but nothing since? Does anyone know? I mean, I can't be the only one ever to think about it.
Thye concept certainly has merit, and can (and therefore will) be used for even more interesting games. But the Business article has a remarkable sentence in it:
but because the rivals are standing right next to each other, they can talk trash
I've been on the net for quite some time, but I've never known proximity being a relevant factor in any visitors ability to talk trash. If there was some sort of factor inducing an inability to talk trash, now that would cheer me! Though I fear, that for some people that may result in an inability to talk at all, but that wouldn't bother me overmuch.
I mean I can't count the number of times I've been in battle and needed to slice through falling silk in mid air... geesh, I wish I had one of those
But have you considered this: just after battle, still in your armour, this lady, who stole your heart, passes by, and drops her silk handkerchief. Quickly, you reach out to prevent it from falling in the dust and lo! After landing across your outstretched Damascus steel gauntlet, it parts and continues its fall on either side.
upheld unanimously by a very conservative lower court, there is no way the Supreme Court would overturn that.
There's something rotten in the States of America.
Judges, and most certainly groups of judges, should be the very example of impartiality, simply hearing evidence presented on either side of any case, and base their judgements on that. If judges are appointed on political considerations, the Lady Justitia flees! Justice should be based solely on the laws, and not on biased interpretations of those laws, or politically inspired choices should the law provide no clearcut answer. Need an abvious example?: last presidential election.
I think the (people of) United States of America should think very hard about that, and take action accordingly.
It's basically the same principle as a library: you rent a copy of some text for a limited time. Of course, libraries will not let an overlong retained item self-destruct, because it is an item, that can be lent out again, but with electronic texts that concern evaporates.
Still, I wouldn't use such a service, unless it was the only source for a particular text I would dearly get a hold of. I prefer buying books, or, should I ever run out of that option, get a library card and borrow them there. That'd be like buying supercomputer power for the price of a not yet antique computer.
Well, I sure hope, that for this one they will use a better plot, because my suspension of disbelieve was sorely taxed with the first one. Sucking a person into a computer(-game) without any indication, that that is state of the art, or a recent scientific breakthrough (in case it must remain a surprise as a possibility)?
There was more, but I haven't seen it recently, so I can't sum the defects up. But it would be nice, if the new movie was coherent in itself, and not a mismatched quilt of wild ideas.
Maybe this would help force people like Microsoft to do more testing to make sure that such obvious and less then obvious holes and risks do not ship or get patched into their products.
Oh, come on! Not even bad press made them do that, what makes you think a mere law would make them change their ways?
Security issues should be addressed by software vendors in such a way that it is transparent to the user. While this is difficult, it can be done (e.g. Mac OS X hiding root from the user while still providing multi-user UNIX security).
Until software vendors can provide the user with a computing experience that is at least as trouble-free as the current situation, tying the user's hands with more secure software won't do anything other than piss him off.
And, after the third time trying to find, which security feature has to be turned off so he can do what he wants (each time having turned off several features before finding the right one, though he leaves the others turned off just to be sure it keeps working), Joe Average Enduser turns off ALL security in one fell swoop, so as to never be hindered by them ever again. J.A. Enduser hassn't an inkling what each feature is about, and "frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn."
Net result: less security than even the little now achieved.
Oh, wait, let me guess: this idea comes from Gates, who has realised, that as long as there's an internet, he can never beat the free software people. So step 1: Make sure the default setting on any computer by law makes internet a dud, step 2: J.A. Enduser opens up his computer so wide the crackers will destroy the internet, and this time M$ doens't get the blame. Brilliant!
This dude never thought of just putting a video camera in front of the fire ?... A lot cheaper and 100% correct "fire emulation";)
Wow! You make fires, that burn only in two dimensions? Please tell us how you do it, or better yet, send in an article to Nature! You're sure to win a Nobel prize.
Slashdot Mirror
Amen, brother. Besides, the standard is power-of-two multiples. So, if people want to deviate from te standard, let them use a different word. I propose Mediabytes (1,000,000 bytes) and Greediabytes (a billion).
Likewise I would like a penny for every faulty URL, per copy. That would probably teach everyone that www.somewhe.re in itself is meaningless, or at least not an URL.
And will hard drive manufacturors decide to stop lying ...?
Wrong question: when will corporations stop lying? Answer: when it stops being (seemingly) lucrative.
Stefan.
The only real way to break Microsofts monopoly is to force and enforce their disclosing their "standards" (and I don't mean business atandards), and to follow the standards laid out by others, primarily the RFCs and such, if they choose to use those standards. (SMTP, etc.)
And it may be a good idea to have an inquiry by a committee of GPL'ed people to look over the code of Microsoft products and point out the parts of the code that are used from open source and have an independant, expert committee reporting to a judge to see if Microsoft has done a baddie there.
But this MS Office bit, that don't impress me much, won't keep me warm in the long, cold... Sorry, got distracted there.
Stefan.
Precisely. And I think the only logical and acceptable legislation specifically concerning internet is the extension of existing snailmail and telephone(/-graph) laws. There is not much going on on the internet that has never been done before in another context, so simply extend the appropriate legislation to the similar internet instances, instead of inventing new, outrageously farreaching laws so you can later apply these new powers to the older similar laws. Because that is going to happen. "Hey look, we can enter and search any packet or computer on the internet, without as much as a warrant, we should have that right with respect to ... (mail/telephones/houses/pick a thing, anything) as well!". That kind of thing.
Stefan.
Well, the systems are not at all that different, here in the Netherlands a change of the constitution takes 2/3 majority of both chambers and then again of the combined chambers. The big difference lies in the fact, that we don't have a head of state with extraordinary powers, if so granted by the parliaments. Those powers go to the cabinet, if granted, which is a groups of people. And with the International court of Justice, a similar institution, these problems did not arise. Why?
I honestly feel a lot of the US/european popular citizenry political rifts come from poor European understanding of how our governmental systems work. Our heavy systems of checks and balances require for reaching changes such as constitutional amendments to take *years* for approval. Europeans should not have been aghast at Bush's views on Kyoto - a few years ago when the Senate (the upper body of our congress who controls the power to approve international treaties by a 2/3rds vote) took an incredibly unpositive view of it = it was effectively screwed in the US.
That's a big difference between the UK and the US on one side, and the Netherlands on the other: the Netherlands is a truely multi-party country, whereas the US and the UK are in effect two party countries. So then, president Bush, representing not the majority in the country, but getting elected by a majority in the voting system, gets to nuke a necessary treaty, which is unpopular with certain rich parties, whom he likes and gets money from, and the planet can go to hell.
We do not have a parliamentary system like the UK (I am not familiar enough on continental variances in parliamentary systems to adequately discuss) where the current sitting body can with a majority vote enact far reaching constitutional change. The US and Europe simply have far different ideas of soveriegnty. Although the average American has no idea as to what the European Union entails, I rest assured that they would be generally horrified at the type of far reaching powers that the EU is garnering.
There lies the rub. Whereas we would not put all our faith in a single person at any time, having done so in the past with ofttimes unpleasant effect, we now sport monarchs with little or no say to any effect.
But you say Americans would be afraid of the kind of powers the EU is garnering, but in what sense do they outreach the powers the US president can have? I grant you that the democratic content of the EU is still too low, but the European Union is still a child being born, like once the USA were born.And have no fear, that the democratic content will be insufficient when the child is there. We will brook no nonsene on that part.
Anyhow, I wouldn't hold much stock in the Taliban's faith in international organizations:
No, but that was not my point, the point was, that not all the peaceful paths had been taken. Also, the path of letting the more sensible Arab and/or muslim countries do the job, with help, seems to have been neglected.
Stefan.
The most peaceful solution would have been a trial of Osama bin Laden (or the Taliban for aiding him) at the International Criminal Court in the Hague, which will be opened in 2003. But, alas, the United States can do no such thing, because they did not want to sign the appriopriate treaty for fear of getting to be accused themselves. As if the International court of Justice were incapable of delivering true justice, or is the real fear of being rightly accused? I don't know, I only know the USA is one of very, very few (only seven countries voted against it) in not signing that treaty. And it worries me.
Stefan
Ow, come on! Lets keep it mature, here!
Stefan.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it George W. Bush who created that? "Either you're with us, or you are against us." At least, that's what I gleaned from my own newspaper, the Dutch "de Volkskrant". Alas, I can't find the reference, neither in the dead tree nor on the internet. So it may be wrong.
Stefan.
<NIT>You mean "products" instead of "commercials".</NIT> But I think you're wrong. Lots of modern products otherwise would now not exist. For example, the video-recorder would never have gotten off the ground without a lot of advertising. And do I assume correctly, that existing radio-listeners do not constitute a valid user base in your book? Would you care to clarify your statement?
Stefan.
So you'd prefer to let your civil liberties to be taken away from you, simply because the man who called your attention to it referred to an incident, where you disagree that a similar instance occurred? That's what I call... No, lets not go there. Let me just say, that I'm glad I can think more clearly.
Stefan.
like -1 Dumbass for example
True, but why only name your own category?
Ok, if i'd really think about it I would come up with more, and only serious ones, but I'll stop for the nonce.
Stefan.
Aditionally, I just heard, that Barbara Olsen, passenger on one of the planes, told her husband, that the terrorists were armed with no more than "knives and cardboard cutters". To me, this basically spells, that there is, no way, that it is virtually impossible to rule out forever a repeat of this kind of sickness. Of course, any kind of sharp object should and will be banned from any future flight,, but that just means they will have to invent a new type of weapon, one that will go undetected, like a wooden knive sheathed in a wooden sheath, together seeming a simple, harmless stick.
Smuggling simple weapons will be almost impossible to eliminate totally.
Some kind of military type fight seems to have broken out in/around Kabul. See other news sources for details.
Stefan.
Well, who can argue with that.
Apart from the boobs, that is, I tend to go for the more modest ones. Melons I prefer from the grocer's and balloons were never my thing. They blow up, you know.
Stefan.
But I'm sure prices will go down, eventually.
Stefan.
Stefan.
but because the rivals are standing right next to each other, they can talk trash
I've been on the net for quite some time, but I've never known proximity being a relevant factor in any visitors ability to talk trash. If there was some sort of factor inducing an inability to talk trash, now that would cheer me! Though I fear, that for some people that may result in an inability to talk at all, but that wouldn't bother me overmuch.
Stefan.
But have you considered this: just after battle, still in your armour, this lady, who stole your heart, passes by, and drops her silk handkerchief. Quickly, you reach out to prevent it from falling in the dust and lo! After landing across your outstretched Damascus steel gauntlet, it parts and continues its fall on either side.
Stefan.
There's something rotten in the States of America.
Judges, and most certainly groups of judges, should be the very example of impartiality, simply hearing evidence presented on either side of any case, and base their judgements on that. If judges are appointed on political considerations, the Lady Justitia flees! Justice should be based solely on the laws, and not on biased interpretations of those laws, or politically inspired choices should the law provide no clearcut answer. Need an abvious example?: last presidential election.
I think the (people of) United States of America should think very hard about that, and take action accordingly.
Stefan.
Still, I wouldn't use such a service, unless it was the only source for a particular text I would dearly get a hold of. I prefer buying books, or, should I ever run out of that option, get a library card and borrow them there. That'd be like buying supercomputer power for the price of a not yet antique computer.
Stefan.
There was more, but I haven't seen it recently, so I can't sum the defects up. But it would be nice, if the new movie was coherent in itself, and not a mismatched quilt of wild ideas.
Stefan.
Oh, come on! Not even bad press made them do that, what makes you think a mere law would make them change their ways?
Stefan.
Until software vendors can provide the user with a computing experience that is at least as trouble-free as the current situation, tying the user's hands with more secure software won't do anything other than piss him off.
And, after the third time trying to find, which security feature has to be turned off so he can do what he wants (each time having turned off several features before finding the right one, though he leaves the others turned off just to be sure it keeps working), Joe Average Enduser turns off ALL security in one fell swoop, so as to never be hindered by them ever again. J.A. Enduser hassn't an inkling what each feature is about, and "frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn."
Net result: less security than even the little now achieved.
Oh, wait, let me guess: this idea comes from Gates, who has realised, that as long as there's an internet, he can never beat the free software people. So step 1: Make sure the default setting on any computer by law makes internet a dud, step 2: J.A. Enduser opens up his computer so wide the crackers will destroy the internet, and this time M$ doens't get the blame. Brilliant!
The end of the 'net: Film at 11.
Stefan.
Ah, yes, you're right. Thanks for correcting that. *grin*
Tefansay.
Let's hear it for the land of the free.
<APPLAUS></APPLAUS>
Time to write your congressmen?
Stefan.
*doh* I thought it was supercomputers.
Stefan.
Wow! You make fires, that burn only in two dimensions? Please tell us how you do it, or better yet, send in an article to Nature! You're sure to win a Nobel prize.
Stefan.