DOS has had piping and redirection since DOS 2.0 (at least!), and Windows still has it.
Sort of. DOS runs one program, saves its output to a file, and runs the next program with the output file as input. WinXX (95 and NT at least - don't know about W2K) do the same. Unices (Unixes?) modify the process's file pointers for STDIN, STDOUT, and STDERR when redirection is used. It's much more elegant under Unix.
It's this Unix notion that "everything is a file" that rocks!
By the way, how would you phrase a law to prevent spam?
If i found someone online that i went to highschool with and emailed them "hello!" would that be spam, since it wasn't solicited?
You might be trying to make a funny, but I saw no smiley.:)
Anyway, another phrase for SPAM is Unsolicited Commercial Email. Your mail to your high school buddies wouldn't be spam, but someone mailing you (or me) about a new set of Ginsu Steak Knives he has for sale would be.
The difference is the commercial intent of the mail. Most people I know hate junkmail and spam, and prefer to seek out companies with which they desire to do business. Come to think of it, I don't know anyone who prefers that companies seek him out. It's just a terrible invasion of privacy.
If anyone is to have the freedom to publish whatever they want, then NO ONE can have their publications blocked due to content. Not even spam or junk mail.
The first amendment right you're bringing up here does not imply the right to force others to deal with that which you publish. You can feel free to publish whatever you like - nobody will stop you - but you cannot force others to read it, open it, or even receive it. Not even spam or junk mail.
It's one thing to use a push medium where you the publisher pay for the delivery of information. It's a wholly different matter to use a push medium where the recipients of your information pay for the delivery of that information. It's just not right to make them pay, and that's the reason there is such a high amount of regulation of junkmail companies (in the physical realm).
One of the greatest things our government did with respect to junkmail (in the physical realm) is that you do not ever have to receive a package or a piece of mail. Simply write Package not accepted - return to sender on it and drop it in the mail. The sender will bear the burden of paying return shipping charges for whatever they tried to send to you. Even more fun, tape a box of bricks (up to the limit of 70 lbs) to a business-reply envelope, if they sent one to you. The company has to pay for the delivery of the entire package!
As we can in the physical realm, we should be able to opt out of junkmail in the digital realm. To that end, the Washington law is not out of line. Presently, and unfortunately, there exists no such opt-out database.
Free net access like free speach has some minor irritations. Being bombarded by information one does not want is part of the price of modern life. I suggest you get used to it.
That's just it, though, isn't it? Net access isn't free. I pay a monthly access fee, and so do nearly all of you. The precious few of you who might actually have $0 net access give your time in the way of dealing with spam.
However, just because I pay for net access does not mean that I don't get spam. Therefore I pay for spam. And I hate it!
Just as in the physical realm, there should be opt-out lists in the digital realm. Better yet, spam should be solely opt-in. Then, the recipients have no reason to complain!
I think it's far past time that we made a paridim shift in our electromagnetic spectrum managment.
Step 1: Phase out analog transmission. Set a 5 year end of life on all current analog licences. Step 2: Type Approve a new digital radio that is multiband, where the radio will try first on the highest (most plentiful, shortest haul) frequencies, and if it can't find a node, fall back untill it can. Ideally these radios should also act as packet repeaters and by neccesity include a public key encryption system. Step 3: Establish, using licencing fees a N/A wide (remember boys and girls, frequencies don't care about borders. All this has to be taken with Canada and Mexico in mind) digipeter network.
No.
If Step 1 were to say instead, "Phase out analog transmission of business radio. Set a 5 year end of life on all current analog licences for businesses," it wouldn't be as offensive. Don't forget about the huge amateur radio population of the world. We amateurs should not be required to trade in our radios - we should always and forever be able to build a home-brew radio (a huge hobby, btw) to access the airwaves.
If your comment related only to businesses, you may be onto something, but for the amateurs, I think this just wouldn't fly. However, I certainly hope that the FCC is not going to make us turn in our licenses (though they did at least attempt to take the 220MHz spectrum from us - don't remember if they succeeded) - I hope they're just trying to use existing business spectrum more efficiently. To that end, I agree.
Ah, but remember that Linux is not Intel-only. If Microsoft were to begin to hate Intel, perhaps MS would build and sell non-Intel-only versions of MS Apps?
But that would be stupid too, because MS's OSs are Intel-only. By selling Apps for non-Intel-non-MS OSs, they'd be killing their own cash cow.
That is, of course, if they didn't become an Apps-Only company. While they are bloated and have too many unnecessary features, I think many of us would agree that many MS apps are otherwise pretty nice. (IE5 and Outlook, for example.)
Declan maintains a list concerning issues of Politics & Technology. I'm on the list, so here's the spooge at the bottom of the emails, regarding subscription information:
POLITECH -- the moderated mailing list of politics and technology To subscribe: send a message to majordomo@vorlon.mit.edu with this text: subscribe politech More information is at http://www.well.com/~declan/politech/
Don't use Win200. Windows 2000 is insignificant anyway. Linux and other Unices have made significant inroads into the original target market for W2k, and they will continue to do so because Microsoft was so late in delivering the (very buggy - 63,000-defects buggy) product, and because Microsoft still insists on lack of interoperability, and this time it's in a market in which they do not have the power to dictate specs. We now get to watch 'em die!
Is it just me, or does anyone else have a problem with continually loading up more and more overhead to a system? I don't mind a cron job
That's the thing we all love about UNIX: total control of our systems. If I don't want a process to run, I pull it out of the appropriate/etc/rc directory and yank it from crontabs. Voila!
Microsoft innovative? I guess flying donkeys have finally been discovered.
Like Mr Bad, I've been extremely pissed at the MPAA et al since this DVD fiasco started. It's ridiculous. I've studied the DMCA and UCITA, among other things.
And it makes my blood boil.
Finally there's someone with a comic streak to help us all release a bit! DeCSS for Cascating Style Sheets - too funny! Good work Mr Bad.
The only exceptions are CEO's and the like. And even they are powerless: they are required to screw me whether they want to or not. The Corporate mindset demands it.
It'd be nice if this mindset would change. It's evident in other areas as well. Take CDMA vs GSM. The Europeans designed a wonderful system that's good for both the provider and the consumer - GSM. The American version of digital cellular (CDMA) sucks from a consumer perspective when compared to GSM. It's simply not as nice a system.
To spell it out for you - these people are just that, people. Not some cartoonish corporate supervillians sitting around trying to think of ways to screw the public out of their god-given rights.
They many not be, but they sure act like it. Have you read the DMCA? The DMCA is what happens when MPAA and RIAA lawyers get to run free, and it reeks of damage to the consumer. It's disgusting. I think that's why you're seeing so many people getting upset here - these non-supervillians are attempting to control what we do with our legally purchased equipment! Whatever happened to Fair Use?
The only time I have to fiddle with my Linux system is when I ad new hardware, or upgrade kernel or a distro upgrade.
This is what I like about Linux - you set it up and forget about it. I've got (what's now) a junker (486) machine that's been running Linux since its inception. It serves as the web/email/DNS server for my domain, and serves email for me and several friends. The thing has been up for 38 days, but only went down because my company wanted computers shut down over Y2K New Year's. Before that it had been up for nearly 80 days.
PS I'm still running RHL 4.2. I've got too much stuff installed to be able to install a later rev of the OS. At least it's 2.0.30.
I've been looking for anyone who supports GWBush, so I can ask why he supports Bush. I've found no one who supports him! Who are the pollsters asking, to get such favorable opinions on Bush??? I wonder...
The poll is irrelevant. It doesn't matter what people think - it matters what is legal. Microsoft broke the law. They should be punished, and no legitimate punishment should go unconsidered simply for its lack of popularity.
To paraphrase another poster: "even if a thousand people say a stupid thing, it's still a stupid thing."
I use a different solution, which I've found to be quite successful thus far. I'm surprised I haven't seen it mentioned here yet.
Delete all entries that you don't want in your cookie file, then make it read-only. This works for both UNIX and Windows versions of Netscape. Anyone know how to do something similar in IE? I then accept all cookies. Voila - no more bother with "do I want this cookie?"
Sure, I get tracked around for the short while that I'm running my browser, but since I shut it down every night after work, I don't ever end up with any "junk cookies" - and no tracking worth mentioning! (What good is a profile of 8 hours?)
So let's boycott the DVD Forum companies. Then maybe they'll remember who ultimately controls their purse strings.
That's exactly what I'm doing. I had been planning the purchase of a DVD player and new Dolby Digital receiver hardware, but what with these cases, I've decided to put that purchase off indefinitely. I'm a movie buff, but I cannot (and will not) condone what the DVD-CCA and MPAA are doing here - this is ridiculous!
Wasn't there a movie about this sort of thing a few years back - Wag The Dog? In that movie, they created a news story on a stage. Sounds somewhat like what CBS did here (fabricating something that didn't really exist), though their action wasn't about news, as it was in the movie.
There was also a recent soccer (?) game in which the players were reportedly running around cans of deodorant. I only heard of this and didn't witness it - I wish I had seen it! An interesting use of the technology, to be sure.
66% of Americans see him [Bill Gates] as the embodiment of the American Dream.
Well, sure. He's the best businessman in history. Unfortunately, it seems he lost his morality along the way to becoming the richest man in the world. I applaud him for being such an incredible businessman, but at the same time I think he should be punished for his (apparently) illegal, immoral actions. See, I'm all for capitalism, as long as the law is observed. This man...er...his company...it seems, didn't observe the law.
Slashdot Mirror
Sort of. DOS runs one program, saves its output to a file, and runs the next program with the output file as input. WinXX (95 and NT at least - don't know about W2K) do the same. Unices (Unixes?) modify the process's file pointers for STDIN, STDOUT, and STDERR when redirection is used. It's much more elegant under Unix.
It's this Unix notion that "everything is a file" that rocks!
Declan's article at Wired can be found here.
Here's your link: http://www.neweconomyindex.org/se ction1_page09.html
Look in about the 3rd line of the first paragraph.
Beagle
If i found someone online that i went to highschool with and emailed them "hello!" would that be spam, since it wasn't solicited?
You might be trying to make a funny, but I saw no smiley. :)
Anyway, another phrase for SPAM is Unsolicited Commercial Email. Your mail to your high school buddies wouldn't be spam, but someone mailing you (or me) about a new set of Ginsu Steak Knives he has for sale would be.
The difference is the commercial intent of the mail. Most people I know hate junkmail and spam, and prefer to seek out companies with which they desire to do business. Come to think of it, I don't know anyone who prefers that companies seek him out. It's just a terrible invasion of privacy.
The first amendment right you're bringing up here does not imply the right to force others to deal with that which you publish. You can feel free to publish whatever you like - nobody will stop you - but you cannot force others to read it, open it, or even receive it. Not even spam or junk mail.
It's one thing to use a push medium where you the publisher pay for the delivery of information. It's a wholly different matter to use a push medium where the recipients of your information pay for the delivery of that information. It's just not right to make them pay, and that's the reason there is such a high amount of regulation of junkmail companies (in the physical realm).
One of the greatest things our government did with respect to junkmail (in the physical realm) is that you do not ever have to receive a package or a piece of mail. Simply write Package not accepted - return to sender on it and drop it in the mail. The sender will bear the burden of paying return shipping charges for whatever they tried to send to you. Even more fun, tape a box of bricks (up to the limit of 70 lbs) to a business-reply envelope, if they sent one to you. The company has to pay for the delivery of the entire package!
As we can in the physical realm, we should be able to opt out of junkmail in the digital realm. To that end, the Washington law is not out of line. Presently, and unfortunately, there exists no such opt-out database.
That's just it, though, isn't it? Net access isn't free. I pay a monthly access fee, and so do nearly all of you. The precious few of you who might actually have $0 net access give your time in the way of dealing with spam.
However, just because I pay for net access does not mean that I don't get spam. Therefore I pay for spam. And I hate it!
Just as in the physical realm, there should be opt-out lists in the digital realm. Better yet, spam should be solely opt-in. Then, the recipients have no reason to complain!
Beagle
Step 1: Phase out analog transmission. Set a 5 year end of life on all current analog licences.
Step 2: Type Approve a new digital radio that is multiband, where the radio will try first on the highest (most plentiful, shortest haul) frequencies, and if it can't find a node, fall back untill it can. Ideally these radios should also act as packet repeaters and by neccesity include a public key encryption system.
Step 3: Establish, using licencing fees a N/A wide (remember boys and girls, frequencies don't care about borders. All this has to be taken with Canada and Mexico in mind) digipeter network.
No.
If Step 1 were to say instead, "Phase out analog transmission of business radio. Set a 5 year end of life on all current analog licences for businesses," it wouldn't be as offensive. Don't forget about the huge amateur radio population of the world. We amateurs should not be required to trade in our radios - we should always and forever be able to build a home-brew radio (a huge hobby, btw) to access the airwaves.
If your comment related only to businesses, you may be onto something, but for the amateurs, I think this just wouldn't fly. However, I certainly hope that the FCC is not going to make us turn in our licenses (though they did at least attempt to take the 220MHz spectrum from us - don't remember if they succeeded) - I hope they're just trying to use existing business spectrum more efficiently. To that end, I agree.
73 de KD4xxx (xxx = NUNYA!)
But that would be stupid too, because MS's OSs are Intel-only. By selling Apps for non-Intel-non-MS OSs, they'd be killing their own cash cow.
That is, of course, if they didn't become an Apps-Only company. While they are bloated and have too many unnecessary features, I think many of us would agree that many MS apps are otherwise pretty nice. (IE5 and Outlook, for example.)
POLITECH -- the moderated mailing list of politics and technology
To subscribe: send a message to majordomo@vorlon.mit.edu with this text:
subscribe politech
More information is at http://www.well.com/~declan/politech/
Don't use Win200. Windows 2000 is insignificant anyway. Linux and other Unices have made significant inroads into the original target market for W2k, and they will continue to do so because Microsoft was so late in delivering the (very buggy - 63,000-defects buggy) product, and because Microsoft still insists on lack of interoperability, and this time it's in a market in which they do not have the power to dictate specs. We now get to watch 'em die!
I thought Al Gore invented file links!
That's the thing we all love about UNIX: total control of our systems. If I don't want a process to run, I pull it out of the appropriate /etc/rc directory and yank it from crontabs. Voila!
Microsoft innovative? I guess flying donkeys have finally been discovered.
And it makes my blood boil.
Finally there's someone with a comic streak to help us all release a bit! DeCSS for Cascating Style Sheets - too funny! Good work Mr Bad.
It'd be nice if this mindset would change. It's evident in other areas as well. Take CDMA vs GSM. The Europeans designed a wonderful system that's good for both the provider and the consumer - GSM. The American version of digital cellular (CDMA) sucks from a consumer perspective when compared to GSM. It's simply not as nice a system.
Who knows - this could be a tremendous boost to OSS! People will get so pissed at the limiting licenses that they'll look elsewhere for options.
They many not be, but they sure act like it. Have you read the DMCA? The DMCA is what happens when MPAA and RIAA lawyers get to run free, and it reeks of damage to the consumer. It's disgusting. I think that's why you're seeing so many people getting upset here - these non-supervillians are attempting to control what we do with our legally purchased equipment! Whatever happened to Fair Use?
This is what I like about Linux - you set it up and forget about it. I've got (what's now) a junker (486) machine that's been running Linux since its inception. It serves as the web/email/DNS server for my domain, and serves email for me and several friends. The thing has been up for 38 days, but only went down because my company wanted computers shut down over Y2K New Year's. Before that it had been up for nearly 80 days.
PS I'm still running RHL 4.2. I've got too much stuff installed to be able to install a later rev of the OS. At least it's 2.0.30.
I've been looking for anyone who supports GWBush, so I can ask why he supports Bush. I've found no one who supports him! Who are the pollsters asking, to get such favorable opinions on Bush??? I wonder...
To paraphrase another poster: "even if a thousand people say a stupid thing, it's still a stupid thing."
Delete all entries that you don't want in your cookie file, then make it read-only. This works for both UNIX and Windows versions of Netscape. Anyone know how to do something similar in IE? I then accept all cookies. Voila - no more bother with "do I want this cookie?"
Sure, I get tracked around for the short while that I'm running my browser, but since I shut it down every night after work, I don't ever end up with any "junk cookies" - and no tracking worth mentioning! (What good is a profile of 8 hours?)
That's exactly what I'm doing. I had been planning the purchase of a DVD player and new Dolby Digital receiver hardware, but what with these cases, I've decided to put that purchase off indefinitely. I'm a movie buff, but I cannot (and will not) condone what the DVD-CCA and MPAA are doing here - this is ridiculous!
That's about as much fun as their street address: One Microsoft Way. :)
There was also a recent soccer (?) game in which the players were reportedly running around cans of deodorant. I only heard of this and didn't witness it - I wish I had seen it! An interesting use of the technology, to be sure.
Well, sure. He's the best businessman in history. Unfortunately, it seems he lost his morality along the way to becoming the richest man in the world. I applaud him for being such an incredible businessman, but at the same time I think he should be punished for his (apparently) illegal, immoral actions. See, I'm all for capitalism, as long as the law is observed. This man...er...his company...it seems, didn't observe the law.