People believed in The Beatles and Nirvana for the wrong reasons.
Hence The Beatles and Nirvana were popular in spite of themselves.
Kurt Cobain realized this and killed himself. John Lennon also
realized this and started playing with Yoko's band to redeem
himself.
> >Where the heck in the first amendment does it say we have
> >a right to distribute junk mail (through AOL even!)?
> The same place it says that I can U.S. Mail you anything to buy
> anything or solicit my services.
Ah yes, when I read the fine print, you are correct:
http://www.krusch.com/real/ladanyi.html
First amendment does guarantee the right to be a total jerk.
And many, many people support the first amendment.
Therefore, many people support the right to be a total jerk.
What I'm saying is, since so many people believe in this,
it must be wrong.
> >And where in the declaration of human rights does it say
> >we have no right to post information anonymously?
> It's not information, it's Copywritten Information. Big Difference.
> Write a book and let me post it annon.
If I write a book... better, if I write a book that purports to
be a religion, I would want it disseminated By Any Means Necessary.
The more people who read it, the better. I'd gladly trade rampant
distribution (and readership) for the paltry pittance my so-called
publisher would offer me.
> Let me post all of HP's memo's annon.
I'm sure any memos I have access to would bore you to tears.
You'd HAVE to post them anonymously to keep people from spamming
you with mail bombs telling you not to send them that junk.
> >Where the junk mailers and the scientologists are of one
> >mind is that they both believe the Internet should be a
> >cruddier place. So they *must* be wrong, right?
> In both cases, both parties have the right.
Yes, well, what's considered right by society might not be
right absolutely. This society considered slavery to be right
only 140 years ago. Actually, they still consider it to be
right as long as they pay someone for the slavework s/he does.
> The anon.pent.fi. is the debatable one here. Junk l on the net is
> certaintly allowed.
With the rate junk on the net is disseminated, you'd think it was not
just allowed: it seems to be encouraged!
> However a strong case could be made in U.S. court that Julef had no
> knowledge about what was being posted and as such he can't be held
> responsible. However Julef must have different laws governing him.
I still don't get how you can copyright a religious manuscript.
I say any religion that has copyrightable scriptures should not
be allowed to qualify for tax-exempt status.
> Certaintly every ISP in the Country has kiddie porn on their servers
> but they are not held responsible for much the same reason.
Kiddie porn is that widespread? Man, are my eyes closed to the world.
Is it wrong to think that kiddie porn is just plain sick, demented, and
twisted? Am I not keeping an open mind here?
ObFoRKpost:
http://www.activextra.com/control/control.cgi/b2VJa.html
has a review of Visual J++. A sampling:
> To overcome the problem many Java developers quickly run up
> against--that basic Java class libraries are underpowered and suffer
> from one-platform-fits-all blandness--Microsoft added Windows-only
> extensions to Visual J++ and Internet Explorer that make Java applets
> shine. With these extensions, Visual J++ developers can build Java
> applets and applications that take full advantage of the Windows 95
> desktop and user interface.
Okay, so within a year of announcing an Internet strategy, Microsoft's
Internet Explorer 4.0 has passed Netscape Navigator in functionality
(hello, Netscape, we'd like PICS and Style Sheets please!), and now
Visual J++ has passed Sun's Java in functionality (care to bet how many
of those precious Sun APIs Microsoft will have embraced and extended by
the end of next year?). Lovely.
Ah, but not only is J++ more functional, it's also got the added bonus
that you can only achieve Java Nirvana (tm) using Microsoft products:
> Unfortunately, these extensions rely on technologies--most importantly,
> the Component Object Model (COM) and ActiveX object controls--that are
> implemented only on 32-bit Windows operating systems. Developers with
> the luxury of writing exclusively for up-to-date Windows 95 and Windows
> NT 4.0 platforms can leverage the full power of the Microsoft Java
> tools, but those aiming at heterogeneous platforms will have to forego
> the COM-based extensions, at least until COM and ActiveX are ubiquitous
> on major platforms. Metrowerks in Austin, Texas, is planning to release
> a Java Virtual Machine for the Macintosh that will include ActiveX
> support, and Microsoft is working with Unix vendors to port ActiveX to
> various Unix platforms.
Hey Rob, did that last paragraph break your buzzword metre again?
Is the phrase "until COM and ActiveX are ubiquitous on major platforms"
tantamount to the phrase "until hell freezes over"?
Meanwhile, how about a passage that demonstrates how only the
Microsoft Java Virtual Machine (tm) can be used to debug and run
Visual J++ applets?
> Microsoft's basic Java support for cross-platform development comes in
> two forms: the Visual J++ development tools and Java system support for
> 32-bit Windows. Developers can use any compliant Java Virtual Machine
> (such as the one in Netscape Navigator) for testing applets, but only
> Internet Explorer 3.0 beta 2 can take full advantage of the Visual J++
> debugger.
Hmph. Another beaut...
> The C++ power user will immediately be productive, because like Symantec
> Cafi, Metrowerks CodeWarrior (IW, June 10, p. 77), and Borland C++,
> which are all adaptations of the vendors' C++ development systems,
> Visual J++ is similar to Microsoft's C++ IDE.
I don't understand how ANYONE can be a C++ "power user" in Microsoft's
Visual C++ environment. A friend was showing it to me and it's frigging
counterintuitive to use for development. At least, it was to me.
Like every article worth its grain, we later get into some "wish list"
requests...
> One problem is the lack of a class hierarchy browser or viewer. This
> creates a noticeable hole, since inheritance relationships between
> classes is obviously key to developing object-oriented systems, and
> developers have become accustomed to browsing classes in a
> superclass-subclass organization.
>
> Instead, the ClassView displays classes, methods, and variables using
> the Windows 95 Explorer look-and-feel of folders and expanding icons. If
> you double-click on a method or variable, its implementation code
> appears in the source-code editor. Developers can create classes and add
> methods and variables in the ClassView with the aid of dialogs--which
> act as mini-wizards to create code stubs and enforce Java programming
> syntax and standards.
Apparently the Visual J++ team was trying to come up with a creative
answer to the question "Define Hell and give three examples."
Well, maybe four examples. Check this out:
> The source-code editor used with Visual J++ is notable only in what it
> doesn't offer: a scripting language. Many serious developers rely on a
> scripting language to automate repetitive tasks; J++'s keystroke
> recording feature is inadequate for this purpose.
Meanwhile, the Mongolian clusterstruggle between ActiveX, COM, Java, and
Microsoft's vision of the Web, continues on its downward spiral...
> * ActiveX controls and other COM components can be imported into
> Java applets and applications in the same fashion as Java classes
> and packages;
>
> * Any application that supports COM automation can be driven
> from a Java applet;
>
> * Java applets and applications can be accessed as services
> through COM, similar to the way ActiveX controls are automated;
>
> * Java applets can be accessed and controlled from HTML with
> JavaScript or any other language that supports the ActiveX scripting
> protocol--VBScript, for example.
This essentially means that Visual J++ can be used to create
full-fledged COM components that are usable from non-Java applications
written in Visual Basic, Visual C++, Borland's Delphi, or any COM-aware
development tool. It also means that Java programs can use commercially
available ActiveX controls and homemade components created with other
development tools.
> Web developers on Windows NT 4.0 can use COM-enhanced Java applications
> on the server and take advantage of ActiveX without affecting
> non-Windows clients. Also, Excel spreadsheets or Visual Basic
> applications can be integrated into Web ap-plications by using
> Web-server APIs or CGI programs created with Visual J++. This is the
> only way for now to use Visual J++ to exploit the benefits of ActiveX
> and Java's inherent support of client platform diversity, without
> abandoning the many clients who don't run 32-bit Windows.
Wow. You know, on paper this extraordinarily insightful, clueful,
and powerful.
It's only the view from the trenches that make this war seem like hell.
----
adam@cs.caltech.edu
We all enter this world in the same way: naked; screaming; soaked in
blood. But if you live your life right, that kind of thing doesn't have
to stop there.
-- Dana Gould