I'm surprised it took this long for them to die. When I was a senior in college (3 years ago), Ruckus was introduced on my campus to help combat all of the piracy. It was dead on arrival. Everyone with an iPod saw the lack of support, shrugged, and then returned to their iTunes or piracy. Those like myself (no iPod, but running Linux)saw the lack of Linux support and the oodles of DRM and shouted "NO FUCKING WAY!" to anyone thinking about using it. Anyone who actually got to the part of trying to use it, gave up quickly after messing with the awful client software and realizing all of the limitations that the DRM provided. They handed us shit on a silver platter and called it a free lunch, but no one was interested.
Well if Apple continues to gain marketshare, we will soon find out what that threshold is. As soon as Apple gets slapped with an antitrust suit, note the current market share. That shall be hence forth the monopoly threshold. Apple is just as bad as Microsoft when it comes to consumer lock-in. You don't have to look any further than iTunes to see it, but there's plenty more examples. They just never get in trouble for it because they are perceived to be such a small player in the market (even though the iPod is clearly the dominant mp3 player).
Anyone who thinks they are more financially responsible because they choose to pay rent over a mortgage is a moron. Sorry to sound harsh. Of course I'm assuming you pay rent because you say you don't own a house and don't plan on it. You're just throwing your money away month after month. For the same amount you pay for rent every month, you could put towards a mortgage. At the end of that mortgage period, you now own that house. You don't make any more monthly payments. In fact, you now have an ASSET instead of a liability. Seriously, would you rather pay $x for 30 years or pay $x for as long as you're still breathing (personally I plan to live much longer than 30 years). It doesn't even have to be 30 years either. Since you are so financially responsible and live so below your means, you can probably pay off your mortgage much sooner. I know plenty of people who have done it, whether it was from living below their means or cashing in on a good investment. To quote Futurama, "I'm told banks are where poor people put money that isn't properly invested." Sure it was a joke, but it's so true. Even with the way the economy is now.
Agreed. When Microsoft says that they support other OS's and browsers, they mean that in the most minimal sense. Outlook Web Access is a great example. In IE, OWA is very dynamic. It automatically refreshes when new mail arrives, you have a preview pane, composing new messages takes place in a new window, and many more things that make using it fairly pleasant. Use it with anything but IE, and you step back in time to the year 1999. It's a static web page that you have to refresh manually to check for new messages. Everything takes place in the same window, so it's really hard to multi-task, and it's really easy to lose the message you're composing. There's really no excuse. My experience with GMail is consistent no matter what browser I use, and its far superior than OWA on IE any day of the week. Even Windows Live mail has a better interface.
It doesn't stop with just OWA, SharePoint is the same way. They say it supports all OS's and Browsers, but theres's big asterisk next to anything non-MS. Sure you can view pages and download content. You may even be able to upload new content. Don't even think about editing pages/content, changing site settings, reorganizing anything, or doing anything else. Once again, there's no excuse.
Users who are found to be occupying large amounts of bandwidth will be placed at a lower priority for network access behind users with less bandwidth-intensive traffic
So they're saying that if I am doing something that requires more bandwidth, I will get less bandwidth; and when I don't need much bandwidth, they're going to give me more? I'm really confused by this. Can anyone make sense of this for me?
It does not cost them anything to pre-install Linux in the first place, any more than tweaking a copy to run on each model they have
That's not really true. While the copy of Linux itself does not necessarily cost them anything, the fact that it is another option for the customer DOES make it cost more. General rule of thumb is that the more stock keeping units (SKU), the more it will cost you as a company. Basically, if you only sold one model of widgets, in one color with no options at all, it is cheaper than selling one model of widget that comes in either red or blue. It's not about the paint - the red and blue paint cost the same. It's the fact that your production line now has to support two variations. You now have two different packages for the product and on your web site, you now have to add in the capability for the customer to choose their color, and then you have to make sure that they get the right one. Going back to Lenovo, having a second operating system option means a lot of extra investment in their supply chain. Granted, if there is significant customer demand, the extra investment in the supply chain may be worth it. However, if the demand is not there, then the company shouldn't be selling that extra SKU.
On a non-business note, though, I'm sad to hear that they will no longer be selling pre-installed Linux. In fact, I didn't even know they had been selling pre-installed Linux until now. I like that the option is there. At the very least, I don't pay the Microsoft tax when I won't be installing any Microsoft software and hardware compatibility and driver support becomes more robust. I'm glad Dell is hanging in there. I won't comment on whether this is a conspiracy or not. I'm a dedicated Linux user and I love to bash Microsoft, but even I can admit that the demand just may not be there. It could have even been a factor of them failing at getting the message out to those who would be interested (I at least didn't get the memo). Although I will never completely rule out the possibility of an MS conspiracy, we can't exactly jump to that conclusion here.
I think you're missing the point of the argument and are comparing apples to oranges here. The financial argument is strictly talking about your options for your next car, and nothing to do with the car you are currently driving or getting rid of. If you are currently driving an H1, then of course you are going to have some serious gas savings if you buy a hybrid. In fact, if you actually do drive an H1, then you'll get some serious gas savings by getting a Suburban. To simplify things as much as possible, consider the Honda Civic. You can get a Civic with either a normal internal combustion engine, or as a hybrid. According to Honda's own website, the starting price of a 2009 Civic Sedan is $15,405 and the 2009 Civic Hybrid Sedan is $23,550. That is a $8,145 difference. Now consider the combined MPG of each with 29 for the gas and 42 for the hybrid. Now consider how much you actually drive. This varies for everyone, but let's assume 12,000 miles a year at $4.00 a gallon. In one year, the gas Civic will use 413.79 ($1655.16) gallons of gas and the Hybrid will use 285.71 ($1142.84) gallons. If you drive 12000 miles per year, and the price of gas remains $4.00 a gallon (which it won't), then in the 16th year of ownership, the Hybrid will have finally paid off it's $8,000+ premium. Of course, take into account the time value of money as stated by a previous poster, and that changes things, but also consider tax incentives for driving a hybrid. I won't crunch those numbers, but they would not change things too drastically. We're still talking about over a decade. So from a strictly financial sense, it does not make sense to buy the Civic Hybrid Sedan, when you can get just the regular Civic.
Things get trickier when you start talking about the Prius or the Insight, because they dont' really have a comparable gas model. You would have to compare as best you can to another small economy car. However, the fact remains, hybrids are being sold on either just their "green power" (it's green, so I have to buy one) and on just the illusion of financial benefit. There really is no financial benefit. This is good and bad. People who can afford it, should try to set the trend. That's how prices come down. But until those prices come down, the Hybrid is not the solution. I'm a firm believer that the free market is what will solve a lot of our problems. You can't force people to pay more for cleaner technology, because the sad fact is, people care more about their wallet than they do about their planet. In an extreme case, I would gladly pollute a little more just to get my next meal if you survival depended on it. If Honda really want to stick it to Toyota in the Hybrid market, they need the Insight to be not only cheaper than the Prius, but just as cheap as a Yaris.
Auto mechanics has become a black art where things may not be as they seem.
I'll second that. Over a month ago, my car was hit by lightning while on a camping trip. This pretty much fried every electrical component on the car. Battery was killed, 5 control modules were killed, various wires melted. The mechanic has put $4500 of parts and labor into the car and it still won't start. Luckily my insurance is covering it, but it's frustrating that the problems aren't as clear cut as you would think. Especially now that cars have so many computers and electronics in them, you're not just a mechanic, you're a computer technician as well. You'd think it would be easy to go through the process and narrow down the problem areas, but it just isn't always that simple. Plus, considering that my tent poles were welded together from the lightning (yes I was in the tent, yes I am fine, and no sign of super powers yet), there's no telling what kind of mechanical problems have been caused.
But wait, he could be both geeky AND give his wife a fountain. See the last hour of Goldeneye. Your fountain can double as the communication device between you and your satellite death ray.
So it's the refresh! A friend of mine had a CRT in his room. Also in the room was an air conditioning unit in the window. Additionally, his mattress was on the floor (no frame). I remember all the time, I would sit down on the bed, lean against the wall, and look over at the screen. The whole screen would just start swirling and wobbling. I thought I was going crazy until I figured out the connection between the vibrating wall and it's proximity to my head. To top things off, my friends desktop background was a very colorful fractal. Really trippy looking.
I hate text messages and try to avoid using them, but there is a time and place for them (just not many). If someone seriously can't talk, but needs to get the message across, then a text can be convenient. This often happens during work hours. Since I spend my entire work day in front of a computer, here's a little trick I use to avoid paying for text messages, and also making the conversation easier:
First, you will receive a text on your phone. You have to pay for this one, but only this one. Don't respond on your phone. Bring up your e-mail, and send your response via e-mail to their phone. The address is generally @.com. You may need to look up the domain for the specific carrier. This also means you have to know what carrier the other person has. For Verizon, I believe it's @vtxt.com and AT&T is @txt.att.net (could be wrong though). Since it doesn't cost you anything to send e-mail, this message is free. Now if there is a response, hopefully, the other person just hits "Reply" from their phone. All responses should now go to your e-mail address. You are now sending and receiving text messages free of charge. Of course this only works if you're in front of a computer, but for me, extended text conversations seem to happen when I'm at work anyway.
I was actually watching this movie recently. I was really surprised (and pleased) at how well this movie holds up technically. The only technical aspect that I disagreed with was the human-like response of Joshua and its self-awareness. Something that was highly improbably then, and even today, but maybe the future. Anyhow, you can chalk that up to making the story more compelling and the computer more interesting.
But the parent post brings up an interesting point. There are not a lot of technically accurate hacker/computer movies out there. The movie Hackers is a prime example of a completely inaccurate movie. The only other hacker movie I've seen that comes close is Takedown (essentially the Kevin Mitnick story from the perspective of the guy who caught him), but this is based on real events, so it's not quite the same. Furthermore, I've read that the events in the movie differ from Mitnicks account of things and there is a lot of embellishment and artistic license. But I'm rambling.
So I ask the Slashdot audience - What other computer/hacker/technology movies out there actually measure up on a technical level?
Actually, I use MythTV and I believe my system may have listened to the broadcast flag. After reading the original Slashdot article, I meant to ask my fiance if she had tried to record Medium. She likes the show, I don't bother, so I don't pay attention to whether it records or not. I was curious if MythTV would ignore it or not. Unfortunatly, I forgot to ask. Until last night, a commercial while flipping through channels (on the non-mythtv tv) a re-run of Medium appears. It is then that my fiance says "By the way, for some reason the season finally of Medium didn't record." I still have to check the logs to see why. There are a lot of reasons shows don't record sometimes (human error, change of schedule, etc.).
Agreed. I suggest the Wall Street Journal for movie reviews. Usually they hate everything, so if they actually like something, you should probably see it.
This isn't a TSA issue. In fact, TSA doesn't give a shit if you have "suspicious data" or what not. They just care about "suspicious devices". In which case, if they even ask you to turn on your laptop, it's only to make sure that it's not a bomb. I travel weekly with 2 laptops and have never been hassled about them (except when I didn't put the laptop in its own bin, but I was a n00b at the time). Usually I just get comments like "Wow, two laptops! You must be a very busy guy!" and then I'm on my way. TSA is more likely to hassle you about your liquids than anything. My first week of flying regularly they confiscated all of my toiletries. Man was I pissed. I didn't know how I was going to handle flying for the remainder of my project, but you get to know the ins and outs of getting through security. I only recently was randomly checked, but it was just my liquids for a quick "lab test" and then I was on my way.
So in this discussion, keep in mind this is International travel and only customs you're worrying about. Should keep things in perspective.
Is it cheaper to make 1,000,000 copies of Windows than 1,000 copies of Ubuntu?
How about we compare apples to apples here. The poster's point was about economies of scale, not about whether Linux is cheaper than Windows. To revise your question: Is it cheaper to print 1,000,000 CD's than 1,000 CD's (both of which have the same media? YES!
On the other hand, advertising can also keep the little guys out of the market, ensuring large corporations can set higher prices for a product category.
True, the larger company has more money to spend on advertising, but at the same time, if it weren't for advertising, the little guy would have a much harder time breaking into a market that is dominated by the big guys. Plus, advertising is not just about outspending the competition. The ads have to effective at conveying your message and bringing awareness of your product. Just look at the Zune. I've seen tons of ads for the Zune, but the ads were so ineffective that if you asked most people what a Zune is, they would stare at you blankly and say "Never heard of it." To counterpoint, look at Apples recent Mac vs. PC ad campaign. Love it or hate it, it instills the impression that Vista is failing, while more and more people are discovering how great the Mac is. All of these people who have been using Windows because it's the most popular and therefore best are starting to wonder if this new version of Windows is all it's cracked up to be. The ads are simple and targeted. Even a monkey can understand it.
Subliminal ads have been outlawed in many areas.
There also has never been any conclusive study that could show that "subliminal advertising" even works. If anything, the only thing accomplished is brand awareness. Essentially, I've heard of brand x, but not brand y, so I'll buy brand x. Furthermore, it's not intended to be subliminal, people just aren't paying attention, so don't even go down the "subliminal ads are illegal" path.
What does the theft of personal information have to do with the private ownership and exchange of wealth?
1) Hack system (manually or via malware)
2) Steal personal information
3) Sell personal information
4) ?????
5) Profit
Does "Hacker for hire" or "For profit hacking" work better for you? The correct term is "Cracker". Either way, it is a capitalist system that they function under. There is demand for a good (personal information). The cracker answers the demand by producing a supply of that good. The quantity of demand versus the available supply determines a price. People pay the cracker for the good which is later used to make more money through other nefarious activities. The cracker is like the wholesaler of ID and credit fraud.
I won't do all of your homework for you, but here's a start. It looks like, based on Best Buy's offerings, you are best going with a card that uses the Atheros chipset. I have a D-Link in my desktop computer that uses this chipset and Linux support is very good. However, every model (even by the same manufacturer) is different. There are only 11 desktop cards and 18 laptop cards carried by best buy. If one of those cards is on this list then that is the card for you. Install the card, install Ubuntu (but keep a wire connected for now). You will then need to enable the "universe" repositories in Synaptic that include non-free software. Install the "madwifi" driver and you should be good to go. The only wireless cards I've used that have worked out of the box, with no extra drivers to install and no windows drivers to install with ndiswrapper or the like is Intel wireless cards. Doesn't look like Best Buy has any though, so your easiest bet is using a MadWiFI compatible card. If you are truly new to Linux and Ubuntu, then I would consult http://ubuntuforums.org/ for setting up Synaptic and getting the driver installed. This is an extremely common topic and is well documented.
On a side note, I would try to get away from buying computer parts from Best Buy. The options are limited, the prices high, and you always have some deusche salesmen trying to talk you into the more expensive card "cause it's teh r0x0rz!" even though it's completely wrong for your needs. I would drop by Newegg.com for great price, great shipping service, and huge selection.
The author of this article is basing his entire argument on the assumption that Ubuntu and Canonical are the same. He creates this assumption early on by saying that Canonical owns the rights to the name, and offers support contracts. Therefore, Ubuntu is Canonical. He then points out that Canonical is not purely open source, as they produce some proprietary software and charge for it. His argument is NOT that because Canonical tries to make money, that they aren't open source. Making money has nothing to do with being open source, it's the licensing.
However, I disagree with his assumption that Ubuntu and Canonical are the same. They are not the same. Ubuntu is an open source operating system. The fact that it is supported by a company who may produce proprietary software is irrelevant. Do I think it's hypocritical that Shuttlworth is evangelizing open source while at the same time selling proprietary products? You bet. But that doesn't change the fact that Ubuntu IS open source. By his logic, SuSE is not open source either because the company that owns and supports it, Novell, also has associations with proprietary products (and a deal with the ultimate proprietary software company).
The article is fairly confusing. It's not until more than half way down that he actually gets to the point. Simply, Canonical makes a proprietary application for managing Ubuntu systems. The rest of the time, he keeps building up his argument that Ubuntu is Canonical and goes on and on about how Canonical is trying to make money. All this time I'm thinking "There's nothing un-open source about making a buck!". But still, his Ubuntu is Canonical basis is flimsy. The article is really nothing more than a headlines grabber. Say something outrageous, the OSS fans go nuts, you get lots of page hits and ad revenue. The typical Slashdot sensationalist article.
From my short experience with OpenSUSE, I found it to be very Windows like, which may translate to easy for a first timer. Linux/Windows interoperability seemed to be a much higher priority as well, however, when accessing the Windows folders, I ran into write permission problems that I didn't have with my latest install of Fedora 8. I assume this was a deliberate decision for each. One locks down the write permission, while the other opens everything. I guess that is an easy vs. secure debate. As for the rest of the system, I didn't really care for their KDE customization. To be fair, I've always been more of a GNOME guy, but they also did extensive GNOME customizations that look just like their KDE version. This customization was very Vista-like, but overall, I found it harder to find the applications I needed. Even a lot of the configurations and system settings were a little spread out as well. Personally, I just didn't care for it, and much prefer Fedora and Ubuntu with a standard GNOME desktop. If you are going to give your family Ubuntu, I would make sure that you get yourself very familiar with it's inner workings in case you need to troubleshoot any strange issues.
I actually felt that throwing in the whole Windows partition task was a little unfair. If anything, this should have been two separate tasks. The first, burn a CD (didn't have to necessarily be music, but maybe have her download some, or pre-stage the install with a couple files. That checks whether she can a) find what program to use and b) can she use the program to complete the task. A dual-boot is a slightly more complicated scenario. How many Windows only users have ever encountered this? It is a valid scenario, though, as someone using Linux for the first time may very well be doing a migration from Windows, and may have some files on a Windows partition. For this reason, I can forgive Ubuntu for this one, but they should still not be satisfied (constant improvement should always be the goal). Ubuntu (and Fedora) should take notes from OpenSUSE on this issue. When I did a dual boot of OpenSUSE on my work laptop, not only did it recognize my Windows partitions, but it labeled them as windows_c, windows_d, etc. In addition, it created a windows folder in the root file system where these partitions could be accessed. I now have Fedora 8 installed instead, and while it does put the volumes on the desktop (like Ubuntu), it isn't quite as intuitive to someone who doesn't know much about partitions.
Overall though, this was a great article and, other than my one gripe above, a very well thought out study. It is interesting to see what the novice does. When asked to install something, I think "open up the package manager, it's so easy" where as anyone who has any experience with Windows or Mac, goes directly to the application's web page.
Distro Developers TAKE NOTE!!! Usability studies are a CRUCIAL part of delivering a quality product. While not all distros are aiming for Desktop supremacy, Ubuntu certainly is. They've done the best job out of anyone, but this article clearly shows, they still have a long ways to go.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm surprised it took this long for them to die. When I was a senior in college (3 years ago), Ruckus was introduced on my campus to help combat all of the piracy. It was dead on arrival. Everyone with an iPod saw the lack of support, shrugged, and then returned to their iTunes or piracy. Those like myself (no iPod, but running Linux)saw the lack of Linux support and the oodles of DRM and shouted "NO FUCKING WAY!" to anyone thinking about using it. Anyone who actually got to the part of trying to use it, gave up quickly after messing with the awful client software and realizing all of the limitations that the DRM provided. They handed us shit on a silver platter and called it a free lunch, but no one was interested.
Well if Apple continues to gain marketshare, we will soon find out what that threshold is. As soon as Apple gets slapped with an antitrust suit, note the current market share. That shall be hence forth the monopoly threshold. Apple is just as bad as Microsoft when it comes to consumer lock-in. You don't have to look any further than iTunes to see it, but there's plenty more examples. They just never get in trouble for it because they are perceived to be such a small player in the market (even though the iPod is clearly the dominant mp3 player).
Anyone who thinks they are more financially responsible because they choose to pay rent over a mortgage is a moron. Sorry to sound harsh. Of course I'm assuming you pay rent because you say you don't own a house and don't plan on it. You're just throwing your money away month after month. For the same amount you pay for rent every month, you could put towards a mortgage. At the end of that mortgage period, you now own that house. You don't make any more monthly payments. In fact, you now have an ASSET instead of a liability. Seriously, would you rather pay $x for 30 years or pay $x for as long as you're still breathing (personally I plan to live much longer than 30 years). It doesn't even have to be 30 years either. Since you are so financially responsible and live so below your means, you can probably pay off your mortgage much sooner. I know plenty of people who have done it, whether it was from living below their means or cashing in on a good investment. To quote Futurama, "I'm told banks are where poor people put money that isn't properly invested." Sure it was a joke, but it's so true. Even with the way the economy is now.
Agreed. When Microsoft says that they support other OS's and browsers, they mean that in the most minimal sense. Outlook Web Access is a great example. In IE, OWA is very dynamic. It automatically refreshes when new mail arrives, you have a preview pane, composing new messages takes place in a new window, and many more things that make using it fairly pleasant. Use it with anything but IE, and you step back in time to the year 1999. It's a static web page that you have to refresh manually to check for new messages. Everything takes place in the same window, so it's really hard to multi-task, and it's really easy to lose the message you're composing. There's really no excuse. My experience with GMail is consistent no matter what browser I use, and its far superior than OWA on IE any day of the week. Even Windows Live mail has a better interface.
It doesn't stop with just OWA, SharePoint is the same way. They say it supports all OS's and Browsers, but theres's big asterisk next to anything non-MS. Sure you can view pages and download content. You may even be able to upload new content. Don't even think about editing pages/content, changing site settings, reorganizing anything, or doing anything else. Once again, there's no excuse.
So they're saying that if I am doing something that requires more bandwidth, I will get less bandwidth; and when I don't need much bandwidth, they're going to give me more? I'm really confused by this. Can anyone make sense of this for me?
That's not really true. While the copy of Linux itself does not necessarily cost them anything, the fact that it is another option for the customer DOES make it cost more. General rule of thumb is that the more stock keeping units (SKU), the more it will cost you as a company. Basically, if you only sold one model of widgets, in one color with no options at all, it is cheaper than selling one model of widget that comes in either red or blue. It's not about the paint - the red and blue paint cost the same. It's the fact that your production line now has to support two variations. You now have two different packages for the product and on your web site, you now have to add in the capability for the customer to choose their color, and then you have to make sure that they get the right one. Going back to Lenovo, having a second operating system option means a lot of extra investment in their supply chain. Granted, if there is significant customer demand, the extra investment in the supply chain may be worth it. However, if the demand is not there, then the company shouldn't be selling that extra SKU.
On a non-business note, though, I'm sad to hear that they will no longer be selling pre-installed Linux. In fact, I didn't even know they had been selling pre-installed Linux until now. I like that the option is there. At the very least, I don't pay the Microsoft tax when I won't be installing any Microsoft software and hardware compatibility and driver support becomes more robust. I'm glad Dell is hanging in there. I won't comment on whether this is a conspiracy or not. I'm a dedicated Linux user and I love to bash Microsoft, but even I can admit that the demand just may not be there. It could have even been a factor of them failing at getting the message out to those who would be interested (I at least didn't get the memo). Although I will never completely rule out the possibility of an MS conspiracy, we can't exactly jump to that conclusion here.
I think you're missing the point of the argument and are comparing apples to oranges here. The financial argument is strictly talking about your options for your next car, and nothing to do with the car you are currently driving or getting rid of. If you are currently driving an H1, then of course you are going to have some serious gas savings if you buy a hybrid. In fact, if you actually do drive an H1, then you'll get some serious gas savings by getting a Suburban. To simplify things as much as possible, consider the Honda Civic. You can get a Civic with either a normal internal combustion engine, or as a hybrid. According to Honda's own website, the starting price of a 2009 Civic Sedan is $15,405 and the 2009 Civic Hybrid Sedan is $23,550. That is a $8,145 difference. Now consider the combined MPG of each with 29 for the gas and 42 for the hybrid. Now consider how much you actually drive. This varies for everyone, but let's assume 12,000 miles a year at $4.00 a gallon. In one year, the gas Civic will use 413.79 ($1655.16) gallons of gas and the Hybrid will use 285.71 ($1142.84) gallons. If you drive 12000 miles per year, and the price of gas remains $4.00 a gallon (which it won't), then in the 16th year of ownership, the Hybrid will have finally paid off it's $8,000+ premium. Of course, take into account the time value of money as stated by a previous poster, and that changes things, but also consider tax incentives for driving a hybrid. I won't crunch those numbers, but they would not change things too drastically. We're still talking about over a decade. So from a strictly financial sense, it does not make sense to buy the Civic Hybrid Sedan, when you can get just the regular Civic.
Things get trickier when you start talking about the Prius or the Insight, because they dont' really have a comparable gas model. You would have to compare as best you can to another small economy car. However, the fact remains, hybrids are being sold on either just their "green power" (it's green, so I have to buy one) and on just the illusion of financial benefit. There really is no financial benefit. This is good and bad. People who can afford it, should try to set the trend. That's how prices come down. But until those prices come down, the Hybrid is not the solution. I'm a firm believer that the free market is what will solve a lot of our problems. You can't force people to pay more for cleaner technology, because the sad fact is, people care more about their wallet than they do about their planet. In an extreme case, I would gladly pollute a little more just to get my next meal if you survival depended on it. If Honda really want to stick it to Toyota in the Hybrid market, they need the Insight to be not only cheaper than the Prius, but just as cheap as a Yaris.
I'll second that. Over a month ago, my car was hit by lightning while on a camping trip. This pretty much fried every electrical component on the car. Battery was killed, 5 control modules were killed, various wires melted. The mechanic has put $4500 of parts and labor into the car and it still won't start. Luckily my insurance is covering it, but it's frustrating that the problems aren't as clear cut as you would think. Especially now that cars have so many computers and electronics in them, you're not just a mechanic, you're a computer technician as well. You'd think it would be easy to go through the process and narrow down the problem areas, but it just isn't always that simple. Plus, considering that my tent poles were welded together from the lightning (yes I was in the tent, yes I am fine, and no sign of super powers yet), there's no telling what kind of mechanical problems have been caused.
But wait, he could be both geeky AND give his wife a fountain. See the last hour of Goldeneye. Your fountain can double as the communication device between you and your satellite death ray.
While this is true, the jump to Bio-diesel is not that big. In fact, a lot of diesel vehicles produced today, are fully bio-diesel compatible.
Just remember, if you steal one of these brain drone thingies from the Russian military, you have to control it by thinking in Russian.
So it's the refresh! A friend of mine had a CRT in his room. Also in the room was an air conditioning unit in the window. Additionally, his mattress was on the floor (no frame). I remember all the time, I would sit down on the bed, lean against the wall, and look over at the screen. The whole screen would just start swirling and wobbling. I thought I was going crazy until I figured out the connection between the vibrating wall and it's proximity to my head. To top things off, my friends desktop background was a very colorful fractal. Really trippy looking.
Maybe you should ask Gary Glitter
I hate text messages and try to avoid using them, but there is a time and place for them (just not many). If someone seriously can't talk, but needs to get the message across, then a text can be convenient. This often happens during work hours. Since I spend my entire work day in front of a computer, here's a little trick I use to avoid paying for text messages, and also making the conversation easier: First, you will receive a text on your phone. You have to pay for this one, but only this one. Don't respond on your phone. Bring up your e-mail, and send your response via e-mail to their phone. The address is generally @.com. You may need to look up the domain for the specific carrier. This also means you have to know what carrier the other person has. For Verizon, I believe it's @vtxt.com and AT&T is @txt.att.net (could be wrong though). Since it doesn't cost you anything to send e-mail, this message is free. Now if there is a response, hopefully, the other person just hits "Reply" from their phone. All responses should now go to your e-mail address. You are now sending and receiving text messages free of charge. Of course this only works if you're in front of a computer, but for me, extended text conversations seem to happen when I'm at work anyway.
I was actually watching this movie recently. I was really surprised (and pleased) at how well this movie holds up technically. The only technical aspect that I disagreed with was the human-like response of Joshua and its self-awareness. Something that was highly improbably then, and even today, but maybe the future. Anyhow, you can chalk that up to making the story more compelling and the computer more interesting.
But the parent post brings up an interesting point. There are not a lot of technically accurate hacker/computer movies out there. The movie Hackers is a prime example of a completely inaccurate movie. The only other hacker movie I've seen that comes close is Takedown (essentially the Kevin Mitnick story from the perspective of the guy who caught him), but this is based on real events, so it's not quite the same. Furthermore, I've read that the events in the movie differ from Mitnicks account of things and there is a lot of embellishment and artistic license. But I'm rambling.
So I ask the Slashdot audience - What other computer/hacker/technology movies out there actually measure up on a technical level?
Actually, I use MythTV and I believe my system may have listened to the broadcast flag. After reading the original Slashdot article, I meant to ask my fiance if she had tried to record Medium. She likes the show, I don't bother, so I don't pay attention to whether it records or not. I was curious if MythTV would ignore it or not. Unfortunatly, I forgot to ask. Until last night, a commercial while flipping through channels (on the non-mythtv tv) a re-run of Medium appears. It is then that my fiance says "By the way, for some reason the season finally of Medium didn't record." I still have to check the logs to see why. There are a lot of reasons shows don't record sometimes (human error, change of schedule, etc.).
Agreed. I suggest the Wall Street Journal for movie reviews. Usually they hate everything, so if they actually like something, you should probably see it.
This isn't a TSA issue. In fact, TSA doesn't give a shit if you have "suspicious data" or what not. They just care about "suspicious devices". In which case, if they even ask you to turn on your laptop, it's only to make sure that it's not a bomb. I travel weekly with 2 laptops and have never been hassled about them (except when I didn't put the laptop in its own bin, but I was a n00b at the time). Usually I just get comments like "Wow, two laptops! You must be a very busy guy!" and then I'm on my way. TSA is more likely to hassle you about your liquids than anything. My first week of flying regularly they confiscated all of my toiletries. Man was I pissed. I didn't know how I was going to handle flying for the remainder of my project, but you get to know the ins and outs of getting through security. I only recently was randomly checked, but it was just my liquids for a quick "lab test" and then I was on my way.
So in this discussion, keep in mind this is International travel and only customs you're worrying about. Should keep things in perspective.
True, the larger company has more money to spend on advertising, but at the same time, if it weren't for advertising, the little guy would have a much harder time breaking into a market that is dominated by the big guys. Plus, advertising is not just about outspending the competition. The ads have to effective at conveying your message and bringing awareness of your product. Just look at the Zune. I've seen tons of ads for the Zune, but the ads were so ineffective that if you asked most people what a Zune is, they would stare at you blankly and say "Never heard of it." To counterpoint, look at Apples recent Mac vs. PC ad campaign. Love it or hate it, it instills the impression that Vista is failing, while more and more people are discovering how great the Mac is. All of these people who have been using Windows because it's the most popular and therefore best are starting to wonder if this new version of Windows is all it's cracked up to be. The ads are simple and targeted. Even a monkey can understand it.
There also has never been any conclusive study that could show that "subliminal advertising" even works. If anything, the only thing accomplished is brand awareness. Essentially, I've heard of brand x, but not brand y, so I'll buy brand x. Furthermore, it's not intended to be subliminal, people just aren't paying attention, so don't even go down the "subliminal ads are illegal" path.
2) Steal personal information
3) Sell personal information
4) ?????
5) Profit
Does "Hacker for hire" or "For profit hacking" work better for you? The correct term is "Cracker". Either way, it is a capitalist system that they function under. There is demand for a good (personal information). The cracker answers the demand by producing a supply of that good. The quantity of demand versus the available supply determines a price. People pay the cracker for the good which is later used to make more money through other nefarious activities. The cracker is like the wholesaler of ID and credit fraud.
I won't do all of your homework for you, but here's a start. It looks like, based on Best Buy's offerings, you are best going with a card that uses the Atheros chipset. I have a D-Link in my desktop computer that uses this chipset and Linux support is very good. However, every model (even by the same manufacturer) is different. There are only 11 desktop cards and 18 laptop cards carried by best buy. If one of those cards is on this list then that is the card for you. Install the card, install Ubuntu (but keep a wire connected for now). You will then need to enable the "universe" repositories in Synaptic that include non-free software. Install the "madwifi" driver and you should be good to go. The only wireless cards I've used that have worked out of the box, with no extra drivers to install and no windows drivers to install with ndiswrapper or the like is Intel wireless cards. Doesn't look like Best Buy has any though, so your easiest bet is using a MadWiFI compatible card. If you are truly new to Linux and Ubuntu, then I would consult http://ubuntuforums.org/ for setting up Synaptic and getting the driver installed. This is an extremely common topic and is well documented.
On a side note, I would try to get away from buying computer parts from Best Buy. The options are limited, the prices high, and you always have some deusche salesmen trying to talk you into the more expensive card "cause it's teh r0x0rz!" even though it's completely wrong for your needs. I would drop by Newegg.com for great price, great shipping service, and huge selection.
To fill his victims full of dread...duh.
The author of this article is basing his entire argument on the assumption that Ubuntu and Canonical are the same. He creates this assumption early on by saying that Canonical owns the rights to the name, and offers support contracts. Therefore, Ubuntu is Canonical. He then points out that Canonical is not purely open source, as they produce some proprietary software and charge for it. His argument is NOT that because Canonical tries to make money, that they aren't open source. Making money has nothing to do with being open source, it's the licensing.
However, I disagree with his assumption that Ubuntu and Canonical are the same. They are not the same. Ubuntu is an open source operating system. The fact that it is supported by a company who may produce proprietary software is irrelevant. Do I think it's hypocritical that Shuttlworth is evangelizing open source while at the same time selling proprietary products? You bet. But that doesn't change the fact that Ubuntu IS open source. By his logic, SuSE is not open source either because the company that owns and supports it, Novell, also has associations with proprietary products (and a deal with the ultimate proprietary software company).
The article is fairly confusing. It's not until more than half way down that he actually gets to the point. Simply, Canonical makes a proprietary application for managing Ubuntu systems. The rest of the time, he keeps building up his argument that Ubuntu is Canonical and goes on and on about how Canonical is trying to make money. All this time I'm thinking "There's nothing un-open source about making a buck!". But still, his Ubuntu is Canonical basis is flimsy. The article is really nothing more than a headlines grabber. Say something outrageous, the OSS fans go nuts, you get lots of page hits and ad revenue. The typical Slashdot sensationalist article.
From my short experience with OpenSUSE, I found it to be very Windows like, which may translate to easy for a first timer. Linux/Windows interoperability seemed to be a much higher priority as well, however, when accessing the Windows folders, I ran into write permission problems that I didn't have with my latest install of Fedora 8. I assume this was a deliberate decision for each. One locks down the write permission, while the other opens everything. I guess that is an easy vs. secure debate. As for the rest of the system, I didn't really care for their KDE customization. To be fair, I've always been more of a GNOME guy, but they also did extensive GNOME customizations that look just like their KDE version. This customization was very Vista-like, but overall, I found it harder to find the applications I needed. Even a lot of the configurations and system settings were a little spread out as well. Personally, I just didn't care for it, and much prefer Fedora and Ubuntu with a standard GNOME desktop. If you are going to give your family Ubuntu, I would make sure that you get yourself very familiar with it's inner workings in case you need to troubleshoot any strange issues.
I actually felt that throwing in the whole Windows partition task was a little unfair. If anything, this should have been two separate tasks. The first, burn a CD (didn't have to necessarily be music, but maybe have her download some, or pre-stage the install with a couple files. That checks whether she can a) find what program to use and b) can she use the program to complete the task. A dual-boot is a slightly more complicated scenario. How many Windows only users have ever encountered this? It is a valid scenario, though, as someone using Linux for the first time may very well be doing a migration from Windows, and may have some files on a Windows partition. For this reason, I can forgive Ubuntu for this one, but they should still not be satisfied (constant improvement should always be the goal). Ubuntu (and Fedora) should take notes from OpenSUSE on this issue. When I did a dual boot of OpenSUSE on my work laptop, not only did it recognize my Windows partitions, but it labeled them as windows_c, windows_d, etc. In addition, it created a windows folder in the root file system where these partitions could be accessed. I now have Fedora 8 installed instead, and while it does put the volumes on the desktop (like Ubuntu), it isn't quite as intuitive to someone who doesn't know much about partitions.
Overall though, this was a great article and, other than my one gripe above, a very well thought out study. It is interesting to see what the novice does. When asked to install something, I think "open up the package manager, it's so easy" where as anyone who has any experience with Windows or Mac, goes directly to the application's web page.
Distro Developers TAKE NOTE!!! Usability studies are a CRUCIAL part of delivering a quality product. While not all distros are aiming for Desktop supremacy, Ubuntu certainly is. They've done the best job out of anyone, but this article clearly shows, they still have a long ways to go.