This smacks of some desperation on Microsoft's part. I mean, if they have to avoid telling people they're using Vista, then they're acknowledging there's a negative perception of the OS out there.
And this, IMHO, is what trips software makers up. If your product is perceived negatively, then you'd damn well better find out why and fix it. I've said this about OpenOffice for a while now. Is it slow? Maybe a little. Not terrible to me, but maybe a little, and there are certainly some people who think so. So try and work on that. The same goes for Vista. For better or worse, people don't like it, so find out why and address those issues. Don't just try to convince people that their opinions are wrong.
The problem, of course, is that MS has invested tons of money in Vista. Whether it's a turkey or not, it's perceived that way, and MS realizes it, hence this site. But when people have made up their minds, it won't be easy to solve the problem simply by telling them they're wrong. Address their complaints instead, and you might convince them.
Usually it's because the computers I'm updating are things brought in to me that haven't had updates run in years. On an up-to-date XP box, you can do it in a few minutes, but when you run Windows Update, and the thing wants to get all the patches before IE7 even installs, that takes a while. Yeah, I could just get the IE7 installer and bypass Windows Update, but if you're getting the new browser for improved security, then you might as well get the other gazillion Windows security patches.
In any case, it's slower than Firefox. I can uninstall an old version and do a clean install in about three minutes.
MS has done some incredibly stupid things besides that, like pulling Windows Defender from Win2000 after the beta expired. It's a security tool, for God's sake! Why the hell would you yank something like that from an OS after you've already made it available? If you don't want to update it for that OS anymore, fine, but don't throw an expiring beta out there, then, when the final version is released, pull support for a major OS just to force people to upgrade to XP. Greedy idiotic bastards!
But back to updating the browser. You'd think it was a simple process until you went from IE6 to 7. You might as well go out for a five-course meal while that update runs. Not that folks shouldn't update, but still... Of course, I don't use IE any more than is absolutely necessary, so I only update it because it has so many damn hooks into Windows that I don't want to risk any security issues.
Oh, and I have seen how other people treat their computers, and it ain't pretty. I'm looking over at a laptop right now that I tried to clean up for someone. I removed 70 pieces of malware from it, and although AntiVir says it's clean, I don't believe it. I want to reformat, but the owner has been hunting for his install CD for two weeks, so there it sits in quarantine until he can find it.
I don't know how many hate it. Initially, I did, but I've come to like it. However, I can understand why some folks don't.
But hey, this is Firefox, an open source project, so why don't all the folks who don't like it get organized and contact Mozilla en masse and demand that they include the option to use it or return to the old bar--and I mean the original old bar, not just an imitation that looks like the old bar but uses the new algorithm--in the next incremental update?
I'm not being flippant here. Let the developers know how you feel about this, and let them know loudly. And think of it this way: This isn't an indication that the Awesome Bar is a failure. Mozilla giving folks the option to use it or not will be an indication that the developers listen to users and respond quickly, rather than say that it's their way or the highway.
Like I say, I like the way the Awesome Bar works, but I'll support those who want a choice whether or not to use it.
Because of this project, I'm developing a new Linux distro. It's based on Slackware, so I've decided to name it Slackerware. I've assembled a development team of folks I've talked to down at a few local college bars, and, as soon as everyone sobers up, we'll start working on it. However, be warned that this will likely take quite a while. We're thinking something may be ready by...well, we don't have a firm date yet because we haven't met to discuss it. Well, actually, we did meet, but we ended up playing NTN trivia instead. But as soon as we get off our lazy asses and do something, I promise you that Slackerware will be the coolest distro ever.
OK, here are my ideas, in order of what I would do.
First, install Firefox and the Adblock Plus extension. That will help your speed a bit.
As for the Internet access, they need to decide if they want fast Internet more than they want a dish-free yard. IMHO, get the damn dish and conceal it. Several folks have offered suggestions on how to do this. This will get them reasonably fast Internet without a lot of hassle.
If they refuse to do this, then see what cell companies put good signals into the area. At least one should. Find out what they charge for unlimited data. Just make sure that the data plan you choose allows for tethering to a computer. These plans often cost more than plans that can only be used with a wireless phone. Also, check out data technologies they're offering. For a GSM carrier like AT&T, you want to see if they offer HSDPA, which they will call 3G. For a CDMA carrier like Verizon or Sprint, EVDO is what you want. All these carriers will show you what you can get via their coverage maps.
ISDN might also be an option. It can be relatively cheap or insanely expensive, depending on the location and telco. Also, when you call to inquire, be prepared for some puzzled responses from some reps, especially the newer ones. Not many folks order ISDN now. Also, many phone companies will sell the ISDN circuit separate from Internet access. In fact, some telcos may not even sell you ISDN Internet access. You may have to find an ISP that will sell you the connection. Also, don't forget to purchase a Terminal Adapter, since I doubt the telco will supply one.
If all that doesn't get you anywhere, I guess you could try the multilink PPP approach to bonding several phone lines. Just don't expect many ISP's to offer it, and don't expect a lot of support. IMHO, this was always a kludge. Kind of the solution of absolute last resort.
...a Canadian citizen filed a formal charge against the members of one of the Human Rights Commissions alleging that they are violating his human rights by limiting his ability to read material he would like to read? No, seriously, I'm not joking. It sounds like anyone may bring charges against anyone else, so what would happen if someone actually did this? Would it have to enter the court system? Who would hear such a case?
A hotspot with encryption would be acceptable if you can be sure you're connected to a "legit" hotspot and not one that's set up to steal your data. Once someone has decided to do that, they have complete control of where you go, so they can easily send you to a phishing site if they so choose. This would be more complicated to set up than simply infecting some systems with malware, but, again, how much risk are you willing to accept?
Also, since many places offer free wireless, those hotspots are often running in the clear, and your data has no protection at all.
I'm really not being flippant here. The posters above have listed some ways around a basic keylogger, but there are other ways a system can be compromised. You could be dealing with a program that takes screenshots and/or reads the clipboard at random intervals. Hell, there could be a program on there that silently redirects you to bogus lookalike sites that steal your info. Not that this is likely, but it's possible.
My policy on using public access computers is that I only use them when I have no other choice, and the more valuable the data I need to protect, the less likely I am to use one.
There are so many more attack vectors than a keylogger that, if I were you, I wouldn't just focus on that one thing. If your data really needs to be secure and accessed remotely, get yourself a laptop and a data card from one of the cell carriers. At least that way, you can keep physical control over your machine and avoid the risks of using a hotspot. Of course, if you think that someone will be able to tap into your wireless connection through a cell phone carrier, than you likely have more issues than we can address here.
It's money, my friend. Parents are insisting that colleges protect little Junior from any exposure to that scary thing called the real world, and administrators, eager to lure in the parents' dollars, are willing to oblige. Of course, Mom and Dad don't know or choose to ignore the fact that little Junior is doing shots of whatever alcoholic beverage he can find, then chasing them with a six pack or three, right before he gets behind the wheel to drive down to his frat house, where his brothers have assembled a swap with all the sorority chicks they can find, girls whose parents think they're off in the library studying.
It's all about the money, and the school that can most effectively provide the illusion that the kids are safe and secure, reality be damned, gets a big chunk of it.
Go ahead, Mr. Dempsey, start your new Internet. You act as if creating a new one requires some sort of special permission, but you'd be wrong. There is absolutely nothing stopping you from creating another Internet using TCP/IP or whatever protocol you like. You can design it any way you want. You can even run Web servers on port 90210 if you like. Hell, you might even find a way to run the whole thing on NetBEUI. I doubt it, but don't let me kill your dream. I'm sure MS will be glad to modify it so it'd work...for a price.
So you go right ahead and start your new Internet. Get everything set up, then you can get back to us. If we like what you've built, maybe we'll come over for a visit. I doubt it, but don't let me discourage you.
Lest anyone be at all surprised, remember that RIAA stands for the Recording Industry Association of America. It represents the record companies, and that's all it represents. If these companies could find some legal way to hold a gun to a songwriter's or musician's head and take their work at gunpoint, they'd do it.
I'm not going to insist that digital downloads are the future and that all artists should follow Radiohead's lead, but any artists who care at all about their future had damn well better examine every single alternative when figuring out how to produce and distribute their music. Things are changing, and you can be sure that the record companies are going to be looking out for their best interests. Artists had better do the same, or they're going to get screwed.
One thing that comes to mind is Microsoft's Malicious Software Removal Tool, which comes out each month in Windows Update. Another tool is Trend Micro's online virus scanner, located at http://housecall.trendmicro.com./
The tools you're thinking of were standalone removal tools for specific pieces of malware. I'm sure they still release these from time to time. They usually came out for malware that was especially high-profile, so don't expect to see one for every one out there.
But the most useful tools, IMHO, are the antivirus programs you can get for free, specifically AVG and avast!, among others. They work well, and they're much less bloated than Symantec of McAfee. Whenever I'm setting up a new computer for someone, reinstalling Windows on an old one, or doing any kind of work on one, I make it a point to question the owner about their virus protection and, after getting their OK, install some soft of AV software on it. If every geek did this, we might make an impact, albeit a small one, on the botnet problem. Remember, a little education goes a long way.
I'm all for freedom to play what you want to play, but this lawsuit is the stupidest thing I've seen in a long time. Hello! Apple makes the iPod. If they want to tie it to AAC+, they can do that. But, hey, as long as we're talking lawsuits, then let's sue them because it doesn't support OGG, FLAC, ATRAC, FLV, WMV, and it doesn't have an 8-track player option, just for good measure. By this logic, every software or hardware product out there could be liable if they don't include every single media or file format out there. All a lawsuit troll would need to do is develop some half-baked format that may or may not work, then pounce on any company for not supporting it.
If the plaintiff or the lawyers happen to read this, drop this idiotic suit. You aren't going to win, and you aren't doing the cause of open formats any favors. All you're doing is making yourself and the cause you seem to think you're helping look stupid.
Well, they could discount the sets by $40, but they can't accept the coupons for the discount to apply, since the government has said they're only good for the converter boxes.
But you do have a point. The major TV manufacturers are't going to be interested in making and selling these boxes, since they would be hurting sales of their HDTV's. I mean, look at the manufacturers listed on the site so far:
Of these, only Zenith, Magnavox, and Philco make sets at all, and only Philips/Magnavox is even close to being a major brand. It's interesting to see EchoStar making a box. For those who may not know, they're the parent company of DISH Network.
I think a lot of it, at least in the United States, has to do with the lack of adoption of HDTV sets. Prices for them have certainly dropped, but they're just beginning to reach the point where many people will spring for them. And until someone gets a new set, they have no real reason to get a HD DVD player, no matter the format.
I can share a bit of personal insight on this. I have a 31-inch Sony TV that I got in 2000, a standard DVD player, albeit one that can handle DVD-Audio and SACD, a 5.1 surround sound system, and just under 200 DVD's. While there are other folks with fancier systems, mine is no slouch. Now, here's the thing. Although I would theoretically be a good customer for HDTV, I have a lot invested in my current setup, and the equipment is in good shape. I'm not about to drop a wad of cash on a new TV when mine is working just fine. Right now, I'm getting ready to get married, and you can bet that, after the wedding, I'll have to clear any purchases with my wife. Can I really justify retiring my setup when it still works? TV is nice, but my life doesn't revolve around it. Sure, at some point my TV will die, and I'll replace it with something, and it will be HD, but that time hasn't come just yet.
I think that DVD was such a huge success because it offered better audio and video that could be experienced on a current TV. It was an easy upgrade, so people went for it. HD, whether HD-DVD or Blu-Ray, is only really useful when coupled with a new HDTV, and those still cost too much.
How will an XP port kill the project? Does it precent Linux from being run on it? No. Does it raise the cost of the laptop? Only if MS charges for XP, and it's mandatory that every machine include it.
People would be screaming bloody murder if the OLPC folks had initially selected Windows for the laptop and then refused to allow Linux developers to have a look at it so they could port Linux to it. I fail to see the difference here. Fair is fair.
But is the core purpose of the OLPC to build open laptops or to build inexpensive laptops? Remember, they chose Linux because it was inexpensive. Having open drivers would certainly be nice, but they have deadlines to meet, and they probably figure that, if the drivers work for their intended purpose, then their job is done.
Besides, if you want open drivers, then you're free to write them yourself and make them available.
Right. I think that the FEC wanted to make sure that they distinguished between a site like DailyKos receiving money through advertising as opposed to them receiving money or the equivalent from a political candidate or party. I think a muddier area would be if, say, the DNC placed a lot of ads on DailyKos. Now, would the site still be exempt? My guess is that it would, as long as its ad space was open to anyone, regardless of political affiliation. However, if the ads were a way for the DNC to funnel money to the site, then that might trigger a deeper examination.
I think this is one of those rare cases where a government body got things right. If the ruling had gone the other way, then you get into really nasty First Amendment territory. You could easily envision a situation where political discourse could be effectively banned from the Internet by applying campaign finance rules that would regulate it out of existence, and I think the FEC realized this.
Yes, indeed, you're right. It looks like the bill hasn't made it to the full Senate yet.
I'd be curious to hear from the OP about this. Where do you see this as having passed Congress? I'm not seeing it, but perhaps I'm missing it. Please provide clarification.
I'll give you a clue. One of these currencies was around until just a few years ago, when it was replaced by another currency that I guarantee you've heard of. Once you get that one, the name of the other one will be a dead giveaway.
No offense, really, but I have to repeat what JoeShmoe950 asked. You really didn't know what India's currency is?
Dear Lord, what has our education system come to?
For some more currency fun, watch "The Princess Bride" again (I'm assuming you already have seen it, or you should have) and see if you can identify the two currencies referenced in it.
Right, and making all this public and easily assessable is a first step toward finding out. I'm sure there are cases where there are a few bad apples causing problems, and there are cases where the whole barrel needs to be thrown out. Well, let's find out how many apples are rotten and get rid of them. And if the whole lot of them is bad, then out they should go.
Slashdot Mirror
This smacks of some desperation on Microsoft's part. I mean, if they have to avoid telling people they're using Vista, then they're acknowledging there's a negative perception of the OS out there.
And this, IMHO, is what trips software makers up. If your product is perceived negatively, then you'd damn well better find out why and fix it. I've said this about OpenOffice for a while now. Is it slow? Maybe a little. Not terrible to me, but maybe a little, and there are certainly some people who think so. So try and work on that. The same goes for Vista. For better or worse, people don't like it, so find out why and address those issues. Don't just try to convince people that their opinions are wrong.
The problem, of course, is that MS has invested tons of money in Vista. Whether it's a turkey or not, it's perceived that way, and MS realizes it, hence this site. But when people have made up their minds, it won't be easy to solve the problem simply by telling them they're wrong. Address their complaints instead, and you might convince them.
Usually it's because the computers I'm updating are things brought in to me that haven't had updates run in years. On an up-to-date XP box, you can do it in a few minutes, but when you run Windows Update, and the thing wants to get all the patches before IE7 even installs, that takes a while. Yeah, I could just get the IE7 installer and bypass Windows Update, but if you're getting the new browser for improved security, then you might as well get the other gazillion Windows security patches.
In any case, it's slower than Firefox. I can uninstall an old version and do a clean install in about three minutes.
Nowhere in my post did I say it should be taken away. I said that users could be given the option to use it or the old bar.
MS has done some incredibly stupid things besides that, like pulling Windows Defender from Win2000 after the beta expired. It's a security tool, for God's sake! Why the hell would you yank something like that from an OS after you've already made it available? If you don't want to update it for that OS anymore, fine, but don't throw an expiring beta out there, then, when the final version is released, pull support for a major OS just to force people to upgrade to XP. Greedy idiotic bastards!
But back to updating the browser. You'd think it was a simple process until you went from IE6 to 7. You might as well go out for a five-course meal while that update runs. Not that folks shouldn't update, but still... Of course, I don't use IE any more than is absolutely necessary, so I only update it because it has so many damn hooks into Windows that I don't want to risk any security issues.
Oh, and I have seen how other people treat their computers, and it ain't pretty. I'm looking over at a laptop right now that I tried to clean up for someone. I removed 70 pieces of malware from it, and although AntiVir says it's clean, I don't believe it. I want to reformat, but the owner has been hunting for his install CD for two weeks, so there it sits in quarantine until he can find it.
I don't know how many hate it. Initially, I did, but I've come to like it. However, I can understand why some folks don't.
But hey, this is Firefox, an open source project, so why don't all the folks who don't like it get organized and contact Mozilla en masse and demand that they include the option to use it or return to the old bar--and I mean the original old bar, not just an imitation that looks like the old bar but uses the new algorithm--in the next incremental update?
I'm not being flippant here. Let the developers know how you feel about this, and let them know loudly. And think of it this way: This isn't an indication that the Awesome Bar is a failure. Mozilla giving folks the option to use it or not will be an indication that the developers listen to users and respond quickly, rather than say that it's their way or the highway.
Like I say, I like the way the Awesome Bar works, but I'll support those who want a choice whether or not to use it.
Because of this project, I'm developing a new Linux distro. It's based on Slackware, so I've decided to name it Slackerware. I've assembled a development team of folks I've talked to down at a few local college bars, and, as soon as everyone sobers up, we'll start working on it. However, be warned that this will likely take quite a while. We're thinking something may be ready by...well, we don't have a firm date yet because we haven't met to discuss it. Well, actually, we did meet, but we ended up playing NTN trivia instead. But as soon as we get off our lazy asses and do something, I promise you that Slackerware will be the coolest distro ever.
BTW, $3 pitchers at The Legacy tonight! Who's in?
OK, here are my ideas, in order of what I would do.
First, install Firefox and the Adblock Plus extension. That will help your speed a bit.
As for the Internet access, they need to decide if they want fast Internet more than they want a dish-free yard. IMHO, get the damn dish and conceal it. Several folks have offered suggestions on how to do this. This will get them reasonably fast Internet without a lot of hassle.
If they refuse to do this, then see what cell companies put good signals into the area. At least one should. Find out what they charge for unlimited data. Just make sure that the data plan you choose allows for tethering to a computer. These plans often cost more than plans that can only be used with a wireless phone. Also, check out data technologies they're offering. For a GSM carrier like AT&T, you want to see if they offer HSDPA, which they will call 3G. For a CDMA carrier like Verizon or Sprint, EVDO is what you want. All these carriers will show you what you can get via their coverage maps.
ISDN might also be an option. It can be relatively cheap or insanely expensive, depending on the location and telco. Also, when you call to inquire, be prepared for some puzzled responses from some reps, especially the newer ones. Not many folks order ISDN now. Also, many phone companies will sell the ISDN circuit separate from Internet access. In fact, some telcos may not even sell you ISDN Internet access. You may have to find an ISP that will sell you the connection. Also, don't forget to purchase a Terminal Adapter, since I doubt the telco will supply one.
If all that doesn't get you anywhere, I guess you could try the multilink PPP approach to bonding several phone lines. Just don't expect many ISP's to offer it, and don't expect a lot of support. IMHO, this was always a kludge. Kind of the solution of absolute last resort.
IMHO, just get the dish. You'll be much happier.
...a Canadian citizen filed a formal charge against the members of one of the Human Rights Commissions alleging that they are violating his human rights by limiting his ability to read material he would like to read? No, seriously, I'm not joking. It sounds like anyone may bring charges against anyone else, so what would happen if someone actually did this? Would it have to enter the court system? Who would hear such a case?
A hotspot with encryption would be acceptable if you can be sure you're connected to a "legit" hotspot and not one that's set up to steal your data. Once someone has decided to do that, they have complete control of where you go, so they can easily send you to a phishing site if they so choose. This would be more complicated to set up than simply infecting some systems with malware, but, again, how much risk are you willing to accept?
Also, since many places offer free wireless, those hotspots are often running in the clear, and your data has no protection at all.
...then don't use a public terminal.
I'm really not being flippant here. The posters above have listed some ways around a basic keylogger, but there are other ways a system can be compromised. You could be dealing with a program that takes screenshots and/or reads the clipboard at random intervals. Hell, there could be a program on there that silently redirects you to bogus lookalike sites that steal your info. Not that this is likely, but it's possible.
My policy on using public access computers is that I only use them when I have no other choice, and the more valuable the data I need to protect, the less likely I am to use one.
There are so many more attack vectors than a keylogger that, if I were you, I wouldn't just focus on that one thing. If your data really needs to be secure and accessed remotely, get yourself a laptop and a data card from one of the cell carriers. At least that way, you can keep physical control over your machine and avoid the risks of using a hotspot. Of course, if you think that someone will be able to tap into your wireless connection through a cell phone carrier, than you likely have more issues than we can address here.
It's money, my friend. Parents are insisting that colleges protect little Junior from any exposure to that scary thing called the real world, and administrators, eager to lure in the parents' dollars, are willing to oblige. Of course, Mom and Dad don't know or choose to ignore the fact that little Junior is doing shots of whatever alcoholic beverage he can find, then chasing them with a six pack or three, right before he gets behind the wheel to drive down to his frat house, where his brothers have assembled a swap with all the sorority chicks they can find, girls whose parents think they're off in the library studying.
It's all about the money, and the school that can most effectively provide the illusion that the kids are safe and secure, reality be damned, gets a big chunk of it.
American media? With the garbage we produce here, this would likely end up backfiring.
Go ahead, Mr. Dempsey, start your new Internet. You act as if creating a new one requires some sort of special permission, but you'd be wrong. There is absolutely nothing stopping you from creating another Internet using TCP/IP or whatever protocol you like. You can design it any way you want. You can even run Web servers on port 90210 if you like. Hell, you might even find a way to run the whole thing on NetBEUI. I doubt it, but don't let me kill your dream. I'm sure MS will be glad to modify it so it'd work...for a price. So you go right ahead and start your new Internet. Get everything set up, then you can get back to us. If we like what you've built, maybe we'll come over for a visit. I doubt it, but don't let me discourage you.
Lest anyone be at all surprised, remember that RIAA stands for the Recording Industry Association of America. It represents the record companies, and that's all it represents. If these companies could find some legal way to hold a gun to a songwriter's or musician's head and take their work at gunpoint, they'd do it.
I'm not going to insist that digital downloads are the future and that all artists should follow Radiohead's lead, but any artists who care at all about their future had damn well better examine every single alternative when figuring out how to produce and distribute their music. Things are changing, and you can be sure that the record companies are going to be looking out for their best interests. Artists had better do the same, or they're going to get screwed.
One thing that comes to mind is Microsoft's Malicious Software Removal Tool, which comes out each month in Windows Update. Another tool is Trend Micro's online virus scanner, located at http://housecall.trendmicro.com./
The tools you're thinking of were standalone removal tools for specific pieces of malware. I'm sure they still release these from time to time. They usually came out for malware that was especially high-profile, so don't expect to see one for every one out there.
But the most useful tools, IMHO, are the antivirus programs you can get for free, specifically AVG and avast!, among others. They work well, and they're much less bloated than Symantec of McAfee. Whenever I'm setting up a new computer for someone, reinstalling Windows on an old one, or doing any kind of work on one, I make it a point to question the owner about their virus protection and, after getting their OK, install some soft of AV software on it. If every geek did this, we might make an impact, albeit a small one, on the botnet problem. Remember, a little education goes a long way.
mAVG: http://free.grisoft.com/
avast!: http://www.avast.com/
I'm all for freedom to play what you want to play, but this lawsuit is the stupidest thing I've seen in a long time. Hello! Apple makes the iPod. If they want to tie it to AAC+, they can do that. But, hey, as long as we're talking lawsuits, then let's sue them because it doesn't support OGG, FLAC, ATRAC, FLV, WMV, and it doesn't have an 8-track player option, just for good measure. By this logic, every software or hardware product out there could be liable if they don't include every single media or file format out there. All a lawsuit troll would need to do is develop some half-baked format that may or may not work, then pounce on any company for not supporting it.
If the plaintiff or the lawyers happen to read this, drop this idiotic suit. You aren't going to win, and you aren't doing the cause of open formats any favors. All you're doing is making yourself and the cause you seem to think you're helping look stupid.
Well, they could discount the sets by $40, but they can't accept the coupons for the discount to apply, since the government has said they're only good for the converter boxes.
But you do have a point. The major TV manufacturers are't going to be interested in making and selling these boxes, since they would be hurting sales of their HDTV's. I mean, look at the manufacturers listed on the site so far:
* DigitalSTREAM D2A1D10
* DigitalSTREAM D2A1D20
* Zenith DTT900
* Magnavox TB100MW9
* Philco TB150HH9
* MicroGEM MG2000
* Sansonic FT300RT
* MaxMedia MMDTVB03
* Apex DT1001
* ECHOSTAR TR-40
* AMTC AT-2016
Of these, only Zenith, Magnavox, and Philco make sets at all, and only Philips/Magnavox is even close to being a major brand. It's interesting to see EchoStar making a box. For those who may not know, they're the parent company of DISH Network.
I think a lot of it, at least in the United States, has to do with the lack of adoption of HDTV sets. Prices for them have certainly dropped, but they're just beginning to reach the point where many people will spring for them. And until someone gets a new set, they have no real reason to get a HD DVD player, no matter the format.
I can share a bit of personal insight on this. I have a 31-inch Sony TV that I got in 2000, a standard DVD player, albeit one that can handle DVD-Audio and SACD, a 5.1 surround sound system, and just under 200 DVD's. While there are other folks with fancier systems, mine is no slouch. Now, here's the thing. Although I would theoretically be a good customer for HDTV, I have a lot invested in my current setup, and the equipment is in good shape. I'm not about to drop a wad of cash on a new TV when mine is working just fine. Right now, I'm getting ready to get married, and you can bet that, after the wedding, I'll have to clear any purchases with my wife. Can I really justify retiring my setup when it still works? TV is nice, but my life doesn't revolve around it. Sure, at some point my TV will die, and I'll replace it with something, and it will be HD, but that time hasn't come just yet.
I think that DVD was such a huge success because it offered better audio and video that could be experienced on a current TV. It was an easy upgrade, so people went for it. HD, whether HD-DVD or Blu-Ray, is only really useful when coupled with a new HDTV, and those still cost too much.
How will an XP port kill the project? Does it precent Linux from being run on it? No. Does it raise the cost of the laptop? Only if MS charges for XP, and it's mandatory that every machine include it.
People would be screaming bloody murder if the OLPC folks had initially selected Windows for the laptop and then refused to allow Linux developers to have a look at it so they could port Linux to it. I fail to see the difference here. Fair is fair.
But is the core purpose of the OLPC to build open laptops or to build inexpensive laptops? Remember, they chose Linux because it was inexpensive. Having open drivers would certainly be nice, but they have deadlines to meet, and they probably figure that, if the drivers work for their intended purpose, then their job is done.
Besides, if you want open drivers, then you're free to write them yourself and make them available.
Right. I think that the FEC wanted to make sure that they distinguished between a site like DailyKos receiving money through advertising as opposed to them receiving money or the equivalent from a political candidate or party. I think a muddier area would be if, say, the DNC placed a lot of ads on DailyKos. Now, would the site still be exempt? My guess is that it would, as long as its ad space was open to anyone, regardless of political affiliation. However, if the ads were a way for the DNC to funnel money to the site, then that might trigger a deeper examination.
I think this is one of those rare cases where a government body got things right. If the ruling had gone the other way, then you get into really nasty First Amendment territory. You could easily envision a situation where political discourse could be effectively banned from the Internet by applying campaign finance rules that would regulate it out of existence, and I think the FEC realized this.
Yes, indeed, you're right. It looks like the bill hasn't made it to the full Senate yet.
I'd be curious to hear from the OP about this. Where do you see this as having passed Congress? I'm not seeing it, but perhaps I'm missing it. Please provide clarification.
Creative answer, but no cigar.
I'll give you a clue. One of these currencies was around until just a few years ago, when it was replaced by another currency that I guarantee you've heard of. Once you get that one, the name of the other one will be a dead giveaway.
Have fun, and don't forget to post your answer!
No offense, really, but I have to repeat what JoeShmoe950 asked. You really didn't know what India's currency is?
Dear Lord, what has our education system come to?
For some more currency fun, watch "The Princess Bride" again (I'm assuming you already have seen it, or you should have) and see if you can identify the two currencies referenced in it.
Right, and making all this public and easily assessable is a first step toward finding out. I'm sure there are cases where there are a few bad apples causing problems, and there are cases where the whole barrel needs to be thrown out. Well, let's find out how many apples are rotten and get rid of them. And if the whole lot of them is bad, then out they should go.