But you can do this anyway, with any distribution. Only now, you can't just "be" root to accomplish a series of tasks, you have to prefix everything with "sudo", even if you are the system administrator.
Although there's the problem for bandwidth (think baud) of being inversely proportional to frequency (the lower the freqency the longer the range but the less Mbytes/second you get), there are some techniques to overcome this and which the cell phone companies themselves use.
This doesn't make sense. If bandwidth was inversely proportional to frequency, then the lower the frequency the more MBytes/sec you would get. But bandwidth and frequency are actually two separate issues. The frequency refers to the carrier frequency. In case of 802.11, it is 2.4GHz or 5.8Ghz. Cell phones here in Canada use 800 and 1900 MHz (I think). But these numbers have nothing to do with bandwidth. The bandwidth is determined by how wide the channel is that is centred around that frequency. Take FM Radio for example. Stations are set 200 KHz apart, so you have say 98.3MHz, 98.5Mhz, etc... That means that each station has 200 KHz of bandwidth. Bandwidth does not vary with carrier frequency.
If I had the 800MHz frequency and 20MHz of bandwidth, that would mean that I would actually be using the frequencies from 790MHz to 810MHz.
because the Internet time update generally will update the GMT value on your system. Then, it will convert it to local time. Can you see the problem here?
IMO the reason that Linux does so well in terms of virus is partly due to enhanced security, but also because main distributions use a whitelist approach to applications. Ubuntu has all its applications in repositories, and all those applications are known safe.
Many users don't know how to determine if an application they are going to install is safe. There are ways to do this, and so most knowledgeable users can avoid this.
The best solution to the antivirus problem is to: a. fix exploits in the Windows code b. catalogue applications at a reliable source so it can easily be determined if an application is safe or not (probably a wiki type system?) c. educate users to use b and to keep Windows up to date.
download.com satisfies b to an extent, but few use it as such.
People seem to miss the fact that in order to write virus detection software one needs to know about viruses, rather than about the operating system. There is a huge barrier to entry because Symantec, Norton and other folks have a large database and amount of knowledge about existing viruses. Microsoft had to start from a lower amount of knowledge.
This product will sell, nonetheless. I no longer use Windows, but my parents have used both McAfee and Norton. Both had their issues and problems and caused weird issues. OneCare will be attractive because its management panel will integrate well with the rest of the OS, while McAfee and Norton won't in the same way. Someone said it was cheaper as well.
I didn't realize you could install extra applications on a flight data recorder!
From TFS: The company states that they chose the iPod for its size, low power requirements, and the 'thousands of developers passionate about writing applications for the iPod.'
Nah... they can use flash no problems... I accidently put my transflash card through the washing machine twice and it still worked. No problem with submerging it.
The question I had was if there really was THAT many people 'passionate about writing apps for the iPod'? I didn't realize you could install extra applications on an iPod.
This isn't a government mandate per se... the government isn't mandating corporations and businesses to interact with each other using an open format. It is only saying that if the state produces a document, it has to be in an open format.
This is the same as say Walmart saying that all of its documents had to be produced in an open format - this is an internal policy more than a government mandate.
The thing that worries me is that Essjay might have been editing an article on theocracy and then when it was challenged in the discussion, he could refer other editors to his credentials. And even if he wasn't doing that, users could be considering everything he says being golden because of his claimed credentials.
Which is why when you're doing research and moderating such a tool source is so important. There are doctors who write garbage diet books - it doesn't mean they are good. Sources need to be cited. You can't really on a 'mine is bigger than yours' attitude to claim informational integrity. Sources should be peer reviewed articles or studies. Sure, it is fine to present reasoned arguments as to why something is or is not true, but "because I said so" is not an argument.
Surely you can't blame DRM on the guy's death. I mean, if she was going to shoot him over music, then surely she was unstable enough that eventually she would have found another reason!
Let's not be over dramatic here.
I say let the companies DRM the music. I won't buy it. If it works as a business model, then so be it. If it doesn't, well they'll have to change or die. In the meantime, IF I want to buy music (I don't listen to a lot other than radio TBH), then I'll try and support musicians directly rather than going through labels.
I'm not going to sit and say that you should be able to download all of this for free. If a musician wants to record something and distribute for free, than more power to him/her. But forcing a musician to distribute their work for free it like forcing them to slave labour. I won't stand for it.
What's with people thinking they have a 'right' to free music. If you want free music, listen to the radio, or some streamed site and listen to the advertisements like everybody else.
I'm curious as to how this new 'business model' in which musicians upload their music to pirate bay works. Are you saying that our most talented musicians should earn make their living by providing 'support for people who want to download torrents from open source OSs'.
Okay, so there is the semantic argument about what 'property' means. Nonetheless, if I put time and effort into writing/creating something I should be able to dictate on what terms that gets sold. Nobody is forcing you to buy it.
Why is it assumed this is bad? The argument against DRM has been so that people can back up their media. This doesn't inhibit that. Am I missing something? Somebody please convince me that this is a bad thing!
In its current form, there are a lot of shortcomings.
But if one were able to build a client that did on the fly encryption/decryption when uploading and downloading, then you could make it much safer. Of course, you would still not put the most sensitive of sensitive documents there (i.e. don't put your password database there), encrypted or not.
Nobody's trying to save you from yourself. Read the article and do some thinking: 1. Where was the article found? porntalk.com: ThePornTalk.com is an innovative web resource that helps parents talk to their kids about porn and internet dangers. This is an article found on a web site that is aimed at helping parents deal with the issue of pornography with their children.
2. The article's intent is only to inform parents that the Wii can be used to access pornography. It isn't to 'smear' the Wii. There is a lot out there on the Internet (as I'm sure you know), and a lot of stuff that kids aren't necessarily prepared to process on their own, and don't really need to at this point. This is about educating parents, not about calling a video game machine evil: So the solution lies in parents getting the facts and then talking to their children about expectations for online activity. Foster believes that, "Whether it is the home computer or these new gaming consoles, porn is easily accessible. The Wii is an amazing console and tons of fun but parents need good info on how to keep kids safe."
This is a prime example of people needing to look past the summary and intelligently look at what is being said.
We're talking about the music download market, not the player market here.
Rivals Napster, Rhapsody, Yahoo Music and others compete with similar online offerings. Their songs don't play easily on iPods, however, hindering their growth."
Now, if Apple let others use their DRM, or used an open DRM, that problem wouldn't exist, would it? What's Apple afraid of?
well, I actually didn't mean 'we' as in the whole discussion, but the parent seemed to be implying that if Apple let others use their DRM, then Napster, Rhapsody, Yahoo Music etc... would be able to play on an iPod. This is untrue and false argumentation. Apple would have to license Playsforsure or whatever it is in order for these company's songs to play on the iPod.
Actually... Apple licensing their DRM would have absolutely no effect on whether iPods would play Napster, Rhapsody, Yahoo Music etc music. The issue here is that the iPod hasn't licensed playforsure or whatever it is.
We're talking about the music download market, not the player market here.
Can you elaborate on what that is exactly supposed to mean? I can think of many examples where items like this are sold - accessories for items (even those little discs for tassimo machines). What about cellphone car chargers? I've got a Motorola wireless devices where the base station and units can be sold separately... would this count?
I find the way you have stated this situation to be hard to believe.
Is it illegal to sell notebook batteries? I could think of thousands of examples of common products (not just software or content) that seem to go against this...
That's true, but is irrelevant. The claim was that Linux was being COMPILED on the 286, not being run. I don't think any special computer is required to turn C code into machine code. A 386 may be necessary to run that machine code. It's called cross-compiling.
Not entirely convinced that's true, but you've been modded troll anyway, so I guess it doesn't matter. Certainly once could write a compiler that could run on a 286 that could compile Linux? There isn't anything magic that the compiler has to do, is there?
But the issue raised wasn't language skills... it was cultural knowledge skills. Is this about the person being of the 'in' group - knowing the cultural references, knowing popular culture, etc etc... Come on, aren't we past that?
What is being argued is that these people have excellent English skills. No, they may not celebrate thanksgiving or 4th of July, but somehow I don't think that is going to help you solve your problem. And how is knowing who won the Superbowl going to help them diagnose your computer problem?
Qualifications should be an excellent command of the English language as well as excellent knowledge of the system. Knowing the latest celebrity gossip shouldn't be important.
I would have said the opposite... eBay seems to have been taken over by online retailers using an auction format (or Buy-it now) to open a store front. I think this would apply to many many people. I'm sure some are already claiming their income, but for those that aren't...
You shouldn't. And you don't. Even in Word and in OpenOffice you can mark a heading with a particular style and then just change the style. Look up "Styles and Formatting". This is the beginning of the difference by semantic and syntactical markup. Most people use their word processors and mark up syntactically. They say, bold this selection of text and italicize that. There is no way for the word processor to know what is a title, what is a heading 1, heading 2, and thus no way of knowing how to to TOCs.
If people use the tools properly, this is all possible. In short, there is something similar to CSS in word processors.
Slashdot Mirror
But you can do this anyway, with any distribution. Only now, you can't just "be" root to accomplish a series of tasks, you have to prefix everything with "sudo", even if you are the system administrator.
Why don't you just do 'sudo su'?
Although there's the problem for bandwidth (think baud) of being inversely proportional to frequency (the lower the freqency the longer the range but the less Mbytes/second you get), there are some techniques to overcome this and which the cell phone companies themselves use.
This doesn't make sense. If bandwidth was inversely proportional to frequency, then the lower the frequency the more MBytes/sec you would get. But bandwidth and frequency are actually two separate issues. The frequency refers to the carrier frequency. In case of 802.11, it is 2.4GHz or 5.8Ghz. Cell phones here in Canada use 800 and 1900 MHz (I think). But these numbers have nothing to do with bandwidth. The bandwidth is determined by how wide the channel is that is centred around that frequency. Take FM Radio for example. Stations are set 200 KHz apart, so you have say 98.3MHz, 98.5Mhz, etc... That means that each station has 200 KHz of bandwidth. Bandwidth does not vary with carrier frequency.
If I had the 800MHz frequency and 20MHz of bandwidth, that would mean that I would actually be using the frequencies from 790MHz to 810MHz.
because the Internet time update generally will update the GMT value on your system. Then, it will convert it to local time. Can you see the problem here?
IMO the reason that Linux does so well in terms of virus is partly due to enhanced security, but also because main distributions use a whitelist approach to applications. Ubuntu has all its applications in repositories, and all those applications are known safe.
Many users don't know how to determine if an application they are going to install is safe. There are ways to do this, and so most knowledgeable users can avoid this.
The best solution to the antivirus problem is to:
a. fix exploits in the Windows code
b. catalogue applications at a reliable source so it can easily be determined if an application is safe or not (probably a wiki type system?)
c. educate users to use b and to keep Windows up to date.
download.com satisfies b to an extent, but few use it as such.
People seem to miss the fact that in order to write virus detection software one needs to know about viruses, rather than about the operating system. There is a huge barrier to entry because Symantec, Norton and other folks have a large database and amount of knowledge about existing viruses. Microsoft had to start from a lower amount of knowledge.
This product will sell, nonetheless. I no longer use Windows, but my parents have used both McAfee and Norton. Both had their issues and problems and caused weird issues. OneCare will be attractive because its management panel will integrate well with the rest of the OS, while McAfee and Norton won't in the same way. Someone said it was cheaper as well.
Ah well... have fun folks!
But didn't it say somewhere that Defender only detected about half of malware? That's worse than this onecare stuff!
I didn't realize you could install extra applications on a flight data recorder!
From TFS:
The company states that they chose the iPod for its size, low power requirements, and the 'thousands of developers passionate about writing applications for the iPod.'
Nah... they can use flash no problems... I accidently put my transflash card through the washing machine twice and it still worked. No problem with submerging it.
The question I had was if there really was THAT many people 'passionate about writing apps for the iPod'? I didn't realize you could install extra applications on an iPod.
This isn't a government mandate per se... the government isn't mandating corporations and businesses to interact with each other using an open format. It is only saying that if the state produces a document, it has to be in an open format.
This is the same as say Walmart saying that all of its documents had to be produced in an open format - this is an internal policy more than a government mandate.
The thing that worries me is that Essjay might have been editing an article on theocracy and then when it was challenged in the discussion, he could refer other editors to his credentials. And even if he wasn't doing that, users could be considering everything he says being golden because of his claimed credentials.
Which is why when you're doing research and moderating such a tool source is so important. There are doctors who write garbage diet books - it doesn't mean they are good. Sources need to be cited. You can't really on a 'mine is bigger than yours' attitude to claim informational integrity. Sources should be peer reviewed articles or studies. Sure, it is fine to present reasoned arguments as to why something is or is not true, but "because I said so" is not an argument.
This makes it difficult for you to back up your media to my hard drive.
Back up your media to my drive - so that's what you kids are calling it nowadays. Surely you are being sarcastic, right?
oh come on...
Surely you can't blame DRM on the guy's death. I mean, if she was going to shoot him over music, then surely she was unstable enough that eventually she would have found another reason!
Let's not be over dramatic here.
I say let the companies DRM the music. I won't buy it. If it works as a business model, then so be it. If it doesn't, well they'll have to change or die. In the meantime, IF I want to buy music (I don't listen to a lot other than radio TBH), then I'll try and support musicians directly rather than going through labels.
I'm not going to sit and say that you should be able to download all of this for free. If a musician wants to record something and distribute for free, than more power to him/her. But forcing a musician to distribute their work for free it like forcing them to slave labour. I won't stand for it.
What's with people thinking they have a 'right' to free music. If you want free music, listen to the radio, or some streamed site and listen to the advertisements like everybody else.
I'm curious as to how this new 'business model' in which musicians upload their music to pirate bay works. Are you saying that our most talented musicians should earn make their living by providing 'support for people who want to download torrents from open source OSs'.
Okay, so there is the semantic argument about what 'property' means. Nonetheless, if I put time and effort into writing/creating something I should be able to dictate on what terms that gets sold. Nobody is forcing you to buy it.
Ian
mod parent up... (if I had mod points)
Why is it assumed this is bad? The argument against DRM has been so that people can back up their media. This doesn't inhibit that. Am I missing something? Somebody please convince me that this is a bad thing!
In its current form, there are a lot of shortcomings.
But if one were able to build a client that did on the fly encryption/decryption when uploading and downloading, then you could make it much safer. Of course, you would still not put the most sensitive of sensitive documents there (i.e. don't put your password database there), encrypted or not.
Nobody's trying to save you from yourself. Read the article and do some thinking:
1. Where was the article found? porntalk.com: ThePornTalk.com is an innovative web resource that helps parents talk to their kids about porn and internet dangers. This is an article found on a web site that is aimed at helping parents deal with the issue of pornography with their children.
2. The article's intent is only to inform parents that the Wii can be used to access pornography. It isn't to 'smear' the Wii. There is a lot out there on the Internet (as I'm sure you know), and a lot of stuff that kids aren't necessarily prepared to process on their own, and don't really need to at this point. This is about educating parents, not about calling a video game machine evil:
So the solution lies in parents getting the facts and then talking to their children about expectations for online activity. Foster believes that, "Whether it is the home computer or these new gaming consoles, porn is easily accessible. The Wii is an amazing console and tons of fun but parents need good info on how to keep kids safe."
This is a prime example of people needing to look past the summary and intelligently look at what is being said.
Segways don't exactly walk - they roll. Though I guess there is a similar principle, this is a two-legged robot, not a motorized machine.
We're talking about the music download market, not the player market here.
Rivals Napster, Rhapsody, Yahoo Music and others compete with similar online offerings. Their songs don't play easily on iPods, however, hindering their growth."
Now, if Apple let others use their DRM, or used an open DRM, that problem wouldn't exist, would it? What's Apple afraid of?
well, I actually didn't mean 'we' as in the whole discussion, but the parent seemed to be implying that if Apple let others use their DRM, then Napster, Rhapsody, Yahoo Music etc... would be able to play on an iPod. This is untrue and false argumentation. Apple would have to license Playsforsure or whatever it is in order for these company's songs to play on the iPod.
Actually... Apple licensing their DRM would have absolutely no effect on whether iPods would play Napster, Rhapsody, Yahoo Music etc music. The issue here is that the iPod hasn't licensed playforsure or whatever it is.
We're talking about the music download market, not the player market here.
agreed... if I have to pay taxes, they ought to as well! Although, this might not affect me if I had an eBay store... I'm in Canada.
Can you elaborate on what that is exactly supposed to mean? I can think of many examples where items like this are sold - accessories for items (even those little discs for tassimo machines). What about cellphone car chargers? I've got a Motorola wireless devices where the base station and units can be sold separately... would this count?
I find the way you have stated this situation to be hard to believe.
Is it illegal to sell notebook batteries? I could think of thousands of examples of common products (not just software or content) that seem to go against this...
Ian
That's true, but is irrelevant. The claim was that Linux was being COMPILED on the 286, not being run. I don't think any special computer is required to turn C code into machine code. A 386 may be necessary to run that machine code. It's called cross-compiling.
Not entirely convinced that's true, but you've been modded troll anyway, so I guess it doesn't matter. Certainly once could write a compiler that could run on a 286 that could compile Linux? There isn't anything magic that the compiler has to do, is there?
But the issue raised wasn't language skills... it was cultural knowledge skills. Is this about the person being of the 'in' group - knowing the cultural references, knowing popular culture, etc etc... Come on, aren't we past that?
What is being argued is that these people have excellent English skills. No, they may not celebrate thanksgiving or 4th of July, but somehow I don't think that is going to help you solve your problem. And how is knowing who won the Superbowl going to help them diagnose your computer problem?
Qualifications should be an excellent command of the English language as well as excellent knowledge of the system. Knowing the latest celebrity gossip shouldn't be important.
I would have said the opposite... eBay seems to have been taken over by online retailers using an auction format (or Buy-it now) to open a store front. I think this would apply to many many people. I'm sure some are already claiming their income, but for those that aren't...
Ian
You shouldn't. And you don't. Even in Word and in OpenOffice you can mark a heading with a particular style and then just change the style. Look up "Styles and Formatting". This is the beginning of the difference by semantic and syntactical markup. Most people use their word processors and mark up syntactically. They say, bold this selection of text and italicize that. There is no way for the word processor to know what is a title, what is a heading 1, heading 2, and thus no way of knowing how to to TOCs.
If people use the tools properly, this is all possible. In short, there is something similar to CSS in word processors.