The reasons that this sort of controll is probably unsafe go well beyond human rights.
The issue that i refer to is the good judgement of the driver.
Right now, no car in the UK has such a device attached. I would be very surprised if they could accomplish even 50% with in a year.
No, I don't know the hard and fast details on how the speed controll would work, but in order to react to changing traffic conditions - not even always an accident, but more often just keeping up with the general flow of traffic in an area where most people drive somewhat over the limit, is crucial to road safety.
If 75% of the cars on a given highway tend to drive 15 miles per hour over the speed limit, and 25% are incapable of exceeding the speed limit, there is going to be a much higher probability of an accident happening.
If a driver, due to the presence of a "smart" speed limiting device in his or her car, knows or *believes* that the car will not respond appropriately when there is a present need for an increase in speed over that which would usually be appropriate for the particular road, the driver *will not* react appropriately to changing traffic conditions.
And a failure to react to a change in the general flow of traffic is often the cause of an accident.
I believe that this "safety" device gives a false perception of driver controll. If anything, it makes the car less controllable, and thus, less safe.
"Oh, this program screwed up. We're all going to crash now. Sorry."
Try OS/2 if to you want memory protection. Then it's more like "This ill-behaved program tried to write to a memory space that doesn't belong to it, so i had to kill it. Sorry."
Just go into debug in a dos window and enter "f 0:0 ffff 0" and hit enter. Yeah, all kinds of memory protection.
The first thing i saw that i thought sounded weird was "I read them every day"
Anyone not smart enough to stop reading the things that annoy them, well, lets just say that when i realized bad news was making me feel depressed, I stopped reading news of war and destruction. This guy is still reading tech support humor? WHY???
That aside, if I were him, I wouldn't have admitted to being barely able to turn a computer on at the start of a 4 year tech support career.
Heck, i wouldn't have admitted to having worked for that long in tech support.
But the fact that many of the people in the tech support industry are hired at that level of technical ability is disgraceful, and i wouldn't have admitted to being a part of the problem.
Indeed, the analogy between tech support and teachers is very close. Some are very good, some are acceptable, and many are woefully unqualified.
I didn't last two whole years in tech support, nearly went nuts. I clawed my way through freelance contracting to full time systems administration just to get away from the pinheads. And when i say pinheads, I don't just mean the callers, some of the cow-orkers were just as bad.
Some of them barely knew how to turn a computer on. They were essentially useless, and generally damaging to our customers, so we taught them how to build computers instead . . . .
I don't think I'm ultra inteligent, I'm not even a very good speller. But during my tech support days, Dilbert, et all, made it possible for me to vent steam and survive.
In retrospect, maybe that was a bad thing. I would have been better off getting out of that industry sooner.
I guess what I'm saying is, this guy sounds a little antagonized. Maybe we should stop picking on guys like him in our comics & stuff.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but as i recall, doesn't Win95 preemptively multitask, as long as you're not using any Win3.1 apps?
Yes, their preemptive multitasking code is non-reentrant, so it sucks, and there's no memory protection to speak of, but they did at least get past cooperative multitasking. I thought.
Re:More history (Re:RISC OS != RISC CPU)
on
The ROX Desktop
·
· Score: 1
I'm so embarrased . . . .
sofya ran RISC/os 4.52+, not 4.53, I'm not sure there was a 4.53.
OTOH, I'd be shocked if anyone who reads/. would have recognized that error.
Man, it's like forgetting an anniversary . . . . how embarrasing . . .
More history (Re:RISC OS != RISC CPU)
on
The ROX Desktop
·
· Score: 2
Actually, there's even more history than that.
The *Original* RISC OS was Mips RISC/os - written by Mips Co. to run on, you guessed it, Mips Co. RISC hardware.
My first *nix experience was Mips RISC/os 4.53, in 1993. It was, for the time, a pretty slick *nix implementation, and was capable of making itself feel sysv-like or bsd-like by simply toggling an option in the admin menu.
As everybody knows, SGI eventually bought Mips Co, and subsequently shut down RISC/os development in favor of Irix.
AFAIK, the last release if Mips Co. RISC/os was 5.01a, released in late 1993. I could be wrong on the date.
I actually have no idea what the RISCWindows gui looked like, since i never used anything but the telnet console.
This, of course, has nothing to do with Acorn RISC OS, it's just that every time i see it mentioned, I get all nostalgic for that old account. You know, you never forget your first unix.
Mips RISC/os is currently maintained by Controll Data Corp as their EP/IX operating system. Or at least, if they're no longer maintaining it, they were the last to do so.
Incedentally, if anyone out there has a tape or tarball of MIPS RISC/os, I'd sure love to have a copy to re-load my rc3240. You won't be violating anybodies ip, ownership of the box gives you an implied license. 4.52 or 5.01, I'll take either one.
Re:Functionality Makes It To A Linux GUI
on
The ROX Desktop
·
· Score: 3
I think he means that E is a sorry excuse for a window manger.
I'm sorry for offending all the E fans, but from the beginning Enlightenment wasn't about functionality, and you can't deny that.
I appriciate what rasterman & co have done for X along the way, the programming techniques make for great eyecandy, I just choose to use a window manager that follows a different philosophy.
I use Icewm, 'cause FEEL is more important than LOOK.
At least it is for me.
Now, hold on for a moment while i put on my asbestos suit before you respond.
If you can't change the region code on your PC based DVD solution, you simply aren't trying.
I don't actually own any foreign DVD, but since i use Remote Selector to drive the software via infrared, i went ahead and clicked the box in remselec's setup to disable region checking entirely.
It'll also disable macrovision if you have to line-out to a VCR in order to watch them on a big TV screen.
Of course, it would be unlawful of you to use this setting to enable you to make VHS tapes of rented DVD, so remember i didn't tell you to use it for that.
This is just one way of doing it. a deja.com search could turn up half a dozen for any given hardware/software combo.
Now, changing your region code on a console dvd player, yes, that's something else entirely. but you don't need anything fancy like decss to do it on a pc.
And there's no way DeCSS is going to make it easier for anyone to render their console DVD player region-free, either.
I don't know about evey DVD decoder board on the market, but I know my Sigma Hollywood+ is among the most popular, and the current version of their player software installs a program to allow you to change your region code.
Yes, we're all aware that there are tons of grey market applets available as shareware to be the same, but this is a CSS licensee distributing a supported application.
It's right there in the DVD Station menu on my windows box - first item, actually. "Change Region Code". Pretty much right out there.
So, I wouldn't say Windows is entirely in line with the region controll cabal. No.
To your first assertion, I'd have to say, Yes, Absolutly.
I think not just some, but a LOT of companies are more than likely to respond to being blacklisted by saying "Yeah, who needs 'em. Bunch of pseudointelectual tightwads anyway. The real money is in Windows."
And they'd be basicly right.
I don't mean this to be a flame, it's just, the least effective way to get someone to agree with you is to tell them you're really angry at them and want to take your ball and go home now.
Getting really ticked off at people and letting them know it never generated much progress in the past, don't see why it would in the future. Think about it.
Envision a stripped down pc that won't run anything but VNC no matter how hard you try. Then hook it up to an amazingly expensive UltraEnterprise server.
Boom, SunRay.
Re:Is this really an area that needs filling?
on
IceWM 1.0.0 released
·
· Score: 2
I usually don't respond this way, but i couldn't just let this one slide.
* * * * You have only yourself to blame for X running at 640x480. * * * *
And market share? Sheesh. I used to be an OS/2 user. If you wanna know about misguided evangelism, I'm yer man.
I don't *want* the people who use Windows right now to rush to Linux. No more than i wanted them to rush to OS/2, after the first couple times i convinced someone to give it a shot.
I want the people around me to use the software tools that best suit their needs and capabilities. I don't care what that is, as long as it's effective and supportable.
For that very reason, I don't even try to change the Linux distribution used at work. Let people use what they're gonna use as long as it gets the work done reasonably well.
If you're the type who can't figure out how to hit ctrl-alt-plus (left ctrl and alt, keypad plus), maybe Linux just isn't your bag. Or maybe your problem is an inability to figure out xf86config, Xconfigurator, XF86Setup, or SaX. SaX is my favorite, comes with SuSE. After that I'll take xf86config. The rest can go to the bitbucket for all i care.
All I'm saying is, if you have a lot of difficulty with this sort of thing, maybe you're wasting your time. Use BeOS or something if you don't want to use Windows. Or OS/2, but don't come knocking on my door for tech support if you do.
Or maybe you should start with Corel Linux or Caldera OpenLinux. These two are awfully simplistic in their setup.
Linux fits a specific set of needs and caters to a specific set of capabilities. If someone isn't a good match for it, why torture them with it?
For the record, I have been given the communal goahead to switch the RH6 boxes from Gnome to IceWM. It's generally been agreed upon that E+Gnome is a bohemouth desktop and far more overhead than is called for on a server.
IceWM is lightweight, consistent, and feels very familiar to Windows and OS/2 users. I use the Daniel3 theme. And the hotkeys actually do something useful.
There's just one part of that I have a problem with.
A: Not *everyone* likes gell wrist rests. I dislike wrist rests of any kind. i find them restrictive and uncomfortable.
B: Wrist rests are *bad* for you. Resting your wrist on something, no matter how soft, encourages you to use your wrist and hand muscles to swivle your hand around to reach keys. It is *Far* better to practice pianist-like posture and simply use your arms to move your hands around.
I endured 6 years of piano lessons when i was young. I'm a network administrator by day and avid computer geek by night. I spend more time typing than sleeping, and the only wrist strain i experience is from using pointing devices.
Why? Because if you get your knuckles smacked with a ruler enough times you learn to keep your wrists *Up*.
On the subject of pointing devices, I'm most happy with my Logitech Trackman FX. This is the weird angular one with the large trackball. Try it some time. It doesn't force a right-handed person to rotate their wrist to operate it.
The *One* way this tax could be overturned tho is that is unfairly burdens only one mode of purchase. That would depend on existing state laws, but it sure is a clumsy way of finding new revenue.
Of course, you could demand that the state prove that you ordered the items online, insisting that you selected the items online and then called the vendor on the telephone, thus avoiding a taxable online purchase.
Chances are, you are already required to pay "Use Tax" on any purchase you failed to pay sales tax on. Most states already require this.
Sure, for Joe Sixpack, the issue may never come up. If you get audited, it could look bad, but that's about it.
For a business on the other hand, it could get very ugly.
Of course, I live in Utah, where the tax comission motto is "Tax anything that moves, and levy a fine on inanimate objects". We've got it all. 6.25% sales tax, state income tax, the whole deal.
These jokers once pressed for a 1/4 cent email tax, before a local ISP explained to the state legislature that they handle close to a million individual email messages a day, and would go out of business in about 16 hours if asked to pay that tax.
that XFree86 got this reputation due to shortcomings in the "easy" configuration programs, such as XF86Setup, XConfigurator.
I haven't used Corel, haven't used Caldera in a while, haven't used RedHat 6.2 either, so i can't speak for the latest of any of those.
But the kicker was, even if you did know the sync range, if you used the most popular consumer distribution, RedHat, you were shit outa luck unless it was on their list.
For those lacking an irrational fear of linearly-scripted text mode configuration, xf86config has always allowed you to enter a custom sync range, and it's calculations are pretty decent.
SuSE's x configuration app, SaX, is a TCL/TK based graphical configuration app that tends to do a great job, too.
The only real problem is getting ahold of the sync numbers. I sure wish manufacturers would just print it on the back of the monitor. I tend to use a fine point perminant marker to scribble it over the FCC info on mine, in case i have to reinstall.
But there are several ways of getting those numbers. I'll suggest a few.
RTFM: this is the most obvious. I've got no sympathy for you if you've got the manual and insist that you shouldn't have to read it.
Windows: A lot of Win9x video drivers will spit out the sync range if you get into the "advanced" display settings. Handy if you use dual boot. I know that nVidia's drivers do this, for one.
deja.com: somebody else out there probably already asked for help with it. make sure you tell it to search "all" messages. it's idea of "recent" is getting pretty freakin recent these days.
manufacturer web site: They just might have had the presence of mind to publish it online.
altavista/metacrawler: Someone else might have too.
email the manufacturer: if you're lucky they might respond.
Steal a manual: if it's a current model, CompUSA or similar might have one on hand they'll let you photocopy. Even if it's not, a store that sold it locally might have the specs on hand in their service department. I know when i worked on the service end of the industry years ago I hoarded that information. Believe me, the tech will sympathise with your plight. Imagine how they feel when someone dumps something on their table and says "make it work" - they know what it's like to pray for documentation.
I agree with a previous poster that it would be really nice if we could just parse a windows "monitor driver".inf file for the info we need, does anybody here know what'd be involved in doing that?
Maybe so, but what does it say about the state of an OS when it's developers write signifigant portions of code to enable it to run applications written for another OS?
This is all off topic, but that being beside the point, I may as well interject.
It's actually not disputed that *bsd is quicker at some things than Linux.
It's also not disputed that *bsd is more stable under some conditions than Linux.
Conversely, it's additionally not disputed that the same can be said in favor of Linux.
Maybe dispute isn't the right word, folks are definately arguing about it, but that's not the point.
The ability to run Linux binaries in various BSD variants has been around for quite a while. I'm also not particularly impressed by the intelectual capabilities of someone who'd figure that was a preferable way to go about things.
You've got the source, why not just recompile? Why on earth would you use a compatibility library when you can just compile it as a native binary?
If *you* want to take that as reflecting on the sanity of the average BSD user, that's up to you.
It's not that there's a "norm" that you have to adhere to. Well, I take that back. If you're in highschool, ignoramous school administration tries to apply a norm to the way you act. But, in the time-honored words of The Frantics, "they be turkeys."
Whether a behavior is considered a disorder is when it is disruptive or debilitating, or dangerous.
Crying for no reason is both disruptive and debilitating. Not caring when you cross the street because it doesn't matter much if you get hit is dangerous.
I don't think the pharmeceutical firms are without sin on this issue, they do overprice and some of them have probably generalized. Don't fault the researchers who create the drugs, fault the PHB's that market them.
Again, like other posters have said when responding to this kind of thing, I can see you've never been there, so you just don't understand.
Depression, clinical depression, when it comes back to someone who's been fighting it, when it's there it's like a warm blanket that insulates you from reality, and makes you feel like things are the way they ought to be. That depression is the way you were ment to be. It's comforting, it's addictive, and it's incredibly destructive.
I've never taken antidepressants, but there have been people close to me who have. They don't "cure" the mental disorder, nobody but the PHB's and the ignorant say they do.
What they do is allow someone who knows that their depression is destructive to assert their willpower over the things that are happening to them - to remove that warm blanket so that they can confront reality, because they know that even if it is an ugly and difficult reality, it needs to be confronted.
Drugs alone will only add to the emotional trauma. But carefully controlled drugs and a willingness to slay the beast that controlls your life is far better than wallowing in the protective silence of emotional isolation.
My HS bio teacher was a bit overqualified for the position - vietnam medic, former FDA biogeneticist, etc. taught 'cause he liked to, could have been raking in 6 figure salaries if he wanted to.
So i asked him the science vs. god thing.
He told me that it's exactly the opposite - that the more he discovers about biological systems, the more he's *certian* that a higher being had a hand in creation.
You assume that a virus is something that will attack you. This isn't so.
You're also assuming they'd create a virus. Why not something algae-like?
I mean, heck, man, there are a lot of microbes that aren't virii. Most of them, probably.
Further, virus dna is understood well enough that common rhinovirii have been used to manufacture drugs. Interferon-Alpha was manufactured experimentally by performing genome encoding on a genetically engineered rhino virus such that it was instructed to infect only a specific gene sequence of vat grown pig stomach cells, and instruct those cells to manufacture interferon-alpha.
So, to allay your fears, well, I guess I didn't even try. What you speak of has been possible for quite a while, in some form.
But no, virii are actually pretty complex compared to green slime.
What we're dangerously short of in this country is people who believe strongly about things who can keep from making themselves appear the fool.
I'm from Utah, lived here most of my life, though I've traveled a lot. A few years back, slick willie unilaterally declared a national park down in our southern region.
Y'all thought it was pretty neat, us getting another national park. But, all states rights aside, we were, for the most part, pretty miffed about it. You've gotta understand, first time around, Willie took third place here.
There were just a couple things that ticked us off, states rights aside.
First, the particular sort of clean-burning coal that can be mined there, is pretty rare. It's only present in economically feasable ammounts in that spot in Utah, and in some parts of Indonesia. From an economic standpoint, that ticked off the potential coal miners who might have had jobs there. We can't all be geeks.
Second, the federal government already owns 72% of our land mass. That really chapps our hide, since we're the only state they've done that to. Snatching another parcel of it and declaring it a park sortof adds insult to injury.
Third, a signifigant portion of that land mass belonged to our department of education. Utah is both the state that spends the least ammount per student, and the state that spends the largest portion of it's budget on education. Why? Because our department of education isn't able to raise signifigant funds on it's own. Primarily because the land parcels alloted to it are out in the wilderness, surrounded by federal land, and restricted from development.
Fourth, because declaring a parcel of land a park is the second best way to ensure that the wilderness is *degraded*, rather than preserved. Second only to developing it commercially. If you want to preserve wilderness, you declare it a primitive area and restrict access to humans and animals only, no wheeled vehicles of any kind. There are some beautiful primitive areas in northern Utah. Visit them some time. Be prepared to hike and get rained on. Bring your own food, pack out your own garbage.
Now, there's a good reason I'm explaining all of this, it's not just a soap box.
A few months after Willie pulled this stunt, a local college hosted a debate between various pundits and officials on the issue.
Among those who were present was the head man from the Utah Wilderness Alliance. People who feel very strongly about preserving nature.
What transpired made me pretty angry, and what made me angry came from the UWA guy, and not because of what he believed.
It was because when they finally asked him a question he didn't have a good answer for, his reaction was to tell his heartbreaking story of his failure to integrate with normal society and his spiritual rebirth in the desert badlands.
He sounded like a complete kook. People walked out. I was one of them.
What's heartbreaking is that the people who really care about an issue somehow can't keep their pants on in public, most of them at least.
It's pretty simple guys, you've just got to maintain your sanity, or at least a good illusion of sanity.
When you stand up and proudly reveal that you're a borderline nutcase, you discredit yourself, your followers, and everything you believe in.
And you do the nation a disservice by letting your issue be labeled irrational by behaving in an irrational manner.
Slashdot Mirror
The reasons that this sort of controll is probably unsafe go well beyond human rights.
The issue that i refer to is the good judgement of the driver.
Right now, no car in the UK has such a device attached. I would be very surprised if they could accomplish even 50% with in a year.
No, I don't know the hard and fast details on how the speed controll would work, but in order to react to changing traffic conditions - not even always an accident, but more often just keeping up with the general flow of traffic in an area where most people drive somewhat over the limit, is crucial to road safety.
If 75% of the cars on a given highway tend to drive 15 miles per hour over the speed limit, and 25% are incapable of exceeding the speed limit, there is going to be a much higher probability of an accident happening.
If a driver, due to the presence of a "smart" speed limiting device in his or her car, knows or *believes* that the car will not respond appropriately when there is a present need for an increase in speed over that which would usually be appropriate for the particular road, the driver *will not* react appropriately to changing traffic conditions.
And a failure to react to a change in the general flow of traffic is often the cause of an accident.
I believe that this "safety" device gives a false perception of driver controll. If anything, it makes the car less controllable, and thus, less safe.
Sure, it's no more draconian than, say, covering entire cities with video surveylance.
After all, only a criminal would be opposed to it, RIGHT?
Big Mommmy Government will take care of you, not to worry.
You call THAT memory protection?
"Oh, this program screwed up. We're all going to crash now. Sorry."
Try OS/2 if to you want memory protection. Then it's more like "This ill-behaved program tried to write to a memory space that doesn't belong to it, so i had to kill it. Sorry."
Just go into debug in a dos window and enter "f 0:0 ffff 0" and hit enter. Yeah, all kinds of memory protection.
aww man, I thought that's what i was doing.
The first thing i saw that i thought sounded weird was "I read them every day"
Anyone not smart enough to stop reading the things that annoy them, well, lets just say that when i realized bad news was making me feel depressed, I stopped reading news of war and destruction. This guy is still reading tech support humor? WHY???
That aside, if I were him, I wouldn't have admitted to being barely able to turn a computer on at the start of a 4 year tech support career.
Heck, i wouldn't have admitted to having worked for that long in tech support.
But the fact that many of the people in the tech support industry are hired at that level of technical ability is disgraceful, and i wouldn't have admitted to being a part of the problem.
Indeed, the analogy between tech support and teachers is very close. Some are very good, some are acceptable, and many are woefully unqualified.
I didn't last two whole years in tech support, nearly went nuts. I clawed my way through freelance contracting to full time systems administration just to get away from the pinheads. And when i say pinheads, I don't just mean the callers, some of the cow-orkers were just as bad.
Some of them barely knew how to turn a computer on. They were essentially useless, and generally damaging to our customers, so we taught them how to build computers instead . . . .
I don't think I'm ultra inteligent, I'm not even a very good speller. But during my tech support days, Dilbert, et all, made it possible for me to vent steam and survive.
In retrospect, maybe that was a bad thing. I would have been better off getting out of that industry sooner.
I guess what I'm saying is, this guy sounds a little antagonized. Maybe we should stop picking on guys like him in our comics & stuff.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but as i recall, doesn't Win95 preemptively multitask, as long as you're not using any Win3.1 apps?
Yes, their preemptive multitasking code is non-reentrant, so it sucks, and there's no memory protection to speak of, but they did at least get past cooperative multitasking. I thought.
I'm so embarrased . . . .
/. would have recognized that error.
sofya ran RISC/os 4.52+, not 4.53, I'm not sure there was a 4.53.
OTOH, I'd be shocked if anyone who reads
Man, it's like forgetting an anniversary . . . . how embarrasing . . .
Actually, there's even more history than that.
The *Original* RISC OS was Mips RISC/os - written by Mips Co. to run on, you guessed it, Mips Co. RISC hardware.
My first *nix experience was Mips RISC/os 4.53, in 1993. It was, for the time, a pretty slick *nix implementation, and was capable of making itself feel sysv-like or bsd-like by simply toggling an option in the admin menu.
As everybody knows, SGI eventually bought Mips Co, and subsequently shut down RISC/os development in favor of Irix.
AFAIK, the last release if Mips Co. RISC/os was 5.01a, released in late 1993. I could be wrong on the date.
I actually have no idea what the RISCWindows gui looked like, since i never used anything but the telnet console.
This, of course, has nothing to do with Acorn RISC OS, it's just that every time i see it mentioned, I get all nostalgic for that old account. You know, you never forget your first unix.
Mips RISC/os is currently maintained by Controll Data Corp as their EP/IX operating system. Or at least, if they're no longer maintaining it, they were the last to do so.
Incedentally, if anyone out there has a tape or tarball of MIPS RISC/os, I'd sure love to have a copy to re-load my rc3240. You won't be violating anybodies ip, ownership of the box gives you an implied license. 4.52 or 5.01, I'll take either one.
I think he means that E is a sorry excuse for a window manger.
I'm sorry for offending all the E fans, but from the beginning Enlightenment wasn't about functionality, and you can't deny that.
I appriciate what rasterman & co have done for X along the way, the programming techniques make for great eyecandy, I just choose to use a window manager that follows a different philosophy.
I use Icewm, 'cause FEEL is more important than LOOK.
At least it is for me.
Now, hold on for a moment while i put on my asbestos suit before you respond.
If you can't change the region code on your PC based DVD solution, you simply aren't trying.
I don't actually own any foreign DVD, but since i use Remote Selector to drive the software via infrared, i went ahead and clicked the box in remselec's setup to disable region checking entirely.
It'll also disable macrovision if you have to line-out to a VCR in order to watch them on a big TV screen.
Of course, it would be unlawful of you to use this setting to enable you to make VHS tapes of rented DVD, so remember i didn't tell you to use it for that.
This is just one way of doing it. a deja.com search could turn up half a dozen for any given hardware/software combo.
Now, changing your region code on a console dvd player, yes, that's something else entirely. but you don't need anything fancy like decss to do it on a pc.
And there's no way DeCSS is going to make it easier for anyone to render their console DVD player region-free, either.
I don't know about evey DVD decoder board on the market, but I know my Sigma Hollywood+ is among the most popular, and the current version of their player software installs a program to allow you to change your region code.
Yes, we're all aware that there are tons of grey market applets available as shareware to be the same, but this is a CSS licensee distributing a supported application.
It's right there in the DVD Station menu on my windows box - first item, actually. "Change Region Code". Pretty much right out there.
So, I wouldn't say Windows is entirely in line with the region controll cabal. No.
Your spelling is fine, or at least forgiveable.
It's your meaning I'm stuck on.
???
I have no comprehension of what you're saying.
To your first assertion, I'd have to say, Yes, Absolutly.
I think not just some, but a LOT of companies are more than likely to respond to being blacklisted by saying "Yeah, who needs 'em. Bunch of pseudointelectual tightwads anyway. The real money is in Windows."
And they'd be basicly right.
I don't mean this to be a flame, it's just, the least effective way to get someone to agree with you is to tell them you're really angry at them and want to take your ball and go home now.
Getting really ticked off at people and letting them know it never generated much progress in the past, don't see why it would in the future. Think about it.
SunRay isn't very impressive.
Envision a stripped down pc that won't run anything but VNC no matter how hard you try. Then hook it up to an amazingly expensive UltraEnterprise server.
Boom, SunRay.
I usually don't respond this way, but i couldn't just let this one slide.
* * * * You have only yourself to blame for X running at 640x480. * * * *
And market share? Sheesh. I used to be an OS/2 user. If you wanna know about misguided evangelism, I'm yer man.
I don't *want* the people who use Windows right now to rush to Linux. No more than i wanted them to rush to OS/2, after the first couple times i convinced someone to give it a shot.
I want the people around me to use the software tools that best suit their needs and capabilities. I don't care what that is, as long as it's effective and supportable.
For that very reason, I don't even try to change the Linux distribution used at work. Let people use what they're gonna use as long as it gets the work done reasonably well.
If you're the type who can't figure out how to hit ctrl-alt-plus (left ctrl and alt, keypad plus), maybe Linux just isn't your bag. Or maybe your problem is an inability to figure out xf86config, Xconfigurator, XF86Setup, or SaX. SaX is my favorite, comes with SuSE. After that I'll take xf86config. The rest can go to the bitbucket for all i care.
All I'm saying is, if you have a lot of difficulty with this sort of thing, maybe you're wasting your time. Use BeOS or something if you don't want to use Windows. Or OS/2, but don't come knocking on my door for tech support if you do.
Or maybe you should start with Corel Linux or Caldera OpenLinux. These two are awfully simplistic in their setup.
Linux fits a specific set of needs and caters to a specific set of capabilities. If someone isn't a good match for it, why torture them with it?
For the record, I have been given the communal goahead to switch the RH6 boxes from Gnome to IceWM. It's generally been agreed upon that E+Gnome is a bohemouth desktop and far more overhead than is called for on a server.
IceWM is lightweight, consistent, and feels very familiar to Windows and OS/2 users. I use the Daniel3 theme. And the hotkeys actually do something useful.
There's just one part of that I have a problem with.
A: Not *everyone* likes gell wrist rests. I dislike wrist rests of any kind. i find them restrictive and uncomfortable.
B: Wrist rests are *bad* for you. Resting your wrist on something, no matter how soft, encourages you to use your wrist and hand muscles to swivle your hand around to reach keys. It is *Far* better to practice pianist-like posture and simply use your arms to move your hands around.
I endured 6 years of piano lessons when i was young. I'm a network administrator by day and avid computer geek by night. I spend more time typing than sleeping, and the only wrist strain i experience is from using pointing devices.
Why? Because if you get your knuckles smacked with a ruler enough times you learn to keep your wrists *Up*.
On the subject of pointing devices, I'm most happy with my Logitech Trackman FX. This is the weird angular one with the large trackball. Try it some time. It doesn't force a right-handed person to rotate their wrist to operate it.
You've never been audited, have you?
OK, neither have i, I'm just being a jerk.
The *One* way this tax could be overturned tho is that is unfairly burdens only one mode of purchase. That would depend on existing state laws, but it sure is a clumsy way of finding new revenue.
Of course, you could demand that the state prove that you ordered the items online, insisting that you selected the items online and then called the vendor on the telephone, thus avoiding a taxable online purchase.
Chances are, you are already required to pay "Use Tax" on any purchase you failed to pay sales tax on. Most states already require this.
Sure, for Joe Sixpack, the issue may never come up. If you get audited, it could look bad, but that's about it.
For a business on the other hand, it could get very ugly.
Of course, I live in Utah, where the tax comission motto is "Tax anything that moves, and levy a fine on inanimate objects". We've got it all. 6.25% sales tax, state income tax, the whole deal.
These jokers once pressed for a 1/4 cent email tax, before a local ISP explained to the state legislature that they handle close to a million individual email messages a day, and would go out of business in about 16 hours if asked to pay that tax.
that XFree86 got this reputation due to shortcomings in the "easy" configuration programs, such as XF86Setup, XConfigurator.
.inf file for the info we need, does anybody here know what'd be involved in doing that?
I haven't used Corel, haven't used Caldera in a while, haven't used RedHat 6.2 either, so i can't speak for the latest of any of those.
But the kicker was, even if you did know the sync range, if you used the most popular consumer distribution, RedHat, you were shit outa luck unless it was on their list.
For those lacking an irrational fear of linearly-scripted text mode configuration, xf86config has always allowed you to enter a custom sync range, and it's calculations are pretty decent.
SuSE's x configuration app, SaX, is a TCL/TK based graphical configuration app that tends to do a great job, too.
The only real problem is getting ahold of the sync numbers. I sure wish manufacturers would just print it on the back of the monitor. I tend to use a fine point perminant marker to scribble it over the FCC info on mine, in case i have to reinstall.
But there are several ways of getting those numbers. I'll suggest a few.
RTFM: this is the most obvious. I've got no sympathy for you if you've got the manual and insist that you shouldn't have to read it.
Windows: A lot of Win9x video drivers will spit out the sync range if you get into the "advanced" display settings. Handy if you use dual boot. I know that nVidia's drivers do this, for one.
deja.com: somebody else out there probably already asked for help with it. make sure you tell it to search "all" messages. it's idea of "recent" is getting pretty freakin recent these days.
manufacturer web site: They just might have had the presence of mind to publish it online.
altavista/metacrawler: Someone else might have too.
email the manufacturer: if you're lucky they might respond.
Steal a manual: if it's a current model, CompUSA or similar might have one on hand they'll let you photocopy. Even if it's not, a store that sold it locally might have the specs on hand in their service department. I know when i worked on the service end of the industry years ago I hoarded that information. Believe me, the tech will sympathise with your plight. Imagine how they feel when someone dumps something on their table and says "make it work" - they know what it's like to pray for documentation.
I agree with a previous poster that it would be really nice if we could just parse a windows "monitor driver"
Maybe so, but what does it say about the state of an OS when it's developers write signifigant portions of code to enable it to run applications written for another OS?
This is all off topic, but that being beside the point, I may as well interject.
It's actually not disputed that *bsd is quicker at some things than Linux.
It's also not disputed that *bsd is more stable under some conditions than Linux.
Conversely, it's additionally not disputed that the same can be said in favor of Linux.
Maybe dispute isn't the right word, folks are definately arguing about it, but that's not the point.
The ability to run Linux binaries in various BSD variants has been around for quite a while. I'm also not particularly impressed by the intelectual capabilities of someone who'd figure that was a preferable way to go about things.
You've got the source, why not just recompile? Why on earth would you use a compatibility library when you can just compile it as a native binary?
If *you* want to take that as reflecting on the sanity of the average BSD user, that's up to you.
It's not that there's a "norm" that you have to adhere to. Well, I take that back. If you're in highschool, ignoramous school administration tries to apply a norm to the way you act. But, in the time-honored words of The Frantics, "they be turkeys."
Whether a behavior is considered a disorder is when it is disruptive or debilitating, or dangerous.
Crying for no reason is both disruptive and debilitating. Not caring when you cross the street because it doesn't matter much if you get hit is dangerous.
I don't think the pharmeceutical firms are without sin on this issue, they do overprice and some of them have probably generalized. Don't fault the researchers who create the drugs, fault the PHB's that market them.
Again, like other posters have said when responding to this kind of thing, I can see you've never been there, so you just don't understand.
Depression, clinical depression, when it comes back to someone who's been fighting it, when it's there it's like a warm blanket that insulates you from reality, and makes you feel like things are the way they ought to be. That depression is the way you were ment to be. It's comforting, it's addictive, and it's incredibly destructive.
I've never taken antidepressants, but there have been people close to me who have. They don't "cure" the mental disorder, nobody but the PHB's and the ignorant say they do.
What they do is allow someone who knows that their depression is destructive to assert their willpower over the things that are happening to them - to remove that warm blanket so that they can confront reality, because they know that even if it is an ugly and difficult reality, it needs to be confronted.
Drugs alone will only add to the emotional trauma. But carefully controlled drugs and a willingness to slay the beast that controlls your life is far better than wallowing in the protective silence of emotional isolation.
My HS bio teacher was a bit overqualified for the position - vietnam medic, former FDA biogeneticist, etc. taught 'cause he liked to, could have been raking in 6 figure salaries if he wanted to.
So i asked him the science vs. god thing.
He told me that it's exactly the opposite - that the more he discovers about biological systems, the more he's *certian* that a higher being had a hand in creation.
Food for thought, I guess.
OK, you're wrong.
You assume that a virus is something that will attack you. This isn't so.
You're also assuming they'd create a virus. Why not something algae-like?
I mean, heck, man, there are a lot of microbes that aren't virii. Most of them, probably.
Further, virus dna is understood well enough that common rhinovirii have been used to manufacture drugs. Interferon-Alpha was manufactured experimentally by performing genome encoding on a genetically engineered rhino virus such that it was instructed to infect only a specific gene sequence of vat grown pig stomach cells, and instruct those cells to manufacture interferon-alpha.
So, to allay your fears, well, I guess I didn't even try. What you speak of has been possible for quite a while, in some form.
But no, virii are actually pretty complex compared to green slime.
You see, that's what's *Really Sad*
What we're dangerously short of in this country is people who believe strongly about things who can keep from making themselves appear the fool.
I'm from Utah, lived here most of my life, though I've traveled a lot. A few years back, slick willie unilaterally declared a national park down in our southern region.
Y'all thought it was pretty neat, us getting another national park. But, all states rights aside, we were, for the most part, pretty miffed about it. You've gotta understand, first time around, Willie took third place here.
There were just a couple things that ticked us off, states rights aside.
First, the particular sort of clean-burning coal that can be mined there, is pretty rare. It's only present in economically feasable ammounts in that spot in Utah, and in some parts of Indonesia. From an economic standpoint, that ticked off the potential coal miners who might have had jobs there. We can't all be geeks.
Second, the federal government already owns 72% of our land mass. That really chapps our hide, since we're the only state they've done that to. Snatching another parcel of it and declaring it a park sortof adds insult to injury.
Third, a signifigant portion of that land mass belonged to our department of education. Utah is both the state that spends the least ammount per student, and the state that spends the largest portion of it's budget on education. Why? Because our department of education isn't able to raise signifigant funds on it's own. Primarily because the land parcels alloted to it are out in the wilderness, surrounded by federal land, and restricted from development.
Fourth, because declaring a parcel of land a park is the second best way to ensure that the wilderness is *degraded*, rather than preserved. Second only to developing it commercially. If you want to preserve wilderness, you declare it a primitive area and restrict access to humans and animals only, no wheeled vehicles of any kind. There are some beautiful primitive areas in northern Utah. Visit them some time. Be prepared to hike and get rained on. Bring your own food, pack out your own garbage.
Now, there's a good reason I'm explaining all of this, it's not just a soap box.
A few months after Willie pulled this stunt, a local college hosted a debate between various pundits and officials on the issue.
Among those who were present was the head man from the Utah Wilderness Alliance. People who feel very strongly about preserving nature.
What transpired made me pretty angry, and what made me angry came from the UWA guy, and not because of what he believed.
It was because when they finally asked him a question he didn't have a good answer for, his reaction was to tell his heartbreaking story of his failure to integrate with normal society and his spiritual rebirth in the desert badlands.
He sounded like a complete kook. People walked out. I was one of them.
What's heartbreaking is that the people who really care about an issue somehow can't keep their pants on in public, most of them at least.
It's pretty simple guys, you've just got to maintain your sanity, or at least a good illusion of sanity.
When you stand up and proudly reveal that you're a borderline nutcase, you discredit yourself, your followers, and everything you believe in.
And you do the nation a disservice by letting your issue be labeled irrational by behaving in an irrational manner.