I guess my point really is about selective quoting. Fact is, there are millions of people who worship, in all religions, and are peaceful people. The selection of violent texts are used by a tiny minority to justify their actions of hatred against others.
What I'm against is the blanket categorization of a whole religion, whatever that religion may be, because of contradictory passages in their text. One minute they say "kill everyone else" and the next "love your neighbor" (this of course is a generalization). The original post got my ire up because quotes like that were used to justify attacks and then the discrimination of a whole people because they now couldn't be trusted.
I could go on a whole diatribe here, but I'm not going to. However, the OP with all of the quotes serves no real purpose other than to stir up animosity towards Muslims, which is something that I felt compelled to respond.
Oh, come on. You've read the Old Testament, right? There's sections there are pretty violent as well, just as unforgiving. I'm not going to find these quotes for you because I don't have the time now. I don't have them conveniently wrapped together in a chain email which I'm guessing you pulled this from.
+1 for selective quotes +5 for unnecessary incendiary quoting -5 questionable modding
Have you really looked at it? I mean actually go to the Google Apps page at looked at it, or did you just hit reply without knowing. Oh, who am I kidding, this is/. and I'm lucky you read any of my message.
Seriously, here's a link to the Google Apps business page. Look around. This isn't free stuff. I'm not sure why you scoff at this and not other business webmail applications. There...do you see that...do you see how Gmail isn't always free?
My point remains...if they paid for it, Google owes them an explanation.
Keep in mind what they are probably talking about is the paid service you can get through Gmail Apps. For most people, yes, gmail is free with a personal account, but there are whole organizations who have their email hosted with Gmail. Think of it as hosted Exchange without Exchange.
If it's a free service, then yes, caveat emptor. But if someone is paying for this, then there should be a higher level of service or at least explanations of what happened or why it went wrong.
Wow, did you totally misunderstand the meaning of what I posted. I'll have to attempt to be more clear in the future.
I do not question Groklaw as a source at all. I've found it fun to watch SCO twist in the wind and Groklaw point out the progress of the cases they're involved in. PJ has done everyone a service by being so diligent following the legal shennanigans of Darl and Co.
What I'm referring to is IBM. Maybe it's just my natural distrust of large companies, but every word I see from big business I take with a grain of salt. Yeah, it's great they are saying these things about open standards. However, given the nature of business, if offered a different business model that would allow them to make a ton of money, who's to say that IBM wouldn't do that as well. They haven't always been the friend of the small business owner.
Now what puzzles me is how, out of my original, tiny post, you perceived anything other than an informative link and also my opinion of how while I'm happy that IBM has done this, that I can still be cautious about their (IBM's) motives as a business. If you are referring to my title, I was responding to mcgrew who stated that IBM had it's own standards to push. Honestly though, did it seem like I was trashing Groklaw? 'Cause I don't see it.
If you're just talking Outlook, I would agree. But you have to consider the OS needed to run the app as well. Far to many resources (both CPU and memory) to just run a mail application. Not only that, but you absolutely need to run anti-virus as well. Just because it's in a VM doesn't mean that you can run it without AV on top of it. Plus, it's one more system to update as the OS will need updates, as will Outlook, as will AV.
Like I said, using a VM to run Outlook can work. However, it's a lot more effort and management into what should simply be a mail application.
A quick look over at Groklaw has a good article about the motivations here. I'd still be cautious, but it's optimistic when IBM stresses open standards as being important to them. I'm actually surprised this didn't happen sooner with the garbage of OOXML.
Not a great solution. Yeah you could do this, but then you have to get the VM up and running (VirtualBox is good for this), make sure you have some sort of Windows license, install Outlook (again, with a license that works), join the VM to the domain (if you want seamless access) and set up your profile. Hey, now that's done, every day when you boot up, you boot up your VM, log in (if you joined it to the domain), fire up Outlook and watch as your VM chews up a good chunk of your processing power running a VM to run one app.
There's not a silver bullet here unfortunately. A VM, while handy and possible, isn't an elegant solution and it sounds like he's been working off of Evolution, so we're pretty much looking at just getting mail running. Easiest way: ask the local techs to make sure IMAP is running and install Thunderbird. Like I said, not ideal, but that's when you get when Microsoft decides not to play nicely with others.
Well, that's a big, big reason. Why would I buy a diesel car that has better mpg if diesel fuel now costs a dollar and a half more than gasoline (more in the winter, when they start refining more heating oil)?
Where's your math on this? Still a lot cheaper than a gas car only getting 22mpg. Even if you had a car that got over 30mpg it's still cheaper. Why wouldn't you?
* "It'll be more of the same."
* "You can never win an MMORPG. It's a never-ending treadmill."
* "Thank God I got off that crack a year ago."
* "It won't be as good as Eve/Warhammer/etc."
* "Blizzard isn't going to get another one of my dollars after that DMCA bullshit."
* "I'm waiting for Diablo 3/StarCraft 2."
* "I hate PC games. Console games rule."
* "I have my copy on preorder."
Not sure how you could measure it by anything but a failure. All of the various ways of measuring it given by RIAA itself pretty much indicate failure.
If they meant to reduce file sharing, total failure there as there's been no slowdown. If they meant to give back to the artists, failure on their part as any winnings/settlements has only gone to fund more litigation. Not only that, they only have one substantive win which may be declared a mistrial as the judge reconsiders his orders to the jury.
The campaign is a failure. This would have been money better spent on actual innovation on distributing music.
Interesting that when I first saw the parent post of this, it was marked insightful and now when I reply, it's marked Troll.
I can't say I enjoyed the show myself. I know it was hugely popular, I know a lot of people loved the show...it just didn't float my boat, so to speak. A couple of episodes I found enjoyable such as the marble rye episode.
The thing is, funny is relative. You either find something funny or you don't. My father never thought that the Monty Python I watched growing up was funny, but then I didn't find some of the stuff he liked funny either (he was much more of a joke/punch line kind of guy where I liked my humor to be a bit more layered and obscure).
What I do find funny is all the replies saying how stupid the parent post was for not liking Seinfeld. Not "ha-ha" funny, but still...
I would say this is a less threat to Intel/AMD, but Microsoft should be very, very worried. The last thing that MS would like to see is a vastly expanding economic power with all of the children raised on PCs built to run Linux.
Here's where I base this from TFA:
Loongson chips already power some personal computers and servers on the Chinese market, which come with the Linux operating system and other open-source software. "They use a lot of open-source software because it's free," says Halfhill. "The Chinese government wants to get as many PCs into schools and as many workplaces as they can."
What part of the US marketplace doesn't try to exploit non-savvy users? Especially the auto industry.
You buy a car, they want to sell you that extended powertrain warranty, the dealership service contract, the upgraded rims, the alloy-something-or-another...all for "the good of the car".
The computer industry is no different. I used to work for a computer manufacturer ten years ago and even back then, the margins were razor thin on the actual machines. That's why they sold you bundles of software at a ridiculous price. To the buyer, it looked like a bargain because you got all these programs for a fraction of the store cost. To the person selling the machine, that software pack is pure profit, often tied directly into "spiffs" and bonuses. To the manufacturer, not only is it pure profit, but it's nothing to throw in a bunch of slightly outdated software you've negotiated for at a steal.
SoundExchange doesn't care. As a branch off of the major labels, the death of internet radio as we know it is almost a best case scenario. Once gone, they can shape the market the way they want to see it without interference from innovative small radio pioneers. This has less to do with getting money than it is about having a stranglehold on the internet market.
Slashdot Mirror
I guess my point really is about selective quoting. Fact is, there are millions of people who worship, in all religions, and are peaceful people. The selection of violent texts are used by a tiny minority to justify their actions of hatred against others.
What I'm against is the blanket categorization of a whole religion, whatever that religion may be, because of contradictory passages in their text. One minute they say "kill everyone else" and the next "love your neighbor" (this of course is a generalization). The original post got my ire up because quotes like that were used to justify attacks and then the discrimination of a whole people because they now couldn't be trusted.
I could go on a whole diatribe here, but I'm not going to. However, the OP with all of the quotes serves no real purpose other than to stir up animosity towards Muslims, which is something that I felt compelled to respond.
Excellent point.
Oh, come on. You've read the Old Testament, right? There's sections there are pretty violent as well, just as unforgiving. I'm not going to find these quotes for you because I don't have the time now. I don't have them conveniently wrapped together in a chain email which I'm guessing you pulled this from.
+1 for selective quotes +5 for unnecessary incendiary quoting -5 questionable modding
Yes, but can it run...oh forget it.
Have you really looked at it? I mean actually go to the Google Apps page at looked at it, or did you just hit reply without knowing. Oh, who am I kidding, this is /. and I'm lucky you read any of my message.
Seriously, here's a link to the Google Apps business page. Look around. This isn't free stuff. I'm not sure why you scoff at this and not other business webmail applications. There...do you see that...do you see how Gmail isn't always free?
My point remains...if they paid for it, Google owes them an explanation.
Keep in mind what they are probably talking about is the paid service you can get through Gmail Apps. For most people, yes, gmail is free with a personal account, but there are whole organizations who have their email hosted with Gmail. Think of it as hosted Exchange without Exchange.
If it's a free service, then yes, caveat emptor. But if someone is paying for this, then there should be a higher level of service or at least explanations of what happened or why it went wrong.
Good freakin' gosh, what do they have for a marketing department?
The same guys who thought pairing Seinfeld and Gates could match up to the awesome juggernaut that is John Hodgman.
*sigh* Did you even look at the usernames of the two posts? Two separate IDs saying two separate things?
/. users don't RTFA. You didn't even bother to read my whole post.
Most
Yeah, just noticed the way my nesting is displayed is out of whack. Weirdness...
Wow, did you totally misunderstand the meaning of what I posted. I'll have to attempt to be more clear in the future.
I do not question Groklaw as a source at all. I've found it fun to watch SCO twist in the wind and Groklaw point out the progress of the cases they're involved in. PJ has done everyone a service by being so diligent following the legal shennanigans of Darl and Co.
What I'm referring to is IBM. Maybe it's just my natural distrust of large companies, but every word I see from big business I take with a grain of salt. Yeah, it's great they are saying these things about open standards. However, given the nature of business, if offered a different business model that would allow them to make a ton of money, who's to say that IBM wouldn't do that as well. They haven't always been the friend of the small business owner.
Now what puzzles me is how, out of my original, tiny post, you perceived anything other than an informative link and also my opinion of how while I'm happy that IBM has done this, that I can still be cautious about their (IBM's) motives as a business. If you are referring to my title, I was responding to mcgrew who stated that IBM had it's own standards to push. Honestly though, did it seem like I was trashing Groklaw? 'Cause I don't see it.
Sounds like a pretty light setup already. What were you considering for your next step? Xen or maybe ESXi perhaps?
If you're just talking Outlook, I would agree. But you have to consider the OS needed to run the app as well. Far to many resources (both CPU and memory) to just run a mail application. Not only that, but you absolutely need to run anti-virus as well. Just because it's in a VM doesn't mean that you can run it without AV on top of it. Plus, it's one more system to update as the OS will need updates, as will Outlook, as will AV.
Like I said, using a VM to run Outlook can work. However, it's a lot more effort and management into what should simply be a mail application.
A quick look over at Groklaw has a good article about the motivations here. I'd still be cautious, but it's optimistic when IBM stresses open standards as being important to them. I'm actually surprised this didn't happen sooner with the garbage of OOXML.
Not a great solution. Yeah you could do this, but then you have to get the VM up and running (VirtualBox is good for this), make sure you have some sort of Windows license, install Outlook (again, with a license that works), join the VM to the domain (if you want seamless access) and set up your profile. Hey, now that's done, every day when you boot up, you boot up your VM, log in (if you joined it to the domain), fire up Outlook and watch as your VM chews up a good chunk of your processing power running a VM to run one app.
There's not a silver bullet here unfortunately. A VM, while handy and possible, isn't an elegant solution and it sounds like he's been working off of Evolution, so we're pretty much looking at just getting mail running. Easiest way: ask the local techs to make sure IMAP is running and install Thunderbird. Like I said, not ideal, but that's when you get when Microsoft decides not to play nicely with others.
He is on his main box, probably a custom built *NIX box.
His other PC running Windows is there to catalog viruses and spyware.
It hasn't quite mastered telling it's critics to SHUT UP!
Well, that's a big, big reason. Why would I buy a diesel car that has better mpg if diesel fuel now costs a dollar and a half more than gasoline (more in the winter, when they start refining more heating oil)?
Where's your math on this? Still a lot cheaper than a gas car only getting 22mpg. Even if you had a car that got over 30mpg it's still cheaper. Why wouldn't you?
* "It'll be more of the same."
* "You can never win an MMORPG. It's a never-ending treadmill."
* "Thank God I got off that crack a year ago."
* "It won't be as good as Eve/Warhammer/etc."
* "Blizzard isn't going to get another one of my dollars after that DMCA bullshit."
* "I'm waiting for Diablo 3/StarCraft 2."
* "I hate PC games. Console games rule."
* "I have my copy on preorder."
I think I've covered the major ones.
Fixed that for you.
Not sure how you could measure it by anything but a failure. All of the various ways of measuring it given by RIAA itself pretty much indicate failure.
If they meant to reduce file sharing, total failure there as there's been no slowdown. If they meant to give back to the artists, failure on their part as any winnings/settlements has only gone to fund more litigation. Not only that, they only have one substantive win which may be declared a mistrial as the judge reconsiders his orders to the jury.
The campaign is a failure. This would have been money better spent on actual innovation on distributing music.
Interesting that when I first saw the parent post of this, it was marked insightful and now when I reply, it's marked Troll.
I can't say I enjoyed the show myself. I know it was hugely popular, I know a lot of people loved the show...it just didn't float my boat, so to speak. A couple of episodes I found enjoyable such as the marble rye episode.
The thing is, funny is relative. You either find something funny or you don't. My father never thought that the Monty Python I watched growing up was funny, but then I didn't find some of the stuff he liked funny either (he was much more of a joke/punch line kind of guy where I liked my humor to be a bit more layered and obscure).
What I do find funny is all the replies saying how stupid the parent post was for not liking Seinfeld. Not "ha-ha" funny, but still...
And that's using Canadian money!
(That was much funnier before the dollar tanked.)
Here's where I base this from TFA:
Loongson chips already power some personal computers and servers on the Chinese market, which come with the Linux operating system and other open-source software. "They use a lot of open-source software because it's free," says Halfhill. "The Chinese government wants to get as many PCs into schools and as many workplaces as they can."
What part of the US marketplace doesn't try to exploit non-savvy users? Especially the auto industry.
You buy a car, they want to sell you that extended powertrain warranty, the dealership service contract, the upgraded rims, the alloy-something-or-another...all for "the good of the car".
The computer industry is no different. I used to work for a computer manufacturer ten years ago and even back then, the margins were razor thin on the actual machines. That's why they sold you bundles of software at a ridiculous price. To the buyer, it looked like a bargain because you got all these programs for a fraction of the store cost. To the person selling the machine, that software pack is pure profit, often tied directly into "spiffs" and bonuses. To the manufacturer, not only is it pure profit, but it's nothing to throw in a bunch of slightly outdated software you've negotiated for at a steal.
SoundExchange doesn't care. As a branch off of the major labels, the death of internet radio as we know it is almost a best case scenario. Once gone, they can shape the market the way they want to see it without interference from innovative small radio pioneers. This has less to do with getting money than it is about having a stranglehold on the internet market.
Funny thing in three years in the future, according to TFA, Linux looks a lot like it does today.