Well I can roll my own install of anything. I just don't want to do that on a $600 laptop. I do that on servers, for other people who pay me. That's not what I want from a laptop. Preinstalled Ubuntu working on a laptop? Bring it on. Unfortunately, the $600 is no longer burning a hole in my pocket. Must have missed the "preinstalled ubuntu laptop" section at the friendly local computer store. And Broadcom fixed the 43xx _Microsoft_ driver for HP. If they had fixed it first for linux I'd still be running Ubuntu, and by the way, my hat is off to Ubuntu as well, they make a fine OS. But no wireless, no way. Linux gets nothing from hardware guys and it hurts it. I mean, having to endlessly retype your WEP2 password into Network Manager because it doesn't save WEP2 settings because driver is broken gets to you after a while. It's not about the anecdotes, or the specifics. It just doesn't work on Ubuntu, and does with Vista. Like I said, same stuff from 10 years ago. Pretty good, but the Microsoft/Apple desktop is just a bit better. Both of them are fine OSes, but I'll take the one that has correct wireless functionality that lets me be productive now, and that's Windows.
I prefer Vista, which shipped with my laptop. The wifi thing is and was a total showstopper for me, and rightly so. Ubuntu 7.10 was as behind Vista as RedHat 5.x was behind Win98. Just not ready in comparison. See, I don't want to have to fight with my hardware. I work all day in a unix shell, so it's not like I can't deal with this stuff. I just don't want to.
HP, and Microsoft, fixed the issue with the Broadcom wireless driver; BIOS update, driver update. It now works, perfectly. It didn't when I got the machine, so I checked out Ubuntu. I'm way past being political or a bigot or an evangelist. I need to be productive and I need a working system. End of story. I get that with Vista. I didn't with Ubuntu.
Vendors support Microsoft first, and that's life. This Broadcom thing will get addressed by Linux, but it's too late (again) for me. I don't care why it didn't/doesn't work, and neither does anyone else. It just doesn't work, and that don't cut it.
5000? In Canada, ISPs won't let more than 400 out *per day* through their mail gateways even on a commercial line. You have to set up your own mail sending system. Standard practice is to force all mail through their gateway. Checking message content (no I haven't read TFA) seems reasonable. You want privacy, that's your business, but average use is going to get checked out all the time. Nobody talks on 25 in Canada unless you pay commercial rates.
the thing i find depressing about the whole googlization of the web is the unquestioning acceptance of advertising it has brought. i dislike advertising. the messages bother me. they distort reality. they are motivated by things i don't care about. they are created to do things i am not interested in.
advertising serves the businesses that exchange money to deliver it. that exchange is one also of influence and power. focusing on whether or not the targets of the advertising are influenced by the messages misses this crucial point. the messages have an effect on the targets, but the business of delivering the messages is more important.
the fact that financial free-for-alls flow from some of google's ad ideas means this is a lousy deal for the net community. nobody, nobody, nobody needs the money google has. being a giant advertising company (that's what they are) that has good web page indexing still makes them evil.
Audio quality is irrelevant. People like songs, not audio quality.
If anyone cared about audio quality we would not be having this conversation about a highly compressed inferior audio format that changed everything.
If people like the song, they'll listen to it. Audio quality doesn't have anything to do with it.
Having audio software and gear and wanting to get on stage and have fans and be rock, well that doesn't write the songs. In fact, those things actually detract from art. Great art, great songs, great film, greatness, comes from having something to say. To an audience.
This world is full of musical instrument owners with beautiful equipment, who want to be heard, who want to play, who want an ego trip, but who have absolutely nothing to say, and probably couldn't write adequately, let alone beautifully, even if they did have something to say.
And there are a few people who write great songs. And they have an audience. How they monetize that and make a living isn't interesting to me.
Re:Morals aside - what's the end result?
on
Sony BMG Dropping DRM
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Excellent example. People don't copy stuff they don't like.
People who copy movies watch movies. People who copy music listen to music. People who copy games play games.
Don't do this work if you don't want people to copy your stuff. Go work somewhere where what you do won't get digitized and copied. Clean the floor somewhere. Cool. Can't copy that. Otherwise, shut up. People like what you do. You have an audience. Congratulations. That's what you wanted. Oh, you want money? Do us a favour and pick another line of work. An artist wants an audience. A business wants money. Go into business. Sure, by all means, go in to the business of attempting to sell easily digitized and copied art. Just stop calling yourself an artist.
An artist wants an audience. Everyone else just wants a paycheck.
Microsoft is the most important player in the housewife/joe6pack user market. They make a nice OS. It works for people. Disclaimer: I like Windows, and always have. I know and use BSD for servers. Google depends, like all advertisers, on eyeballs. It doesn't care how the eyeballs appear, except for analytical aggregate. The only way it would care is if it could increase the number of eyeballs. MS gets people to Google. Google gets people to Microsoft. I just don't see how either is a) in competition and b) would want the other to go away. Google needs users to stare at its advertising. MS provides boatloads of them. Google could come up with the world's greatest OS and it still would not add any market share unless the users of that OS were new users a la Windows 95. I have to say, I completely dislike what Google has done to the net. Polluting millions of web pages with redundant come ons for soap and services just isn't my idea of a fun time, and their ability to rook in thousands of ops with the adwords setup makes them all the more whorish imho. Folks, Google is a great idea, but you don't have to like it, and I don't. Shipping massive amounts of advertising on a continuous basis makes you an asshole in my book. In comparison, Microsoft sticks its hand out once, when I need an OS. I buy it, and they go away. I get a nice OS, end of story. And spare me the Linux comparison. There is no comparison. I have used Linux professionally for 8 years. Good servers. But the Linux desktop is still as far behind the current MS OS as it ever was. They've both progressed, but RH6.2 was not ready for prime time compared to Windows 2000, and Ubuntu 7 is not ready for prime time compared to Windows Vista. Microsoft, and Windows 95, is the reason most of us are here having this conversation. They vastly increased the number of PC owners, and therefore available eyeballs, back in the 90s. Now that networks and processors are fulfilling that promise, you have more generally satisfied housewife/joe6pack users, but they are and will always use MS OSes. I love Linux and OSS, but you are all drinking KoolAid if you think Linux is going to make a dent in the MS market share, let alone increase the overall size of the pie to Google's benefit.
Sorry folks, you're making the mistake of thumping the dictionary instead of looking at actual, in the wild use, of the word "brick". It works perfectly, in this context, as a term to describe breaking some aspect of a device. It appears that some people like using the term that way, and are perfectly happy with it. It works for them. You don't have to like it, and don't have to participate in the usage, but this is demonstrably what is happening. Measurable field data exists, and native speakers of English, in context, are now using the word "brick" to mean precisely what you are all claiming it cannot mean. Go back to working on computers, and leave linguistic analysis to those who know something about it.
Disclaimer: I drive a brick, and know something about language.
This is an excellent point. Anyone who sends Ted Rogers $50 a month is getting 'simulcast' where it is legal for them to add their own valuable advertising over certain HBO/A&E US programming. As well, all Canadian channels that own the rights to US stuff get to put their own (same 12) ads over the US feed.
But the fact is, that Canadian cable providers think this is acceptable and normal, and they will just extend the practice to web pages. Most of the web is so totally commercialized that I have no doubt that this will become an effective revenue stream for them. They have been doing this for decades with TV. Look at what they have done to the Blue Jays; the poor team is basically a continuous Rogers Cable advertisement. If you want a Jay game, well pay for their Sport Channel. Screw that, I'll listen to the radio; oh, they own that too... Business as usual for Rogers is to promote until you are basically bludgeoned into a stupor. Watch them do this to the web for any chance to promote themselves. They'll get it into their Terms of Service (which is modifiable, and basically a moving target). They'll price in levels of intrusiveness. Just like you can get "The NFL Network" if you really want American advertising, but it costs you extra. The NFL is still unwatchably polluted with ads, but it's the real US feed, for extra money, per month. You want pure internet in a fat pipe? Pay up. Otherwise, internet-lite, with tons of Rogers messages. Who is going to sue them. They are untouchable in Canada. All the major content providers are the major advertisers. They all deal with each other, and don't sue each other for fear of losing accounts. Newspaper websites won't sue Rogers, because they advertise in the paper. The paper writes about the Blue Jays. The Blue Jays have a deal with the paper. Same all over.
Probably won't affect users of clever browsers like lynx;)
Probably an opportunity for clever browser designers to detect diffs.
Whatever the choice, presentation and delivery or either as an opportunity to work within limitations will get results.
You want to help people learn, whether it is to learn to gracefully accept the limitations of equipment, budgets, ability, software, or persons, or that perhaps not everyone can use software effectively. At high school age many people are years away from making their first mistake. Let natural curiosity and investigation take over. It will surely not be the first time any of the kids has seen non-cutting-edge hardware or software. Things are not always a brand new car, nor are they a rusty old basket case.
Slashdot Mirror
Hey now. I used to collect ne2000 nic cards from thrift store computers to get networking running on 486s with RedHat 5 through 6.2.
/bye
I guess if
http://www.google.com/search?q=caunter%20linux
and
http://www.google.com/search?q=caunter%20microsoft
aren't instructive, maybe
http://lynx.isc.org/current/lynx2-8-7/docs/README.sslcerts and http://www.google.com/search?q=nsupdate will. My little nsupdate howto gets a lot of love for some reason. I use, support, contribute to, and advocate for open source. I'm good at writing, so that's where I contribute. I also am not an operating system bigot. I use what is best for a given job. Sometimes that's linux, sometimes that's BSD, and yeah, sometimes, on an HP laptop, that's Vista. I don't have anything to prove to anyone, but I mean, I've got some credibility. Anyway, I don't mind giving MS credit for a nice OS that seems to get beat up on for reasons that I can't understand.
http://caunter.ca/contact.html
Well I can roll my own install of anything. I just don't want to do that on a $600 laptop. I do that on servers, for other people who pay me. That's not what I want from a laptop. Preinstalled Ubuntu working on a laptop? Bring it on. Unfortunately, the $600 is no longer burning a hole in my pocket. Must have missed the "preinstalled ubuntu laptop" section at the friendly local computer store. And Broadcom fixed the 43xx _Microsoft_ driver for HP. If they had fixed it first for linux I'd still be running Ubuntu, and by the way, my hat is off to Ubuntu as well, they make a fine OS. But no wireless, no way. Linux gets nothing from hardware guys and it hurts it. I mean, having to endlessly retype your WEP2 password into Network Manager because it doesn't save WEP2 settings because driver is broken gets to you after a while. It's not about the anecdotes, or the specifics. It just doesn't work on Ubuntu, and does with Vista. Like I said, same stuff from 10 years ago. Pretty good, but the Microsoft/Apple desktop is just a bit better. Both of them are fine OSes, but I'll take the one that has correct wireless functionality that lets me be productive now, and that's Windows.
I prefer Vista, which shipped with my laptop. The wifi thing is and was a total showstopper for me, and rightly so. Ubuntu 7.10 was as behind Vista as RedHat 5.x was behind Win98. Just not ready in comparison. See, I don't want to have to fight with my hardware. I work all day in a unix shell, so it's not like I can't deal with this stuff. I just don't want to. HP, and Microsoft, fixed the issue with the Broadcom wireless driver; BIOS update, driver update. It now works, perfectly. It didn't when I got the machine, so I checked out Ubuntu. I'm way past being political or a bigot or an evangelist. I need to be productive and I need a working system. End of story. I get that with Vista. I didn't with Ubuntu. Vendors support Microsoft first, and that's life. This Broadcom thing will get addressed by Linux, but it's too late (again) for me. I don't care why it didn't/doesn't work, and neither does anyone else. It just doesn't work, and that don't cut it.
5000? In Canada, ISPs won't let more than 400 out *per day* through their mail gateways even on a commercial line. You have to set up your own mail sending system. Standard practice is to force all mail through their gateway. Checking message content (no I haven't read TFA) seems reasonable. You want privacy, that's your business, but average use is going to get checked out all the time. Nobody talks on 25 in Canada unless you pay commercial rates.
the thing i find depressing about the whole googlization of the web is the unquestioning acceptance of advertising it has brought. i dislike advertising. the messages bother me. they distort reality. they are motivated by things i don't care about. they are created to do things i am not interested in. advertising serves the businesses that exchange money to deliver it. that exchange is one also of influence and power. focusing on whether or not the targets of the advertising are influenced by the messages misses this crucial point. the messages have an effect on the targets, but the business of delivering the messages is more important. the fact that financial free-for-alls flow from some of google's ad ideas means this is a lousy deal for the net community. nobody, nobody, nobody needs the money google has. being a giant advertising company (that's what they are) that has good web page indexing still makes them evil.
Audio quality is irrelevant. People like songs, not audio quality. If anyone cared about audio quality we would not be having this conversation about a highly compressed inferior audio format that changed everything. If people like the song, they'll listen to it. Audio quality doesn't have anything to do with it. Having audio software and gear and wanting to get on stage and have fans and be rock, well that doesn't write the songs. In fact, those things actually detract from art. Great art, great songs, great film, greatness, comes from having something to say. To an audience. This world is full of musical instrument owners with beautiful equipment, who want to be heard, who want to play, who want an ego trip, but who have absolutely nothing to say, and probably couldn't write adequately, let alone beautifully, even if they did have something to say. And there are a few people who write great songs. And they have an audience. How they monetize that and make a living isn't interesting to me.
Excellent example. People don't copy stuff they don't like. People who copy movies watch movies. People who copy music listen to music. People who copy games play games. Don't do this work if you don't want people to copy your stuff. Go work somewhere where what you do won't get digitized and copied. Clean the floor somewhere. Cool. Can't copy that. Otherwise, shut up. People like what you do. You have an audience. Congratulations. That's what you wanted. Oh, you want money? Do us a favour and pick another line of work. An artist wants an audience. A business wants money. Go into business. Sure, by all means, go in to the business of attempting to sell easily digitized and copied art. Just stop calling yourself an artist. An artist wants an audience. Everyone else just wants a paycheck.
Microsoft is the most important player in the housewife/joe6pack user market. They make a nice OS. It works for people.
Disclaimer: I like Windows, and always have. I know and use BSD for servers.
Google depends, like all advertisers, on eyeballs. It doesn't care how the eyeballs appear, except for analytical aggregate. The only way it would care is if it could increase the number of eyeballs. MS gets people to Google. Google gets people to Microsoft.
I just don't see how either is a) in competition and b) would want the other to go away. Google needs users to stare at its advertising. MS provides boatloads of them. Google could come up with the world's greatest OS and it still would not add any market share unless the users of that OS were new users a la Windows 95.
I have to say, I completely dislike what Google has done to the net. Polluting millions of web pages with redundant come ons for soap and services just isn't my idea of a fun time, and their ability to rook in thousands of ops with the adwords setup makes them all the more whorish imho. Folks, Google is a great idea, but you don't have to like it, and I don't. Shipping massive amounts of advertising on a continuous basis makes you an asshole in my book.
In comparison, Microsoft sticks its hand out once, when I need an OS. I buy it, and they go away. I get a nice OS, end of story. And spare me the Linux comparison. There is no comparison. I have used Linux professionally for 8 years. Good servers. But the Linux desktop is still as far behind the current MS OS as it ever was. They've both progressed, but RH6.2 was not ready for prime time compared to Windows 2000, and Ubuntu 7 is not ready for prime time compared to Windows Vista. Microsoft, and Windows 95, is the reason most of us are here having this conversation. They vastly increased the number of PC owners, and therefore available eyeballs, back in the 90s. Now that networks and processors are fulfilling that promise, you have more generally satisfied housewife/joe6pack users, but they are and will always use MS OSes. I love Linux and OSS, but you are all drinking KoolAid if you think Linux is going to make a dent in the MS market share, let alone increase the overall size of the pie to Google's benefit.
Sorry folks, you're making the mistake of thumping the dictionary instead of looking at actual, in the wild use, of the word "brick". It works perfectly, in this context, as a term to describe breaking some aspect of a device. It appears that some people like using the term that way, and are perfectly happy with it. It works for them. You don't have to like it, and don't have to participate in the usage, but this is demonstrably what is happening. Measurable field data exists, and native speakers of English, in context, are now using the word "brick" to mean precisely what you are all claiming it cannot mean. Go back to working on computers, and leave linguistic analysis to those who know something about it. Disclaimer: I drive a brick, and know something about language.
This is an excellent point. Anyone who sends Ted Rogers $50 a month is getting 'simulcast' where it is legal for them to add their own valuable advertising over certain HBO/A&E US programming. As well, all Canadian channels that own the rights to US stuff get to put their own (same 12) ads over the US feed. But the fact is, that Canadian cable providers think this is acceptable and normal, and they will just extend the practice to web pages. Most of the web is so totally commercialized that I have no doubt that this will become an effective revenue stream for them. They have been doing this for decades with TV. Look at what they have done to the Blue Jays; the poor team is basically a continuous Rogers Cable advertisement. If you want a Jay game, well pay for their Sport Channel. Screw that, I'll listen to the radio; oh, they own that too... Business as usual for Rogers is to promote until you are basically bludgeoned into a stupor. Watch them do this to the web for any chance to promote themselves. They'll get it into their Terms of Service (which is modifiable, and basically a moving target). They'll price in levels of intrusiveness. Just like you can get "The NFL Network" if you really want American advertising, but it costs you extra. The NFL is still unwatchably polluted with ads, but it's the real US feed, for extra money, per month. You want pure internet in a fat pipe? Pay up. Otherwise, internet-lite, with tons of Rogers messages. Who is going to sue them. They are untouchable in Canada. All the major content providers are the major advertisers. They all deal with each other, and don't sue each other for fear of losing accounts. Newspaper websites won't sue Rogers, because they advertise in the paper. The paper writes about the Blue Jays. The Blue Jays have a deal with the paper. Same all over. Probably won't affect users of clever browsers like lynx ;)
Probably an opportunity for clever browser designers to detect diffs.
Whatever the choice, presentation and delivery or either as an opportunity to work within limitations will get results. You want to help people learn, whether it is to learn to gracefully accept the limitations of equipment, budgets, ability, software, or persons, or that perhaps not everyone can use software effectively. At high school age many people are years away from making their first mistake. Let natural curiosity and investigation take over. It will surely not be the first time any of the kids has seen non-cutting-edge hardware or software. Things are not always a brand new car, nor are they a rusty old basket case.