Clever. But destroying access isn't voilating DRM.
I'm pretty sure you have to allow customs to inspect cargo traveling internationally so pretty much if they want to see if they are pirated DVD's they can.
This is the correct way to fight piracy, not CSS, TCPA, and encrypted TV hookups.
If you don't have the time today, don't do it today. Tell them next week some time.
Then, if you are busy next week, tell them you can't do it then either. If you end up with the time, do it. People will understand if you are too busy.
To paraphrase: "I want to drink sugar free soda, but not diet soda."
I think you're pretty out of luck there.
I recommend Splenda based soda. I find it much more sugar like than Aspartame based soda. I drink a brand unfortunately named "Waist Watcher". They have a decent selection and taste pretty good but they are also caffeine free so you are out of luck if you are looking for a caffeine source.
Good response. I was not aware that Apple had released the display with so little support. They have, however, added support dual link to most of their current hardware, correct?
Gigabyte's GV-RX16P256DE-RH (Radeon X1600 Pro) supports dual-link DVI and costs about $105 at Newegg.
Correct.. Support for dual link is starting to work it's way into the mainstream. The chicken and egg problem of the original DVI standard is over.
As I said in another comment, VESA claims that DisplayPort's bandwidth is "future extensible" while DVI's bandwidth is maxed out at 9.9 Gbps per dual-link port.
The claim that DVI is maxed out at 9.9 GB/s yes DisplayPort is "future extensible" is fanboy talk. DisplayPort has no support for higher bandwidth. The DVI spec, however, allows for bandwidth up to whatever the cable supports in dual link mode. The 9.9 GB/s is based on the 165 MHz clock limit on single DVI that all cables must at least support. Dual link DVI is actually more extensible than DisplayPort since you can increase bandwidth and stay inside the spec. Also, with 6 data channels instead of 4 it should scale up higher with the same quality cables. It's a pretty meaningless advantage but the argument that DisplayPort is more extensible doesn't hold water.
Still, my point is not that DisplayPort isn't better. If today were 10 years ago and these two were competing to become the display standard this seems like it should win out. The fact is it's not 10 years ago and we all have DVI eqiupment. DispalyPort needs to be not just "better" than DVI, it needs to be enough better to justify creating yet another standard for hooking displays up to equipment. We already have a TON of them in active use. It's getting stupid.
To list a few in active use:
75 ohm coax (channel 3/4) Stanard RCA jack NTSC video S-Video Component (R G B RCA jacks) VGA DVI (DVI-I, Dual Link, DVI-A, etc) HDMI
Many people have all of these interfaces on different equipment in their homes now, and they are are trying to add 1 more. This is NUTS. Theres no reason to create a new standard and a new connector type just to allow the content companies to put hardware DRM into the display data streams.
To have 2 of each of the above (except the coax) would require 12 connectors on a TV. It's getting to the point where you'll need a protcol converter to get your TV to talk to your devices (and even that will probably be impossible with the new DRM crippled interfaces.)
It took the industry a long time to get DVI right, but they are doing it now. There's no need for this.
Top down design Starting with an outline and working out the details is the normal way of tackling an engineering
Top down stinks. Iterative is the way to go, espeically for writing.
Here, at least, engineers should have a head start over most students, insofar as they are used to the fact that your first stab at a design is almost never viable
Why bother making a standard support something that only 1% of people will use when they can just buy that extra $150 card that supports the 3000x2000 42" res using some uber custom special dual/tripple dvi hybrid.
The problem is if a monitor requires a special custom video card and cable you have the chicken and egg problem again. The barrier to creating monitors bigger than 30" will be so high they won't be created at any price point unless/until there is a huge demand. Also, since such a system wouldn't be interoperable with most video cards on the market it's a bad purchasing option for most people and I wouldn't want to buy one.
The problem isn't the 1% that want to run a 32" monitor now, it's the 10% that would get one in 5 years if there were any on the market, but won't be.
And again.. why replace a standard with a new incompatible one that's less flexible and capable? If they were proposing this as the original DVI it sounds like it would have been a great standard, but we already have DVI.
DVI was braindead from the start. The protocol limited connections to 1600x1200 (1920x1200 if you pushed it). Their solution to higher resolutions is dual link which suffered from a chicken and egg problem. With no monitors supporting it no video cards bothered to add support. With no video cards to drive them, nobody bothered creating monitors that would take advantage of dual link. Most video cards still don't bother to support it.
LCD technology scales up much more cost effectively than CRT did so with the advent of LCD, the economics of big screen displays were about to get much better. At the time LCDs started becoming popular, I was working on a 21" CRT at 1600x1200. Unfortunately, because of the limitations of single link DVI, while 24, 26 and 28" monitors may have been cost effective to create, interfacing them with a computer was impractical. Instead you see the abomination of people sitting in front of 2 smaller monitors. Apple finally broke the chicken and egg problem with their 30" Apple Cinema display. They built dual link into their entire product line in preparation for it's launch. Dell now sells a 30" LCD for PCs as well and finally the latest generation of ultra-high end video cards now mostly support dual link. With this hurdle overcome, DVI is finally set to become a good digital display standard.
From what I understand this new standard will be incapable of driving monitors at resolutions above what these 30" displays can do now. That's nice but DVI is there and prepared to surpass that. Why create a new standard that limits display size to a resolution that was reached a year before the standard is even released, especially when dual link support is finally taking hold and the original limitations of DVI are starting to melt away. While I would like to see DVI replaced with something smaller and more capable, this new standard seems even more short sighted as the original DVI standard to me (since they don't even provide a path to higher resolutions).
Make it support up to 42" displays (20gb/s) and you've got a standard that makes sense. Otherwise.. lets just stick with DVI.
I've been waiting for years for Parrot to become something more than a toy.
As have I which is why all these other short sighted, yet popular languages and their developments frustrate me. More people need to be focusing on a solution to this mess of incompatible poorly designed language platforms and start working towards a good solution. If not Parrot, then something else but I haven't heard any reason why Parrot wouldn't be the right direction.
This might be good though because people would get under the hood and decide the whole thing is just garbage and we should just compile java apps to Parrot instead.
All languages that aren't built on parrot slow it's development and are therefor evil.
For example, our State-owned electric supply reaps huge profits (which are so much taxes we won't have to pay) whilst providing the cheapest electricity in the world.
I do admire their highly refined nucler power generation system (and apparently top notch distribution system).. but I'd argue it's less a result of the economic system and more a result of political curcumstances.
Socialism leaves a door wide-open to private entreprise, but it is well steered by the State to insure that nobody gets hurt and has his life destroyed by a greedy entrepreneur.
This model has some obvious advantages. The disadvantages are more subtle but they are there and bigger than the advantages. It's like in investing. You can put your money into something that grows 5% every year no matter what or 10% on average but some years you lose a lot. Some people will chose the conservitive route. Over time.. they will lose. The hard edge of capitalsim is inseperable from it's benefits. They derive from the same place. Reduce them, and you reduce the benefits.
As I understand it, France's economic system is going through a serious shakeup. As a typical self-absorbed US citizen I, of course, don't follow anything going on in France but from what I hear, people who have spent a great deal more time thinking about economics than either of us agree with me on this point.
I'll ask you this: If you got to chose a job where you made your current salary every year until you stop, or one where you made twice as much for 3/4 of the years and were unemployed the other 1/4 which would you take?
Some entrepreneurs may feel stifled, but what's important is that the vast majority aren't consigned to abject misery, of which the US is replete with.
There are some issues here but abject misery isn't one of them. Things may be hard for people in certain places at certain times but things balance and everthing works out ok. We don't have government healthcare but our healthcare is excelent in compairson to things I've heard elsewhere and it's being upgraded and modernized every day. There are some things I'd like changed but not if that change removes market pressures from the system.
It's not just some faceless entrepeneurs who are stifled when businesses are forced to make decisions that don't make business sense. It's the economy as a whole and everyone in it. That means you.
as opposed to what? You have a better economic model? One where people will be happier, healthier, more likely to get what they want?
Even China, a communist controlled country is giving up it's horrid backwards centrally planned economy and rolling out a capitalist system.
Unless, of course, he has a vested interest in the system
We all have a vested interest in a good economic system. Arguably there are 2 things that separate modern powerful nations from third world countries: Public education and a good economic system. I'd argue the first relies on the second.
Capitalism is hard. People lose big all the time but the big lesson that time has showed us is that overall everyone wins. Sure, in russia nobody got fired from their job, but the factories never modernized and downsized workforces and therefor they ended up doing a job that was near worthless and they ended up poverty stricken.
The benefits of capitalsim, a self balancing, self optimizing economic system that motivates a workforce require the hard parts of capitalsim.. the potential to lose big. The alternative is everybody loses big. No thanks.
It makes people do stupid things, like buy crap they don't need and fatten the bourgeois who peddle the made-by-slave-labour-in-China shit.
What an incredibly naive view of the world. You must be young. In one sentence you showed ignorance about how people think and make decisions, about how capitalism works, about whats going on in China and about how to compose a coherent thought.
In fact.. you have it backwards. It's real value that gets us to by the stuff made in China. Marketing gets us to buy the (supposedly) organic, all natural, heart healthy, environmentally friendly, low sugar, dolphin safe, low emissions, sugar in the raw. The more you object to the nature of the world the more likely some marketing campaign will sucker you in to buying some "counterculture" product which, by it's nature, is entirely driven by marketing.
Like religion, marketing serves no useful purpose in life, and this is why marketers should be retroactively aborted.
I'm a programmer. In general I could care as much about marketing as I care about celebrity breakups but I do understand the purpose and utility. It's pretty basic, without the sales and marketing folks my job would be worth much less and so I would either make less money or not have this job.
It's also sad to see someone who understands so little about the world as to not understand the use of religion. Take a look at history and what impact different religions have on the economies and development of nations. You may have no personal use for it but to deny how it shapes the people around you is to be blind to the true nature of the world.
Their problems were that they wanted features they weren't finding in Linux, but did find in Windows.
But were they really? The rationale seemed fuzzy and nebulous to me, exactly the type of stuff you would come up with if there was no good reason other than "I wanted to".
'"They're gearing everything towards this collaboration platform, and the way these applications are moving towards total integration is extremely attractive to me," says Parsons. "Knowledge needs to be transferred seamlessly and transparently between the organisations[sic]."'
Hmm... someone drank a bit too much of the coolaid. "I like this product because of the features it doesn't have yet."
'"We're starting to see cross-group collaborations on a scale that we've never seen before, with communities of practice across the entire group rather than one office,"'
Thats a pretty nebulous concept that's hard to pin down and show to be true or false. I'm not saying it's false, just that it's the type of thing an executive would say if there was no good reason.
'Users are more comfortable with the environment, while accessibility of information means executives "are feeling much more confident" about continuing to expand Coffey's business in new ways.'
It sounds like this guy is seriously focused on groupware which (at least in his mind) is key to his business. Groupware is one place where Linux is weak so he may have made the right choice. Still, without knowing the details of his situation it's hard to know if he made the right choice or simply chose the path that was easy and simple and shrink wrapped with a nice little powerpoint presentation on how much synergy it would create. It probably didn't hurt that those sales guys hung around to tell all the other executives how much confidence they should have during their next MS sponsored restaurant outing.
As for the other customer, it sounds like they had a seriously poorly architected network that needed an overhaul. Switching to Windows gave him that and consultants to design his network for him. Sounds like he made the right choice but he would also have made the right one if he was in a seriously screwed up Windows based network and had Linux consultants come in and design something that worked well.
Linux isn't right everywhere and Microsoft does make lots of good software products (arguably not counting Windows). Some businesses, especially small ones without good Linux expertise and no/poor consultants to turn to when they need some will find it hard to go that route. It's ok.. Linux has plenty of uses besides your little network, and some day, it will be ready for you and when it is it will make you happy. Until then.. don't let Microsoft sucker you into thinking that day will never come.
If AMD should sue anybody, they should have sued themselves for not being a good enough chip supplier.
If Dell chose Intel exclusivity based on merrit alone and not based on pricing (formally or informally) contingent on Dell using Intel exclusively then your argument holds up. This is almost certainly not the case.
It's pretty obvious from the current Dell situation that Intel has tried to keep AMD out and that's illegal.
Anti-competitive behavior hurts everyone. It hurts the customers, the economy, competitors and eventually erodes the competitive spirit of the company engaging in it.
Anti-competitive behavior seems to be running rampant these days and its important that Intel get in trouble for it. If they get away with it sends a signal to the business community that it's ok, everyone can do it. If they get meaningfully punished it will send a signal to businesses to clean up their acts and play fair.
The capitalist economic system requires fair competition to work properly. The computers and electronics industries have gone far away from fair competition and everything needs a real shake up.
OMG So true! Trolling and saying "X sucks because it can't do Y" motivates the snobs to help to defend their turf. It motivates people in completely different ways than "Please help me!"
I find the snobs in the Linux world much worse than any others. Maybe it's because Linux is the underdog. More likely I think it's partly because they like the idea of open source and as users would prefer to work with it but feel that without rabid supporters it may die.
For these people the software can suck completely and still be superior to everything else simply because it's open.
I think it's also partly people trying to inflate the value of their knowledge.
This motivation to defend the software you know best is a lot of what drives the high level language wars (python vs php vs perl vs ruby vs java.) If most people dropped all the other languages in favor of one, people who knew that one well would be much more valuable in the marketplace. Likewise, if most people dropped other Linux distros in favor of your personal favorite then your experience in it would become more valuable.
Using sudo, you can allow 'some' root commands to other users/admins without opening up the vault.
It's even more useful than that. Using sudo you allow *time limited* root access to execute commands as root and only those you specify specifically to be run as root and each is logged. It drastically reduces your exposure. I use sudo most of the time on my own home server.
In case you missed it, the point wasn't that his science is wrong because he gets money from the oil industry, it's that his claim that he can't do science because he can't get funding is wrong.
Is receiving money form a corporation to push their agenda the same thing as receiving money to objectively study a question? Granted, if there was any easy answer that could prove the global warming theories wrong they probably would have found I doubt their job was really to do science. I suspect it was more to do PR work.
If 1) non-alarmist scientists can't funding from academia and 2) these same scientist's findings are being dismissed by others because their funding is cooperate they have created a catch 22 for anyone who disagrees.
It's not about not getting funding. It's not about being called an industry stooge. It's about BOTH of these things happening in concert to make a serious scientific debate appear to be a clash between science and cooperate interests.
There is also a feedback system there, people aren't stupid. If only alarmist scientists get funded, anyone who wants funding will be alarmist.
If this is indeed happening it has powerful implications for the validity of the science being done and casts valid doubt as to the truth of the claims being made.
We all know science is corruptible and this is precisely the way you go about corrupting it.
Slashdot Mirror
Clever. But destroying access isn't voilating DRM.
I'm pretty sure you have to allow customs to inspect cargo traveling internationally so pretty much if they want to see if they are pirated DVD's they can.
This is the correct way to fight piracy, not CSS, TCPA, and encrypted TV hookups.
If you don't have the time today, don't do it today. Tell them next week some time.
Then, if you are busy next week, tell them you can't do it then either. If you end up with the time, do it. People will understand if you are too busy.
To paraphrase: "I want to drink sugar free soda, but not diet soda."
I think you're pretty out of luck there.
I recommend Splenda based soda. I find it much more sugar like than Aspartame based soda. I drink a brand unfortunately named "Waist Watcher". They have a decent selection and taste pretty good but they are also caffeine free so you are out of luck if you are looking for a caffeine source.
Neither does Dual-link DVI, most of the time.
A standard doesn't exist or not exist "most of the time". It either does or doesn't.
Your equipment may not implement it but the standard still exists and there is equpiment on the market that implements it (finally).
Good response. I was not aware that Apple had released the display with so little support. They have, however, added support dual link to most of their current hardware, correct?
Gigabyte's GV-RX16P256DE-RH (Radeon X1600 Pro) supports dual-link DVI and costs about $105 at Newegg.
Correct.. Support for dual link is starting to work it's way into the mainstream. The chicken and egg problem of the original DVI standard is over.
As I said in another comment, VESA claims that DisplayPort's bandwidth is "future extensible" while DVI's bandwidth is maxed out at 9.9 Gbps per dual-link port.
The claim that DVI is maxed out at 9.9 GB/s yes DisplayPort is "future extensible" is fanboy talk. DisplayPort has no support for higher bandwidth. The DVI spec, however, allows for bandwidth up to whatever the cable supports in dual link mode. The 9.9 GB/s is based on the 165 MHz clock limit on single DVI that all cables must at least support. Dual link DVI is actually more extensible than DisplayPort since you can increase bandwidth and stay inside the spec. Also, with 6 data channels instead of 4 it should scale up higher with the same quality cables. It's a pretty meaningless advantage but the argument that DisplayPort is more extensible doesn't hold water.
Still, my point is not that DisplayPort isn't better. If today were 10 years ago and these two were competing to become the display standard this seems like it should win out. The fact is it's not 10 years ago and we all have DVI eqiupment. DispalyPort needs to be not just "better" than DVI, it needs to be enough better to justify creating yet another standard for hooking displays up to equipment. We already have a TON of them in active use. It's getting stupid.
To list a few in active use:
75 ohm coax (channel 3/4)
Stanard RCA jack NTSC video
S-Video
Component (R G B RCA jacks)
VGA
DVI (DVI-I, Dual Link, DVI-A, etc)
HDMI
Many people have all of these interfaces on different equipment in their homes now, and they are are trying to add 1 more. This is NUTS. Theres no reason to create a new standard and a new connector type just to allow the content companies to put hardware DRM into the display data streams.
To have 2 of each of the above (except the coax) would require 12 connectors on a TV. It's getting to the point where you'll need a protcol converter to get your TV to talk to your devices (and even that will probably be impossible with the new DRM crippled interfaces.)
It took the industry a long time to get DVI right, but they are doing it now. There's no need for this.
How about Dual-link Displayport?
It doesn't exist.
Top down design Starting with an outline and working out the details is the normal way of tackling an engineering
Top down stinks. Iterative is the way to go, espeically for writing.
Here, at least, engineers should have a head start over most students, insofar as they are used to the fact that your first stab at a design is almost never viable
Apparently you knew that already.
Did it occur to you that it may use hardware lossless compression?
There is no compression in the DVI spec. Compression wouldn't be practical at that kind of speed.
There are typically 3 of those 165MHz channels (R G and B) running at 8 bits per clock. 165 x 8 x 3 = 3960 million bits/s = 3.6Gb/s (in 1024s).
Why bother making a standard support something that only 1% of people will use when they can just buy that extra $150 card
that supports the 3000x2000 42" res using some uber custom special dual/tripple dvi hybrid.
The problem is if a monitor requires a special custom video card and cable you have the chicken and egg problem again. The barrier to creating monitors bigger than 30" will be so high they won't be created at any price point unless/until there is a huge demand. Also, since such a system wouldn't be interoperable with most video cards on the market it's a bad purchasing option for most people and I wouldn't want to buy one.
The problem isn't the 1% that want to run a 32" monitor now, it's the 10% that would get one in 5 years if there were any on the market, but won't be.
And again.. why replace a standard with a new incompatible one that's less flexible and capable? If they were proposing this as the original DVI it sounds like it would have been a great standard, but we already have DVI.
DVI was braindead from the start. The protocol limited connections to 1600x1200 (1920x1200 if you pushed it). Their solution to higher resolutions is dual link which suffered from a chicken and egg problem. With no monitors supporting it no video cards bothered to add support. With no video cards to drive them, nobody bothered creating monitors that would take advantage of dual link. Most video cards still don't bother to support it.
LCD technology scales up much more cost effectively than CRT did so with the advent of LCD, the economics of big screen displays were about to get much better. At the time LCDs started becoming popular, I was working on a 21" CRT at 1600x1200. Unfortunately, because of the limitations of single link DVI, while 24, 26 and 28" monitors may have been cost effective to create, interfacing them with a computer was impractical. Instead you see the abomination of people sitting in front of 2 smaller monitors. Apple finally broke the chicken and egg problem with their 30" Apple Cinema display. They built dual link into their entire product line in preparation for it's launch. Dell now sells a 30" LCD for PCs as well and finally the latest generation of ultra-high end video cards now mostly support dual link. With this hurdle overcome, DVI is finally set to become a good digital display standard.
From what I understand this new standard will be incapable of driving monitors at resolutions above what these 30" displays can do now. That's nice but DVI is there and prepared to surpass that. Why create a new standard that limits display size to a resolution that was reached a year before the standard is even released, especially when dual link support is finally taking hold and the original limitations of DVI are starting to melt away. While I would like to see DVI replaced with something smaller and more capable, this new standard seems even more short sighted as the original DVI standard to me (since they don't even provide a path to higher resolutions).
Make it support up to 42" displays (20gb/s) and you've got a standard that makes sense. Otherwise.. lets just stick with DVI.
I've been waiting for years for Parrot to become something more than a toy.
As have I which is why all these other short sighted, yet popular languages and their developments frustrate me. More people need to be focusing on a solution to this mess of incompatible poorly designed language platforms and start working towards a good solution. If not Parrot, then something else but I haven't heard any reason why Parrot wouldn't be the right direction.
This might be good though because people would get under the hood and decide the whole thing is just garbage and we should just compile java apps to Parrot instead.
All languages that aren't built on parrot slow it's development and are therefor evil.
If you have to manually count opening and closing characters to know where you are, something has gone dreadfully wrong.
Meaningful whitespace snob.
All languages that aren't perl slow perl's development and are therefor evil.
For example, our State-owned electric supply reaps huge profits (which are so much taxes we won't have to pay) whilst providing the cheapest electricity in the world.
I do admire their highly refined nucler power generation system (and apparently top notch distribution system).. but I'd argue it's less a result of the economic system and more a result of political curcumstances.
Socialism leaves a door wide-open to private entreprise, but it is well steered by the State to insure that nobody gets hurt and has his life destroyed by a greedy entrepreneur.
This model has some obvious advantages. The disadvantages are more subtle but they are there and bigger than the advantages. It's like in investing. You can put your money into something that grows 5% every year no matter what or 10% on average but some years you lose a lot. Some people will chose the conservitive route. Over time.. they will lose. The hard edge of capitalsim is inseperable from it's benefits. They derive from the same place. Reduce them, and you reduce the benefits.
As I understand it, France's economic system is going through a serious shakeup. As a typical self-absorbed US citizen I, of course, don't follow anything going on in France but from what I hear, people who have spent a great deal more time thinking about economics than either of us agree with me on this point.
I'll ask you this: If you got to chose a job where you made your current salary every year until you stop, or one where you made twice as much for 3/4 of the years and were unemployed the other 1/4 which would you take?
Some entrepreneurs may feel stifled, but what's important is that the vast majority aren't consigned to abject misery, of which the US is replete with.
There are some issues here but abject misery isn't one of them. Things may be hard for people in certain places at certain times but things balance and everthing works out ok. We don't have government healthcare but our healthcare is excelent in compairson to things I've heard elsewhere and it's being upgraded and modernized every day. There are some things I'd like changed but not if that change removes market pressures from the system.
It's not just some faceless entrepeneurs who are stifled when businesses are forced to make decisions that don't make business sense. It's the economy as a whole and everyone in it. That means you.
intellectual filth of capitalism
as opposed to what? You have a better economic model? One where people will be happier, healthier, more likely to get what they want?
Even China, a communist controlled country is giving up it's horrid backwards centrally planned economy and rolling out a capitalist system.
Unless, of course, he has a vested interest in the system
We all have a vested interest in a good economic system. Arguably there are 2 things that separate modern powerful nations from third world countries: Public education and a good economic system. I'd argue the first relies on the second.
Capitalism is hard. People lose big all the time but the big lesson that time has showed us is that overall everyone wins. Sure, in russia nobody got fired from their job, but the factories never modernized and downsized workforces and therefor they ended up doing a job that was near worthless and they ended up poverty stricken.
The benefits of capitalsim, a self balancing, self optimizing economic system that motivates a workforce require the hard parts of capitalsim.. the potential to lose big. The alternative is everybody loses big. No thanks.
Are you suggesting that a suppier, whether Intel or AMD, should not be able to negotiate prices that are based on volumes purchased?
As I have said.. it's not about discounts for volume purchases, it's about discounts contingent on not using AMD as a supplier. That is illegal.
It is sad that most business that cry monopoly...
Anti-competitive trade pratices have nothing to do with monopolies. An underdog can engage in anti-competitive practices too (although it's harder).
It makes people do stupid things, like buy crap they don't need and fatten the bourgeois who peddle the made-by-slave-labour-in-China shit.
What an incredibly naive view of the world. You must be young. In one sentence you showed ignorance about how people think and make decisions, about how capitalism works, about whats going on in China and about how to compose a coherent thought.
In fact.. you have it backwards. It's real value that gets us to by the stuff made in China. Marketing gets us to buy the (supposedly) organic, all natural, heart healthy, environmentally friendly, low sugar, dolphin safe, low emissions, sugar in the raw. The more you object to the nature of the world the more likely some marketing campaign will sucker you in to buying some "counterculture" product which, by it's nature, is entirely driven by marketing.
Like religion, marketing serves no useful purpose in life, and this is why marketers should be retroactively aborted.
I'm a programmer. In general I could care as much about marketing as I care about celebrity breakups but I do understand the purpose and utility. It's pretty basic, without the sales and marketing folks my job would be worth much less and so I would either make less money or not have this job.
It's also sad to see someone who understands so little about the world as to not understand the use of religion. Take a look at history and what impact different religions have on the economies and development of nations. You may have no personal use for it but to deny how it shapes the people around you is to be blind to the true nature of the world.
But were they really? The rationale seemed fuzzy and nebulous to me, exactly the type of stuff you would come up with if there was no good reason other than "I wanted to".
Hmm... someone drank a bit too much of the coolaid. "I like this product because of the features it doesn't have yet."
Thats a pretty nebulous concept that's hard to pin down and show to be true or false. I'm not saying it's false, just that it's the type of thing an executive would say if there was no good reason.
It sounds like this guy is seriously focused on groupware which (at least in his mind) is key to his business. Groupware is one place where Linux is weak so he may have made the right choice. Still, without knowing the details of his situation it's hard to know if he made the right choice or simply chose the path that was easy and simple and shrink wrapped with a nice little powerpoint presentation on how much synergy it would create. It probably didn't hurt that those sales guys hung around to tell all the other executives how much confidence they should have during their next MS sponsored restaurant outing.
As for the other customer, it sounds like they had a seriously poorly architected network that needed an overhaul. Switching to Windows gave him that and consultants to design his network for him. Sounds like he made the right choice but he would also have made the right one if he was in a seriously screwed up Windows based network and had Linux consultants come in and design something that worked well.
Linux isn't right everywhere and Microsoft does make lots of good software products (arguably not counting Windows). Some businesses, especially small ones without good Linux expertise and no/poor consultants to turn to when they need some will find it hard to go that route. It's ok.. Linux has plenty of uses besides your little network, and some day, it will be ready for you and when it is it will make you happy. Until then.. don't let Microsoft sucker you into thinking that day will never come.
If AMD should sue anybody, they should have sued themselves for not being a good enough chip supplier.
If Dell chose Intel exclusivity based on merrit alone and not based on pricing (formally or informally) contingent on Dell using Intel exclusively then your argument holds up. This is almost certainly not the case.
So maintaining exclusivity by making deals isn't illegal.
Incorrect. Strongarming companies into exclusively using your product is anti-competitive behavior and illegal under US law.
It's pretty obvious from the current Dell situation that Intel has tried to keep AMD out and that's illegal.
Anti-competitive behavior hurts everyone. It hurts the customers, the economy, competitors and eventually erodes the competitive spirit of the company engaging in it.
Anti-competitive behavior seems to be running rampant these days and its important that Intel get in trouble for it. If they get away with it sends a signal to the business community that it's ok, everyone can do it. If they get meaningfully punished it will send a signal to businesses to clean up their acts and play fair.
The capitalist economic system requires fair competition to work properly. The computers and electronics industries have gone far away from fair competition and everything needs a real shake up.
OMG So true! Trolling and saying "X sucks because it can't do Y" motivates the snobs to help to defend their turf. It motivates people in completely different ways than "Please help me!"
I find the snobs in the Linux world much worse than any others. Maybe it's because Linux is the underdog. More likely I think it's partly because they like the idea of open source and as users would prefer to work with it but feel that without rabid supporters it may die.
For these people the software can suck completely and still be superior to everything else simply because it's open.
I think it's also partly people trying to inflate the value of their knowledge.
This motivation to defend the software you know best is a lot of what drives the high level language wars (python vs php vs perl vs ruby vs java.) If most people dropped all the other languages in favor of one, people who knew that one well would be much more valuable in the marketplace. Likewise, if most people dropped other Linux distros in favor of your personal favorite then your experience in it would become more valuable.
Using sudo, you can allow 'some' root commands to other users/admins without opening up the vault.
It's even more useful than that. Using sudo you allow *time limited* root access to execute commands as root and only those you specify specifically to be run as root and each is logged. It drastically reduces your exposure. I use sudo most of the time on my own home server.
In case you missed it, the point wasn't that his science is wrong because he gets money from the oil industry, it's that his claim that he can't do science because he can't get funding is wrong.
Is receiving money form a corporation to push their agenda the same thing as receiving money to objectively study a question? Granted, if there was any easy answer that could prove the global warming theories wrong they probably would have found I doubt their job was really to do science. I suspect it was more to do PR work.
You missed one of the points.
If 1) non-alarmist scientists can't funding from academia and 2) these same scientist's findings are being dismissed by others because their funding is cooperate they have created a catch 22 for anyone who disagrees.
It's not about not getting funding. It's not about being called an industry stooge. It's about BOTH of these things happening in concert to make a serious scientific debate appear to be a clash between science and cooperate interests.
There is also a feedback system there, people aren't stupid. If only alarmist scientists get funded, anyone who wants funding will be alarmist.
If this is indeed happening it has powerful implications for the validity of the science being done and casts valid doubt as to the truth of the claims being made.
We all know science is corruptible and this is precisely the way you go about corrupting it.