The Ads on ZDnet won't work here.
on
Slashdot Updates
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
If you are planning on using the exact same ads, that is a very stupid thing to do--most of those ads use flash/shockwave, which is EXTREMELY annoying, and can't be stopped. At least with Gif89a you could stop the f'ing thing! The worst ones have sound too.
Considering how many *nix geeks are on this board, along with how many run Lynx, etc., how effective will those ads be, really? Yes, I will pay to get the hell rid of them, but I think that plan might backfire.
From the article: The more users it has, the more developers will write applications for it, which in turn attracts more users, and so on. That is why Microsoft has always sold its operating system cheaply and has done everything to make life easy for programmers.
Since when has Windows been considered cheap?? What is the source on this?? Windows hasn't dropped in price since 3.1 came out, and its only been getting more expensive since then. Just look at the retail tag for WinXP!
Also, since when are buggy DLLs and undocumented DCOM features considering "making life easy" for programmers? If anything, the Windows API is buggy, confusing, and mind-numbing.
This article is a wee bit too positive, in my opinion.
Datacenter machines will NEVER be running IIS. I've worked with several OEMs before, and none of them would EVER send out a datacenter machine with IIS running on it. If your OEM gives you a datacenter machine with IIS on it, run. Run as fast as you can to another OEM that doesn't.
Datacenter should NOT be available to the internet! If this is a mission-critical machine, why would you want it on the internet? So it can double as an EFNet server?! Machines like this should only be accessible to a select group of machines on its own network.
As stated before, Terminal Services does NOT require IIS to run. And also, you really shouldn't be using Terminal Services on this machine to do anything except possibly monitor performance--any changes made to the system would violate the uptime guarantee from your Vendor. This is a "LEAVE IT ALONE" situation.
If you are dumb enough to have a Datacenter machine running IIS, you deserve to get a worm on it. Anyone who has the kind of money to get one of these machines should have some active brain cells too.
The issues mentioned in this article are null & void, as a situation like that would most likely never, ever happen. (Then again, you picked Compaq as your OEM, so maybe...*insert rim shot here*)
First off, I don't know what everyone else is talking about, I had no trouble at all getting to the article in question.
Anyway, I for one am glad to see this kind of ruling. Companies should not just expect to have a domain name handed over to them because they think they have rights to it.
Unfortunately, strong-arm techniques such as pending litigation or going to the registrar (lets not forget when Network Solutions gave away ownership of personal domains a few years back to companies who demanded them) often win out, especially against personal/small business sites who wouldn't have the resources (financial and otherwise) to defend themselves.
Both of these cases were clearly a show of insolence by these companies, and for once, karma bit them in the arse.
Unfortunately, most of their products are priced for large corporations, and NOT for independent designers/artists. Large companies can afford $600+ for Photoshop, I don't know any freelancers who really can.
Yes, they give student copies of the software, but you aren't allowed to upgrade those copies the same way you can with a retail version.
Hrmm, so Macromedia is just NOW saying Photoshop infringes on a patent of theirs? This is probably one of three things then:
1) This patent just became official, and now they are looking to cash in over it.
2) They have been looking for anything to sue Adobe over, and recently found this.
3) This is part of what will become a strategic, mushrooming legal attack by Macromedia.
(Aside: Personally, I think Macromedia can f*ck off, they write terrible software with horrible interfaces that produce terrible results 99.9% of the time!)
Re:Did anyone else read the WHOLE page?
on
Magnetic Fluids
·
· Score: 1
For the record, the twins page was an April Fool's Day Joke done by Shannon from BME. However, so many people believed it that he had to put up a page saying it was fake! The photo on that page is Shannon's backyard too.
All fake people, no one is swapping limbs for the hell of it just yet. However, cuttingpartsoff happens quite a bit.
Even as a concept car, something like this scares me, because it says to me that these execs are missing the point of automobiles in the first place.
Remember the cars that would talk to you when the door was ajar, or if your seat belt wasn't buckled? Chances are you don't, since NO ONE BOUGHT THEM. (ok, you might remember because this is the/. crowd, but whatever!)
People don't want cars that read their emotions, or try to take pictures when they are happy--they want cars that are safe, efficient, & SAFE. And call me crazy, but I don't think offering shopping info and taking pictures would constitute a safe driving environment.
If I ever get rear-ended because some idiot in a "cute" car was too busy looking at an ad or a picture from the car to watch the road, I will seriously turn into Michael Douglas in "Falling Down".
With such a short range, a VERY limited product line (where is the desktop hardware?!), and a 2x mode that is proprietary, is anyone really going to jump on these just yet?
I know I'm certainly not switching--this just isn't good enough to replace Cat5 yet. Plus the price is too high and the range is too low to attract consumers away from 802.11b. I'm going to hold off until there is a much larger selection of products by more than one company before I even think about 802.11a.
That article looks exactly the same as it did when I viewed it previously while reading the last story--turns out I was so late in reading that the update had already been published. This means/. is about 3 hours late, as the update to that story happened before 12:30 EST.
It would just create a larger public outcry against the RIAA. I don't know about the rest of you here on/., but all the Mp3s I have are either:
1) Ripped from the CDs I Purchased
2) Ripped from DATs that I recorded at concerts, where the band gave me a press pass to do so!
If they were to delete either one of those items from me, it would be a violation of fair use.
They obviously aren't thinking here either. Even if they delete every MP3 in the world, they won't stop people from sharing music. If everything related to MP3 disappeared, someone would just create a new format, and the whole cycle would start over again.
Lastly, I think the companies that make digital wallets, handhelds, anything that let you play MP3s, need to speak up against the RIAA, before their devices become illegal.
Dual Band Worldphone??
Why would I want this thing, so my boss can get a hold of me while I'm on vacation in Europe? Fuck that! I'm not paying $400 to give people a way to distract my time off even more than they already do!
From the article: As I was ingesting the information the about the cutaneous rash afflicting Tom Brokow's assistant and workers in white bio-suits testing the New York Times newsroom, my office door opened.
This was definitely not a case of public outcry changing their opinion--Apple & HP have both been flamed to death before (think constant lawsuits & layoffs, respectively), with no policies changing. However, once they realized that they would NOT be the top players in this, and that they would probably wind up having to pay MS/Sun/InsertBigNameCompanyHere for their patents, it suddenly didn't look like such a good idea.
And you know what? I don't care about their reasoning. I'm just happy that they backed out of a horrible idea...even if it wasn't for the right reasons.
I can't believe people are even signing up for this domain in the first place.
My initial reaction when I started to get the hundreds of spam emails for.biz and.info that netizens would be far too intelligent to buy into them. However, I guess I overestimated their intelligence.
I think the main problem here is that a LOT of people are still looking to make a quick buck like people did in the mid 90s with.com names. They figure if they get a good domain name, someone will eventually pay them big bucks for it. However,.biz will NEVER have the same consumer-friendly ring to it that.com does, and people need to realize that before they purchase one of these absolutely idiotic domain names.
Perhaps in your area, they are. Around Philly, there is a still a dialup ISP called VoiceNet that doesn't use proprietary ANYTHING. It's refreshing to see nowadays(although new customers dont get access to shells like the old school customers did).
I have a few Erector sets, but I never got too many as gifts when I was younger because of how expensive they always were. And although I made some pretty cool stuff with my Erector sets (mostly stuff to launch my Hot Wheels through the air at my siblings!), my dream was to own the gigantic set from the movie "The Sandlot."
If you've never seen it, the boy in it has a gigantic set that launches a marble out of a catapult. Probably would have cost about $2000 to get enough Erector parts to build it!
The web was started by, and is still largely compromised of, people who don't earn a dime for their work. Independent web sites, universities, etc., do not usually make a profit from their sites. Forcing them to pay royalties would essentially be the equivalent of a cease-and-desist.
Not everyone is in a position to pay royalties. Groups in our country, let alone other countries, are still being introduced to the web. Royalties would only deter them. Not to mention that only a few countries actually *recognize* the types of patents which RAND would try to enforce.
Surely this would apply to the US federal government. If suddenly they have to pay royalties for their myriad of websites, where is that money going to come from? US Taxpayers, like you and I.
What may be reasonable to some, is not reasonable to others. This has been noted already, but what may be a "fair" fee to a company like Microsoft would not be a "fair" fee to myself, a freelance developer.
If the W3C becomes a group that tries to enforce royalties on existing web standards, their plan will backfire, and alternate standards (not to mention groups!) will crop up. Not only could this be the end of the internet as we know it, but it would be the end of the W3C as an established leadership that we try to follow.
Plain & Simple: RAND would not serve those that started and continue to develop the internet. Passing RAND will have disastrous consequences.
Something very similar to this was on Dateline NBC last night. They talked about how the cameras worked, facial recognition software in use there, etc. They even interviewed a privacy advocate, who stated that there were between 6 & 8 cameras filming them right then. I believe they also stated that the number of cameras in England was upwards of 2 million.
One of the things that frightened me was an interview with one older woman. Her words were something close to "They don't bother me at all. Why should they bother you if you don't have anything to hide??"
I fear that her viewpoint will be shared by many Americans. "I'm not doing anything wrong, so why should I care about being taped??" "Only criminals don't want to be taped!"
Maybe we are expecting too much privacy in public places? All I know is that if Americans believe that CCTV systems will help national security and scare off terrorists, we will have cameras here all too soon.
Slashdot Mirror
If you are planning on using the exact same ads, that is a very stupid thing to do--most of those ads use flash/shockwave, which is EXTREMELY annoying, and can't be stopped. At least with Gif89a you could stop the f'ing thing! The worst ones have sound too.
Considering how many *nix geeks are on this board, along with how many run Lynx, etc., how effective will those ads be, really? Yes, I will pay to get the hell rid of them, but I think that plan might backfire.
From the article:
The more users it has, the more developers will write applications for it, which in turn attracts more users, and so on. That is why Microsoft has always sold its operating system cheaply and has done everything to make life easy for programmers.
Since when has Windows been considered cheap?? What is the source on this?? Windows hasn't dropped in price since 3.1 came out, and its only been getting more expensive since then. Just look at the retail tag for WinXP!
Also, since when are buggy DLLs and undocumented DCOM features considering "making life easy" for programmers? If anything, the Windows API is buggy, confusing, and mind-numbing.
This article is a wee bit too positive, in my opinion.
The issues mentioned in this article are null & void, as a situation like that would most likely never, ever happen. (Then again, you picked Compaq as your OEM, so maybe...*insert rim shot here*)
First off, I don't know what everyone else is talking about, I had no trouble at all getting to the article in question.
Anyway, I for one am glad to see this kind of ruling. Companies should not just expect to have a domain name handed over to them because they think they have rights to it.
Unfortunately, strong-arm techniques such as pending litigation or going to the registrar (lets not forget when Network Solutions gave away ownership of personal domains a few years back to companies who demanded them) often win out, especially against personal/small business sites who wouldn't have the resources (financial and otherwise) to defend themselves.
Both of these cases were clearly a show of insolence by these companies, and for once, karma bit them in the arse.
Thanks for the opportunity to transcribe, Tim! Here is to hoping no one finds any glaring problems with my section!!
Unfortunately, most of their products are priced for large corporations, and NOT for independent designers/artists. Large companies can afford $600+ for Photoshop, I don't know any freelancers who really can.
Yes, they give student copies of the software, but you aren't allowed to upgrade those copies the same way you can with a retail version.
Hrmm, so Macromedia is just NOW saying Photoshop infringes on a patent of theirs? This is probably one of three things then:
1) This patent just became official, and now they are looking to cash in over it.
2) They have been looking for anything to sue Adobe over, and recently found this.
3) This is part of what will become a strategic, mushrooming legal attack by Macromedia.
(Aside: Personally, I think Macromedia can f*ck off, they write terrible software with horrible interfaces that produce terrible results 99.9% of the time!)
For the record, the twins page was an April Fool's Day Joke done by Shannon from BME. However, so many people believed it that he had to put up a page saying it was fake! The photo on that page is Shannon's backyard too.
All fake people, no one is swapping limbs for the hell of it just yet. However, cutting parts off happens quite a bit.
Even as a concept car, something like this scares me, because it says to me that these execs are missing the point of automobiles in the first place.
/. crowd, but whatever!)
Remember the cars that would talk to you when the door was ajar, or if your seat belt wasn't buckled? Chances are you don't, since NO ONE BOUGHT THEM. (ok, you might remember because this is the
People don't want cars that read their emotions, or try to take pictures when they are happy--they want cars that are safe, efficient, & SAFE. And call me crazy, but I don't think offering shopping info and taking pictures would constitute a safe driving environment.
If I ever get rear-ended because some idiot in a "cute" car was too busy looking at an ad or a picture from the car to watch the road, I will seriously turn into Michael Douglas in "Falling Down".
With such a short range, a VERY limited product line (where is the desktop hardware?!), and a 2x mode that is proprietary, is anyone really going to jump on these just yet?
I know I'm certainly not switching--this just isn't good enough to replace Cat5 yet. Plus the price is too high and the range is too low to attract consumers away from 802.11b. I'm going to hold off until there is a much larger selection of products by more than one company before I even think about 802.11a.
That article looks exactly the same as it did when I viewed it previously while reading the last story--turns out I was so late in reading that the update had already been published. This means /. is about 3 hours late, as the update to that story happened before 12:30 EST.
It would just create a larger public outcry against the RIAA. I don't know about the rest of you here on /., but all the Mp3s I have are either:
1) Ripped from the CDs I Purchased
2) Ripped from DATs that I recorded at concerts, where the band gave me a press pass to do so!
If they were to delete either one of those items from me, it would be a violation of fair use.
They obviously aren't thinking here either. Even if they delete every MP3 in the world, they won't stop people from sharing music. If everything related to MP3 disappeared, someone would just create a new format, and the whole cycle would start over again.
Lastly, I think the companies that make digital wallets, handhelds, anything that let you play MP3s, need to speak up against the RIAA, before their devices become illegal.
This is such bullshit.
Dual Band Worldphone?? Why would I want this thing, so my boss can get a hold of me while I'm on vacation in Europe? Fuck that! I'm not paying $400 to give people a way to distract my time off even more than they already do!
Maybe its your machine that is slow, and not the software??
From the article:
As I was ingesting the information the about the cutaneous rash afflicting Tom Brokow's assistant and workers in white bio-suits testing the New York Times newsroom, my office door opened.
Isn't that one too many "the"'s??
This was definitely not a case of public outcry changing their opinion--Apple & HP have both been flamed to death before (think constant lawsuits & layoffs, respectively), with no policies changing. However, once they realized that they would NOT be the top players in this, and that they would probably wind up having to pay MS/Sun/InsertBigNameCompanyHere for their patents, it suddenly didn't look like such a good idea.
And you know what? I don't care about their reasoning. I'm just happy that they backed out of a horrible idea...even if it wasn't for the right reasons.
I can't believe people are even signing up for this domain in the first place.
.biz and .info that netizens would be far too intelligent to buy into them. However, I guess I overestimated their intelligence.
.com names. They figure if they get a good domain name, someone will eventually pay them big bucks for it. However, .biz will NEVER have the same consumer-friendly ring to it that .com does, and people need to realize that before they purchase one of these absolutely idiotic domain names.
My initial reaction when I started to get the hundreds of spam emails for
I think the main problem here is that a LOT of people are still looking to make a quick buck like people did in the mid 90s with
Perhaps in your area, they are. Around Philly, there is a still a dialup ISP called VoiceNet that doesn't use proprietary ANYTHING. It's refreshing to see nowadays(although new customers dont get access to shells like the old school customers did).
when he said "It is neither possible nor necessary to educate people who never question anything."
I'm so afraid of the majority of US citizens fitting into that description...
this thing might just pass...
I have a few Erector sets, but I never got too many as gifts when I was younger because of how expensive they always were. And although I made some pretty cool stuff with my Erector sets (mostly stuff to launch my Hot Wheels through the air at my siblings!), my dream was to own the gigantic set from the movie "The Sandlot."
If you've never seen it, the boy in it has a gigantic set that launches a marble out of a catapult. Probably would have cost about $2000 to get enough Erector parts to build it!
My ranking is Capsula > Erector > Tinker Toys > Lincoln Logs > Lego
Where the hell are Construx in that list!? Those things beat the hell out of Lincoln Logs, thats for goddamned sure!
That used to work, but now with Banjo it shows the sites for each link after the link, meaning that links like that get really split up.
I love when I have to visit 15 Goddamned links just to understand what the fuck this guy's question is!!
How about next time, you make individual letters & punctuation into hyperlinks?! THAT WOULD RULE!!11!!
- The web was started by, and is still largely compromised of, people who don't earn a dime for their work. Independent web sites, universities, etc., do not usually make a profit from their sites. Forcing them to pay royalties would essentially be the equivalent of a cease-and-desist.
- Not everyone is in a position to pay royalties. Groups in our country, let alone other countries, are still being introduced to the web. Royalties would only deter them. Not to mention that only a few countries actually *recognize* the types of patents which RAND would try to enforce.
- Surely this would apply to the US federal government. If suddenly they have to pay royalties for their myriad of websites, where is that money going to come from? US Taxpayers, like you and I.
- What may be reasonable to some, is not reasonable to others. This has been noted already, but what may be a "fair" fee to a company like Microsoft would not be a "fair" fee to myself, a freelance developer.
- If the W3C becomes a group that tries to enforce royalties on existing web standards, their plan will backfire, and alternate standards (not to mention groups!) will crop up. Not only could this be the end of the internet as we know it, but it would be the end of the W3C as an established leadership that we try to follow.
Plain & Simple: RAND would not serve those that started and continue to develop the internet. Passing RAND will have disastrous consequences.Something very similar to this was on Dateline NBC last night. They talked about how the cameras worked, facial recognition software in use there, etc. They even interviewed a privacy advocate, who stated that there were between 6 & 8 cameras filming them right then. I believe they also stated that the number of cameras in England was upwards of 2 million.
One of the things that frightened me was an interview with one older woman. Her words were something close to "They don't bother me at all. Why should they bother you if you don't have anything to hide??"
I fear that her viewpoint will be shared by many Americans. "I'm not doing anything wrong, so why should I care about being taped??"
"Only criminals don't want to be taped!"
Maybe we are expecting too much privacy in public places? All I know is that if Americans believe that CCTV systems will help national security and scare off terrorists, we will have cameras here all too soon.