I hate the FCC. I feel that they are largley a good for nothing government agency. They should simply be there to make sure that the airwaves are used fairly. They shouldn't be involved with content or censorship, and they shouldn't sell blocks of air (frequencies). But if we have to deal with all the crap that we have to deal with, can't the FCC force the major networks to broadcast via IP? There is a MUCH larger demand for it that there is the faulty HDTV stardards!
I want to be able to watch TV on my computer using the Internet and IP technologies. iCrave was the biggest effort anyone has made thus far, and it proves that it can be done. I am glad to see that people are pumped about it so that perhaps the networks will see that there is a demand?
I also wonder how much it would cost to buy syndication rights for TV shows over the Internet and actually run a legit all-IP tv station? Seems doable.
I am really scared when I see people talking like the way these Swedish folks (and actually quite a few people in the US) about limiting what people can say and do on the Internet.
There just can not be a method to stiffle one's opinions over the Internet, because it sets a precedent that I think none of us are willing to live with.
Does anyone think that the civil rights movement of the 60s ever would have come to pass without the first amendment? People fighting racism accross the globe owe their success to the same rights that they are trying to take away from others. That is hypocritical.
The ironic thing is also that the anti-hate groups have EQUAL power to publish their anti-hate propaganda just as the hate groups do. And I think it is safe to say that anyone that goes to either of the propoganda sites has already made up their mind are are not going to be swayed by what is in a Netscape window! I doubt the effectiveness of such propoganda sites anyway.
Its funny that these people are intolerant of intolerant people! Kinda reminds me of the Red Scare stuff that was going on in the 50s. I think any American that was involved in that witch hunt is embarrassed to this day. I sure as hell don't want to be any part of this one.
> I wouldn't say Red Hat came in "last", > because they weren't really rating them > apples to apples. They said Red Hat was best > for some things, Windows 2000 was best for > others, and so on.
The summary was definately NOT a ranking. It was pretty clear to me that they felt that 2000 was the clear winner, with Novell probably edging out RH, with SCO being the weakest contender.
The summary was really an evaluation of each NOS's strong points and the people/organizations they would best suit.
Its kind of interesting, however, how much these NOS tests (specifically this one) depend on Windows clients and Samba? They should have an article w/benchmarks of people trying to get Macintosh or Linux networks served up by a 2000 server. Turn the table and have Microsoft be the ones that have to adapt to the client!
I mean we're talking about Windows being served by non-windows machines that were not really designed (with exception of Novell) for the sole purpose of serving up windows services. With netatalk supporting AppleTalk IP, a linux machine will beat down any non-AppleTalkIP or MacOSX server any day of the week. I don't believe that Windows 2000 serves up AppleTalk IP, but could be wrong. Even if, I am willing to bet that a RH box with netatalk will beat it. -k
I would highly recommend whenever your constitutional rights are threatened, confront the individual. What I find amazing is that Rep. McGrath probably didn't think that anyone would have any problem with her proposed legislations.
In any case, here is her email address--feel free (espcially Arizona residents) to voice your concerns to jmcgrath@azleg.state.az.us
I am thinking that this processor / platform could end up being the ultimate web server. Built in Linux stuff, ultra low power consumption. It all means that you can build an ultra small, ultra cheap, headless web server that can probably be powered by a medium sized UPS for like a day in case of power outage. Think of the amazing density you could get out of a server farm.
How do you see how Open Source technologies may effect Apple? With the fiasco of the announcement that Apple will be realeasing OS X as 'Open Source' they really havn't embraced or been embraced by the community. Whereas SGI (very similar to Apple in many respects--stuggling for market share, specialized market dominance, high-end focus, etc.) has been actually giving a lot back to the community (their journalling file system, etc.) and is being embraced. Is Apple going about things incorrectly?
Also, another question would be: Do you think that Apple should abandon Mac OS in favor of a Linux-based OS and focus on building and branding their INTERFACE?
Slashdot Mirror
I hate the FCC. I feel that they are largley a good for nothing government agency. They should simply be there to make sure that the airwaves are used fairly. They shouldn't be involved with content or censorship, and they shouldn't sell blocks of air (frequencies). But if we have to deal with all the crap that we have to deal with, can't the FCC force the major networks to broadcast via IP? There is a MUCH larger demand for it that there is the faulty HDTV stardards!
I want to be able to watch TV on my computer using the Internet and IP technologies. iCrave was the biggest effort anyone has made thus far, and it proves that it can be done. I am glad to see that people are pumped about it so that perhaps the networks will see that there is a demand?
I also wonder how much it would cost to buy syndication rights for TV shows over the Internet and actually run a legit all-IP tv station? Seems doable.
-k
I am really scared when I see people talking like the way these Swedish folks (and actually quite a few people in the US) about limiting what people can say and do on the Internet.
There just can not be a method to stiffle one's opinions over the Internet, because it sets a precedent that I think none of us are willing to live with.
Does anyone think that the civil rights movement of the 60s ever would have come to pass without the first amendment? People fighting racism accross the globe owe their success to the same rights that they are trying to take away from others. That is hypocritical.
The ironic thing is also that the anti-hate groups have EQUAL power to publish their anti-hate propaganda just as the hate groups do. And I think it is safe to say that anyone that goes to either of the propoganda sites has already made up their mind are are not going to be swayed by what is in a Netscape window! I doubt the effectiveness of such propoganda sites anyway.
Its funny that these people are intolerant of intolerant people! Kinda reminds me of the Red Scare stuff that was going on in the 50s. I think any American that was involved in that witch hunt is embarrassed to this day. I sure as hell don't want to be any part of this one.
-k
> I wouldn't say Red Hat came in "last",
> because they weren't really rating them
> apples to apples. They said Red Hat was best
> for some things, Windows 2000 was best for
> others, and so on.
The summary was definately NOT a ranking. It was pretty clear to me that they felt that 2000 was the clear winner, with Novell probably edging out RH, with SCO being the weakest contender.
The summary was really an evaluation of each NOS's strong points and the people/organizations they would best suit.
Its kind of interesting, however, how much these NOS tests (specifically this one) depend on Windows clients and Samba? They should have an article w/benchmarks of people trying to get Macintosh or Linux networks served up by a 2000 server. Turn the table and have Microsoft be the ones that have to adapt to the client!
I mean we're talking about Windows being served by non-windows machines that were not really designed (with exception of Novell) for the sole purpose of serving up windows services. With netatalk supporting AppleTalk IP, a linux machine will beat down any non-AppleTalkIP or MacOSX server any day of the week. I don't believe that Windows 2000 serves up AppleTalk IP, but could be wrong. Even if, I am willing to bet that a RH box with netatalk will beat it. -k
I would highly recommend whenever your constitutional rights are threatened, confront the individual. What I find amazing is that Rep. McGrath probably didn't think that anyone would have any problem with her proposed legislations.
In any case, here is her email address--feel free (espcially Arizona residents) to voice your concerns to jmcgrath@azleg.state.az.us
-k
I am thinking that this processor / platform could end up being the ultimate web server. Built in Linux stuff, ultra low power consumption. It all means that you can build an ultra small, ultra cheap, headless web server that can probably be powered by a medium sized UPS for like a day in case of power outage. Think of the amazing density you could get out of a server farm.
Still, any suggestions?
Does the high bidder get to specify what charity to give the proceeds to? Any suggestions?
Steve,
How do you see how Open Source technologies may effect Apple? With the fiasco of the announcement that Apple will be realeasing OS X as 'Open Source' they really havn't embraced or been embraced by the community. Whereas SGI (very similar to Apple in many respects--stuggling for market share, specialized market dominance, high-end focus, etc.) has been actually giving a lot back to the community (their journalling file system, etc.) and is being embraced. Is Apple going about things incorrectly?
Also, another question would be:
Do you think that Apple should abandon Mac OS in favor of a Linux-based OS and focus on building and branding their INTERFACE?