My company offers a product called VCS (http://elluminate.com/products/vcs/index.jsp) - it's fairly inexpensive and does a good job for reasonable sized video conferences. It's being used by Harvard Business School and some other larger institutions.
Any proof of that, douchebag, or are you just being a 'k3wl, anti-g00gle/.-er'? I get sick of 'people' hacking on things because they think it makes them more interesting than bothering to use any thought.
Re:Already tried & failed
on
P2P and TV
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Another experiment, current in progress, is Lawrence Watt-Evan's The Spriggan Mirror. It's in the same mode as Steven King's but if his latest emails to we subscribers are correct, he has enough to see it through to completion. So I guess 'tried and failed' ain't the only outcome, eh?
Clearly expenses need to be recovered, and these are real expenses for the label
Is that some sort of joke? I was under the impression those were operating expenses that allowed the record company to retain 86.5% of gross sales revenue (10% 'breakage' plus 85% of 90% gross). To claim that the artist has to pay those 'expenses', while giving them an extremely small percentage of the revenue is insane. And, quite frankly, criminal.
Sigh. Another lame attempt to defend Microsoft politics. You have so many dumb, err, doubleplus ungood things in here, I'll just grab a couple.
By somehow claiming that thsi is "restricting language" is silly and deceptive. Will Word not allow you to type these words in?
In case you haven't been paying attention, Microsoft's strategy is "embrace, extend, extinguish". Modifying their own internal dictionary so that words found in the Oxford works (even *you* should agree that this is a more compelling source) are not found in their own works counts as 'extend' to me - how about you? And judging by Microsoft's past, consumer-friendly actions, <sarcasm>I'm sure they won't do any more</sarcasm>
Yeah. Right.
Then we have the lovely following piece of (suitably purple) prose:
If I type in "Jew" and use the thesarus should it provide "kike" or "mud-person"? Or how about if I put in "white" should it fill in "trailer-trash" or "cracker"? How about if I put in "gay" - how about "ass-master" or "faggot". Blacks? How about "nigger" or "one of those them there coloreds".
So, you are saying that the author's attempt to find an alternative to a *mild*, non-stereotypical pejorative (i.e., "fool") is the same as trying to find racially charged epithets? Hmm, does that mean in your mind that "Jew" == fool? Jeez, for me, that equates to false; you may want to check your compiler.
Sure, this could just Microsoft's attempt to comply with "special interest group" wishes - but how long until "abort" becomes unrecognized? How about "encrypt"? Anyone else think of others?
Unless, of course, you are a contractor or sub-contractor, in which case, you're SOL...
I don't like theft, I don't condone it or do it but what is happening to these people is 'criminal' (in the spirit of the work, if not the letter). Almost none of the time do these people have input into how money is spent strategically or which decisions are made, so accusing them of being stupid/short-sighted is at best irrelevant, and at worse, stupid itself.
The only problem is that there were people there: the palestinians The problem is that there were people there before the Palestinians; the Hebrew. I suggest that you might look at the ancient history; what you are suggesting is akin to the post-1776 Americans taking land from the English to give to the Native Americans. The latter *were* there first, the former just happened to be in possession of it most recently.
Sounds a lot like crusades And every instance of Arab barbarism through the ages - but this isn't a discussion about which imaginary friend is better, it's a discussion about why this barbarous group of people is allowed to continue?
Remember "An eye for an eye...", that doesn't come from Islam No, it comes from the Old Testament - there *is* a newer version. Most of you Arab apologists love quoting stuff from the Old Testament, while conveniently forgetting the "love your neighbour as yourself" New Testament. Nope, Islam is the religion that brought us the delightful concept of jihad.
See pro-life extremists killing doctors Err, what 'religion' is this? Violent pro-lifers are as much Christians (remember the neighbor quote above) as the Palestinians dancing around over thousands of American deaths are true Islamic believers.
The problem with the Israel-palestinian conflict is that the Israeli pushed the palestinians to a point where many feel they have nothing to lose. In those cases, expect the worse Again, that's your opinion. The Arabs are not against Israel occupying that ground, they are against the idea of a Zionist state altogether. They don't want the Isreali out, they want them dead. I don't blame the Israeli's for defending themselves against that kind of religion-fueled hatred.
they were kings, and well respected people So, you're saying that the crusades (about 800 years ago) are similiar to the Bin Laden situation today - small fanatic groups killing others and inflaming the masses to cause others to be killed? Well, looks to me like that makes Christianity the more 'mature' religion, eh?
Why is it that I deserve an insult for everything you don't agree with? Perhaps it's not an insult against you but against the childish attitudes that I feel that you are embodying.
Or do you feel threatened in your ideas? Little tip at no charge to you - this sort of argument makes you look small and ineffectual. You may want to minimize your use of it.
That being said...
who's responsible for bringing jewish people on the same land as muslims who were already there Evolution? The Egyptians in biblical times? How far back in history are you looking? Not very far, apparently, as I was under the (possible) illusion that the Jews have been there as long as the Moslems. But hey, *I* could be wrong...
Have you ever read the Coran? Only excerpts (I have no interest in reading more) - the unbelievers are not people and are to be converted, by the 'sword' if necessary.
However, remember the crusade. It's long ago, but it shows that no religion can say it's better on these grounds? Agreed. But then again, the Christians haven't crashed into any towers or exploded car bombs in busy streets lately of which I am aware.
What the US (A) did was teach someone (B) how to use a gun, give them a gun and say "go kill this guy" (C). Now, after several years, more training, and several guns later, B turned around and shot A, as well as C. A is to blame only for starting B's training, not for **everything** that happened in the interval, as you apparently seem to think. B is responsible, sparky.
US sponsored more acts of terrorism (though different) than most arab countries Yes, because only the last 30-40 years count, eh? The Arab countries haven't been performing terrorism before that point, huh? Whatever. You are looking at history through very something colored glasses. Get the right prescription, OK?
Now, get a history book. Who is the most responsible for all the trouble in middle east? Religion. It starts, continues and ends with religion. Yeah, they've been screwed around by other countries but then again, everyone has screwed everyone else. Look up what the current Moslem texts say about the unbelievers.
They did not give Bin Laden normal military training. They made him into a terrorist So close to irrelevant that it doesn't matter - extend the example above to special forces/computer warfare/whatever.
Somehow, the US thinks that terrorism against Russia or other countries is OK Seems to me that you may be making a *bit* of generalization here... OK, a huge, unproven, unprovable, hyperbolic generalization but what the hey? That's *your* opinion.
The US has only itself to blame for that I guess that you are trying to say that, by extension, the US has only itself to blame for the destruction of the US towers. Funny, that's the same arguement that all terrorists use when they kill someone - " is responsible for this, not me!", where may be anything in our local galactic cluster that is not the terrorist, the terrorist organization or the puerile religon/philosophy/post-traumatic stress disorder to which the terrorist subscribes. Silly me. I thought that the US had terrorism to blame.
I believe that you and I are arguing many of the same points. However, there are still a few things in your response with which I take issue:
but I do also read media that comes from outside the US As do I. Being from Canada, I find that both CBC and BBC do a much better job of reporting the facts than the American versions.
getting too sanctimonious and righteous in the response Couldn't agree with you more; however, if you are insinuating that this is the attitude that I am projecting, I must disagree. I merely believe that attitude that you describe best fits those "peace-makers" who believe that the US has no right to exterminate the source of this tragedy.
I have never read a terrorist press release Supposed to be ironic, evidently needs a bit of work...
Don't make it into the holy war that the other side may believe it is Absolutely. Let's go in, kill and/or destroy the infrastructure and get out.
There. That wasn't so bad was it? </sanctimoniousness>;)
You are correct... the US probably had a hand in creating this but do you believe that they wound up this little terrorist and let him go to destroy the WTC? No. He has been learning on his own. The most for which the US government can take credit for is starting him on the path. Can you prove to me that all of his money is from the US government? Or is it, perhaps, for American and other Arab/Moslem sympathisizers.
Perhaps my message had more 'insults and expletives' than needed but I only count two. I just grow disgusted by the constant "the US deserved this, the US made this man"-style repetition of comments. Please try to look at more than the terrorist press releases and realize that there are more bad guys than just the US government agencies.
So, you're saying that the CIA made Osama Bin Laden destroy the WTC? Hmm, that seems to be a bit of a stretch (yes, you moron, I realize that you did not *say* that but that's the logical extension of your theory). According to your logic, then, if an ex-military man uses his skills to mug and kill someone, the Army is to blame? Or if someone with martial arts training kills another person in a fight, the sensei holds all responsibility? Grow the fuck up!
*Everyone* and I mean *everyone* makes choices. If Bin Laden blew up the towers, the *worst* that you can say about the CIA is that they trained long ago (I doubt that he's been attending many CIA terrorism 101 classes in the last few years...)
It always saddens me to read posts like this. Peace is good - peace at *any* price is not. The US hasn't paid for its sins today - up to 50 000 innocent people have paid for working in a target. Before any of you *people* say, "They're not innocent", I say; "Fucking prove it!!" Last time I checked, we are all innocent until proven guilty. Are they guilty of being Americans? Does that mean that they *deserved* death? I for one do not think so.
You then go on to say that violence will prove nothing - I have only this to say, a rabid dog cannot be reasoned with, cannot feel pity and will not stop attacking you because you feel attacking him is wrong. If you don't believe that those who did this can be compared to rabid dogs, I can offer 500 rebuttals. Or maybe it's 20 000. Or maybe 50 000.
*You* believe that Americans are not innocent because they won't stop what their government is doing. I would say that this applies equally well to those countries harboring these terrorists.
Yes, I realize that you do not *explicitly* state that you think these Americans are guilty. If they were not guilty and they were executed, however, why do you not believe in removing the executioner and his or her ability to do this *ever* again? It would seem to me that these people are not only putting ".. the lives of U.S. citizens at risk, but those of lots of people all arround the world, too."
Ah, Mr. AC, you choose to misinterpret and deliberately obfuscate to make your own *little* point. Even if Linux were as easy to use as Macs, users would "actually have to learn something". Show me a system or interface with *no* learning curve and I'll applaud - there ain't no such beast (or at least, none that can accomplish non-trivial tasks).
On the other hand, why should (for example) an accountant who has to spend all her free time learning the new tax laws spend even more time learning a new software retrieval system. That's not the best use of her time, wouldn't you agree? I don't mind doing it but why should we (and by "we", I mean the community) *force* her to use that system?
Do you think that if she is in charge of installing or purchasing that she will choose such a difficult system to use? No, she won't. That's why (and I'll use small words so that you understand) Linux needs to become more user-friendly to get more users.
I don't want to "code the Holy Grail", I just want to code systems that *both* users and non-users can use. Do you want to guess why AOL (an inferior service, in my mind) is so popular? It's easy to use. Not good, not the best, just easy. With Linux, we have the ability to make the best (or at least a damn good) OS be the popular choice - but not until "we" consider the users, Linux won't be #1.
Unfortunately, my friend, that's the sort of attitude that does and will in the future cause Linux to not be considered as a serious desktop contender. Joe Blow may be the purchasing manager and if he doesn't like it, he doesn't "buy" it (i.e., install it). Until we get over the "if they can't do it my way, they're stupid/useless/whatever", we won't see Linux in the big time.
You are obviously a troll but I'll respond anyway. I am unsure as to whom you refer when you write that LoTR is "widely considered to have been the most shallow and unimpressive work of fiction of the previous century". Do you have anything to back that up, other than such *impeccable* sources as The New Yorker or your own rectum?
As for it being a "children's story" you could be correct, although I doubt it. It does take an extremely limited intellect to disparage a story based solely on its audience - for example, the Taran Wanderer series are designed for young adults but are occasionally used in university courses as examples of modern Morality stories. Refusing to respect someone who enjoys, let alone *reads*, a particular book is puerile and not very intelligent. I guess any Poli Sci student reading Mien Kampf is a Nazi, according to that logic, eh?
Absolutely!! Join us on the dark side... but spend about 10 times as much time learning servlets (and other J2EE) as the friggin' Swing and GUI stuff. It'll help you.
Alright, if you were overly offended by my tone, I apologize. However, you have to realize I hear your exact arguement (Java is slow, it's GUI sucks) *many* times. You did, in fact, *imply* that Java was not deserving of its popularity as it did not have a fast GUI element and that it was slow. As I said, you have to realize what a language is used for when you talk about it.
First, Java is not slow, it is slower; as in slower than tweaked C++ or C. Is it orders of magnitude slower - absolutely not (by the way, I certainly realize that you might be able to find a completely unrealistic example where that is the case - so what?). On the server tier, however, the speed difference ain't so bad; it certainly is not bad enough for everyone to drop it altogether.
Your supposition that Java must not be growing more popular than C++ seems to be based on statement that Java GUI programs are slower than C++. I wasn't aware that raw execution speed was the *only* criteria for a programming languages popularity; here I thought it was a gestalt of speed, ease of use, utility, tools, etc. Try looking at the prevalence of code at the server level; betcha you'll see Java there and guess what? It ain't GUI-based. Servlets are dismissed at mere uber-CGI; however, they are scorchingly effective and easy to write.
As I understand it, the *DMCA* prevents unauthorized reverse-engineering of an encrypted file format, which Microsoft could claim fits the ASF (codec as encryption/decryption).
The only problem with this arguement is that in the license agreements (which, in Canada anyway, are separate from the regular ones), you are not allowed the use the product for commercial use; it is for 'learning and demonstration use only'. So, it may free (as in cheap) but for what we are usually discussing, it ain't legal.
Slashdot Mirror
My company offers a product called VCS (http://elluminate.com/products/vcs/index.jsp) - it's fairly inexpensive and does a good job for reasonable sized video conferences. It's being used by Harvard Business School and some other larger institutions.
"There go the piano lessons!"
Any proof of that, douchebag, or are you just being a 'k3wl, anti-g00gle /.-er'? I get sick of 'people' hacking on things because they think it makes them more interesting than bothering to use any thought.
Another experiment, current in progress, is Lawrence Watt-Evan's The Spriggan Mirror. It's in the same mode as Steven King's but if his latest emails to we subscribers are correct, he has enough to see it through to completion. So I guess 'tried and failed' ain't the only outcome, eh?
Dukes of SCO-zard
Massive, Mr. Equator-like apologies if this has been posted before ....
Is that some sort of joke? I was under the impression those were operating expenses that allowed the record company to retain 86.5% of gross sales revenue (10% 'breakage' plus 85% of 90% gross). To claim that the artist has to pay those 'expenses', while giving them an extremely small percentage of the revenue is insane. And, quite frankly, criminal.
By somehow claiming that thsi is "restricting language" is silly and deceptive. Will Word not allow you to type these words in?
In case you haven't been paying attention, Microsoft's strategy is "embrace, extend, extinguish". Modifying their own internal dictionary so that words found in the Oxford works (even *you* should agree that this is a more compelling source) are not found in their own works counts as 'extend' to me - how about you? And judging by Microsoft's past, consumer-friendly actions, <sarcasm>I'm sure they won't do any more</sarcasm>
Yeah. Right.
Then we have the lovely following piece of (suitably purple) prose:
If I type in "Jew" and use the thesarus should it provide "kike" or "mud-person"? Or how about if I put in "white" should it fill in "trailer-trash" or "cracker"? How about if I put in "gay" - how about "ass-master" or "faggot". Blacks? How about "nigger" or "one of those them there coloreds".
So, you are saying that the author's attempt to find an alternative to a *mild*, non-stereotypical pejorative (i.e., "fool") is the same as trying to find racially charged epithets? Hmm, does that mean in your mind that "Jew" == fool? Jeez, for me, that equates to false; you may want to check your compiler.
Sure, this could just Microsoft's attempt to comply with "special interest group" wishes - but how long until "abort" becomes unrecognized? How about "encrypt"? Anyone else think of others?
I don't like theft, I don't condone it or do it but what is happening to these people is 'criminal' (in the spirit of the work, if not the letter). Almost none of the time do these people have input into how money is spent strategically or which decisions are made, so accusing them of being stupid/short-sighted is at best irrelevant, and at worse, stupid itself.
The only problem is that there were people there: the palestinians
The problem is that there were people there before the Palestinians; the Hebrew. I suggest that you might look at the ancient history; what you are suggesting is akin to the post-1776 Americans taking land from the English to give to the Native Americans. The latter *were* there first, the former just happened to be in possession of it most recently.
Sounds a lot like crusades
And every instance of Arab barbarism through the ages - but this isn't a discussion about which imaginary friend is better, it's a discussion about why this barbarous group of people is allowed to continue?
Remember "An eye for an eye...", that doesn't come from Islam
No, it comes from the Old Testament - there *is* a newer version. Most of you Arab apologists love quoting stuff from the Old Testament, while conveniently forgetting the "love your neighbour as yourself" New Testament. Nope, Islam is the religion that brought us the delightful concept of jihad.
See pro-life extremists killing doctors
Err, what 'religion' is this? Violent pro-lifers are as much Christians (remember the neighbor quote above) as the Palestinians dancing around over thousands of American deaths are true Islamic believers.
The problem with the Israel-palestinian conflict is that the Israeli pushed the palestinians to a point where many feel they have nothing to lose. In those cases, expect the worse
Again, that's your opinion. The Arabs are not against Israel occupying that ground, they are against the idea of a Zionist state altogether. They don't want the Isreali out, they want them dead. I don't blame the Israeli's for defending themselves against that kind of religion-fueled hatred.
they were kings, and well respected people
So, you're saying that the crusades (about 800 years ago) are similiar to the Bin Laden situation today - small fanatic groups killing others and inflaming the masses to cause others to be killed? Well, looks to me like that makes Christianity the more 'mature' religion, eh?
Perhaps it's not an insult against you but against the childish attitudes that I feel that you are embodying.
Or do you feel threatened in your ideas?
Little tip at no charge to you - this sort of argument makes you look small and ineffectual. You may want to minimize your use of it.
That being said ...
who's responsible for bringing jewish people on the same land as muslims who were already there ...
Evolution? The Egyptians in biblical times? How far back in history are you looking? Not very far, apparently, as I was under the (possible) illusion that the Jews have been there as long as the Moslems. But hey, *I* could be wrong
Have you ever read the Coran?
Only excerpts (I have no interest in reading more) - the unbelievers are not people and are to be converted, by the 'sword' if necessary.
However, remember the crusade. It's long ago, but it shows that no religion can say it's better on these grounds?
Agreed. But then again, the Christians haven't crashed into any towers or exploded car bombs in busy streets lately of which I am aware.
US sponsored more acts of terrorism (though different) than most arab countries
Yes, because only the last 30-40 years count, eh? The Arab countries haven't been performing terrorism before that point, huh? Whatever. You are looking at history through very something colored glasses. Get the right prescription, OK?
Now, get a history book. Who is the most responsible for all the trouble in middle east?
Religion. It starts, continues and ends with religion. Yeah, they've been screwed around by other countries but then again, everyone has screwed everyone else. Look up what the current Moslem texts say about the unbelievers.
Any other specious arguements?
So close to irrelevant that it doesn't matter - extend the example above to special forces/computer warfare/whatever.
Somehow, the US thinks that terrorism against Russia or other countries is OK ... OK, a huge, unproven, unprovable, hyperbolic generalization but what the hey? That's *your* opinion.
Seems to me that you may be making a *bit* of generalization here
The US has only itself to blame for that
I guess that you are trying to say that, by extension, the US has only itself to blame for the destruction of the US towers. Funny, that's the same arguement that all terrorists use when they kill someone - " is responsible for this, not me!", where may be anything in our local galactic cluster that is not the terrorist, the terrorist organization or the puerile religon/philosophy/post-traumatic stress disorder to which the terrorist subscribes. Silly me. I thought that the US had terrorism to blame.
- but I do also read media that comes from outside the US
- getting too sanctimonious and righteous in the response
- I have never read a terrorist press release
...
- Don't make it into the holy war that the other side may believe it is
There. That wasn't so bad was it? </sanctimoniousness>As do I. Being from Canada, I find that both CBC and BBC do a much better job of reporting the facts than the American versions.
Couldn't agree with you more; however, if you are insinuating that this is the attitude that I am projecting, I must disagree. I merely believe that attitude that you describe best fits those "peace-makers" who believe that the US has no right to exterminate the source of this tragedy.
Supposed to be ironic, evidently needs a bit of work
Absolutely. Let's go in, kill and/or destroy the infrastructure and get out.
Perhaps my message had more 'insults and expletives' than needed but I only count two. I just grow disgusted by the constant "the US deserved this, the US made this man"-style repetition of comments. Please try to look at more than the terrorist press releases and realize that there are more bad guys than just the US government agencies.
*Everyone* and I mean *everyone* makes choices. If Bin Laden blew up the towers, the *worst* that you can say about the CIA is that they trained long ago (I doubt that he's been attending many CIA terrorism 101 classes in the last few years ...)
You then go on to say that violence will prove nothing - I have only this to say, a rabid dog cannot be reasoned with, cannot feel pity and will not stop attacking you because you feel attacking him is wrong. If you don't believe that those who did this can be compared to rabid dogs, I can offer 500 rebuttals. Or maybe it's 20 000. Or maybe 50 000.
*You* believe that Americans are not innocent because they won't stop what their government is doing. I would say that this applies equally well to those countries harboring these terrorists.
Yes, I realize that you do not *explicitly* state that you think these Americans are guilty. If they were not guilty and they were executed, however, why do you not believe in removing the executioner and his or her ability to do this *ever* again? It would seem to me that these people are not only putting ".. the lives of U.S. citizens at risk, but those of lots of people all arround the world, too."
I stand abased. I meant technical and non-technical users. Mea culpa :)
On the other hand, why should (for example) an accountant who has to spend all her free time learning the new tax laws spend even more time learning a new software retrieval system. That's not the best use of her time, wouldn't you agree? I don't mind doing it but why should we (and by "we", I mean the community) *force* her to use that system?
Do you think that if she is in charge of installing or purchasing that she will choose such a difficult system to use? No, she won't. That's why (and I'll use small words so that you understand) Linux needs to become more user-friendly to get more users.
I don't want to "code the Holy Grail", I just want to code systems that *both* users and non-users can use. Do you want to guess why AOL (an inferior service, in my mind) is so popular? It's easy to use. Not good, not the best, just easy. With Linux, we have the ability to make the best (or at least a damn good) OS be the popular choice - but not until "we" consider the users, Linux won't be #1.
Unfortunately, my friend, that's the sort of attitude that does and will in the future cause Linux to not be considered as a serious desktop contender. Joe Blow may be the purchasing manager and if he doesn't like it, he doesn't "buy" it (i.e., install it). Until we get over the "if they can't do it my way, they're stupid/useless/whatever", we won't see Linux in the big time.
As for it being a "children's story" you could be correct, although I doubt it. It does take an extremely limited intellect to disparage a story based solely on its audience - for example, the Taran Wanderer series are designed for young adults but are occasionally used in university courses as examples of modern Morality stories. Refusing to respect someone who enjoys, let alone *reads*, a particular book is puerile and not very intelligent. I guess any Poli Sci student reading Mien Kampf is a Nazi, according to that logic, eh?
Absolutely!! Join us on the dark side ... but spend about 10 times as much time learning servlets (and other J2EE) as the friggin' Swing and GUI stuff. It'll help you.
And I'm sorry for being a prick ;)
First, Java is not slow, it is slower; as in slower than tweaked C++ or C. Is it orders of magnitude slower - absolutely not (by the way, I certainly realize that you might be able to find a completely unrealistic example where that is the case - so what?). On the server tier, however, the speed difference ain't so bad; it certainly is not bad enough for everyone to drop it altogether.
Your supposition that Java must not be growing more popular than C++ seems to be based on statement that Java GUI programs are slower than C++. I wasn't aware that raw execution speed was the *only* criteria for a programming languages popularity; here I thought it was a gestalt of speed, ease of use, utility, tools, etc. Try looking at the prevalence of code at the server level; betcha you'll see Java there and guess what? It ain't GUI-based. Servlets are dismissed at mere uber-CGI; however, they are scorchingly effective and easy to write.
As I understand it, the *DMCA* prevents unauthorized reverse-engineering of an encrypted file format, which Microsoft could claim fits the ASF (codec as encryption/decryption).
The only problem with this arguement is that in the license agreements (which, in Canada anyway, are separate from the regular ones), you are not allowed the use the product for commercial use; it is for 'learning and demonstration use only'. So, it may free (as in cheap) but for what we are usually discussing, it ain't legal.