Has anyone checked the current cell carrier-imposed limits on MMS messages?
The last time I sent one (2 weeks ago?) it was 90KB.
So unless the cell carriers are going to allow the phone to hook directly up to a PC (fat chance; they can't bill for that)
Huh? I wouldn't even consider buying a phone (especially with a camera) that couldn't be connected to a PC. In fact, I don't think I'd be *able* to do so even if I wanted to. If it doesn't have Bluetooth and/or IR, chances are it'll have some custom data port that connects to a serial or USB port.
Maybe the situation's different where you are (I'm in the UK), but charging just to directly connect two pieces of hardware together? Beyond the cost for any physical connector, what possible justification could there be?
1. Spend a few minutes browsing for a decent theme (agreed, 99% are - subjectively speaking - horrible) 2. Spend a few minutes choosing which of the perhaps two or three I like to use 3. Done
I run a number of skinnable apps. Some I've not bothered skinning, some (eg Firefox) I have. To me, making my working environment more aesthetically pleasing is worth the couple of dozen minutes to find a theme I like and install it. YM, obviously, V.
such patents can only be enforced in the US....which kills development on the project in the US, quite possibly killing the project outright at least until someone in another country picks it up. It'll also potentially decimate any support for the project. Both of those things would change it from something you *could* support yourself, to something you *must* support yourself; that threat alone may be enough to scare businesses away.
I'd be amazed if MS were the only ones pushing for this; any global business with a patent portfolio (ie *all of them*) will have that on their wish list.
I have a question - how much does (say) RHEL cost, compared to the "MS tax"? For business use, real support (not googling for HOWTOs and emailing questions to developer lists) tends to be pretty important, which would mean paying for your distro, not just downloading it...
Not trolling, genuine question - how much does RHEL or similar cost, compared with Windows?
As for your idea, of course that's the case. Intel is in the business of selling hardware, not software, and so will support/recommend whatever they think is most advantagrous to them. People here seem to tend to forget that about companies like Intel, IBM, etc. They're not in it for the good of open source, they're in it for their own good. Call it enlightened self-interest if you like, but they support/push Linux because it suits them to, not because it suits us. Not that that's a bad thing; everyone's gotta earn a living.
Seriously, think about the last time the governemtns of India or China actually cared about patents that were registered outside their respective countries.
Let's say they don't, and MS makes good its threat, sues a bunch of projects, and wins. Most of these projects are developed in countries that either now or soon will have software patents, so it's possible.
So, what happens? Well, bang goes ongoing project development, and bang goes a large lump of the support community. China may find itself going from "you can always support it yourself" to "you *have* to support it yourself". That alone may make widespread adoption of Linux less attractive.
In short, don't think punishment, think chilling effect.
So? Everyone's got to make some money, at least this is both legally and ethically sound. In fact, you arguably have a moral duty to report copyright infringement, as you do with crimes.
Why is it bad for MS to make money? Because they have so much already?
the people that are going to cop it are the PC sellers who (while they should have known better anyway) have probably done the thing on the buyers request anyhow
If I ask you to commit fraud, would you? How about if I asked you to buy alcohol or cigarettes for someone who was below the legal age? What about commiting theft (the real, physical kind)? How about infringing the GPL?
"They asked me to!" is no defence when you're breaking the law, and nor should it be. (Obviously coercion may be a differnt matter, but that's not what's happening here)
If you knowingly infringe on someone's copyright, you deserve to get caught and punished appropriately. That should be true whether it's MS or some open source coder/project/association that's affected.
Ah, but if you can't see my screen, and can only see that I'm typing and occasionally clicking stuff with my mouse, do I still look busy? You can't see whether I'm interacting with my IDE or editor, or with slashdot...:-)
But how many companies do you know base their decisions on what's reported on slashdot? I didn't mean "why is this being reported?" I meant "why is this report news, *here*?"
I see value in the reports being published, I just don't see value in their publishing being reported here.
Have a read of an EULA - you'll almost certain to find a paragraph granting you permission to do this.
As it happens, this is the justification I've seen for EULAs, at least under English law - that without one, just installing the software is making a copy of it, and you need explicit permission to do so.
Utterly bugshit insane, if you ask me, but there you have it.
Why is this significant? Because it appears to corroborate earlier reports?
What is there here to discuss? We all know that Firefox, Mozilla, Opera etc are (currently) better bets for surfing than IE, saying it yet again won't change anything. It won't convince anyone to switch, it won't convince any company to support a wider range of browsers. It's the very definition of preaching to the choir, in fact.
How about spending a little less time talking about how great the alternative browsers are, and how much better it would be if more sites supported them properly, and a little more time actually working towards that?
Illegal how? What if I tell you that www.bazbar.org has copies of pictures from www.foobar.com that they're offering for free download? Am *I* now breaking the law? That's all google is doing really. They don't even know that they're doing it, as it's entirely automated, so there isn't even any willfullness about it.
a) this is now a business, and has been for some time b) it's a techy site, run by and for techies c) at a pinch, it could draw upon a truly massive number of web techies in its audience to help
But no, the grand-parent's right - much easier to ignore the concerns and complaints of the people who make this site what it is (the commenters) than to actually get off their arses and do something about it.
Yes. Put simply, the slashdot crew got sick of us complaining about the non-standards compliant state of the HTML slash emits. It's kind of a double standard, see, lambasting IE for non-standards compliance and praising Gecko for standards compliance, all the while being non-standards compliant yourself...
As I understand it, you can use the normal output of a GPLed application in a non-GPLed application. That, to me, covers things such as webservices and RPC, whether the application making the call would be useful without it or not.
Unless you're looking for a review of a product - then, you'll generally get hundreds of links to shopping comparison sites, almost all of which match the word "review" because they say something like "no reviews yet".
Slashdot Mirror
Has anyone checked the current cell carrier-imposed limits on MMS messages?
The last time I sent one (2 weeks ago?) it was 90KB.
So unless the cell carriers are going to allow the phone to hook directly up to a PC (fat chance; they can't bill for that)
Huh? I wouldn't even consider buying a phone (especially with a camera) that couldn't be connected to a PC. In fact, I don't think I'd be *able* to do so even if I wanted to. If it doesn't have Bluetooth and/or IR, chances are it'll have some custom data port that connects to a serial or USB port.
Maybe the situation's different where you are (I'm in the UK), but charging just to directly connect two pieces of hardware together? Beyond the cost for any physical connector, what possible justification could there be?
Heh; my sequence:
1. Spend a few minutes browsing for a decent theme (agreed, 99% are - subjectively speaking - horrible)
2. Spend a few minutes choosing which of the perhaps two or three I like to use
3. Done
I run a number of skinnable apps. Some I've not bothered skinning, some (eg Firefox) I have. To me, making my working environment more aesthetically pleasing is worth the couple of dozen minutes to find a theme I like and install it. YM, obviously, V.
Well, that's nice, but you are not representative of every user.
:-)
I sit staring at my screen for upwards of 14 hours a day; it had better be pleasing to my eyes, as well as functional.
I realise that I'm not necessarily representative of every user either
Pancake-sized? Do you mean thickness, or diameter? Over here in the UK, pancakes tend to be about 6-8 inches in diameter...
Agreed. For a tech-oriented site, slashdot is very quick to decry most techonological advances.
Or "centimetre" as we say in England.
such patents can only be enforced in the US. ...which kills development on the project in the US, quite possibly killing the project outright at least until someone in another country picks it up. It'll also potentially decimate any support for the project. Both of those things would change it from something you *could* support yourself, to something you *must* support yourself; that threat alone may be enough to scare businesses away.
I'd be amazed if MS were the only ones pushing for this; any global business with a patent portfolio (ie *all of them*) will have that on their wish list.
I have a question - how much does (say) RHEL cost, compared to the "MS tax"? For business use, real support (not googling for HOWTOs and emailing questions to developer lists) tends to be pretty important, which would mean paying for your distro, not just downloading it...
Not trolling, genuine question - how much does RHEL or similar cost, compared with Windows?
As for your idea, of course that's the case. Intel is in the business of selling hardware, not software, and so will support/recommend whatever they think is most advantagrous to them. People here seem to tend to forget that about companies like Intel, IBM, etc. They're not in it for the good of open source, they're in it for their own good. Call it enlightened self-interest if you like, but they support/push Linux because it suits them to, not because it suits us. Not that that's a bad thing; everyone's gotta earn a living.
Seriously, think about the last time the governemtns of India or China actually cared about patents that were registered outside their respective countries.
Let's say they don't, and MS makes good its threat, sues a bunch of projects, and wins. Most of these projects are developed in countries that either now or soon will have software patents, so it's possible.
So, what happens? Well, bang goes ongoing project development, and bang goes a large lump of the support community. China may find itself going from "you can always support it yourself" to "you *have* to support it yourself". That alone may make widespread adoption of Linux less attractive.
In short, don't think punishment, think chilling effect.
You can't copyright the name of a product, and it's either (R) or (TM), not both.
</mode>
So? Everyone's got to make some money, at least this is both legally and ethically sound. In fact, you arguably have a moral duty to report copyright infringement, as you do with crimes.
Why is it bad for MS to make money? Because they have so much already?
the people that are going to cop it are the PC sellers who (while they should have known better anyway) have probably done the thing on the buyers request anyhow
If I ask you to commit fraud, would you? How about if I asked you to buy alcohol or cigarettes for someone who was below the legal age? What about commiting theft (the real, physical kind)? How about infringing the GPL?
"They asked me to!" is no defence when you're breaking the law, and nor should it be. (Obviously coercion may be a differnt matter, but that's not what's happening here)
If you knowingly infringe on someone's copyright, you deserve to get caught and punished appropriately. That should be true whether it's MS or some open source coder/project/association that's affected.
According to those figures, two 6800 Ultras in SLI consume 35% more power than a single 6800 Ultra, when the system is under load.
That's a lot, but still a damn sight better than double.
No. What I mean is that those people look busy.
:-)
Ah, but if you can't see my screen, and can only see that I'm typing and occasionally clicking stuff with my mouse, do I still look busy? You can't see whether I'm interacting with my IDE or editor, or with slashdot...
That's true.
But how many companies do you know base their decisions on what's reported on slashdot? I didn't mean "why is this being reported?" I meant "why is this report news, *here*?"
I see value in the reports being published, I just don't see value in their publishing being reported here.
Have a read of an EULA - you'll almost certain to find a paragraph granting you permission to do this.
As it happens, this is the justification I've seen for EULAs, at least under English law - that without one, just installing the software is making a copy of it, and you need explicit permission to do so.
Utterly bugshit insane, if you ask me, but there you have it.
Why is this significant? Because it appears to corroborate earlier reports?
What is there here to discuss? We all know that Firefox, Mozilla, Opera etc are (currently) better bets for surfing than IE, saying it yet again won't change anything. It won't convince anyone to switch, it won't convince any company to support a wider range of browsers. It's the very definition of preaching to the choir, in fact.
How about spending a little less time talking about how great the alternative browsers are, and how much better it would be if more sites supported them properly, and a little more time actually working towards that?
Illegal how? What if I tell you that www.bazbar.org has copies of pictures from www.foobar.com that they're offering for free download? Am *I* now breaking the law? That's all google is doing really. They don't even know that they're doing it, as it's entirely automated, so there isn't even any willfullness about it.
Since when is a 2.7GHz laptop a "lower end machine"?
Since gamers were buying 3.8GHz machines and overclocking them.
Sure, lots of people are running sub-1GHz machines, but they're not
a) hardcore gamers
b) new machines
Especially given that
a) this is now a business, and has been for some time
b) it's a techy site, run by and for techies
c) at a pinch, it could draw upon a truly massive number of web techies in its audience to help
But no, the grand-parent's right - much easier to ignore the concerns and complaints of the people who make this site what it is (the commenters) than to actually get off their arses and do something about it.
Is this a cover up?
Yes. Put simply, the slashdot crew got sick of us complaining about the non-standards compliant state of the HTML slash emits. It's kind of a double standard, see, lambasting IE for non-standards compliance and praising Gecko for standards compliance, all the while being non-standards compliant yourself...
As I understand it, you can use the normal output of a GPLed application in a non-GPLed application. That, to me, covers things such as webservices and RPC, whether the application making the call would be useful without it or not.
Unless you're looking for a review of a product - then, you'll generally get hundreds of links to shopping comparison sites, almost all of which match the word "review" because they say something like "no reviews yet".
(Yeah, OT, but it's been bugging me for a while)
So we're less likely to get eaten? Suits me!