But a version that can turn massive movie files into a handier size has escaped on to the internet thanks to Microsoft.
It developed the software to compress and decompress video, called a codec, to help the Windows Media Player program handle moving pictures sent over the internet.
I'd like to see the MPAA sue Microsoft for developing code that could potentially make it possible for someone to pirate DVDs. That's what they're suing the DeCSS people for, afterall. I wonder whose laywers will run out of money first....
--GrouchoMarx
Re:More OSes = More standards = Good
on
AtheOS
·
· Score: 1
The anti-virus software industry is a multi-million dollar international business, too. But if I could render Norton Antivirus completely unnecessary by erraticating all viruses in the world, I would do so in a heartbeat.
--GrouchoMarx
More OSes = More standards = Good
on
AtheOS
·
· Score: 4
I support the introduction of more OSes into the marketplace, GPLed or not. In fact, I would like to see them compete with each other head one. Yes, I could insert the normal "competition is good and leads to improvement" rhetoric here, but I'm more interested in the effect it has on the rest of the industry.
If no OS has a definitive hold on the market (like Windows does now), then for any of them to survive they will need to have some sort of standardized, interchangeable file formats. You know how annoying it is to deal with the CR/LF difference between Windows Notepad and the rest of the known universe. It's even worse for binary files. For any of them to be really sellable, they will have to be compatable with each other. That means open or at least non-proprietary standards, which is Good Stuff(tm).
The same extends to applications, as well. For instance, most of the Adobe product line is completely compatable between the Mac and Windows versions. They use the exact same file format. That makes my life a lot easier, since I regularly have to futz with Photoshop files on both PC and Mac.
Now, if Photoshop, and The Gimp, and whatever image editor is common on BeOS or AtheOS all used the same file format, then my life would be easier still. I could futz with the file in whichever program and OS is best suited for that task, then combine it with another file created using a different program on another OS, and dump the whole thing into another file/program/whatever on yet another OS. The best tool for the job, whatever platform that may be.
Even if you choose to stay to one OS, the impact of standardized file formats will be good. Those who use Windows will know what I'm talking about when I point out that the translators between even basic MS Word and WordPerfect files are lame at best. When you're dealing with something more complicated, like a presentation file or vector-based image file, you pretty much have to pick a program for the file and stick with it. That's Bad Stuff(tm). If diversity in the OS market forces non-proprietary standards, that will be a boon even for the mono-OS market.
I routinely use two or three HTML editors plus raw code when designing a web page, all intermingled. Why shouldn't I be able to do the same thing for the graphics I use?
Palm has actually stated that they plan to overhaul their entire product line later this year. (Here and here.) The new devices will be StrongARM based (rather than Dragonball based), and will all have some form of wireless connectivity build right in, either Bluetooth or a more powerful system (plans are to offer both, although I'm not sure what the "more powerful system" will be yet).
If you can stand to wait a few months, it will be interesting to see what exactly the new devices feature. I'm not even a big fan of wireless e-mail, and I can't wait.:-) It could prove to be a red herring, but it may be worth your time to wait and see what Palm has up their sleeve. (Hehe, I made a funny.)
"NSI currently holds the unique position of being both a registrar and the master of the domain name database. There is no way any company should hold both these positions at once as fundamentally they present a conflict of interest (which hurts all consumers)."
You mean the same way that ILECs (aka local phone companies, baby bells, etc.) own the wires, and offer services on them?
I'm setting up a site myself for a client right now using PHP3/MySQL as the backend. I also have another client for whom may end up using MySQL, and a friend who runs a Linux hardware site (http://www.penguinhardware.com) that uses PHP3/MySQL as the backend.
MySQL may not be the biggest, or most stable, or most bullet-proof, or most feature-rich SQL server out there. But for my purposes, it does offer some distinct advantages.
I'm hosting the site on Pair Networks (a really good hosting service, actually). They have MySQL pre-installed and configured, and it doesn't cost anything extra to use. So it's the path of least resistance.:-)
PHP3 includes functions specifically for MySQL, so developing the code is nice and easy, which saves time and money for both me and my client.
I'm not managing a storefront, so there is no money involved. That means going in and fixing a bug here and there will not cost anyone any money. The data involved is NOT mission critical, and a fracture in atomicity is not going to cost any money.
If you're setting up an e-commerce web server to handle hundreds of thousands of http and financial transactions a day, you're going to want to use a multi-processor box at 800MHz running Win2K Advanced Server or Solaris with redundant power fans and several RAID arrays. If you're setting up a print server for a half-dozen people in the office, you're going to throw a copy of Linux and Samba on that P/166 that has been collecting dust the last few months. It's easier, cheaper, and is a much more efficent use of resources.
Similarly, if you're doing e-commerce or tracking sensitive information, you want to use an RDBMS that can take 1,000 queries per minute without missing a beat. If you're just managing personal information, an index of articles on a small news site, or something else non-mission critical, then MySQL is a perfectly sufficent and straight-forward solution. And if you're using Linux or some other Unix, the price is just right (free).
Using XML as a file format, or more accurately an XML-based DTD, won't automatically make all conversion problems go away. Converting from one DTD to another will still be a chore, and will still probably loose something in the translation. However, it will be easier than it is now, especially with converting Windows -> Mac -> Linux, etc.
The real advantage of XML-based file formats is that they should be easier to write a program for than binary ones. Check out the Open eBook Initiative. Given that the first round of eBook readers never went very far, someone got the bright idea that a standard, straight-forward format would be good for business. It probably will be. But it's also good for developers. If the OEB spec really lives up to claim and is a genuine XML-document DTD, it shouldn't be that hard to write 3rd party book reader programs for existing devices like, say, the Palm? The upcoming Yopy? Your Linux desktop?
That's where the real benefit of XML files come in. They will help in conversion, but will really help in simplifying the process of just writing compatability for the DTD into 3rd party programs.
I have to agree. OK, maybe the code behind it is not a behemoth program but a front end to a dozen modules. That doesn't change the fact that on the USER END, it's used as if it were one big program.
The worst thing MS did to Win98 was the browser integration. Business ethics aside for the moment, it was simply archetecturally a bad idea. OK, so one window now handles web pages and local files. That means I have a Stop button on my file manager (for local files, that is a complete waste). And what does this get me?
The integration of the file manager and browser in KDE 1.x is, IMHO, even worse. I use my Linux system to develop web sites. Many a time I've had to go into a folder to rename a file or move a file around, but, OH, WAIT! I have a file in that folder named index.html. That means I don't get to see the contents of the directory. The only way I can do what I need to do then is via the command line. (And no, I don't believe the command line is holy. If Linux is ever going to make it on the desktop and be usable by anyone but geeks and Slashdot readers, then the text interface must be unnecessary for 100% of daily activities and at least 80% of maintenance activities.)
I like the idea of a small, fast, stable browser that does HTML4, CSS1, CSS2, JavaScript, and so on. (IE5 still has some HTML4 bugs in it, I've found.) And if it can be easily ported to other systems as well as Linux (vis, Windows and Mac), it would just about be enough to unseat Netscape from my list of always running apps. I don't like the way Netscape ties everything in together either (browser, e-mail, newsreader, etc.). But if I'm going to have to switch over to the command line just to be able to move a file that happens to be in a directory that contains index.html, then no sale. Regardless of what the back-end code is, it's the user-end that will make or break the program for me.
(I happen to like double-clicking to open a file. What's wrong with that?)
--GrouchoMarx
But look at what you are getting
on
The Eroded Self
·
· Score: 2
First off, I agree that it is disgraceful what corporations can do these days in terms of violating your privacy. Dominicks Food Stores requires your drivers liscence number and phone number in order to accept a check. The CIA can't get that information about you without a warrant. What's wrong with this picture?
However, having data about you available by some means other than face to face does have its advantages, if used wisely. I, for one, do not catagorically object to data about me being known, only known by certain agencies. For example:
You are in a car accident. You are severely injured, and loosing blood. The police and parametics arrive on the scene. First thing they do is run your Universal ID card through their wireless device (while loading you onto a stretcher, of course). In 30 seconds, from the Central Medical Database, they learn that you are type B-Negative blood, and call ahead for the hospital to have some standing by when you get there. They also learn that you are alergic to certain medications, and make sure not to give those to you. They also determine that you are taking a medication for high blood pressure, which can conflict with other medications used in emergency rooms. They avoid those, too.
Your 8 year old son is kidnapped, and taken out of the state and held for ransom. Fortunately, he have a sub-dermal ID chip, which the FBI uses to track his location via GPS. They manage to locate him to within 2 meters, and he is rescued before he is severely beaten/abused/raped/killed. The kidnappers are arrested and charged with kidnapping, and no one has to pay a ransom.
Your credit card number is stolen. Before you are able to cancel it, the bank picks up on the fact that the charge just made on it is seven times what you have ever charged before, and far over your limit. They have a complete record of your credit history, for their card as well as others, so they can flag this information quite easily. They call you to confirm the charges, and you tell them that the card was stolen. You pay no obscene bills.
You have a Bluetooth transmitter in your Palm X (or whatever they're going to call their new models). When you approach the private parking garage by your office, you drive up to the gate and it opens for you. You don't have to swipe a card or pull out change or even stop the car, because the gate can see you coming 30 feet away.
You are receiving threatening phone calls from a stalker. You call the phone company, who tells you the phone number of the person who just called you (kept in their permanent log database, of course). You call the police, who run that number through their database and get an address for the person. He/she is arrested for stalking, and you sleep soundly that night.
All of the above scenarios require databases of personal information, or some sort of digitally encoded tracking system. Is there the potential for abuse of any of the above databases? Of course there is. There's also potential for the abuse of the light bulb, but I don't think anyone here would object to everyone having a dozen or so light bulbs in their house. (Great torture devices, all that heat and light...) Marketing data is a stickier issue, because it's benefits are inherently tied to a supply-side capitalist "Market." But that's not grounds to discount all data collection entirely.
Being cataloged has its advantages. Don't dismiss them simply because there are disadvantages as well. There are plenty of disadvantages to computers in general, carpal tunnel chief among them. Notice everyone who is reading this post believes the benefits outweigh the disadvantages.
If you use bluetooth properly, it's not just the office that can benefit. The big "thing" in a lot of circles is home networking. Bluetooth is perfectly fast enough for control commands. No, it won't do streaming media, but then neither does the Palm. Imagine using a Palm III-Bluetooth as a one-stop universal remote, home security system controller, light switch, family calendar, and more. You would all have an automatically synched shopping list (so your son with his new car would have no excuse for not stopping by the grocery store on his way home for you, since he had the list with him.:-) And you would save on wires, since you wouldn't need to rewire any part of your house.
The vast majority of the self-defined Libertarians I know would object to public libraries, public schools, the Department of Commerce, public police and fire departments, and a lot more. Good, bad, or otherwise, the term "Libertarian" in the modern American context does mean near-anarchistic Ayn Rand-style Egoism.
I've read Federalist #10 (liked it too). But which movement today, names and labels aside, seems to follow that the closest? Hmmm... the Democratic Party. Interesting. (Close being a relative term, of course.)
Fact 1: I disagree with burning of fossil fuels for energy when corn-based gasoline is cheaper and cleaner.
Fact 2: There are no corn gas stations within 1000 miles of where I live, nor are there any places that sell corn gas cars.
Result: I drive a car powered by regular unleaded, because I have no choice in the matter.
So, you say that since I drive a car powered by oil, that I LIKE and ENCOURAGE the use of fossil fuels? Sorry, but no. "Voting with your dollars" is one of those myths parents tell their children when they want them to grow up to be stock brokers, right up there with "corporate mentality" and "Microsoft works."
For the record, my computer is dual boot Linux and Win98SE, because I am a college student and am REQUIRED to do assignments in MS Access and in Visual Basic. So, since I have Windows and Access and VB6 on my computer, that means I like and endorse and support Bill Gates, right? Don't say that to my face.
Did you know that Walgreens Drug Stores, legally, get more "private" information on you than the CIA? Walgreens now requires that you give them your driver's liscense number on any check you write. And by going through your bank, which they obviously do any time you use a check, credit card, debit card, ATM card, whatnot, they can get your social security number, current address, past address, level of eductation, mother's maiden name, current employer, and lots of other fun stuff.
For the FBI to get that kind of information on you, they need a court order. Private companies do it daily and call it "protecting their business interests." Now you tell me which one is more disturbing.
Let me ask a question. How many of you Slashdot readers are anti-government regulation, for whatever reason? *waits as people raise their hands.*
Now, how many of you Slashdot readers cheered when Judge Jackson came back with a Guilty verdict against Microsoft? *wats as almost all of Slashdot raises their hands.*
Those of you who raised your hands both times, isn't that just a little hypocritical? Aren't anti-trust laws a form of government regulation, which should be stopped as it is evil?
I cannot repeat this next sentence enough times: Government is not inherently evil. That's because government is not an entity in and of itself. It is only a tool of those who vote people into government. If the public votes in people who will then turn around and break unions and let banks fleece customers and get away with it (read: Ronald Reagan), that's not because government is "evil." The primary interest of a member of Congres is getting your vote, so that he (or she) remains a member of Congress. That's why voting is so important.
The primary interest of a business, however, is to get as much of your money as it possibly can. Yes, in an ideal world, the people running a business would be socially responsible and pass savings onto the consumer and protect the enviornment and invest in our future, but guess what, we're not living in an ideal world. We're living in a zero-responsibility profit-driven stock market-based laissez-fair capitalism, in which the company that doesn't fleece the public goes out of business, even if it was because they wanted to be enviornmentally safe.
Sure, you could "vote with your dollars," if you had any idea what to vote for. Any non-smokers out there? How many of you buy from Kraft foods? How many of you knew that Kraft was owned by R.J. Reynolds?
Anyone out there prefer family farm milk to corporate milk, because the corporate farms tend to be more polluting and destroy the livelyhood of small farmers? I do. Of course, if you go to the store and pick up a quart of milk, you don't know which type of farm it came from. In fact, in most cases it came from both. The typical container of milk comes from several dozen farms and several hundred cows. So there is no way for you to know if you're supporting family farms or corporate farms, and the company is not about to tell you. Maybe if there was a law requiring them to state where the milk comes from, like there is a law requiring that they state the nutrition information..... Oh, wait, that's "Evil Big Brother Government" telling poor innocent Big Business how to run its business. We can't have that, now can we?
I'm not trying to say that business is inherently evil here, either. I'm saying that business is in no way beholden to you, the consumer, at all. And as a stock holder, your investment will go down when the company spends a lot of money on converting to being enviornmentally safe, and then you loose money.
Government, on the other hand, is as beholden to you as you (plural you) make it. If you pay attention to "independent" special interest group commercials on TV, then yes, you will get a government that protects the interests of the rich at the expense of the poor and middle-class. So don't pay attention to those commercials. Get out there and get an idea about what you're voting for, and then do so. If you really want to have an influence in your government, work on a campaign. How many of you have met your US Congressperson? How many of you have send a letter/e-mail to your US Senator? If the response is less than 100%, then there is the problem.
Government is not pure and virtuous, no. But I will take Big Brother Bill Clinton over Big Brother Bill Gates any day, for one very simple reason: As a voter, I put Bill Clinton in office, and I can take him out. I don't have that kind of power over Bill Gates, or any corporate leader.
The problem comes when you don't KNOW if you're getting a deal because of slave labor or because of genuinely good business practices.
For instance, The last time I looked Buy.com was selling Athlon/750s for about $350, less than half the nominal price. Is that because they got a really good deal wholesale, or because they hijacked a shipment of Athlons on their way from AMD to Dell? Technically, I have no way of knowing. (NOTE: No, I have no reason whatsoever to believe that Buy.com hijacks cargo shipments, I'm just using it as a hypothetical example. Don't read anything into it.)
So then how can you possibly know? (This applies to nearly every industry, not just computing.) The famed "vote with your dollars" method has shown itself throughout history to not work, and besides, in many cases the question is unanswerable to start with. (Is the modem in your new Compaq made by slave labor while the company that makes the sound card gives money to charity? Then what do you do? Again, hypothetical only, no libel against anyone intended.) I only know of one way, government regulation. I know a lot of Slashdot readers are very Libertarian where the question of regulation comes in, but I for one would rather have laws coming out of Washington D.C. that say that any company that sells computer hardware in the US must pay its workers fairly than have to ponder whether slave labor for the modem outweighs huge donations to the Online Freedom Foundation for the video card.
The question of Columbine et al is not one of video games, or TV, or any other technological question. It is a question of responsibility, and one of history.
First, the concept of paying children, or in any way encouraging them to turn in "potentially dangerous" people sickens me. Yes, if you see a crime, you report it. Period. But let us not forget a period in our nation's history not that long ago. It was called the McCarthy Era, or the Red Scare. Anyone who was considered a potential, maybe, sort of "Pinko" was blacklisted. They could loose their job, their morgage, their friends would refuse to talk to them, and in extreme cases be investigated by our old friend, the House UnAmerican Activities Committee (HUAC). The frightening part was, of course, that except in Hollywood and a few high-profile cases, the federal government was not the main perpetrator. Plain old American witch-hunters were. You didn't need any basis to be labeled a "Commie," just let anyone believe that you may possibly support "socialist" concepts. (You know, like anti-trust laws, women's rights, racial equality, and other "UnAmerican" ideas.)
Does anyone remember the bumper-stickers saying "Kill a Commie for Christ?" What would the bumper-stickers say now? "Rat on a non-conformist, win a hat?" What a lesson to teach our children.
Teaching students to "recognize potentially threatening behavior" (whatever that means) would not have accomplished anything in Columbine anyway. Most students already knew that those two had problems. Their teachers knew the kids were "potentially dangerous." The school administration was fully aware that the kids were walking time bombs, and had gone to their parents and said "Your kids are dangerous, please, let's send them to counseling or something." These are the same parents who, when they found explosives (not just firecrackers, but REAL explosives) in their son's room decided that a short grounding and taking the explosives away was an adequate punnishment. The parents KNEW the boys had guns. They had seen them, and done nothing. They told the school administration to buzz off and not harass their kids. "They're good boys." A that point the school legally couldn't do anything, except wait for the day when two students went rampaging through the school with an arsenal they had built up over a long time in their parents' homes.
What would counseling have accomplished at that point, in any case? Someone who is so far gone that they will spend a year planning to wage bloody war against their school is not going to pay any attention to a school shrink they see a few times a week, tops. (No offense intended to any school social workers who may be reading this.) There is a gulf of difference between someone who is depressed and someone who has made the decision to kill. Perhaps a military academy would have a better chance of turning around people with that mind set. Maybe. But then, are you going to send children to a military academy because another student thinks that they "may be potentially threatening?"
I play video games. I've played DOOM. I've played Quake. (Although I personally prefer the X-Wing series and Starcraft, but that is neither here nor there.) I've seen violent movies. I've seen the 10 o'clock news (perhaps more damaging than any video game, because you KNOW that it IS REAL). I'm a heavy computer user. I've done web pages. I've seen hate sites on the web, though I've never written any (nor would I). I was never popular in school, nor did I mind, because I didn't care for most of my classmates, either, "jocks" or not. I was typically looked down upon by many of my classmates, because I was the "brainy kid." Sounds like a very similar "profile" to the Columbine shooters, right? A prime target for T-shirt hunting classmates, or paranoid classmates, or confused classmates. Yet not only have I never shot up my school, I avoid violence of any kind. I don't even like pocket knives, except for when I'm opening a mail package. In fact, I would go as far as to say that I probably had the calmest, least violent, least depressing, least emotionally wrenching high-school years of anyone I know. What makes me so different?
I was always very close to my parents. I didn't think they cared about me and what I did, I KNEW. The thought of stocking weapons never even occured to me, and even now that I've seen examples of it, it still doesn't occur to me. I didn't hide stuff from my parents, guns or otherwise, because I didn't feel I had any reason to.
I will lay money that those kids' parents had never given them an honest, caring, loving, simple hug since they stopped wearing diapers.
So where does that leave so-called "Geek Profiling?" Absolutely nowhere. Should we institute McCarthy For Kids just so that we can say we're "dealing" with the problem of teen violence? It is not even a band-aid solution. It is no solution, because it completely ignores what the problem is, yet encourages divisivness and paranoia in our children. The idea of "paying" children to search for "potentially threatening," "Pinko" classmakes is only icing on this already vile cake.
The question has already been raised of the legal liability question. Liability indeed. "Pain and Suffering" lawsuits run into the millions of dollars, each. Not to mention the pain and suffering caused as a result of the trial itself. And even with the money aside, what has been accomplished? You have taken someone who is at best simply a non-conformist (which, according to every interpretation of the First Ammendment I've heard, is perfectly acceptable) or at worst a psychologically depressed child with enough emotional problems already and cubbyholed them into "potential sources of UnAmerican Activity." At best, you've made them that much more of an outcast and a public specticle, and if it goes on their record affected their chances of getting into college. ("Was identified as a potential source of violence due to color of clothing." I can see a college turning someone down because of that, although not officially.) At worst, you've told someone who already feels alienated that those around them consider them a threat, and that they should be handled with care lest they blow up on them. Is there a better way to destroy whatever modicum of self-esteem someone has left?
I do not wish to see a rebirth of McCarthyism in my country. This program sends the message "If you see someone who isn't like you, turn him in to 'the authorities' and get cool toys." I would rather actually help people. How about a different message: "If you see someone who is sad, depressed, or lonely, give them a hug. The smile you get back is payment in full."
I tried the ATI All-In-Wonder 128 in my PII/400 over December. The 2D was fine, in Win98 and Linux, and installation/setup went flawlessly. (I think they have unsupported drivers hiding on their website somewhere. XFree86 didn't support it at the time, yet, but that may have changed.)
However, the playback for DVD and TV Tuner was very fuzzy compared to my STB TV PCI tuner and Creative Labs Dxr2 DVD decoder. (I was trying to merge everything into a single card and save some slots.) The feature set was terrific. But the playback was fuzzy and there was some sort of smearing effect at the bottom of the screen. I played "Star Wars: Special Edition" through my STB card and the AIW 128 simultaneously from the same VCR and put the windows next to each other, and there was simply no competition. According to ATI, the TV feed and DVD both use the same decoding chip (which is why the same problem existed for both of them).
Before you assume that the AIW is a bad card, though, I also tried the 3dfx Voodoo3 3500 TV, which is a tuner but no DVD. I had the same problem with the TV feed. This is especially strange since 3dfx bought STF last year, so I would expect that if my old STB card worked, that a new STB-related card would be better, not worse. I don't know if it was my system, a fluke, the fact that they were combo cards, or what.
I've not used the Matrox Marvel G400-TV, so I can't say. My last Matrox card was the original 2MB Millennium, which is still chugging along in my P/166 after 4 years. I would have tried the Marvel had I had the time and money, and could find a store near me that carried it and had a good return policy.:-) (God bless MicroCenter's 30-day no-questions-asked policy.) I believe XFree86 does support the G400 chipset now.
My best advice would be to try one and see if you like it. But make very sure you buy the card from a store locally that has a full-refund policy if you don't like it. (In fact, that goes for everything you buy. Are you listening, CompUSA?)
Slashdot Mirror
It developed the software to compress and decompress video, called a codec, to help the Windows Media Player program handle moving pictures sent over the internet.
I'd like to see the MPAA sue Microsoft for developing code that could potentially make it possible for someone to pirate DVDs. That's what they're suing the DeCSS people for, afterall. I wonder whose laywers will run out of money first....
--GrouchoMarx
--GrouchoMarx
If no OS has a definitive hold on the market (like Windows does now), then for any of them to survive they will need to have some sort of standardized, interchangeable file formats. You know how annoying it is to deal with the CR/LF difference between Windows Notepad and the rest of the known universe. It's even worse for binary files. For any of them to be really sellable, they will have to be compatable with each other. That means open or at least non-proprietary standards, which is Good Stuff(tm).
The same extends to applications, as well. For instance, most of the Adobe product line is completely compatable between the Mac and Windows versions. They use the exact same file format. That makes my life a lot easier, since I regularly have to futz with Photoshop files on both PC and Mac.
Now, if Photoshop, and The Gimp, and whatever image editor is common on BeOS or AtheOS all used the same file format, then my life would be easier still. I could futz with the file in whichever program and OS is best suited for that task, then combine it with another file created using a different program on another OS, and dump the whole thing into another file/program/whatever on yet another OS. The best tool for the job, whatever platform that may be.
Even if you choose to stay to one OS, the impact of standardized file formats will be good. Those who use Windows will know what I'm talking about when I point out that the translators between even basic MS Word and WordPerfect files are lame at best. When you're dealing with something more complicated, like a presentation file or vector-based image file, you pretty much have to pick a program for the file and stick with it. That's Bad Stuff(tm). If diversity in the OS market forces non-proprietary standards, that will be a boon even for the mono-OS market.
I routinely use two or three HTML editors plus raw code when designing a web page, all intermingled. Why shouldn't I be able to do the same thing for the graphics I use?
--GrouchoMarx
If you can stand to wait a few months, it will be interesting to see what exactly the new devices feature. I'm not even a big fan of wireless e-mail, and I can't wait. :-) It could prove to be a red herring, but it may be worth your time to wait and see what Palm has up their sleeve. (Hehe, I made a funny.)
--GrouchoMarx
You mean the same way that ILECs (aka local phone companies, baby bells, etc.) own the wires, and offer services on them?
Food for thought.
--GrouchoMarx
MySQL may not be the biggest, or most stable, or most bullet-proof, or most feature-rich SQL server out there. But for my purposes, it does offer some distinct advantages.
- I'm hosting the site on Pair Networks (a really good hosting service, actually). They have MySQL pre-installed and configured, and it doesn't cost anything extra to use. So it's the path of least resistance.
:-) - PHP3 includes functions specifically for MySQL, so developing the code is nice and easy, which saves time and money for both me and my client.
- I'm not managing a storefront, so there is no money involved. That means going in and fixing a bug here and there will not cost anyone any money. The data involved is NOT mission critical, and a fracture in atomicity is not going to cost any money.
If you're setting up an e-commerce web server to handle hundreds of thousands of http and financial transactions a day, you're going to want to use a multi-processor box at 800MHz running Win2K Advanced Server or Solaris with redundant power fans and several RAID arrays. If you're setting up a print server for a half-dozen people in the office, you're going to throw a copy of Linux and Samba on that P/166 that has been collecting dust the last few months. It's easier, cheaper, and is a much more efficent use of resources.Similarly, if you're doing e-commerce or tracking sensitive information, you want to use an RDBMS that can take 1,000 queries per minute without missing a beat. If you're just managing personal information, an index of articles on a small news site, or something else non-mission critical, then MySQL is a perfectly sufficent and straight-forward solution. And if you're using Linux or some other Unix, the price is just right (free).
--GrouchoMarx
The real advantage of XML-based file formats is that they should be easier to write a program for than binary ones. Check out the Open eBook Initiative. Given that the first round of eBook readers never went very far, someone got the bright idea that a standard, straight-forward format would be good for business. It probably will be. But it's also good for developers. If the OEB spec really lives up to claim and is a genuine XML-document DTD, it shouldn't be that hard to write 3rd party book reader programs for existing devices like, say, the Palm? The upcoming Yopy? Your Linux desktop?
That's where the real benefit of XML files come in. They will help in conversion, but will really help in simplifying the process of just writing compatability for the DTD into 3rd party programs.
--GrouchoMarx
The worst thing MS did to Win98 was the browser integration. Business ethics aside for the moment, it was simply archetecturally a bad idea. OK, so one window now handles web pages and local files. That means I have a Stop button on my file manager (for local files, that is a complete waste). And what does this get me?
The integration of the file manager and browser in KDE 1.x is, IMHO, even worse. I use my Linux system to develop web sites. Many a time I've had to go into a folder to rename a file or move a file around, but, OH, WAIT! I have a file in that folder named index.html. That means I don't get to see the contents of the directory. The only way I can do what I need to do then is via the command line. (And no, I don't believe the command line is holy. If Linux is ever going to make it on the desktop and be usable by anyone but geeks and Slashdot readers, then the text interface must be unnecessary for 100% of daily activities and at least 80% of maintenance activities.)
I like the idea of a small, fast, stable browser that does HTML4, CSS1, CSS2, JavaScript, and so on. (IE5 still has some HTML4 bugs in it, I've found.) And if it can be easily ported to other systems as well as Linux (vis, Windows and Mac), it would just about be enough to unseat Netscape from my list of always running apps. I don't like the way Netscape ties everything in together either (browser, e-mail, newsreader, etc.). But if I'm going to have to switch over to the command line just to be able to move a file that happens to be in a directory that contains index.html, then no sale. Regardless of what the back-end code is, it's the user-end that will make or break the program for me.
(I happen to like double-clicking to open a file. What's wrong with that?)
--GrouchoMarx
However, having data about you available by some means other than face to face does have its advantages, if used wisely . I, for one, do not catagorically object to data about me being known, only known by certain agencies. For example:
All of the above scenarios require databases of personal information, or some sort of digitally encoded tracking system. Is there the potential for abuse of any of the above databases? Of course there is. There's also potential for the abuse of the light bulb, but I don't think anyone here would object to everyone having a dozen or so light bulbs in their house. (Great torture devices, all that heat and light...) Marketing data is a stickier issue, because it's benefits are inherently tied to a supply-side capitalist "Market." But that's not grounds to discount all data collection entirely.
Being cataloged has its advantages. Don't dismiss them simply because there are disadvantages as well. There are plenty of disadvantages to computers in general, carpal tunnel chief among them. Notice everyone who is reading this post believes the benefits outweigh the disadvantages.
--GrouchoMarx
Remember the consumer market, Palm.
--GrouchoMarx
I've read Federalist #10 (liked it too). But which movement today, names and labels aside, seems to follow that the closest? Hmmm... the Democratic Party. Interesting. (Close being a relative term, of course.)
--GrouchoMarx
Fact 2: There are no corn gas stations within 1000 miles of where I live, nor are there any places that sell corn gas cars.
Result: I drive a car powered by regular unleaded, because I have no choice in the matter.
So, you say that since I drive a car powered by oil, that I LIKE and ENCOURAGE the use of fossil fuels? Sorry, but no. "Voting with your dollars" is one of those myths parents tell their children when they want them to grow up to be stock brokers, right up there with "corporate mentality" and "Microsoft works."
For the record, my computer is dual boot Linux and Win98SE, because I am a college student and am REQUIRED to do assignments in MS Access and in Visual Basic. So, since I have Windows and Access and VB6 on my computer, that means I like and endorse and support Bill Gates, right? Don't say that to my face.
--GrouchoMarx
For the FBI to get that kind of information on you, they need a court order. Private companies do it daily and call it "protecting their business interests." Now you tell me which one is more disturbing.
--GrouchoMarx
Now, how many of you Slashdot readers cheered when Judge Jackson came back with a Guilty verdict against Microsoft? *wats as almost all of Slashdot raises their hands.*
Those of you who raised your hands both times, isn't that just a little hypocritical? Aren't anti-trust laws a form of government regulation, which should be stopped as it is evil?
I cannot repeat this next sentence enough times: Government is not inherently evil. That's because government is not an entity in and of itself. It is only a tool of those who vote people into government. If the public votes in people who will then turn around and break unions and let banks fleece customers and get away with it (read: Ronald Reagan), that's not because government is "evil." The primary interest of a member of Congres is getting your vote, so that he (or she) remains a member of Congress. That's why voting is so important.
The primary interest of a business, however, is to get as much of your money as it possibly can. Yes, in an ideal world, the people running a business would be socially responsible and pass savings onto the consumer and protect the enviornment and invest in our future, but guess what, we're not living in an ideal world. We're living in a zero-responsibility profit-driven stock market-based laissez-fair capitalism, in which the company that doesn't fleece the public goes out of business, even if it was because they wanted to be enviornmentally safe.
Sure, you could "vote with your dollars," if you had any idea what to vote for. Any non-smokers out there? How many of you buy from Kraft foods? How many of you knew that Kraft was owned by R.J. Reynolds?
Anyone out there prefer family farm milk to corporate milk, because the corporate farms tend to be more polluting and destroy the livelyhood of small farmers? I do. Of course, if you go to the store and pick up a quart of milk, you don't know which type of farm it came from. In fact, in most cases it came from both. The typical container of milk comes from several dozen farms and several hundred cows. So there is no way for you to know if you're supporting family farms or corporate farms, and the company is not about to tell you. Maybe if there was a law requiring them to state where the milk comes from, like there is a law requiring that they state the nutrition information..... Oh, wait, that's "Evil Big Brother Government" telling poor innocent Big Business how to run its business. We can't have that, now can we?
I'm not trying to say that business is inherently evil here, either. I'm saying that business is in no way beholden to you, the consumer, at all. And as a stock holder, your investment will go down when the company spends a lot of money on converting to being enviornmentally safe, and then you loose money.
Government, on the other hand, is as beholden to you as you (plural you) make it. If you pay attention to "independent" special interest group commercials on TV, then yes, you will get a government that protects the interests of the rich at the expense of the poor and middle-class. So don't pay attention to those commercials. Get out there and get an idea about what you're voting for, and then do so. If you really want to have an influence in your government, work on a campaign. How many of you have met your US Congressperson? How many of you have send a letter/e-mail to your US Senator? If the response is less than 100%, then there is the problem.
Government is not pure and virtuous, no. But I will take Big Brother Bill Clinton over Big Brother Bill Gates any day, for one very simple reason: As a voter, I put Bill Clinton in office, and I can take him out. I don't have that kind of power over Bill Gates, or any corporate leader.
--GrouchoMarx
For instance, The last time I looked Buy.com was selling Athlon/750s for about $350, less than half the nominal price. Is that because they got a really good deal wholesale, or because they hijacked a shipment of Athlons on their way from AMD to Dell? Technically, I have no way of knowing. (NOTE: No, I have no reason whatsoever to believe that Buy.com hijacks cargo shipments, I'm just using it as a hypothetical example. Don't read anything into it.)
So then how can you possibly know? (This applies to nearly every industry, not just computing.) The famed "vote with your dollars" method has shown itself throughout history to not work, and besides, in many cases the question is unanswerable to start with. (Is the modem in your new Compaq made by slave labor while the company that makes the sound card gives money to charity? Then what do you do? Again, hypothetical only, no libel against anyone intended.) I only know of one way, government regulation. I know a lot of Slashdot readers are very Libertarian where the question of regulation comes in, but I for one would rather have laws coming out of Washington D.C. that say that any company that sells computer hardware in the US must pay its workers fairly than have to ponder whether slave labor for the modem outweighs huge donations to the Online Freedom Foundation for the video card.
--GrouchoMarx
First, the concept of paying children, or in any way encouraging them to turn in "potentially dangerous" people sickens me. Yes, if you see a crime, you report it. Period. But let us not forget a period in our nation's history not that long ago. It was called the McCarthy Era, or the Red Scare. Anyone who was considered a potential, maybe, sort of "Pinko" was blacklisted. They could loose their job, their morgage, their friends would refuse to talk to them, and in extreme cases be investigated by our old friend, the House UnAmerican Activities Committee (HUAC). The frightening part was, of course, that except in Hollywood and a few high-profile cases, the federal government was not the main perpetrator. Plain old American witch-hunters were. You didn't need any basis to be labeled a "Commie," just let anyone believe that you may possibly support "socialist" concepts. (You know, like anti-trust laws, women's rights, racial equality, and other "UnAmerican" ideas.)
Does anyone remember the bumper-stickers saying "Kill a Commie for Christ?" What would the bumper-stickers say now? "Rat on a non-conformist, win a hat?" What a lesson to teach our children.
Teaching students to "recognize potentially threatening behavior" (whatever that means) would not have accomplished anything in Columbine anyway. Most students already knew that those two had problems. Their teachers knew the kids were "potentially dangerous." The school administration was fully aware that the kids were walking time bombs, and had gone to their parents and said "Your kids are dangerous, please, let's send them to counseling or something." These are the same parents who, when they found explosives (not just firecrackers, but REAL explosives) in their son's room decided that a short grounding and taking the explosives away was an adequate punnishment. The parents KNEW the boys had guns. They had seen them, and done nothing. They told the school administration to buzz off and not harass their kids. "They're good boys." A that point the school legally couldn't do anything, except wait for the day when two students went rampaging through the school with an arsenal they had built up over a long time in their parents' homes.
What would counseling have accomplished at that point, in any case? Someone who is so far gone that they will spend a year planning to wage bloody war against their school is not going to pay any attention to a school shrink they see a few times a week, tops. (No offense intended to any school social workers who may be reading this.) There is a gulf of difference between someone who is depressed and someone who has made the decision to kill. Perhaps a military academy would have a better chance of turning around people with that mind set. Maybe. But then, are you going to send children to a military academy because another student thinks that they "may be potentially threatening?"
I play video games. I've played DOOM. I've played Quake. (Although I personally prefer the X-Wing series and Starcraft, but that is neither here nor there.) I've seen violent movies. I've seen the 10 o'clock news (perhaps more damaging than any video game, because you KNOW that it IS REAL). I'm a heavy computer user. I've done web pages. I've seen hate sites on the web, though I've never written any (nor would I). I was never popular in school, nor did I mind, because I didn't care for most of my classmates, either, "jocks" or not. I was typically looked down upon by many of my classmates, because I was the "brainy kid." Sounds like a very similar "profile" to the Columbine shooters, right? A prime target for T-shirt hunting classmates, or paranoid classmates, or confused classmates. Yet not only have I never shot up my school, I avoid violence of any kind. I don't even like pocket knives, except for when I'm opening a mail package. In fact, I would go as far as to say that I probably had the calmest, least violent, least depressing, least emotionally wrenching high-school years of anyone I know. What makes me so different?
I was always very close to my parents. I didn't think they cared about me and what I did, I KNEW. The thought of stocking weapons never even occured to me, and even now that I've seen examples of it, it still doesn't occur to me. I didn't hide stuff from my parents, guns or otherwise, because I didn't feel I had any reason to.
I will lay money that those kids' parents had never given them an honest, caring, loving, simple hug since they stopped wearing diapers.
So where does that leave so-called "Geek Profiling?" Absolutely nowhere. Should we institute McCarthy For Kids just so that we can say we're "dealing" with the problem of teen violence? It is not even a band-aid solution. It is no solution, because it completely ignores what the problem is, yet encourages divisivness and paranoia in our children. The idea of "paying" children to search for "potentially threatening," "Pinko" classmakes is only icing on this already vile cake.
The question has already been raised of the legal liability question. Liability indeed. "Pain and Suffering" lawsuits run into the millions of dollars, each. Not to mention the pain and suffering caused as a result of the trial itself. And even with the money aside, what has been accomplished? You have taken someone who is at best simply a non-conformist (which, according to every interpretation of the First Ammendment I've heard, is perfectly acceptable) or at worst a psychologically depressed child with enough emotional problems already and cubbyholed them into "potential sources of UnAmerican Activity." At best, you've made them that much more of an outcast and a public specticle, and if it goes on their record affected their chances of getting into college. ("Was identified as a potential source of violence due to color of clothing." I can see a college turning someone down because of that, although not officially.) At worst, you've told someone who already feels alienated that those around them consider them a threat, and that they should be handled with care lest they blow up on them. Is there a better way to destroy whatever modicum of self-esteem someone has left?
I do not wish to see a rebirth of McCarthyism in my country. This program sends the message "If you see someone who isn't like you, turn him in to 'the authorities' and get cool toys." I would rather actually help people. How about a different message: "If you see someone who is sad, depressed, or lonely, give them a hug. The smile you get back is payment in full."
--GrouchoMarx, age 19
However, the playback for DVD and TV Tuner was very fuzzy compared to my STB TV PCI tuner and Creative Labs Dxr2 DVD decoder. (I was trying to merge everything into a single card and save some slots.) The feature set was terrific. But the playback was fuzzy and there was some sort of smearing effect at the bottom of the screen. I played "Star Wars: Special Edition" through my STB card and the AIW 128 simultaneously from the same VCR and put the windows next to each other, and there was simply no competition. According to ATI, the TV feed and DVD both use the same decoding chip (which is why the same problem existed for both of them).
Before you assume that the AIW is a bad card, though, I also tried the 3dfx Voodoo3 3500 TV, which is a tuner but no DVD. I had the same problem with the TV feed. This is especially strange since 3dfx bought STF last year, so I would expect that if my old STB card worked, that a new STB-related card would be better, not worse. I don't know if it was my system, a fluke, the fact that they were combo cards, or what.
I've not used the Matrox Marvel G400-TV, so I can't say. My last Matrox card was the original 2MB Millennium, which is still chugging along in my P/166 after 4 years. I would have tried the Marvel had I had the time and money, and could find a store near me that carried it and had a good return policy. :-) (God bless MicroCenter's 30-day no-questions-asked policy.) I believe XFree86 does support the G400 chipset now.
My best advice would be to try one and see if you like it. But make very sure you buy the card from a store locally that has a full-refund policy if you don't like it. (In fact, that goes for everything you buy. Are you listening, CompUSA?)