Since they're using CSS to position everything on the page, they can easily put the sections, help, stories, etc links BELOW the main content. The CSS can just put it back on the left for browsers that can handle it, and lynx users will be that much happier. Simple solution.
What are you people doing to your computers that you're breaking the plastic bay covers? I've been working on computers for at least 12 years and have never had one break on me. Sure, the occassional one pops off, but even though it's plastic it's pretty heavy plastic.
As for the doors, I can't stand them to begin with. I guess if you're going for looks and can't trouble yourself to paint the faceplates of your components it's one thing, but wouldn't you aim to buy the proper color to begin with?
As for everything else when it comes to cases, the main difference I've found is that the high quality ones bend the inner edges an extra time to prevent cuts, have heavier metal drive racks, and better air flow. That's it.
People who spend insane amounts of money on cases are the same as people that modify their cars to gain 5 extra HP... it just doesn't make much sense. The one exception is server cases, but this article is about gaming cases, so that's not applicable.:)
Actually IE is the browser of choice for most Slashdot users. I can't seem to find the article, but there was one a few years back that detailed what browser and operating system most people were using. It was over 80% of users using Windows and similar numbers for IE. I'm sure the IE numbers have dropped slightly recently due to Firefox, and MacOS might have gained some ground, but I'm sure it's still a landslide in favor of Windows and IE.
I remember a few comments for the article pointing out that many Slashdotters were viewing at work, where they only have IE and Windows available, but that wouldn't skew the numbers so much that Linux and any non-IE browser would get more than 50%.
Normally I like Colbert's stuff. Most of the time he's witty, intelligent, and makes me giggle like a schoolgirl. medioc I watched the bit live on TV after I got sick of listening to the draft coverage. I don't blame most of the dignitaries for not paying much attention. His whole presentation must have gone on for 20 minutes or more, with 6-7 minutes of it being about that crazy (and fugly) White House reporter that always asks really stupid questions. Well this bit had him running across the entire Eastern seaboard just to get away from her questions about Iraq. Ok... I can understand turning that into a 30-60 second clip, since there were a few funny parts, but the remaining 5:50 was just him running and screaming. It was very underwhelming. There was actually almost a minute of him fumbling with his keys, trying to get it unlocked and started, just for the punchline of realizing he had remote keyless entry (funny, but not worth 60 seconds of leadup).
As for the rest of his jokes, there were a few good ones, but they came after listening to a handful of poor ones. I actually wondered outloud to my wife that his normal writers must have been unavailable.
Keep in mind when you watch the video that 99% of the guests at the press dinner were press, meaning they probably agreed with most of the things he said. However, there was audible laughing only a handful of times during the whole presentation. It was really a poor comedy routine to say the least, even if it did "stick it to the Administration".
I would assume the random placement of the links would be because the submitter works for the WSJ, or perhaps copied the text exactly from somewhere else that had it linked like that. It makes sense for the search engines, since many of them weight the linked words slightly more than the surrounding words. You'll notice that the words that are linked are a lot more unique than the rest of the summary.
Porn IS regulated just as much as the tobacco industry right now. You have to be a certain age to be in porn films or photos, you have to be a certain age to go into adult bookstores, you can't view porn in a public place where other people can see what you're looking at, etc.
The issue isn't that pornography will ruin the lives of those people that look at it; it's that the Internet allows minors to access porn very easily.
I think this is actually a good idea, but determining rules for what should belong in the.xxx domain and what should belong elsewhere will get to be very tricky. I also doubt it will help prevent spyware or adware, since it would require strict oversight to achieve that.
What it would be excellent for is allowing educational access to topics that are often prevented by filters (breast exams, breast enlargements, safe sex info, etc). By filtering strictly on the domain instead of the content, stuff that should get through wouldn't be blocked anymore.
As for paying for it all, just set the price for each.xxx domain at $100. That's chump change for 99% of the porn sites out there and would pay for any regulation that needs to occur.
Other than configuring Windows, all the other examples you give are server administration related. While there are people with certain disabilities that are system administrators, most have already solved many of the issues they'll face in that field. Many are only partially disabled or have the proper equipment to deal with the situations they'll come up against.
I believe more important is that the OSS community focus on making user software accessible to people with disabilities. Gnome focuses on this quite a bit. Firefox has done a decent job by including mouse gestures. There's still plenty of room for improvement, however.
My wife works as an occupational therapist and I spoke with her about this a few months ago. She said that most popular Windows software is pretty well designed for people with handicaps (customizable menus, font sizes, color schemes, layout, etc). She hasn't worked with many linux programs, so she couldn't provide much of a comparison, but your comments are why disabled people might not choose linux over Windows. Just like most users, they just want software that works for them. If the software needs to be designed slightly better to work for them, then where's the harm in trying to improve it?
That's a bunch of BS. The quote specifically says a site that "has as its principal or primary business the making available of material that is harmful to minors" would be forced to change. Although I think that's still too vague, it shows that they don't want educational or commercial sales sites included (although I expect adult toy sites would be included). Even though some Republicans are against certain forms of birth control, and although they may find pictures of women in swimsuits offensive somehow, very few would be stupid enough to try grouping those sites with pornography sites. Doing so would alienate many of their voters.
Just as strip clubs and adult toystores have specific rules set up for what they can and cannot allow, as well as the classifications for what constitutes such establishments, rules can be set up to classify adult websites. It would make filtering much easier, while allowing the sites that really do have educational content. That's something that the current filters have a tough time with. I actually think such laws would help resolve far more issues than they would create.
Many companies already have this issue, since their Internet connection is carried on the same line as their phones. My previous employer had fibre that carried all of it. When planning the system, we took into consideration that the connection could go down, but that's exactly the same as if our phone lines would have gone down prior to the switch. We had analog backups for the digital lines, so our customers could still get through; our fax lines were analog, so we could still send those; and we could still work locally on our network.
Not every employee needs 24/7 Internet access, despite what they claim.
This idea is really cool, but implementing it by putting hooks into each device driver seems overly complicated. It also doesn't sound like they're any sort of priority setting for this or any type of data filtering.
Personally I'd like to see something like the MS filesystem in development that allows SQL calls to be run against it (not sure if there's any other filesystems that are similar). Query every 5 minutes for changed data that fits the backup parameters (within the system dir, the user's home dir, certain filetypes) and then transfer the data as the network isn't being used.
That would achieve the same thing, but more flexibly and without affecting normal use.
At my previous employer we had two people use around 4Gb for their Exchange mailboxes. We spoke with them and had them archive all of the stuff they haven't used in a few years to a.pst file. Then we burned this to 2 DVD's, gave them 1 copy and stored 1 copy with our tapes.
If you actually look at some of the people's email accounts, you'll notice that they never empty their deleted items folder. We informed people that they should move stuff out of their deleted items if they want to save it, and then 2 weeks later set up a policy to empty all of the deleted items folders. This cleared up over 10 GB on a network with 150 users.
Of course, anything you do should be authorized by your management, since some situations are dictated by law. Since we were funded by government grants, we were required to keep 7 years of emails related to the programs. You'll also cover your a** this way, since if someone has a complaint about you doing something, you can refer them to your supervisor.
The article and the summary both specifically say that the most of the programs will simply be delayed, not cancelled completely. Space isn't going anywhere anytime soon, so what's the big deal if we bring back stuff from Mars now or in 10 years? Why not scale back a few programs and save some cash now and address scaling it up in the future when the country's budget is a little better?
Every government program complains about funding cuts and gives doomsday scenarios about what's going to happen. Those things really never happen. I personally think every government program should undergo significant funding cuts and those programs will be forced to be more efficient.
I'm a technically adept person, so switching to linux wouldn't be a big deal to me. Yet I've still never done so. Sure, I've tried out some distributions on extra systems, but I've never run it as my primary desktop.
There are a few reasons for wanting to change (expanding my resume, coolness factor, security), but there are far more reasons for not changing:
My wife is used to Windows, so I'd have to worry about training her.
I've found from my previous linux experiences that KDE feels cluttered and unintuitive, and Gnome seems too vanilla. Sure, I can customize them and take care of that, but why go through the trouble unless there's a bigger reason for doing so? I haven't tried out any other desktop managers because I want one that's widely supported.
Many experienced linux users come across as jerks when you post simple questions to usenet or IRC. Sure, there's a HUGE support base for linux software, but it's still relatively difficult to find pleasant support. I don't need Windows support, OTOH, since I can handle almost every issue myself.
Too many choices. Ok... I know choices are good, but if the linux community chose to install Gnome by default and still allowed KDE to be set up if people wanted, then Gnome would get an even larger support base and people wouldn't be confused about all the options available in linux. I'm not saying that people should't have options, I'm saying that sometimes they prefer to have them selected for them.
I've NEVER had an issue with a virus on my system, and only one instance of spyware which MS Antispyware took care of pretty easily. I've also never had my system hacked, since I'm behind a decent hardware firewall and now SP2's software firewall.
There's many more issues, but those are the first ones I've thought of. I don't dislike Microsoft, so I've got no problem dropping some cash every 4 years or so for new software. The linux community needs to realize that some intelligent users have good reasons for not switching. Calling us lazy doesn't help one bit... asking WHY we won't switch and then trying to address those issues would be much more beneficial.
As for measuring "neural response", that doesn't necessarily translate into revenue for advertisers. I'm sure I had a strong neural response when really crappy ads came on. I'm sure I also had a strong neural response to certain beer ads, but that's not going to get them any money since I drink beer only once or twice a year when tailgating.
There's far better ways for advertisers to measure the success of ad campaigns.
Yes, most LDAP tools work somewhat with AD, due to the reverse engineering efforts of the developers. AD is an intentionally broken implementation of a standard, that is to say it intentionally deviates from the standard to prevent interoperability. It is only broken in terms of the standard, obviously it works.
I don't think MS ever intended AD to be a straightforward LDAP server. The interface is exactly the same as LDAP anyway, it's only the schema that is changed significantly. The fact that I've pulled data dynamically using PHP shows that it's sufficiently open to interoperability. Sure, the data isn't in the same spot as a normal LDAP server, but just a few minutes browsing Microsoft's own knowledgebase or browsing with the schema tool itself shows exactly where stuff is. That's not breaking... that's modifying to suit your own needs. Sure, it'd be nice if they kept to the standard, but complaining that they did something differently doesn't make much sense.
What is your point? I said it was unlikely. Anyone who is not "anti-monopoly" is either a monopolist or has a lousy understanding of economics. There is a reason abusing monopolies is illegal in almost every country. They are very damaging and remove all the major benefits of capitalism.
I agree. You're getting into a symantics argument there. I should have said "anti-Microsoft" instead.
That does not go far enough to be a level playing field. It takes work to install software and more work to remove software.
It would take Dell or Gateway less than 15 minutes to put Firefox, Gimp, OpenOffice, etc on their base image. It's not like they need to manually install it on every computer they sell. Why would they remove software anyway? Anyone would agree that having many choices is better than just one.
If customers expect types of software, that is fine and should be up the OEM. True. However, in this particular case the complaint is about Active Directory. It's very simple purchasing a copy of Windows 2000 without Active Directory... you just don't buy the Server version. MS gets crap for releasing different versions of their software to fit the budget and needs of everyone (the complaint is that the cheaper versions are "crippled"). Yet they also get crap if their higher end software includes stuff like Active Directory, which is one of the only reasons a company would purchase that version of their software anyway.
So which is it... should MS provide ANY programs with their base OS, forcing users and OEM's install a web browser, email client, media player, calculator, word processor, etc; or should they provide a base set of software for their users and not prohibit users and OEM's from selecting alternatives. I think the latter. Based on your final paragraph it seems you think the former.
The thing is, almost every software company out there bundles their stuff. Adobe, Apple, Sun, linux distributions, etc. Going to complain about them as well?
Active Directory is MS's intentionally broken and obfuscated implementation of LDAP.
I've accessed the AD with normal LDAP tools and the schema is browsable with the schema tool in the Administrator Toolkit as well. The AD also has some great features that LDAP doesn't have, so calling it broken is a bit of a misnomer.
The problem is the Desktop OS is built to rely upon AD, which is a "secret" interface between the desktop and server products.
BS. I have a Windows 2000 computer at home that runs without an Active Directory controller on my network. I also have a Windows 2000 Server at my old employer that doesn't have Active Directory configured. If AD were required to use Windows 2000, you might have a point, but that's far from the case here.
The problem is, as it often is with race, many people don't see or care about the discrimination.
BS again. Most people see and care about true discrimination, but get fed up when the race card is played so frequently.
MSPaint was already included with the OS before they were declared a monopoly.
So was IE. So was WMP. Both of those are scrutinized by anti-monopoly folks like yourself. Windows for Workgroups and the NT3.5 domain controller features were as well, and Active Directory is basically a more advanced version of the same thing.
It should be up to OEMs like Dell and Gateway to decide what applications should be bundled on their PCs.
Exactly. Microsoft should not be putting pressure on Dell, Gateway, etc to exclude non-MS products in their base setups. If Dell wants to pre-install Firefox, then MS shouldn't be able to punish Dell in any way. That's what they got into trouble with before, and it shouldn't happen again. However, that's far different than including software that customers would expect from that particular operating system or software bundle.
They should also not be allowed to charge additional for software simply because it's included by default with the OS. Active Directory isn't, since you can get a copy of Windows 2000 (or later version) without the server software on them, and it's quite a bit cheaper.
MS was sued in 98 mainly because they were presuring computer manufacturers to install Windows and were leveraging their dominance on the desktop to try putting Netscape under (and to a lesser extent, Sun in the Java market). That's very different than bundling a program (Outlook) in a suite that it naturally belongs in, or providing an important server tool (AD) in the Server versions of their operating system.
Providing Windows Server WITHOUT Active Directory wouldn't make any more sense than providing an office suite without a word processor. Same for including Outlook in Office... how many businesses are going to want an office suite without a full-featured email and calendaring program?
This is a completely different situation than when they were prosecuted under anti-trust law.
Bundling software isn't anti-competitive behaviour unless there's something else going on, like forcing computer manufacturers to bundle that software with their computers.
Nobody is forced to use Active Directory when they set up a Windows server, although most people do because it makes sense. Honestly, as someone who's not worked with large linux networks, I'm not sure what the alternative would be. However, lack of a viable alternative, or even lack of a popular alternative, doesn't make Microsoft wrong for packaging Active Directory with their product.
Bundling Outlook with Office may be slightly closer to anti-competitive behavior, but I still think it's a BS complaint. I know plenty of people that choose to use Netscape Navigator, Eudora, or Thunderbird for email, even though they own the Office suite. Wouldn't complaining about Outlook Express make a little more sense, since it's packaged with the OS?
This reminds me of people playing the race card... it's done even when that complaint isn't accurate, and as a result makes people less likely to believe when there's a REAL issue.
What's next... claiming that inclusion of MS Paint is anti-competitive?
The cost involved with getting Windows to run on Mac hardware wouldn't be worth it to Microsoft. People who own Mac hardware already own OSX (or an older OS version if you're talking about old hardware). Additionally, most Mac users are pretty happy with their OS. Overall, the number of people who want to switch from OSX to Windows XP would be REALLY small. Microsoft would be much better off putting their money into development of other software.
This title is pretty misleading. How about we apply the same logic to previous Slashdot titles today: "Saitek beats MS to Bluetooth 2.1 speaker market", "Oracle Beats MS in mysql Bidding", etc. It's just silly to word it that way.
Fighter jets already do most of the flying themselves, and require little input from the pilot. I'd argue that controlling a fighter jet is significantly harder than controlling a car.
You hit it on the head, though... a human can never be guaranteed to be unpanicked in all situations. The computer never panicks. As long as the computer is well programmed and has sufficient failsafes, it will be more reliable than a human. It's all going to come down to the programming.
They haven't been trying to keep him quiet until he started spouting off ideas that NASA didn't sign off on. In fact, the article says that he briefed Cheney twice on his previous research (about cleaning soot being more effective than reducing CO2 emissions) by request of the administration. He may say the administration is trying to silence him, but the proof is there that he's not being entirely honest.
I think the phrase 'hero' is used far too often. I doubt either of these men are really the hero of anyone here on Slashdot. This whole story is nothing but flamebait anyway, given the leanings of Slashdot against anything Microsoft. Hopefully people can address this question without a lot of flame wars, though.
My take is that humanitarian aid is more important than technological advances. There are obviously benefits to great technological advances, but the humanitarian aid that Gates has provided should hopefully lead to more technical advances in the future. One example is him giving large sums of money to the Milwaukee Public Schools, which they've used to break up the large schools into smaller schools, resulting in smaller class sizes and less violence. I believe he's given money to other school districts as well for a number of other tasks.
I also don't believe that a donor needs to stay anonymous with his donations. Many Slashdotters think that Gates is donating simply to make himself and MS look better after their negative business practices. That's BS. He's already rich enough that he doesn't have to care about public perception. In addition, the general public does NOT have a negative view of Microsoft, so why would Gates be donating in order to change the public's view of them.
This came up in a thread around Christmas about the actions of the Salvation Army. Someone was complaining that the SA was anti-gay/lesbian, and backed it up with the actions of one worker and one manager. The Slashdotter discounted all of the great work that the SA has done, simply because of the actions of a few. Just because you may not like how Gates got his money, and just because you don't like MS, it doesn't change that fact that his money is being put to good use and helping a lot of people.
That's really what it comes down to: he DOES NOT have to donate this money, yet he still is, and the result is that a lot of people are being helped.
An aside for the people that claim it's only for tax relief purposes: when you get sufficiently rich, taking a huge tax hit really doesn't affect you at all. Most Slashdotters agree with the Democratic Party's idea of scaling taxes up for the rich. The main argument for that is rich people won't be affected by having a larger amount of taxes taken by the government. To claim that Gates is doing this because of the tax hit would be claiming that those taxes actually affect him. You can't have it both ways. Choose one or the other.
They're just starting out and they're targeting the HTPC crowd. There's a HUGE thread on the AVS HTPC forums about it. So far it seems almost everyone is happy with theirs. The cool part is that you can add hard drives on really easily, so it grows as you need more storage. Pretty affordable considering the other options.
From their website: Lime Technology believes that there is a market for a new wrinkle on the old RAID technology. Our approach uses a storage organization we call unRAID(TM). unRAID(TM) is similar to RAID-4 in that for every n hard drives, there are n-1 data drives, and a single fixed parity drive. Unlike other RAID organizations, however, files are not striped across the data drives. Instead, each data drive is formatted normally with its own file system.
Slashdot Mirror
Since they're using CSS to position everything on the page, they can easily put the sections, help, stories, etc links BELOW the main content. The CSS can just put it back on the left for browsers that can handle it, and lynx users will be that much happier. Simple solution.
What are you people doing to your computers that you're breaking the plastic bay covers? I've been working on computers for at least 12 years and have never had one break on me. Sure, the occassional one pops off, but even though it's plastic it's pretty heavy plastic.
:)
As for the doors, I can't stand them to begin with. I guess if you're going for looks and can't trouble yourself to paint the faceplates of your components it's one thing, but wouldn't you aim to buy the proper color to begin with?
As for everything else when it comes to cases, the main difference I've found is that the high quality ones bend the inner edges an extra time to prevent cuts, have heavier metal drive racks, and better air flow. That's it.
People who spend insane amounts of money on cases are the same as people that modify their cars to gain 5 extra HP... it just doesn't make much sense. The one exception is server cases, but this article is about gaming cases, so that's not applicable.
Actually IE is the browser of choice for most Slashdot users. I can't seem to find the article, but there was one a few years back that detailed what browser and operating system most people were using. It was over 80% of users using Windows and similar numbers for IE. I'm sure the IE numbers have dropped slightly recently due to Firefox, and MacOS might have gained some ground, but I'm sure it's still a landslide in favor of Windows and IE.
I remember a few comments for the article pointing out that many Slashdotters were viewing at work, where they only have IE and Windows available, but that wouldn't skew the numbers so much that Linux and any non-IE browser would get more than 50%.
Normally I like Colbert's stuff. Most of the time he's witty, intelligent, and makes me giggle like a schoolgirl.
medioc
I watched the bit live on TV after I got sick of listening to the draft coverage. I don't blame most of the dignitaries for not paying much attention. His whole presentation must have gone on for 20 minutes or more, with 6-7 minutes of it being about that crazy (and fugly) White House reporter that always asks really stupid questions. Well this bit had him running across the entire Eastern seaboard just to get away from her questions about Iraq. Ok... I can understand turning that into a 30-60 second clip, since there were a few funny parts, but the remaining 5:50 was just him running and screaming. It was very underwhelming. There was actually almost a minute of him fumbling with his keys, trying to get it unlocked and started, just for the punchline of realizing he had remote keyless entry (funny, but not worth 60 seconds of leadup).
As for the rest of his jokes, there were a few good ones, but they came after listening to a handful of poor ones. I actually wondered outloud to my wife that his normal writers must have been unavailable.
Keep in mind when you watch the video that 99% of the guests at the press dinner were press, meaning they probably agreed with most of the things he said. However, there was audible laughing only a handful of times during the whole presentation. It was really a poor comedy routine to say the least, even if it did "stick it to the Administration".
I would assume the random placement of the links would be because the submitter works for the WSJ, or perhaps copied the text exactly from somewhere else that had it linked like that. It makes sense for the search engines, since many of them weight the linked words slightly more than the surrounding words. You'll notice that the words that are linked are a lot more unique than the rest of the summary.
Porn IS regulated just as much as the tobacco industry right now. You have to be a certain age to be in porn films or photos, you have to be a certain age to go into adult bookstores, you can't view porn in a public place where other people can see what you're looking at, etc.
.xxx domain and what should belong elsewhere will get to be very tricky. I also doubt it will help prevent spyware or adware, since it would require strict oversight to achieve that.
.xxx domain at $100. That's chump change for 99% of the porn sites out there and would pay for any regulation that needs to occur.
The issue isn't that pornography will ruin the lives of those people that look at it; it's that the Internet allows minors to access porn very easily.
I think this is actually a good idea, but determining rules for what should belong in the
What it would be excellent for is allowing educational access to topics that are often prevented by filters (breast exams, breast enlargements, safe sex info, etc). By filtering strictly on the domain instead of the content, stuff that should get through wouldn't be blocked anymore.
As for paying for it all, just set the price for each
Other than configuring Windows, all the other examples you give are server administration related. While there are people with certain disabilities that are system administrators, most have already solved many of the issues they'll face in that field. Many are only partially disabled or have the proper equipment to deal with the situations they'll come up against.
I believe more important is that the OSS community focus on making user software accessible to people with disabilities. Gnome focuses on this quite a bit. Firefox has done a decent job by including mouse gestures. There's still plenty of room for improvement, however.
My wife works as an occupational therapist and I spoke with her about this a few months ago. She said that most popular Windows software is pretty well designed for people with handicaps (customizable menus, font sizes, color schemes, layout, etc). She hasn't worked with many linux programs, so she couldn't provide much of a comparison, but your comments are why disabled people might not choose linux over Windows. Just like most users, they just want software that works for them. If the software needs to be designed slightly better to work for them, then where's the harm in trying to improve it?
That's a bunch of BS. The quote specifically says a site that "has as its principal or primary business the making available of material that is harmful to minors" would be forced to change. Although I think that's still too vague, it shows that they don't want educational or commercial sales sites included (although I expect adult toy sites would be included). Even though some Republicans are against certain forms of birth control, and although they may find pictures of women in swimsuits offensive somehow, very few would be stupid enough to try grouping those sites with pornography sites. Doing so would alienate many of their voters.
Just as strip clubs and adult toystores have specific rules set up for what they can and cannot allow, as well as the classifications for what constitutes such establishments, rules can be set up to classify adult websites. It would make filtering much easier, while allowing the sites that really do have educational content. That's something that the current filters have a tough time with. I actually think such laws would help resolve far more issues than they would create.
Many companies already have this issue, since their Internet connection is carried on the same line as their phones. My previous employer had fibre that carried all of it. When planning the system, we took into consideration that the connection could go down, but that's exactly the same as if our phone lines would have gone down prior to the switch. We had analog backups for the digital lines, so our customers could still get through; our fax lines were analog, so we could still send those; and we could still work locally on our network.
Not every employee needs 24/7 Internet access, despite what they claim.
This idea is really cool, but implementing it by putting hooks into each device driver seems overly complicated. It also doesn't sound like they're any sort of priority setting for this or any type of data filtering.
Personally I'd like to see something like the MS filesystem in development that allows SQL calls to be run against it (not sure if there's any other filesystems that are similar). Query every 5 minutes for changed data that fits the backup parameters (within the system dir, the user's home dir, certain filetypes) and then transfer the data as the network isn't being used.
That would achieve the same thing, but more flexibly and without affecting normal use.
At my previous employer we had two people use around 4Gb for their Exchange mailboxes. We spoke with them and had them archive all of the stuff they haven't used in a few years to a .pst file. Then we burned this to 2 DVD's, gave them 1 copy and stored 1 copy with our tapes.
If you actually look at some of the people's email accounts, you'll notice that they never empty their deleted items folder. We informed people that they should move stuff out of their deleted items if they want to save it, and then 2 weeks later set up a policy to empty all of the deleted items folders. This cleared up over 10 GB on a network with 150 users.
Of course, anything you do should be authorized by your management, since some situations are dictated by law. Since we were funded by government grants, we were required to keep 7 years of emails related to the programs. You'll also cover your a** this way, since if someone has a complaint about you doing something, you can refer them to your supervisor.
The article and the summary both specifically say that the most of the programs will simply be delayed, not cancelled completely. Space isn't going anywhere anytime soon, so what's the big deal if we bring back stuff from Mars now or in 10 years? Why not scale back a few programs and save some cash now and address scaling it up in the future when the country's budget is a little better?
Every government program complains about funding cuts and gives doomsday scenarios about what's going to happen. Those things really never happen. I personally think every government program should undergo significant funding cuts and those programs will be forced to be more efficient.
There are a few reasons for wanting to change (expanding my resume, coolness factor, security), but there are far more reasons for not changing:
There's many more issues, but those are the first ones I've thought of. I don't dislike Microsoft, so I've got no problem dropping some cash every 4 years or so for new software. The linux community needs to realize that some intelligent users have good reasons for not switching. Calling us lazy doesn't help one bit... asking WHY we won't switch and then trying to address those issues would be much more beneficial.
The Steelers?
Do I get a prize if I guessed correctly?
As for measuring "neural response", that doesn't necessarily translate into revenue for advertisers. I'm sure I had a strong neural response when really crappy ads came on. I'm sure I also had a strong neural response to certain beer ads, but that's not going to get them any money since I drink beer only once or twice a year when tailgating.
There's far better ways for advertisers to measure the success of ad campaigns.
Yes, most LDAP tools work somewhat with AD, due to the reverse engineering efforts of the developers. AD is an intentionally broken implementation of a standard, that is to say it intentionally deviates from the standard to prevent interoperability. It is only broken in terms of the standard, obviously it works.
I don't think MS ever intended AD to be a straightforward LDAP server. The interface is exactly the same as LDAP anyway, it's only the schema that is changed significantly. The fact that I've pulled data dynamically using PHP shows that it's sufficiently open to interoperability. Sure, the data isn't in the same spot as a normal LDAP server, but just a few minutes browsing Microsoft's own knowledgebase or browsing with the schema tool itself shows exactly where stuff is. That's not breaking... that's modifying to suit your own needs. Sure, it'd be nice if they kept to the standard, but complaining that they did something differently doesn't make much sense.
What is your point? I said it was unlikely. Anyone who is not "anti-monopoly" is either a monopolist or has a lousy understanding of economics. There is a reason abusing monopolies is illegal in almost every country. They are very damaging and remove all the major benefits of capitalism.
I agree. You're getting into a symantics argument there. I should have said "anti-Microsoft" instead.
That does not go far enough to be a level playing field. It takes work to install software and more work to remove software.
It would take Dell or Gateway less than 15 minutes to put Firefox, Gimp, OpenOffice, etc on their base image. It's not like they need to manually install it on every computer they sell. Why would they remove software anyway? Anyone would agree that having many choices is better than just one.
If customers expect types of software, that is fine and should be up the OEM.
True. However, in this particular case the complaint is about Active Directory. It's very simple purchasing a copy of Windows 2000 without Active Directory... you just don't buy the Server version. MS gets crap for releasing different versions of their software to fit the budget and needs of everyone (the complaint is that the cheaper versions are "crippled"). Yet they also get crap if their higher end software includes stuff like Active Directory, which is one of the only reasons a company would purchase that version of their software anyway.
So which is it... should MS provide ANY programs with their base OS, forcing users and OEM's install a web browser, email client, media player, calculator, word processor, etc; or should they provide a base set of software for their users and not prohibit users and OEM's from selecting alternatives. I think the latter. Based on your final paragraph it seems you think the former.
The thing is, almost every software company out there bundles their stuff. Adobe, Apple, Sun, linux distributions, etc. Going to complain about them as well?
Active Directory is MS's intentionally broken and obfuscated implementation of LDAP.
I've accessed the AD with normal LDAP tools and the schema is browsable with the schema tool in the Administrator Toolkit as well. The AD also has some great features that LDAP doesn't have, so calling it broken is a bit of a misnomer.
The problem is the Desktop OS is built to rely upon AD, which is a "secret" interface between the desktop and server products.
BS. I have a Windows 2000 computer at home that runs without an Active Directory controller on my network. I also have a Windows 2000 Server at my old employer that doesn't have Active Directory configured. If AD were required to use Windows 2000, you might have a point, but that's far from the case here.
The problem is, as it often is with race, many people don't see or care about the discrimination.
BS again. Most people see and care about true discrimination, but get fed up when the race card is played so frequently.
MSPaint was already included with the OS before they were declared a monopoly.
So was IE. So was WMP. Both of those are scrutinized by anti-monopoly folks like yourself. Windows for Workgroups and the NT3.5 domain controller features were as well, and Active Directory is basically a more advanced version of the same thing.
It should be up to OEMs like Dell and Gateway to decide what applications should be bundled on their PCs.
Exactly. Microsoft should not be putting pressure on Dell, Gateway, etc to exclude non-MS products in their base setups. If Dell wants to pre-install Firefox, then MS shouldn't be able to punish Dell in any way. That's what they got into trouble with before, and it shouldn't happen again. However, that's far different than including software that customers would expect from that particular operating system or software bundle.
They should also not be allowed to charge additional for software simply because it's included by default with the OS. Active Directory isn't, since you can get a copy of Windows 2000 (or later version) without the server software on them, and it's quite a bit cheaper.
225. :( Skipped the 10 and ran into the big wall after the 60.
I wonder what score gets me $10,000.
MS was sued in 98 mainly because they were presuring computer manufacturers to install Windows and were leveraging their dominance on the desktop to try putting Netscape under (and to a lesser extent, Sun in the Java market). That's very different than bundling a program (Outlook) in a suite that it naturally belongs in, or providing an important server tool (AD) in the Server versions of their operating system.
Providing Windows Server WITHOUT Active Directory wouldn't make any more sense than providing an office suite without a word processor. Same for including Outlook in Office... how many businesses are going to want an office suite without a full-featured email and calendaring program?
This is a completely different situation than when they were prosecuted under anti-trust law.
Bundling software isn't anti-competitive behaviour unless there's something else going on, like forcing computer manufacturers to bundle that software with their computers.
Nobody is forced to use Active Directory when they set up a Windows server, although most people do because it makes sense. Honestly, as someone who's not worked with large linux networks, I'm not sure what the alternative would be. However, lack of a viable alternative, or even lack of a popular alternative, doesn't make Microsoft wrong for packaging Active Directory with their product.
Bundling Outlook with Office may be slightly closer to anti-competitive behavior, but I still think it's a BS complaint. I know plenty of people that choose to use Netscape Navigator, Eudora, or Thunderbird for email, even though they own the Office suite. Wouldn't complaining about Outlook Express make a little more sense, since it's packaged with the OS?
This reminds me of people playing the race card... it's done even when that complaint isn't accurate, and as a result makes people less likely to believe when there's a REAL issue.
What's next... claiming that inclusion of MS Paint is anti-competitive?
The cost involved with getting Windows to run on Mac hardware wouldn't be worth it to Microsoft. People who own Mac hardware already own OSX (or an older OS version if you're talking about old hardware). Additionally, most Mac users are pretty happy with their OS. Overall, the number of people who want to switch from OSX to Windows XP would be REALLY small. Microsoft would be much better off putting their money into development of other software.
This title is pretty misleading. How about we apply the same logic to previous Slashdot titles today: "Saitek beats MS to Bluetooth 2.1 speaker market", "Oracle Beats MS in mysql Bidding", etc. It's just silly to word it that way.
Fighter jets already do most of the flying themselves, and require little input from the pilot. I'd argue that controlling a fighter jet is significantly harder than controlling a car.
You hit it on the head, though... a human can never be guaranteed to be unpanicked in all situations. The computer never panicks. As long as the computer is well programmed and has sufficient failsafes, it will be more reliable than a human. It's all going to come down to the programming.
Google google google google. Google, google google. Google google. Google sexy lingerie google, google google google. Google!
(bit of a Google overload today)
They haven't been trying to keep him quiet until he started spouting off ideas that NASA didn't sign off on. In fact, the article says that he briefed Cheney twice on his previous research (about cleaning soot being more effective than reducing CO2 emissions) by request of the administration. He may say the administration is trying to silence him, but the proof is there that he's not being entirely honest.
I think the phrase 'hero' is used far too often. I doubt either of these men are really the hero of anyone here on Slashdot. This whole story is nothing but flamebait anyway, given the leanings of Slashdot against anything Microsoft. Hopefully people can address this question without a lot of flame wars, though.
My take is that humanitarian aid is more important than technological advances. There are obviously benefits to great technological advances, but the humanitarian aid that Gates has provided should hopefully lead to more technical advances in the future. One example is him giving large sums of money to the Milwaukee Public Schools, which they've used to break up the large schools into smaller schools, resulting in smaller class sizes and less violence. I believe he's given money to other school districts as well for a number of other tasks.
I also don't believe that a donor needs to stay anonymous with his donations. Many Slashdotters think that Gates is donating simply to make himself and MS look better after their negative business practices. That's BS. He's already rich enough that he doesn't have to care about public perception. In addition, the general public does NOT have a negative view of Microsoft, so why would Gates be donating in order to change the public's view of them.
This came up in a thread around Christmas about the actions of the Salvation Army. Someone was complaining that the SA was anti-gay/lesbian, and backed it up with the actions of one worker and one manager. The Slashdotter discounted all of the great work that the SA has done, simply because of the actions of a few. Just because you may not like how Gates got his money, and just because you don't like MS, it doesn't change that fact that his money is being put to good use and helping a lot of people.
That's really what it comes down to: he DOES NOT have to donate this money, yet he still is, and the result is that a lot of people are being helped.
An aside for the people that claim it's only for tax relief purposes: when you get sufficiently rich, taking a huge tax hit really doesn't affect you at all. Most Slashdotters agree with the Democratic Party's idea of scaling taxes up for the rich. The main argument for that is rich people won't be affected by having a larger amount of taxes taken by the government. To claim that Gates is doing this because of the tax hit would be claiming that those taxes actually affect him. You can't have it both ways. Choose one or the other.
PS: I also like Jobs.
http://lime-technology.com/unraid.htm
They're just starting out and they're targeting the HTPC crowd. There's a HUGE thread on the AVS HTPC forums about it. So far it seems almost everyone is happy with theirs. The cool part is that you can add hard drives on really easily, so it grows as you need more storage. Pretty affordable considering the other options.
From their website:
Lime Technology believes that there is a market for a new wrinkle on the old RAID technology. Our approach uses a storage organization we call unRAID(TM). unRAID(TM) is similar to RAID-4 in that for every n hard drives, there are n-1 data drives, and a single fixed parity drive. Unlike other RAID organizations, however, files are not striped across the data drives. Instead, each data drive is formatted normally with its own file system.