While I appreciate the work done by ATI and Nvidia to provide support for their Linux drivers, they really do need to either completely open source their drivers, or provide, as a bare minimum, a unified open source driver for both that while probably lacking some of the more advanced features and intellectual property will at least allow Linux users some formal 3D comfort.
Microsoft, with its bevy of trained IP lawyers and professional license-violation-hunters can't catch 99% of the license violaters out there; I'm not sure why you think the FSF's mostly volunteer group can do a better job. That's why the vigilance of the userbase at large is needed.
To avoid the GPL. I thought it was supposed to make things simpler, not have all of these caveats and 'gotchas'. I understand the next version of the GPL is supposed to eliminate these, but then there's the problem with dealing with multiple versions of the GPL.
I wonder if we're going to start getting stories on "Random Joe Programmer Violates the MS EULA".
The samurai class was far and above the simple ninja. In fact, they looked down on the ninja's lack of honor, class standing and inability to stand and fight.
Ninja is actually the art of bullshit. Seriously, the stories surrounding 'ninja' were part of the edge the ninja had. Talk up a good story, and no one will mess with you. Misdirection and cheap shots under the auspices of "quickest kill" led to its current incarnation.
Working in Marketing in a financial institution, I feel I have some experience with this and I can say with absolute certainty.
There is no PR value in switching to an Open Source product.
Let me say that again.
There is no PR value in switching to an Open Source product.
Clients do not care what your system runs on. They want the lowest interest rates, fast and friendly service, and low service fees. The more technologically inclined don't even care about the 'fast and friendly service' because they likely do most of their banking online, this is where some of the virtual banks like ING Direct are making a killing.
We do most of our development in house; our banking system is developed by a team of analysts, tested internally, released internally. Every banking system is different, customized to the needs of the institution and the requirements of the local laws (Which can differ drastically from place to place)
An open source professional-looking UI can't even be decided upon, why would you think an open-source professional-looking banking system (which has to be far more bullet-proof) would be any easier?
That's a specious argument. It's easy to say "He was emotionally unstable to begin with" when for all we know he could have been a bright well-adjusted kid. I certainly wasn't emotionally unstable in high school but this would have put me well over the edge.
Personally I don't see how $300,000 is going to make him sleep any better at night. There was a movement afoot to donate money to him to get him a iBook and some other merchandise; he was actually building up a fair chunk of donated change based on his performance in the video. When contacted about this, he was very put out and did not want to have anything to do with the video. The kid turned down FREE STUFF because of this video; I don't think it's hard to understand how devestating something like this would be for a kid his age.
I'll admit, I enjoyed the video because it's something I could have seen myself doing at that age. I sent it on to everyone I knew and we all got a good laugh out of it. Then come the millions of different versions, news coverage, etc etc. I felt sorry for him in the beginning, and I feel sorry for him now. Thanks Ghyslain, for the laugh. Sorry it had to come to this.
When you hear what his life was like after the fact. I doubt some of the more mal-adjusted/.ers would have a different reaction to being harassed 24/7 for something you didn't really want anyone to see. Let's not forget he's a kid; a nerdy, overweight kid (Much like many of us were). It's hard to live with that kind of notoriety so soon in life.
For the record: He had to drop out of school due to harassment. He still gets approached by people on the streets about it. His parents had to hire a private tutor for him. He ended up on anti-depression medication.
How is the arrogance of IT any worse than the ignorance of users that refuse to learn how to use the tools they need to do their jobs?
Because they have never and would never say that they could 'probably do an IT job better than the IT guy' whereas that doesn't seem to stop IT guys (Such as yourself, admittedly) from saying the opposite.
Your job isn't to make widgets as part of IT, your job is to make sure I have the infrastructure to sell the widgets that engineering made.
I did switch jobs; I moved out of working IT for the largest Telco in Canada and went to work for a financial institution in their marketing department; and oh boy did it open my eyes to the arrogance of IT folk in general, which judging from your last paragraph isn't necessarily incorrect.
Polite employees who don't talk down to the users in that "OH, you should understand this, it's so stupidly simple" tone. You don't understand Marketing, I don't understand Computers (Although I do probably more than they do)
More than once have I had to mediate a dispute between the IT department and the rest of the office because of their lack of communication and personal skills. An IT Ombudsman might not necessarily be a bad idea, someone who can talk tech but also talk business; but also just talk normal. The IT department works for the business, not the other way around.
Because you're apparently retarded, here's the jury panel evaluations:
Group (panelists) Brillian 720 JVC Consumer 720 Brillian 1080 eLCOS-JDSU JVC Professional 1080
Student (5) B+ B+ A- A- A-
Non-Technical (6) B A- A- A- A
Technical (6) B+ A- A- A- A
Home Theater (6) A- B+ A- A A
AV Professional (5) B B B+ B+ A
Video Expert (6) A- B- A- A- A+
Notice the difference in scores between the "Video Experts" opinion of the highend JVC compared to the low end JVC compared to everyone else's opinion (The only A+ of the test going to the most expensive TV and the only B- of the test going to the lowest-cost TV and both marks given out by the "Video Experts"). There's significant sway there suggesting that the 'experts' are swayed by something other than the quality of the picture.
Oh wait, the site is Slashdotted. I shouldn't be able to read the article (As you presume, although it seems you're the one not able to read it)
"The JVC Consumer unit scored highest with the consumer panelists and lowest with the Video Expert panelists"
Apparently there's a disconnect between the "Regular Joe's" and the "Experts". That was the point of the post, jackass. Try reading the article next time.
Experts also go into these reviews with their own 'professional' bias against specific companies, models and brands while a lay-consumer, like myself, doesn't care if it's a Hitachi, RCA, Samsung or Sony.
Regardless of HOW it gets a 'sharper picture', if it appears to be a sharper picture to my eyes, then of course it's going to get a higher score over something with possibly better technology that SHOULD create a sharper image but creates other problems in it's 'excellency.'
Do you buy a name brand TV that has all of the gizmos and gadgets to make it perfect, or do you buy the Walmart brand TV that looks good and sounds good (to your eyes anyways) until your TV expert friends comes in and poo-poos on everything?
Well, I'm sure glad you completely destroyed my presentation of factual evidence and marketing research with a personal anecdote. I agree that what you do is vastly more common than the thriving hordes of web-saavy generations. But, hey, keep on being paranoid, it seems to be working for you.
I work for a company (A Canadian credit union) as a web-master. While a more technologically-focussed person will likely use FireFox over Internet Explorer, I can give out with reasonable certainty, statistics that encompass a large sample size of people who fall across a broad spectrum of computer skill. Anyone with a bank account and the internet has likely at one time or another logged on to their bank to check out balances, pay bills, etc.
Looking at the statistics returned, I find: 90.89% use IE in all it's iterations (97.81% of that use IE6, less than 1% per each preceding version) 6.82% use a version of Mozilla (35.2% of that use 1.8, 29.48% use 1.7.12, 11% use 1.7.5) 1.26% use Safari.
We try to make sure that all customers have the ability to log in (It's kind of important)
Slashdot Mirror
While I appreciate the work done by ATI and Nvidia to provide support for their Linux drivers, they really do need to either completely open source their drivers, or provide, as a bare minimum, a unified open source driver for both that while probably lacking some of the more advanced features and intellectual property will at least allow Linux users some formal 3D comfort.
Microsoft, with its bevy of trained IP lawyers and professional license-violation-hunters can't catch 99% of the license violaters out there; I'm not sure why you think the FSF's mostly volunteer group can do a better job. That's why the vigilance of the userbase at large is needed.
Well, who can really police and enforce the GPL other than the myriad of users out there?
Freedom through obfuscation, I don't think so.
To avoid the GPL. I thought it was supposed to make things simpler, not have all of these caveats and 'gotchas'. I understand the next version of the GPL is supposed to eliminate these, but then there's the problem with dealing with multiple versions of the GPL.
I wonder if we're going to start getting stories on "Random Joe Programmer Violates the MS EULA".
"a ninja is just a job for a samurai"
Um, what?
The samurai class was far and above the simple ninja. In fact, they looked down on the ninja's lack of honor, class standing and inability to stand and fight.
You might want to drink more.
Ninja is actually the art of bullshit. Seriously, the stories surrounding 'ninja' were part of the edge the ninja had. Talk up a good story, and no one will mess with you. Misdirection and cheap shots under the auspices of "quickest kill" led to its current incarnation.
Working in Marketing in a financial institution, I feel I have some experience with this and I can say with absolute certainty.
There is no PR value in switching to an Open Source product.
Let me say that again.
There is no PR value in switching to an Open Source product.
Clients do not care what your system runs on. They want the lowest interest rates, fast and friendly service, and low service fees. The more technologically inclined don't even care about the 'fast and friendly service' because they likely do most of their banking online, this is where some of the virtual banks like ING Direct are making a killing.
We do most of our development in house; our banking system is developed by a team of analysts, tested internally, released internally. Every banking system is different, customized to the needs of the institution and the requirements of the local laws (Which can differ drastically from place to place)
An open source professional-looking UI can't even be decided upon, why would you think an open-source professional-looking banking system (which has to be far more bullet-proof) would be any easier?
That's a specious argument. It's easy to say "He was emotionally unstable to begin with" when for all we know he could have been a bright well-adjusted kid. I certainly wasn't emotionally unstable in high school but this would have put me well over the edge.
Personally I don't see how $300,000 is going to make him sleep any better at night. There was a movement afoot to donate money to him to get him a iBook and some other merchandise; he was actually building up a fair chunk of donated change based on his performance in the video. When contacted about this, he was very put out and did not want to have anything to do with the video. The kid turned down FREE STUFF because of this video; I don't think it's hard to understand how devestating something like this would be for a kid his age.
I'll admit, I enjoyed the video because it's something I could have seen myself doing at that age. I sent it on to everyone I knew and we all got a good laugh out of it. Then come the millions of different versions, news coverage, etc etc. I felt sorry for him in the beginning, and I feel sorry for him now. Thanks Ghyslain, for the laugh. Sorry it had to come to this.
"now we have a set of videos that allow people to laugh WITH the Star Wars Kid, not at him"
Obviously he's not laughing; thus you're not laughing WITH him, you're laughing AT him. Is that really hard to understand?
Just for the record, does it stop being kinda funny when he kills himself or does it become REALLY funny then?
When you hear what his life was like after the fact. I doubt some of the more mal-adjusted /.ers would have a different reaction to being harassed 24/7 for something you didn't really want anyone to see. Let's not forget he's a kid; a nerdy, overweight kid (Much like many of us were). It's hard to live with that kind of notoriety so soon in life.
For the record:
He had to drop out of school due to harassment.
He still gets approached by people on the streets about it.
His parents had to hire a private tutor for him.
He ended up on anti-depression medication.
It's not funny, don't laugh.
How is the arrogance of IT any worse than the ignorance of users that refuse to learn how to use the tools they need to do their jobs?
Because they have never and would never say that they could 'probably do an IT job better than the IT guy' whereas that doesn't seem to stop IT guys (Such as yourself, admittedly) from saying the opposite.
What's a moose?
Your job isn't to make widgets as part of IT, your job is to make sure I have the infrastructure to sell the widgets that engineering made.
I did switch jobs; I moved out of working IT for the largest Telco in Canada and went to work for a financial institution in their marketing department; and oh boy did it open my eyes to the arrogance of IT folk in general, which judging from your last paragraph isn't necessarily incorrect.
Polite employees who don't talk down to the users in that "OH, you should understand this, it's so stupidly simple" tone. You don't understand Marketing, I don't understand Computers (Although I do probably more than they do)
More than once have I had to mediate a dispute between the IT department and the rest of the office because of their lack of communication and personal skills. An IT Ombudsman might not necessarily be a bad idea, someone who can talk tech but also talk business; but also just talk normal. The IT department works for the business, not the other way around.
Here in BC, I don't think alcohol is the drug of choice...
Carcinogenic inks in the paper
Alcohol
Cigarettes
Vending Machines
Money
Pesticides on the grass
Asphalt roads
Air Conditioning
Natural Gas heating
Because you're apparently retarded, here's the jury panel evaluations:
Group (panelists) Brillian 720 JVC Consumer 720 Brillian 1080 eLCOS-JDSU JVC Professional 1080
Student (5) B+ B+ A- A- A-
Non-Technical (6) B A- A- A- A
Technical (6) B+ A- A- A- A
Home Theater (6) A- B+ A- A A
AV Professional (5) B B B+ B+ A
Video Expert (6) A- B- A- A- A+
Notice the difference in scores between the "Video Experts" opinion of the highend JVC compared to the low end JVC compared to everyone else's opinion (The only A+ of the test going to the most expensive TV and the only B- of the test going to the lowest-cost TV and both marks given out by the "Video Experts"). There's significant sway there suggesting that the 'experts' are swayed by something other than the quality of the picture.
Oh wait, the site is Slashdotted. I shouldn't be able to read the article (As you presume, although it seems you're the one not able to read it)
"The JVC Consumer unit scored highest with the consumer panelists and lowest with the Video Expert panelists"
Apparently there's a disconnect between the "Regular Joe's" and the "Experts". That was the point of the post, jackass. Try reading the article next time.
Experts also go into these reviews with their own 'professional' bias against specific companies, models and brands while a lay-consumer, like myself, doesn't care if it's a Hitachi, RCA, Samsung or Sony.
Regardless of HOW it gets a 'sharper picture', if it appears to be a sharper picture to my eyes, then of course it's going to get a higher score over something with possibly better technology that SHOULD create a sharper image but creates other problems in it's 'excellency.'
Do you buy a name brand TV that has all of the gizmos and gadgets to make it perfect, or do you buy the Walmart brand TV that looks good and sounds good (to your eyes anyways) until your TV expert friends comes in and poo-poos on everything?
Well, I'm sure glad you completely destroyed my presentation of factual evidence and marketing research with a personal anecdote. I agree that what you do is vastly more common than the thriving hordes of web-saavy generations. But, hey, keep on being paranoid, it seems to be working for you.
I wasn't aware that you had one of these machines installed in your house. I am intrigued by your ideas and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
I work for a company (A Canadian credit union) as a web-master.
While a more technologically-focussed person will likely use FireFox over Internet Explorer, I can give out with reasonable certainty, statistics that encompass a large sample size of people who fall across a broad spectrum of computer skill. Anyone with a bank account and the internet has likely at one time or another logged on to their bank to check out balances, pay bills, etc.
Looking at the statistics returned, I find:
90.89% use IE in all it's iterations
(97.81% of that use IE6, less than 1% per each preceding version)
6.82% use a version of Mozilla
(35.2% of that use 1.8, 29.48% use 1.7.12, 11% use 1.7.5)
1.26% use Safari.
We try to make sure that all customers have the ability to log in (It's kind of important)