It was probably MS that started this kind of hype for an OS; that may be their one claim to originality. Back before 1995, the idea that anyone would get amped up over an operating system release was absurd. I remember a friend telling me that when her family came in from India they were so curious about what this Windows 95 thing was that they had been hearing about.... until she explained that it was a computer disc!
If you're on OS X, the reasons for using VPC with anything other than windows are pretty slim since you're already on a unix machine and you could put linux on it directly if you really wanted to. But I could see this being useful for developers who want to work with tools in OS X but want to develop for x86. It's not unfair to say that's a growing number as more unix types discover os x. But why MS would go out of their way to intentionally alienate this particular minority of computer users is beyond me; it's not like that's going to somehow sell them more copies of windows. Also, it's not as if they're intentionally crippling VPC for *nix users (at least not yet?); they're just not going to "support" it. Either way it seems like a dumb move that just confirms more conspiracy theories about them without giving them any real advantage.
Why are there no more "OrangePC" options for the Mac? Remember when you could buy a processor on a PCI card, ram it in the box, and have a complete Intel-based installation right there in the same box? Why has nobody come out with a product like that in years? No matter how good VPC gets, there is no comparison between running hardware emulation in another OS and running it on real hardware.
It's much more than the lure of the forbidden. These documents don't only expose insecurity of the system and the potential for massive vote fraud; they expose evidence of illegal tampering in one election, and a callous attitude (to be generous) toward the implications of these security flaws for the public interest. Even worse, Diebold's response to the revealed flaws in their system and procedures was not to respond to the issues raised but rather to issue cease-and-desist orders. This is fundamentally about the democratic process, and there are good reasons to mirror these documents. The ultimate irony - and the thing that really makes me want to vomit - is that Diebold is also the company responsible for protecting the original Constitution, Bill of Rights, and Declaration of Independence.
Why isn't there a penguin assistant for OO? I make fun of the stupid paperclip in MS Office but at least they let you change it. When I had to use Windows 98 with Office 2000 I actually kind of liked having the little cat run around purring, and on the Mac I liked the dog, panting and smiling, I could imagine he was cheering me on as I typed, getting excited at my more insightful moments of composition...
at least for a week or so anyway. Then I turned the damn thing off.
Mirror linked here too. Ironic - and revolting - thing is that Diebold is also the company responsible for protecting the original Constitution, Declaration, and Bill of Rights.
The kid who left boxcutters in airplane restrooms also went to a Quaker college and was acting (or at least believed to be acting) in those traditions. And Pol Pot was a Buddhist. I'm not putting down what these guys are doing -- I support it wholeheartedly -- but I don't think we should be too deterministic about the relationship between religion and their brand of activism. Especially since (1) what they're doing is not technically civil disobedience, since they are probably not breaking the law, and (2) their activities are likely to be far more influenced by the culture of slashdot than the culture of Society of Friends.
if I type in an address in Los Angeles, Mapquest actually takes me to a page asking me whether I want California, Texas, or Puerto Rico. Is there a Wilshire Blvd in Puerto Rico?
the cost to switch to open source software, to train works to use the software, and to maintain it, is over 40% more expensive than the closed source counterpart costs to currently maintain and use.
But did they study the cost of upgrading the closed source counterpart, training, maintaining it, and cleaning up the messes made by viruses and worms that the closed source computers are more vulnerable to?
Actually, according to the article, it seems that cost analysis was exactly one of the reasons this policy is being pushed. Also, this is not a blanket policy against MS; it is a blanket policy of open source. If MS wants to open the source of some of their products then they have as much opportunity as anyone else to compete for Massachussetts' money.
The amazing thing is his argument is based on security; he asserts that commercialized root servers will be better for security. What is the evidence of that? Microsoft? He asserts that recent hacker attacks on the root servers (which took out 9 of them at once) were because they're at universities and (one of them) in the military, but offers no argument as to why commercial ownership would be better. The whole thing has the tone of, it's time to grow up and take the toys away from the little kids because they rightfully belong to us grownups, who will do better with them. His arrogance is beyond belief! And then he's got the nerve to point out that security is more important than philosophical debates about commercialization of the net. Well, duh, but the only thing he's got supporting his position is a philosophical assumption (without evidence) that commercial servers are more secure than publicly owned ones.
Slashdot Mirror
It was probably MS that started this kind of hype for an OS; that may be their one claim to originality. Back before 1995, the idea that anyone would get amped up over an operating system release was absurd. I remember a friend telling me that when her family came in from India they were so curious about what this Windows 95 thing was that they had been hearing about.... until she explained that it was a computer disc!
If you're on OS X, the reasons for using VPC with anything other than windows are pretty slim since you're already on a unix machine and you could put linux on it directly if you really wanted to. But I could see this being useful for developers who want to work with tools in OS X but want to develop for x86. It's not unfair to say that's a growing number as more unix types discover os x. But why MS would go out of their way to intentionally alienate this particular minority of computer users is beyond me; it's not like that's going to somehow sell them more copies of windows. Also, it's not as if they're intentionally crippling VPC for *nix users (at least not yet?); they're just not going to "support" it. Either way it seems like a dumb move that just confirms more conspiracy theories about them without giving them any real advantage.
Why are there no more "OrangePC" options for the Mac? Remember when you could buy a processor on a PCI card, ram it in the box, and have a complete Intel-based installation right there in the same box? Why has nobody come out with a product like that in years? No matter how good VPC gets, there is no comparison between running hardware emulation in another OS and running it on real hardware.
It's much more than the lure of the forbidden. These documents don't only expose insecurity of the system and the potential for massive vote fraud; they expose evidence of illegal tampering in one election, and a callous attitude (to be generous) toward the implications of these security flaws for the public interest. Even worse, Diebold's response to the revealed flaws in their system and procedures was not to respond to the issues raised but rather to issue cease-and-desist orders. This is fundamentally about the democratic process, and there are good reasons to mirror these documents. The ultimate irony - and the thing that really makes me want to vomit - is that Diebold is also the company responsible for protecting the original Constitution, Bill of Rights, and Declaration of Independence.
Considering we've already set the precedent for using unmanned flying vehicles to execute suspected terrorists (including a US citizen) from the sky.
Yeah it was David Byrne v. Edward Tufte. Byrnbe supported ppt whereas Tufte was on the right side (as you would expect).
And about half that was me re-downloading it because I kept messing up the install....
Why isn't there a penguin assistant for OO? I make fun of the stupid paperclip in MS Office but at least they let you change it. When I had to use Windows 98 with Office 2000 I actually kind of liked having the little cat run around purring, and on the Mac I liked the dog, panting and smiling, I could imagine he was cheering me on as I typed, getting excited at my more insightful moments of composition...
at least for a week or so anyway. Then I turned the damn thing off.
yeah... I can't wait to open a copy of an important document and find myself reading about somebody's wicked screensaver.
you can't run gimp on MacOS without x11.
Yeah I agree; MS Office had this functionality at least as far back as Office97.
*blink*
People actually *read* power point presentations?
I thought the whole point of those things was to hypnotize the audience so they don't realize you actually have nothing meaningful to say.
It is? So where the hell are the aliens?
Mirror linked here too. Ironic - and revolting - thing is that Diebold is also the company responsible for protecting the original Constitution, Declaration, and Bill of Rights.
The kid who left boxcutters in airplane restrooms also went to a Quaker college and was acting (or at least believed to be acting) in those traditions. And Pol Pot was a Buddhist. I'm not putting down what these guys are doing -- I support it wholeheartedly -- but I don't think we should be too deterministic about the relationship between religion and their brand of activism. Especially since (1) what they're doing is not technically civil disobedience, since they are probably not breaking the law, and (2) their activities are likely to be far more influenced by the culture of slashdot than the culture of Society of Friends.
Then why is it full of porn?
yeah but at least we'll have lots of music to listen to.
Oh. I thought you said our bodies would be kept in iPods.
slut: a girl who will fuck anyone.
bitch: a girl who will fuck anyone but me.
if I type in an address in Los Angeles, Mapquest actually takes me to a page asking me whether I want California, Texas, or Puerto Rico. Is there a Wilshire Blvd in Puerto Rico?
But did they study the cost of upgrading the closed source counterpart, training, maintaining it, and cleaning up the messes made by viruses and worms that the closed source computers are more vulnerable to?
Actually, according to the article, it seems that cost analysis was exactly one of the reasons this policy is being pushed. Also, this is not a blanket policy against MS; it is a blanket policy of open source. If MS wants to open the source of some of their products then they have as much opportunity as anyone else to compete for Massachussetts' money.
The amazing thing is his argument is based on security; he asserts that commercialized root servers will be better for security. What is the evidence of that? Microsoft? He asserts that recent hacker attacks on the root servers (which took out 9 of them at once) were because they're at universities and (one of them) in the military, but offers no argument as to why commercial ownership would be better. The whole thing has the tone of, it's time to grow up and take the toys away from the little kids because they rightfully belong to us grownups, who will do better with them. His arrogance is beyond belief! And then he's got the nerve to point out that security is more important than philosophical debates about commercialization of the net. Well, duh, but the only thing he's got supporting his position is a philosophical assumption (without evidence) that commercial servers are more secure than publicly owned ones.
Poor power companies. Actually, my electric bill during that period suggests they had no problem raising prices for consumers.
Read about it here.
how long does it take to copy a 17 M file from one folder to another?