I'm no eco-head, nor am I trolling here, but everything will impact the ecosystem in one or more ways.
In the case of genetically engineered trees, how does one such tree (parts, stuff, etc.) biodegrading affect the environment? Will that spur some fun new super-efficient/robust termite evolution?:)
But a more important question (and more on topic), how many of these fish does a cat need to ingest to get the cat to glow?
I have quite a bit of personal experience with collectors.
First off, when a collection agency gets your "debt", they send you a letter stating the amount, some of their bs, and a notice that you have 30 days to dispute the amount. You dispute it, claiming (truthfully) that you didn't have the service you were being charged for. Then it's their responsibility to get full accounting of the issue from the original "creditor". If that never happens, the account is dropped. If it does happen, you do some back and forth until the truth is shown.
Now as for the threat of Speakeasy countersuing, that's bs. They can't sue you for their costs in defending and losing the case you bring against them.
And lastly, if someone were to take you to court over some amount they believed they were due (rare for small $), the most they can get is a civil judgement. Then they still have to try to collect that.
Now, I'm no lawyer, but I've been back and forth about this kind of crap with someone who is a lawyer. Make friends with some lawyers. They need PC advice/tech support, and you need occasional advice:)
It's a fairly minor deal to file a claim in small claims court, and it will definitely get their attention.
They'd have to pay a lawyer much more than the $182 to even address the issue if you file a claim.
And when they want to settle, it is your right to settle for the amount + court and filing fees + attorney's fees (assuming you get legal advice/help).
Outsourcing all your IT and development departments to India isn't a proven way to save money, but most big companies are blindly jumping onto that bandwagon.
I think you may be surprised to see some key large companies taking the plunge next year. As you pointed out, MS licensing (and the BSA mentioned in other posts) will likely be the straw, so to speak.
Look, if Linux desktop is good enough for many governments and a few decent sized companies, and IBM and Novell (big, mostly trusted companies) are staking their futures on it, then it will happen.
I predict this will lead to US Windows licenses dropping to 50$, CALs dropping to 20$, and more free MS licenses for more groups (non profits, churches, schools).
One answer is to innundate the MPAA/Big Brother with phony shared files (in a way that won't cost us bandwidth).
Rather than creating random files with movie names and putting them on FTP, you modify your sharing system (FTP, P2P, etc.) to present 0 size files in a certain (movie) directory as being the correct file size. Then you deny downloading of them, ostensibly due to "too many connections", so it cannot be determined that the file is NOT real.
Then the MPAA is left to believe that the files are real, and thus you would be a target.
That MS is completely and utterly deluded (and/or out of touch).
At least if Linux takes off, their viruses will propagate and we won't be seen as the bad guys any more.
That suggestion has already been debunked many times. Linux is inherently more secure than Windows
We haven't talked to a single user who has said they're using [open source] because it's better.
If it's not obvious to MS by now, people don't use Linux typically because it has more features, or because its applications are more integrated (or many of the other benefits that MS touts about its sofware). People use Linux because... it's easier to administer and support (esp remotely), it's more secure by default, it's more stable, it's faster, and so on and so on.
Of course, I would characterize those benefits as making linux "better", but that's just me.
That may be, but the most common form of media bias is the choice of what news to run.
Obviously this report can be debunked easily, but still CNN chose to run in. In addition, they conveniently displayed a bunch of other RIAA-affirmative "stories" on the sidebar.
Big companies obviously have money to spend on technology - they've been spending gobs of it on MS and/or Unix.
There's no secret to where RedHat wants to be... "Enterprise". They're further separating their "free" product from their "real" product, and that will add legitimacy to their real (enterprise) product.
Nope, didn't know that, but it doesn't surprise me.
However, it's been called Coke 'round here for decades before CiCi's came around.
Coke may have been doing it back then, but I'm more likely to believe that since they were one of the oldest, best known fizzy drinks that their name just came to represent soft drinks.
That's like Kleenex being used to refer to tissues in general. There are lots of other examples that escape me right now.
They have always sold the XBox at a loss, so why not Windows?:P
Actually considering their overall profit margin of 80%, it seems likely that selling at a loss in Vietnam could be a good long term bet because it would further entrench Windows.
But keeping gray market sales from happening in the US would definitely be a problem. One solution would be to provide activation keys for Vietnam that could not be used in America, and given the IP of the person registering, there's a good chance they could determine that simply.
Since according to the article, Windows costs $140 on average there, and the average annual income of people in Vietnam is $420, I think it should be clear why they're not paying for it.
MS could have prevented this in the first place had it adjusted prices accordingly for different countries. If it were $25 or even $50, the piracy rate could be controlled better. But the Vietnam govt knows it has NO chance of reducing piracy when its people just cannot pay the price.
So the pragmatic solution is to mandate an alternative (one that has very low cost in this case). Sorry to the Liberitarians, but some government mandates/regulations are good for people.
Linux is the premier OSS product as far as most of the world is concerned.
It's like Coke being just another carbonated gut-rot drink, one of many, but many people generically refer to all pop as "Coke".
And for the GNU/Linux fans, sorry. Just be proud that GNU is the secret sauce of Linux. But don't expect Joe Sixpack to refer to _the operating system_ as GNU/Linux.
Look, if disabling that service was a normal step in the installation of the AOL client software, nobody would be screaming "hack!"
But since this is being done, presumably by exercising some remote control (backdoor) feature of the AOL client software some time after installation, this is considered hacking.
You miss my point though. Whether or not it's ok for people/companies to do white hat hacking is not the issue (and besides, the answer to that question is not black or white, no pun intended). This is about the lowest common denominator service performing an almost universally beneficial change to its users PCs in order to both protect the user and to stop complaints about a problem created by Microsoft. It's a simple business decision that essentially does no harm.
You have to look at these issues case by case.
Now, perhaps AOL should have presented the user with some lengthy announcement about their intentions, and then allowed the user to opt out of the change.
You go explain to the typical AOL user how to do this:)
I have personal experience with quite a few AOL users. Many of them cannot give you their email address three times and get the address correct more than once.
Again, this is not to slam AOL users. It's just that apparently computers and software are very nearly beyond their current grasp.
So clearly these are not people who can be expected to block ports or manually disable services.
When you have the single largest group of ignorant users in the world, how do you educate them to protect themselves from the MS problems?
I bet AOL did this due to constant complaints from susbscribers about AOL "allowing" or "sending" them popups.
I also bet there's a clause in the AOL agreement (which AOL subscribers have agreed to) that either explicitly allows AOL to configure your computer, or allows them to change their policy at any time, thus allowing that by proxy.
Slashdot Mirror
More importantly, what do I need to do to get ME to glow? Please limit answers to non-lethal solutions :)
I'm no eco-head, nor am I trolling here, but everything will impact the ecosystem in one or more ways.
:)
In the case of genetically engineered trees, how does one such tree (parts, stuff, etc.) biodegrading affect the environment? Will that spur some fun new super-efficient/robust termite evolution?
But a more important question (and more on topic), how many of these fish does a cat need to ingest to get the cat to glow?
I have quite a bit of personal experience with collectors.
:)
First off, when a collection agency gets your "debt", they send you a letter stating the amount, some of their bs, and a notice that you have 30 days to dispute the amount. You dispute it, claiming (truthfully) that you didn't have the service you were being charged for. Then it's their responsibility to get full accounting of the issue from the original "creditor". If that never happens, the account is dropped. If it does happen, you do some back and forth until the truth is shown.
Now as for the threat of Speakeasy countersuing, that's bs. They can't sue you for their costs in defending and losing the case you bring against them.
And lastly, if someone were to take you to court over some amount they believed they were due (rare for small $), the most they can get is a civil judgement. Then they still have to try to collect that.
Now, I'm no lawyer, but I've been back and forth about this kind of crap with someone who is a lawyer. Make friends with some lawyers. They need PC advice/tech support, and you need occasional advice
It's a fairly minor deal to file a claim in small claims court, and it will definitely get their attention.
They'd have to pay a lawyer much more than the $182 to even address the issue if you file a claim.
And when they want to settle, it is your right to settle for the amount + court and filing fees + attorney's fees (assuming you get legal advice/help).
Outsourcing all your IT and development departments to India isn't a proven way to save money, but most big companies are blindly jumping onto that bandwagon.
I think you may be surprised to see some key large companies taking the plunge next year. As you pointed out, MS licensing (and the BSA mentioned in other posts) will likely be the straw, so to speak.
Look, if Linux desktop is good enough for many governments and a few decent sized companies, and IBM and Novell (big, mostly trusted companies) are staking their futures on it, then it will happen.
I predict this will lead to US Windows licenses dropping to 50$, CALs dropping to 20$, and more free MS licenses for more groups (non profits, churches, schools).
My parent post is no more off-topic than the harvard know-it-all's incorrect parent post, to which I responded.
You mods are on fucking crack. Besides, my comment was valid.
Can you recommend LCDs that produce most accurate color (for professional digital photography)?
:)
Thanks
197F may be an optimal brewing temp, but it sure as hell isn't optimal for drinking.
I would love to see you take something more than a thin sip at 197 degrees.
But hey, you should get mod points for the link you provided. It's far more interesting than this link here about actual coffee drinking temperatures.
Beats me...
/. moderation can be.
Just goes to show you how utterly worthless
One answer is to innundate the MPAA/Big Brother with phony shared files (in a way that won't cost us bandwidth).
Rather than creating random files with movie names and putting them on FTP, you modify your sharing system (FTP, P2P, etc.) to present 0 size files in a certain (movie) directory as being the correct file size. Then you deny downloading of them, ostensibly due to "too many connections", so it cannot be determined that the file is NOT real.
Then the MPAA is left to believe that the files are real, and thus you would be a target.
I Say Storage
That MS is completely and utterly deluded (and/or out of touch).
At least if Linux takes off, their viruses will propagate and we won't be seen as the bad guys any more.
That suggestion has already been debunked many times. Linux is inherently more secure than Windows
We haven't talked to a single user who has said they're using [open source] because it's better.
If it's not obvious to MS by now, people don't use Linux typically because it has more features, or because its applications are more integrated (or many of the other benefits that MS touts about its sofware). People use Linux because... it's easier to administer and support (esp remotely), it's more secure by default, it's more stable, it's faster, and so on and so on.
Of course, I would characterize those benefits as making linux "better", but that's just me.
(no offense)
We don't need laws specifically to protect research. That's bass-ackwards.
We need the ultra-restrictive corporate-enriching laws eliminated.
That may be, but the most common form of media bias is the choice of what news to run.
Obviously this report can be debunked easily, but still CNN chose to run in. In addition, they conveniently displayed a bunch of other RIAA-affirmative "stories" on the sidebar.
Big companies obviously have money to spend on technology - they've been spending gobs of it on MS and/or Unix.
There's no secret to where RedHat wants to be... "Enterprise". They're further separating their "free" product from their "real" product, and that will add legitimacy to their real (enterprise) product.
Nope, didn't know that, but it doesn't surprise me.
However, it's been called Coke 'round here for decades before CiCi's came around.
Coke may have been doing it back then, but I'm more likely to believe that since they were one of the oldest, best known fizzy drinks that their name just came to represent soft drinks.
That's like Kleenex being used to refer to tissues in general. There are lots of other examples that escape me right now.
They have always sold the XBox at a loss, so why not Windows? :P
Actually considering their overall profit margin of 80%, it seems likely that selling at a loss in Vietnam could be a good long term bet because it would further entrench Windows.
But keeping gray market sales from happening in the US would definitely be a problem. One solution would be to provide activation keys for Vietnam that could not be used in America, and given the IP of the person registering, there's a good chance they could determine that simply.
chuckle. I read "NGUYEN", I didn't catch the modified spelling :)
I DON'T GET THE JOKE...
Since according to the article, Windows costs $140 on average there, and the average annual income of people in Vietnam is $420, I think it should be clear why they're not paying for it.
MS could have prevented this in the first place had it adjusted prices accordingly for different countries. If it were $25 or even $50, the piracy rate could be controlled better. But the Vietnam govt knows it has NO chance of reducing piracy when its people just cannot pay the price.
So the pragmatic solution is to mandate an alternative (one that has very low cost in this case). Sorry to the Liberitarians, but some government mandates/regulations are good for people.
Linux is the premier OSS product as far as most of the world is concerned.
It's like Coke being just another carbonated gut-rot drink, one of many, but many people generically refer to all pop as "Coke".
And for the GNU/Linux fans, sorry. Just be proud that GNU is the secret sauce of Linux. But don't expect Joe Sixpack to refer to _the operating system_ as GNU/Linux.
Look, if disabling that service was a normal step in the installation of the AOL client software, nobody would be screaming "hack!"
But since this is being done, presumably by exercising some remote control (backdoor) feature of the AOL client software some time after installation, this is considered hacking.
You miss my point though. Whether or not it's ok for people/companies to do white hat hacking is not the issue (and besides, the answer to that question is not black or white, no pun intended). This is about the lowest common denominator service performing an almost universally beneficial change to its users PCs in order to both protect the user and to stop complaints about a problem created by Microsoft. It's a simple business decision that essentially does no harm.
You have to look at these issues case by case.
Now, perhaps AOL should have presented the user with some lengthy announcement about their intentions, and then allowed the user to opt out of the change.
Heh, ok, I misunderstood.
Although it seems simpler to disable a service than block ports. At least it's techincally simpler.
Pretty simple huh...
:)
You go explain to the typical AOL user how to do this
I have personal experience with quite a few AOL users. Many of them cannot give you their email address three times and get the address correct more than once.
Again, this is not to slam AOL users. It's just that apparently computers and software are very nearly beyond their current grasp.
So clearly these are not people who can be expected to block ports or manually disable services.
When you have the single largest group of ignorant users in the world, how do you educate them to protect themselves from the MS problems?
I bet AOL did this due to constant complaints from susbscribers about AOL "allowing" or "sending" them popups.
I also bet there's a clause in the AOL agreement (which AOL subscribers have agreed to) that either explicitly allows AOL to configure your computer, or allows them to change their policy at any time, thus allowing that by proxy.