It was kind of a 'meme'. Back in the early days when people were switching from DOS to Windows there were only really two decent word processors that ran on Windows -- 'Word for Windows' from Microsoft, and Ami. Ami was cool but was largely incompatible with everything that came before it. Word for Windows was able to read WordPerfect 4.x/5.x for DOS documents (which is what everyone previously standardized on in the DOS world) and would provide help for WordPerfect users, who of course were all lost in this new world of GUI.
Microsoft played it smart and catered to the business world. Unfortunately, WordPerfect for Windows came too late (mostly due to the fact that Microsoft used the 'synergy' between their apps group and their OS group that's been mentioned before in court) and Microsoft won.
Close enough. They're saying that for each home PC, you need applications foo, bar, and baz, and for each non-home PC you need applications foo pro, bar office and baz workstation. Total PCs = 100, 60 application sets were purchased, and for 40 of those machines, some or all of these applications were not purchased. Therefore those 40 must be running pirated software, accounting for replacement PCs and the like.
This does NOT take into account machines like mine which run 100% Open Source software, for instance. Also there is no realistic way to determine whether a machine was necessarily bought as a replacement or not, except through the use of surveys or whatnot. And just because a machine was purchased for non-home use doesn't mean it's going to have Office (or equivalent) on it, either. I have at least 13 non-home PCs sitting in the room next to me that don't have Office on them because they're used for CAD and not office productivity apps.
My original statement still stands -- just because there might be some sort of 'demand' for an application does NOT mean that that application will be purchased. Plain and simple.
They're similar, but with hax0ring, you yell "3y3 0wn j00!!!!11!!!1!" a lot, and the actual hacking part looks a lot like flying through a wireframe cityscape.
Phew. And here I was starting to think that the movie "Hackers" lacked actual basis in reality. At least they got *that* part right.;)
So, exactly where is your gibson, and how do I get to h4x0ring it?
If that's the case, then why don't we try something new..."slashdot" the piracy rate.
Ummm...NO. Let's NOT. That'll give them reason to go Congress and say "See? Software piracy is an EPIDEMIC! We need to have new laws that allow us to SPY on EVERYONE to ensure that there's no pirated software! The piracy rate is so high, the software industry is losing TRILLIONS of dollars."
The difference being; I'm not making a product / money off of my MP3 collection. I use it for my personal enjoyment, period. When people download high-end image / video / audio editing applications, there's a good chance that they've got monetary interests. If that's the case, why should they have the right to make money using pirated (not duly paid for) tools?
There are lots of people who *do* use some of those programs for personal enjoyment. Photoshop is one of them -- some serious amateur photographers/desktop publishers want to be able to edit their photos digitally 'just like the pros do.'
What about people who are pirating the software to learn? I know...ermmm...some people... who pirated professional software development packages when they were younger in order to learn software development to obtain employment skills, and later when he became employed as a developer he PAID for those tools by buying a full copy of the latest version. What about that guy?:)
Not only with that statement, but the very means they use to 'calcuate' the piracy rate. They're assuming a 39% piracy rate basically because 39% of people who demand (stated that they want to or will buy or who actually buy) software didn't buy a copy. They're assuming that EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THOSE PEOPLE is a pirate.
There's lots of stuff I want that I don't buy. For instance, I really, really want a decked-out 2 processor G4 Macintosh with all the goodies, 4 GB of RAM and 300 GB of Hard Drive space. But I haven't bought one. By their logic, I'm PIRATING that Macintosh right now.;)
I think allowing a corp to have legal status as an author is a huge mistake. Corporations are a legal method for encouraging investment, nothing more...
Who's the "author" of a movie? The screenwriter? The director?
Lots of works are done in aggregate. Who's the author of Windows NT? You might say Dave Cutler, but that ignores the contributes of hundreds of other Borg drones^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hpeople. Who's the author of the Linux kernel? If you say 'Linus Torvalds', you'll piss off a whole bunch of people such as Alan Cox and hundreds (thousands?) of other people who have contributed code.
Because a corporation can be an author and corporations can exist in perpetuity. In copyright law, the author and the copyright holder are essentially the same thing.
actually, Gates did say something similar, but the "640K ought to be enough for anyone!" quote itself is misquoted, and I could cite a source if I had the stupid book with me. Stephen Manes' and Paul Andrews' "Gates" has the actual quote in it, (if someone has the book could they please post it? mine's packed away. thanks.) And in all fairness, the quote is taken out of context...it was said in like 1980 or 1981 when people were coming off the CP/M-80 machines with 64K memory onto the brand spankin' new 16-bit 8088-based IBM PCs.
Not necessarily for music. Sometimes you want to be able to listen to other kinds of radio programs. For instance, where I work, I can't seem to get NPR to tune in very well, so I can't exactly listen to some NPR programming that goes on during the day. But with a TiVo-like system for radio, I could *record* those NPR programs *at home* (where the reception is perfectly fine) and play them back later. Of course, this also means that I can listen to the day programs better at home, and give it my more-or-less undivided attention.
Another application would be live audio recording. Take your portable radio TiVo thing and add a mic and boom -- live recording of concerts (if you can sneak it in of course;), or audio security, or set it up in a friend's apartment and spy on them.;)
Interesting comment coming from someone who has complained (journal) about how trolls are the scourge of Slashdot other blathering about the signal/noise ratio...
Ah well, anything for a mod point, right?
Ya know what? Yeah, trolls bug me sometimes, but sometimes their just downright funny. They're part of the community and you have to take the good with the bad.
The S/N ratio isn't just about trolls. it's also about quality posting. The quality of posts has tended to go down. One problem is the Slashdot groupthink. Post a story about Apple and you'll get 100 posts from Mac fanboys about how totally cool OS X (it just works, yada yada), how they love their tibooks, etc., another 100 posts arguing with the fanboys that Macs are too expensive, better price/performance ratio elsewhere, etc., another 50 posts about rumours of an x86-based OS X port and how Apple's gonna move to AMD or Intel, another 10 posts saying that BSD is dying, another 1-2 posts about how wonderful BeOS is ?!??!?, about 30 trolls, and some miscellaneous Gentoo Fanboys touting that Gentoo runs on PPC (?!?!?!)
The webcam will stream behind-the-scenes footage -- but no audio -- from "Star Wars Episode III," which starts shooting this month in Australia and is slated for release in the summer of 2005. "Star Wars" buffs won't be treated to actual scenes being shot, but they probably will watch Darth Vader eating in the cafeteria, space-station sets getting hammered into place and makeup artists touching up the face of Obi-Wan Kenobi. The webcam will be moved every day, shooting live for 12 hours and then replaying in a loop while the cast is sleeping.
Does this finally mean we'll get to see Natalie Portman naked and petrified as the rest of the cast threaten to pour hot grits all over her?;)
And as has been said many many times before, apple wil not make the switch until the absolutly have to - if they did that then every single application out there would have to be recompiled to run on x86, they wouldn't be able to write an emulator for the PPC chip on x86 because the chip instruction sets make it almost impossible to write a fast one.
What about a PPC chip on a PCI card? For people who absolutely NEED backward compatibility, this would be a solution.
I personally don't see the need for Apple to *switch* to the Intel/AMD processors, but rather *supplement* their existing line. The Intel/AMD line would be geared at luring Windows customers away -- a machine with a price competitve with major manufacturers like Dell and Hewlett Compaqard. A PPC card could be purchased for compatibility with existing closed-source PPC Mac apps. (Obviously, open source apps would just need a recompile as little or no porting would be necessary for most apps that already have been ported to the PPC-based OS X.)
Not to mention that an Intel/AMD based Mac could probably either dual boot OS X and Windows XP, or -- if Apple worked with the VMWare people (hint, hint, Apple) -- run Windows apps right on the OS X desktop.
Such a machine would get the unwashed masses to embrace Apple and (hopefully) Open Source software.
Huh?? If you look right here on the Postfix web pageI think you'll finds tons of documentations, howtos, and FAQs that are all pretty well written and were helpful when I was configuring postfix for the first time. Although, admittedly the sample config files are pretty straightforward for most applications you might not even need to read the docs. (Just don't tell the postfix guy I said that;)
Re:Cringley, Linus, and Christoph Hellwig
on
Today's SCO News
·
· Score: 1
But, of course, the subsystem isn't available on Win 95 and 98.
And this matters exactly why? Seriously, anybody who's going to use Cygwin nowadays is going to have the technical knowledge to know that Windows 9x/ME are crap, that and even a Pentium 200 with 128 MB of is actually plenty to run Windows NT or 2000, though I think the CPU and memory requirements are a bit higher for Windows XP. (I actually ran a laptop with this setup for a while -- needed a portable machine but didn't have the cash to get a new laptop so I got this thing for like US$150;)
Slashdot Mirror
They're hybrid 8/16 bit. They had an 8-bit databus but with full 16-bit addressing.
Remember that Slashdot adds spaces, so you have to use hyperlinks: Anti-anti-page-widening-troll link.
In addition, the insulation foam is encapsulated with a hard-coat, like the stuff these people in Florida make for movie props, architectural details, etc.. I'm a consultant for an environmental graphic design firm that uses this stuff extensively and I've seen it. The exterior is hard, so hard that it takes a LOT of force to break. So there's a lot more to this picture than a nerf ball.
For the humour impaired -- that was part of the joke.
It was kind of a 'meme'. Back in the early days when people were switching from DOS to Windows there were only really two decent word processors that ran on Windows -- 'Word for Windows' from Microsoft, and Ami. Ami was cool but was largely incompatible with everything that came before it. Word for Windows was able to read WordPerfect 4.x/5.x for DOS documents (which is what everyone previously standardized on in the DOS world) and would provide help for WordPerfect users, who of course were all lost in this new world of GUI.
Microsoft played it smart and catered to the business world. Unfortunately, WordPerfect for Windows came too late (mostly due to the fact that Microsoft used the 'synergy' between their apps group and their OS group that's been mentioned before in court) and Microsoft won.
Scalable Vector Graphics? *confused*
Yup - just like there's a plethora of essentially incompatible word processing formats - hampering the growth of the office/word processing market.
What plethora of formats? Everyone knows there's only the Word *.doc format!
..some scientists studying the "sinking" effect have noted CowboyNeal's recent move to Southampton.
Bill Gates has laughed it off in interviews, saying he said nothing of the sort. It's misattributed.
;)
And as we know, Bill Gates *always* tells the truth.
Close enough. They're saying that for each home PC, you need applications foo, bar, and baz, and for each non-home PC you need applications foo pro, bar office and baz workstation. Total PCs = 100, 60 application sets were purchased, and for 40 of those machines, some or all of these applications were not purchased. Therefore those 40 must be running pirated software, accounting for replacement PCs and the like.
This does NOT take into account machines like mine which run 100% Open Source software, for instance. Also there is no realistic way to determine whether a machine was necessarily bought as a replacement or not, except through the use of surveys or whatnot. And just because a machine was purchased for non-home use doesn't mean it's going to have Office (or equivalent) on it, either. I have at least 13 non-home PCs sitting in the room next to me that don't have Office on them because they're used for CAD and not office productivity apps.
My original statement still stands -- just because there might be some sort of 'demand' for an application does NOT mean that that application will be purchased. Plain and simple.
They're similar, but with hax0ring, you yell "3y3 0wn j00!!!!11!!!1!" a lot, and the actual hacking part looks a lot like flying through a wireframe cityscape.
;)
Phew. And here I was starting to think that the movie "Hackers" lacked actual basis in reality. At least they got *that* part right.
So, exactly where is your gibson, and how do I get to h4x0ring it?
If that's the case, then why don't we try something new..."slashdot" the piracy rate.
... ;)
Ummm...NO. Let's NOT. That'll give them reason to go Congress and say "See? Software piracy is an EPIDEMIC! We need to have new laws that allow us to SPY on EVERYONE to ensure that there's no pirated software! The piracy rate is so high, the software industry is losing TRILLIONS of dollars."
Not that they haven't already done that
The difference being; I'm not making a product / money off of my MP3 collection. I use it for my personal enjoyment, period. When people download high-end image / video / audio editing applications, there's a good chance that they've got monetary interests. If that's the case, why should they have the right to make money using pirated (not duly paid for) tools?
:)
There are lots of people who *do* use some of those programs for personal enjoyment. Photoshop is one of them -- some serious amateur photographers/desktop publishers want to be able to edit their photos digitally 'just like the pros do.'
What about people who are pirating the software to learn? I know...ermmm...some people... who pirated professional software development packages when they were younger in order to learn software development to obtain employment skills, and later when he became employed as a developer he PAID for those tools by buying a full copy of the latest version. What about that guy?
Not only with that statement, but the very means they use to 'calcuate' the piracy rate. They're assuming a 39% piracy rate basically because 39% of people who demand (stated that they want to or will buy or who actually buy) software didn't buy a copy. They're assuming that EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THOSE PEOPLE is a pirate.
;)
There's lots of stuff I want that I don't buy. For instance, I really, really want a decked-out 2 processor G4 Macintosh with all the goodies, 4 GB of RAM and 300 GB of Hard Drive space. But I haven't bought one. By their logic, I'm PIRATING that Macintosh right now.
I think allowing a corp to have legal status as an author is a huge mistake. Corporations are a legal method for encouraging investment, nothing more...
Who's the "author" of a movie? The screenwriter? The director?
Lots of works are done in aggregate. Who's the author of Windows NT? You might say Dave Cutler, but that ignores the contributes of hundreds of other Borg drones^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hpeople. Who's the author of the Linux kernel? If you say 'Linus Torvalds', you'll piss off a whole bunch of people such as Alan Cox and hundreds (thousands?) of other people who have contributed code.
Because a corporation can be an author and corporations can exist in perpetuity.
In copyright law, the author and the copyright holder are essentially the same thing.
When I say 'post it' I mean the quote, not the book. (Just what I need, to encourage someone to crapflood Slashdot by posting the entire book. ;)
actually, Gates did say something similar, but the "640K ought to be enough for anyone!" quote itself is misquoted, and I could cite a source if I had the stupid book with me. Stephen Manes' and Paul Andrews' "Gates" has the actual quote in it, (if someone has the book could they please post it? mine's packed away. thanks.) And in all fairness, the quote is taken out of context...it was said in like 1980 or 1981 when people were coming off the CP/M-80 machines with 64K memory onto the brand spankin' new 16-bit 8088-based IBM PCs.
Not necessarily for music. Sometimes you want to be able to listen to other kinds of radio programs. For instance, where I work, I can't seem to get NPR to tune in very well, so I can't exactly listen to some NPR programming that goes on during the day. But with a TiVo-like system for radio, I could *record* those NPR programs *at home* (where the reception is perfectly fine) and play them back later. Of course, this also means that I can listen to the day programs better at home, and give it my more-or-less undivided attention.
;), or audio security, or set it up in a friend's apartment and spy on them. ;)
Another application would be live audio recording. Take your portable radio TiVo thing and add a mic and boom -- live recording of concerts (if you can sneak it in of course
Interesting comment coming from someone who has complained (journal) about how trolls are the scourge of Slashdot other blathering about the signal/noise ratio...
Ah well, anything for a mod point, right?
Ya know what? Yeah, trolls bug me sometimes, but sometimes their just downright funny. They're part of the community and you have to take the good with the bad.
The S/N ratio isn't just about trolls. it's also about quality posting. The quality of posts has tended to go down. One problem is the Slashdot groupthink. Post a story about Apple and you'll get 100 posts from Mac fanboys about how totally cool OS X (it just works, yada yada), how they love their tibooks, etc., another 100 posts arguing with the fanboys that Macs are too expensive, better price/performance ratio elsewhere, etc., another 50 posts about rumours of an x86-based OS X port and how Apple's gonna move to AMD or Intel, another 10 posts saying that BSD is dying, another 1-2 posts about how wonderful BeOS is ?!??!?, about 30 trolls, and some miscellaneous Gentoo Fanboys touting that Gentoo runs on PPC (?!?!?!)
I mean, quite frankly it's ridiculous.
THX-certified, of course.
The webcam will stream behind-the-scenes footage -- but no audio -- from "Star Wars Episode III," which starts shooting this month in Australia and is slated for release in the summer of 2005. "Star Wars" buffs won't be treated to actual scenes being shot, but they probably will watch Darth Vader eating in the cafeteria, space-station sets getting hammered into place and makeup artists touching up the face of Obi-Wan Kenobi. The webcam will be moved every day, shooting live for 12 hours and then replaying in a loop while the cast is sleeping.
;)
Does this finally mean we'll get to see Natalie Portman naked and petrified as the rest of the cast threaten to pour hot grits all over her?
And as has been said many many times before, apple wil not make the switch until the absolutly have to - if they did that then every single application out there would have to be recompiled to run on x86, they wouldn't be able to write an emulator for the PPC chip on x86 because the chip instruction sets make it almost impossible to write a fast one.
What about a PPC chip on a PCI card? For people who absolutely NEED backward compatibility, this would be a solution.
I personally don't see the need for Apple to *switch* to the Intel/AMD processors, but rather *supplement* their existing line. The Intel/AMD line would be geared at luring Windows customers away -- a machine with a price competitve with major manufacturers like Dell and Hewlett Compaqard. A PPC card could be purchased for compatibility with existing closed-source PPC Mac apps. (Obviously, open source apps would just need a recompile as little or no porting would be necessary for most apps that already have been ported to the PPC-based OS X.)
Not to mention that an Intel/AMD based Mac could probably either dual boot OS X and Windows XP, or -- if Apple worked with the VMWare people (hint, hint, Apple) -- run Windows apps right on the OS X desktop.
Such a machine would get the unwashed masses to embrace Apple and (hopefully) Open Source software.
One can only dream....
Huh?? If you look right here on the Postfix web pageI think you'll finds tons of documentations, howtos, and FAQs that are all pretty well written and were helpful when I was configuring postfix for the first time. Although, admittedly the sample config files are pretty straightforward for most applications you might not even need to read the docs. (Just don't tell the postfix guy I said that ;)
But, of course, the subsystem isn't available on Win 95 and 98.
;)
And this matters exactly why? Seriously, anybody who's going to use Cygwin nowadays is going to have the technical knowledge to know that Windows 9x/ME are crap, that and even a Pentium 200 with 128 MB of is actually plenty to run Windows NT or 2000, though I think the CPU and memory requirements are a bit higher for Windows XP. (I actually ran a laptop with this setup for a while -- needed a portable machine but didn't have the cash to get a new laptop so I got this thing for like US$150