No, but maybe that is because the site operator may have provided no guidance before and the site got out of control. Take a look at the other links in the Forbes article. None of these site carry an injuction against anything that has been posted and I would guess that is because the moderator takes action against unsubstantiated charges and obviously libelous materials.
This is the crux of it. RSS are no longer "fighting the good fight". The poster I originally replied to implied that RSS had all but won the suit bought against them by RS. It is quite clear that they did no such thing. They caved, and now they operate a site that is at least severely curtailed in terms of their original purpose, and at most virtually pro-RS. The RS lawyers got what they wanted. They won. Are you really debating that?
None of the other sites on the Forbes list are so weak in their stand against the companies they stand against. In terms of Forbes' scoring, I'd give RSS:
Ease Of Use - 2 - You have to log in to even view the "Against Radio Shack" forum.
Updates - 4 - The discussion boards seem active, at least.
# Of Posts - 3 - A reasonable number of posts.
Hostility Level - 1 - From what I can see there is no hostility. In fact it seems to be forbidden by the site's rules.
Relevance - 1 - RadioShack employees complaining about customers? How is that relevant to an anti-RadioShack site?
Entertainment Value - 1 - Who wants to go to "RadioShackSucks" and then see pro-RS stuff?
If FF is going to eat up 100MB of RAM to open Gmail, fine. Assuming nothing happens except for their refresh interval (which I think is 5 minutes), when I get back the next day I expect it to be at 100MB. It's as simple as that.
That's how it works here. I've had gmail open in Firefox for about 4 days, along with 5-6 other tabs and Firefox is using 120MB. It doesn't seem to be increasing.
Um, I don't see it that way. I think they are still operating the site, with the URL RadioShackSucks.com.
They're operating the site, yes, but not in the way they were. For one thing there are "for" and "against" forums. There's a forum for employees to complain about customers! I'm pretty sure that wasn't the case before they got slapped down. For another, they have to show all visitors the court agreement that states "Defendant RSS represents to the Court that RadioShack is entitled to the permanent injunctive relief sought". I.e. RSS caved to RS' demands, short of shutting down entirely. Note also their rule:
No libelous remarks or "flaming" towards anyone, unless they can be verified with a link to a legitimate news source or court case.
So you can't post anything disparraging to RS unless you can back it up with a link to a news story or court case. Your own experiences with RS are not for discussion if they can be construed to be libelous.
Take a look at the threads in "Customer Complaints". One is an open apology from a customer who acted badly. Another is a post making fun of someones complaint against RS to the BBB. There are only five threads, including the admin one. Maybe the "Against Radio Shack" forum is better, but I wouldn't know because you have to be registered just to view it.
Do you really think RSS are operating the site in the same way they were before the suit?
The only thing they are prohibited from doing is what is already illegal anyhow.
Really? They can't organise or even link to any further class action suits, but that's not illegal.
RSS was instrumental in organizing a class action against RadioShack, and in response RadioShack tried to lawyer them to death.
Looks like they pretty much suceeded. RSS have agreed to be "restrained from soliciting clients on behalf of, or providing hyperlinks to, any law firm to persue legal claims against RadioShack", to not "defame RadioShack or its employees (this includes a prohibition against posting pictures of any RadioShack employees)", to "require all visitors to such website relating to RadioShack to first click through and agree to abide by the terms of this Agreed Judgement and Permanent Injunction before entering such site", and a bunch of other clauses.
Well... no mention of anything new - just point releases. Big talking up of Linux compatibility (the L in 5L). Plenty of mention of migrating from Solaris to Linux (e.g. here), nothing about migrating to AIX (they mention upgrades, but not migration). The whole Project Monterey thing, now defunct. To me it all says IBM aren't much interested in AIX.
No, IBM did not. They made that money off of support, not development.
Development leads to support. You can't support what doesn't exist. Develop the software, release it under the GPL, then provide support.
Re:A one time try is all that's needed for success
on
The Case for FreeBSD
·
· Score: 1
I just saw your journal entry mentioning TV-capture:
I've captured the more interesting matches, using mencoder, and my very very cheap capture card (PlayTV MPEG II). Image quality is excellent. On my amd xp 2400+ I can capture into 528:396/1500Kb/s mpeg4(divx)avi, if I don't do anything else.
Just thought I'd mention that you should be able get better resolution than that. I'm running MythTV under Linux on a XP 2400+, and I can record two 576x576 MPEG4 streams simultaneously (2 capture cards) at about 95% cpu. I've got the "bitrate"
set to 4400. Not sure whether that's Kb/s or what. I record the audio unencoded and then convert to mp3 later. Recording a single source I can do 768x576 at the same bitrate with mp3 audio and it still only hits about 50% cpu usage.
Certainly sounds like their dubious claim is worth 12%, eh? Does anybody think this is legitimate, and shouldn't be laughed out of court ASAP? Basically, they can't even be bothered to formulate their case well - the article is actually worth reading in this case, if only for a chuckle.
These guys are clowns. There is no way 12% of gross can be considered reasonable. And the fact that they state their demands publically - when has an IP claimant ever stated their proposed licensing terms in public? Laughable.
Google did not index my outlook mailbox at all. Unless this is a new feature.
It's not. Most likely you haven't got it switched on.
I should also mention that Outlook did not present me with any context sensitive ads. I guess GDS is great if you complain about the lack of advertisments embedded in your personal data.
And neither does GDS. Are you just trolling?
So far, thats the only feature I see that it has. Ads.
How about simultaneous search of email, text file, Office documents, AOL IMs, and browser history? Oh, and no ads.
Aside "speed", and really, searching even a completely full 80 gig HDD by walking through every file/dir with a simple VBScript doesn't take more than a couple minutes.
Google search doesnt (the version I tried) index the mailbox.pst file. Maybe it does now. My.pst file is 724,304KB at the moment.
Google Desktop Search has searched email since it was first available. There is no version that can't search email. Are you sure you haven't got the email search turned off (right click the icon in the task bar, choose preferences).
So searching all my email for all references to a particular product takes... 29 seconds for a full text search. Less than two for a subject line only search.
A search for a single word on my outlook inbox (6000 emails) takes at least a couple of minutes. And it only searches email, GDS searches both email and all indexed files in less time.
If it works, then maybe that's something useful. Frankly though, 29 seconds isn't going to break me.
Apparently it works for everyone else. And 29 seconds isn't a fair comparison - you've got to add the time required to do a full filesystem search as well, including time spent getting to the two different searches in the interfaces.
Why aren't cancer rates much higher in nations with significantly more cell phones/coverage- say, Japan for example?
Why hasn't brain cancer increased in the last 20 years as cell phone usage has gone from near zero to a major percentage of the population? I also don't hear much about "cancer of the hip"...
A few months ago the chairman of the UK's National Radiological Protection Board (Professor Sir William Stewart) warned against cell phone use by children (story). A Swedish study cited in that story found that acoustic neuromas are twice as common in mobile phone users, and four times as common on the side of the head where the phone was held. Additionaly brain tumours are becoming more common -- the UK Brain Tumour Society says that incidence has increased by 45 per cent in 30 years. Just because you haven't heard of an increase in cancer rates doesn't mean that rates haven't increased.
I do NOT understnnd why he won't just fork off 2.7. ...
Linux 2.4, the last stable kernel, has had 29 versions as of this post. Admittedly, the chaos of the first 10 or 11 releases were from exactly the same kind of stupidity we're seeing now, development continuing in the 'stable' branch.
Since 2.4.11, there have been EIGHTEEN PATCHES to get 2.4 to the relative stability it's at now, and even so, it's still not as good as 2.2 on a lot of hardware.
Has it occurred to you that having a big development cycle (2.3) caused the instability with 2.4, and that's what Linus is trying to avoid by not forking 2.7? The problem with big development branches is that there are not enough people testing them.
The use of the word "tax" is very misleading here. It will most likely come to us in the form of a membership fee for their website/p2p-app that gives us access to the media.
It seems obvious that's the way it should be done, but the proposal in the article said "either a compulsory levy on all households or even on ownership of PCs as well as TVs". That definitely sounds like a tax.
A legal loophole highlighted by the communications regulator Ofcom means that viewers could watch television and listen to radio over the internet and mobile devices free, potentially costing the BBC millions of pounds in licence fees.
Um, so who's forcing the BBC to provide content for free on the net? And how is this justification for a tax on anyone who owns a computer, whether they use it to access BBC content or not? What about companies, do they have to pay? Surely it would make more sense for the BBC to simply starting charging for online content they feel they need to? That way they could get money out of non-British citizens accessing the content too.
Although Ed seems to prefer Media Center I don't think this is "propoganda." It's a fair comparison and his opinion.
The author didn't really seem to be evaluating the Tivo though. He was simply replying to someone else's list of Tivo features with "yes, but the MCE can do the same better". With products like these it's often the little things that make the difference and there wasn't much discussion of that. Given that the author has used the three products, I was hoping that there would be a fair bit more indepth comparison of the strengths and weaknesses of each product, rather than the "rah, rah, MCE is great" tone the article ended up taking on. I wanted to know how the author felt about the overall experience of using each product, and there wasn't much of that.
And the lack of price context is a unfortunate, as you mentioned.
Slashdot Mirror
None of the other sites on the Forbes list are so weak in their stand against the companies they stand against. In terms of Forbes' scoring, I'd give RSS:
Ease Of Use - 2 - You have to log in to even view the "Against Radio Shack" forum.
Updates - 4 - The discussion boards seem active, at least.
# Of Posts - 3 - A reasonable number of posts.
Hostility Level - 1 - From what I can see there is no hostility. In fact it seems to be forbidden by the site's rules.
Relevance - 1 - RadioShack employees complaining about customers? How is that relevant to an anti-RadioShack site?
Entertainment Value - 1 - Who wants to go to "RadioShackSucks" and then see pro-RS stuff?
Take a look at the threads in "Customer Complaints". One is an open apology from a customer who acted badly. Another is a post making fun of someones complaint against RS to the BBB. There are only five threads, including the admin one. Maybe the "Against Radio Shack" forum is better, but I wouldn't know because you have to be registered just to view it.
Do you really think RSS are operating the site in the same way they were before the suit?
Really? They can't organise or even link to any further class action suits, but that's not illegal.Well ... no mention of anything new - just point releases. Big talking up of Linux compatibility (the L in 5L). Plenty of mention of migrating from Solaris to Linux (e.g. here), nothing about migrating to AIX (they mention upgrades, but not migration). The whole Project Monterey thing, now defunct. To me it all says IBM aren't much interested in AIX.
Fair enough. Just thought I might be missing something.
How is your point different from the parent's point #1?
And the lack of price context is a unfortunate, as you mentioned.
That skipping in FF/rew sounds like you don't have DMA enabled maybe?