Sorry, but your rather strange conclusions cannot go unchallenged.
"Netscape did not lose the browser war. Netscape won when Microsoft made IE available for free."
OK, I guess it depends how you define "won", but using the generally accepted definitions, M$ did indeed win - there are far more copies of M$IE in use round the world than there are of NS. Heck, depending upon which figures you use, there are far more copies of M$IE in use than ALL other browsers put together:/
Oh yeah, and how on earth does M$ releasing IE for free mean NS won?!?! I guess, using your own argument, M$ won the OS wars because Solaris, *BSD, Linux, ANX, BeOS et al are all available for free, right?
"As the philosophers say, once that camel's nose gets into the tent, pretty soon the whole camel is in the tent. Referring to the fact that MS is destined to become Open Source someday,"
Oh dear! You quote a saying and from that draw a completely unconected conclusion.
Just because M$ give IE away for free (for now) doesn't mean they will Open Source it. Nor, indeed, does it necessarily mean they won't start charging for it again in the future if they feel the can get people to pay for it.
"Giving software away for free is the first step toward realizing that Open/Free Source is a superior marketing strategy in the long run..."
Yeah, right. And selling software is the first step toward realising that Open/Free Source is an inferior marketing strategy in the long run, using your own argument.
I hate to burst your bubble, but software can be given away for free without it evenr being Open Source.
"Netscape's gift to the world was not a browser, but the concept that astounding software could be free."
Ah yes, of course, because there was no free software before NS were forced to release their browser for free (note - FORCED, not CHOSE TO, but FORCED to in order to "compete" with M$ who gave their browser away for free to try to beat NS).
"I'd like to see MSoft _try_ to sell their browser any time soon."
You do realise you are talking about the company which charges people real money to beta-test M$'s software for M$, don't you?
If M$ thought they could con enough people into paying for IE, it'd be sold rather than given away again tomorrow.
Of course, they can give it away for free because they just subsidise the costs via all their other software anyway.
Every James Bond novel from "Man With The Golden Gun" onwards (that one was unfinished at the time of Ian Flemming's death).
Several Isaac Asimov works.
"Made In Heaven" album by Queen.
Numerous albums from other artists released after their death.
Heck, it's a free country, so why not let them go ahead and release it?
Those who want to buy it can, those who don't want to don't have to. Everyone is happy.
Adams will be far from the first person to have works finished and released after his death.
Just curious - would you be saying the same if some bunch of lamer hackers had defaced M$'s website?
You can bet your bottom dollar/pound/franc/yenm/rupee/pebble that had it been M$ hacked, this entire section would have been filled with people gloating about how it proves how much better open source is than closed source. However,when it happens to a site running open source OS and webserver et al, the reaction is strangely different...
(Note - not implying for one second that the actual OS was the problem, which we know it wasn't).
That virus is attuned to live in certain hosts without causing those hosts any long term serious problems.
Then along comes man, clears out all the jungle in that area - the hosts in which Ebola lives. Those hosts die out and Ebola comes in contact with a completely unknown host (man). It tries to behgave as it has done for ages, but this time, man being sufficiently different from its originalhost, things aren't quite as benign as before...
Not too hard to see the analogy here, I think (this is, of course, assuming there ARE virii and bacteria alive on Mars - who knows.)
Actually, the use of the term "spam"to describe UCE comes from the Monty Python sketch.
You remember, the one in the cafe, where everything comes with Spam, includiong such delights as "Spam, spam, spam, sausage, egg and spam" etc.
So all the food came with vast quantities of spam, obscuring the rest of the food, just as email comes with vast quantities of UCE, obscuring the real emails.
(The sketch, btw, culminates in the Vikings in a corner of the cafe singing the Spam song -
I find it interesting that although there are a large number of posts slagging off "closed" source, and saying how this problem would have never got as bad with "open" source, not one single post has been able to point to a suitable piece of open source code which they could have used instead.
CAN anyone point to an existing open source alternative that meets all the necessary criteria?
Because if not, then I'm afraid discussion of whether or not the problem would have been as big with open source is irrelevant if there IS no such open source product to begin with.
Yes, "they" could have written software themselves, but do you really think they had the necessary expertise and time to spend writing such a product from scratch? The answer is "no", otherwise they would have.
Give it a few weeks and everyone will have forgotten about the whole thing. That's why, when they advertise, companies run more than just a one-off ad, for example.
Rather than tell them "You went with one of our competitors and look how
easy it is to break their security as opposed to ours" which is guaranteed
to make you look like a bad loser (not saying that IS your approach, btw!),
you may want to make it more of an advice thing.
E.g. ask them if they are aware that just by doing x, y, z (feed them
detailed instructions they can use themselves to see), any mallicious-minded
individual could gain access to a, b, c (give them details of what it means
to THEM).
Then, rather than end with, for example, "whereas our system has none of
those problems" which is a blatant sales pitch, you might want to consider
making it totally non-sales.
E.g. end by hinting to them that they may wish to take this matter up with
their existing SP immediately so as to minimise the risk to their data, or
they may wish to look around other suppliers, including yourselves, with
this additional concern in mind and see how those various SPs react and how
their services seem in light of these new concerns.
OK, some will still think it is just sour grapes, but at least you are
phrasing it more along the lines of "OK, you went elsewhere, that's no
problem. Just make sure your SP fixes blah blah blah" rather than "Ha! You
went with THEM and they are crap, you should come to us." iyswim.
Speaking as someone who supports a wide range of EDAtools for our designers, I can state that it is very COMMON to get permenantlicenses for any package.
However, the USUAL thing to do is buy the tool, then pay 10% - 25% (depending upon the tool, price, maturity, etc) per annum to get all updates as they are released plus full technical support.
If you decide you do NOT want to get tech support nor receive updates, then you simply don't poay the maintenance fee, and just get a permenant license instead, allowing you to permenantly run the software but not to receive upgrades.
If M$ adopted THIS strategy, then you would buy Win2k for, say, $100 and pay $20 per year to receive free updates (including Win2002, Win2004, et al) and free tech support.
Or you simply pay $100 and get Win2k and no updates and no support.
Why does 2001 resemble a few other Kubrick films? Duh! Because, as I pointed out, it was a CO-DEVELOPMENT.
Likewise, I could ask you why does 2001 resemble a few other ACC books.
As for 2010, PLEASE make sure you know which one you are talking about there - the BOOK (the original) is pretty good.
The FILM, however, (filmed after the book was written and NOT a co-development like 2001, but a mere "adaptation") is utter shite by comparison.
If you read the book then watch the film, you'll notice they make a lot of changes which completely alter the background ideas.
e.g. that final message which HAL forwards to Earth.
In the book, the message is "All these worlds are yours save Europa: attempt no landing there.".
Pretty obvious. The Monoliths are up to something with Europa and don't want us interfering, but we can do what we like with the rest and they pretyt much don't care what we get up to (reasons for that become apparant in 3001).
However, in the FILM, they spoil it completely by having the message read
"All these worlds are yours except Europa. Use them together, use them in peace".
I mean, come ON! The Monoliths care not one jot about Man, let alone whether we play nicely with each other or wipe each other out.
Part of me hopes for a film of 3001, but having seen how Hollywood ruined 2010, part of me hopes it never happens!
(And both parts of me hope there is never a film of 2061 as that was rather a letdown compared ot the other 3).
2001 was mainly written by Arthur C Clarke, in conjunction with Kubrick when they decided to make "the proverbial good Sci Fi film".
The book was written at the same time as the screenplay (although as the film was developed, certain limitations meant some changes to the script which were not reflected in the book. For example, in the book, they visit Saturn not Jupiter, purely because Kubrick didn't feel his special effects team could make a convincing Saturn backdrop. As ACC hilself says later, he was glad that turned out to be the case because of Europa).
I wish people would get their facts straight and not go round claiming 2001 was Kubrick's story! It was a collaboration (sp?), with the main story coming from ACC.
How about someone with a consistent track record of predicting, in detail, many ovents of the future which have come to pass as he predicted them?
I'm thinking of the person who predicted communications satelites in such detail that when the first real ones were developed decades later, his prior art prevented them from patenting the communication satelite! (Should earn him some slashdot bonus points;-) )
I am, of course, referring to none other than Sir Arthur C Clarke.
--
Re:I want to know what region their DVD players ar
on
Space Station BSOD
·
· Score: 1
"I challenge you to prove to me that no data was written to write-only media"
Au contraire - as you are the one making the claim that data WEREwritten, it is up to YOU to prove the validity of your claim by proving that data were written!
Over to you...
"Are you sure they would have carried on murdering? Most murderers, IIRC,
are single offenders. "
Then in that case why bother punishing murderes at all, if they on;ly do it
once? Hmmm....
Where's your proof that the vast majority of murderes only comit one single
violent crime in their entire life, please?
"What protects you from violence is being able to defend yourself, and having neighbors who are able and willing to help defend you.
"
Yeah, right, and just how the fsck do you propose that Jamie Bulger (a 2
year old, remember) ought to have "defended" himself?
The FACT remains that it was CCTV which lead to the arrest and detention of
the evil scum who murdered him. It is a FACT that without CCTV they would
have been free to carry out further murders - do not forget that Jamie was
not the first child they abducted in that way.
Slashdot Mirror
"Netscape did not lose the browser war. Netscape won when Microsoft made IE available for free." :/
OK, I guess it depends how you define "won", but using the generally accepted definitions, M$ did indeed win - there are far more copies of M$IE in use round the world than there are of NS. Heck, depending upon which figures you use, there are far more copies of M$IE in use than ALL other browsers put together
Oh yeah, and how on earth does M$ releasing IE for free mean NS won?!?! I guess, using your own argument, M$ won the OS wars because Solaris, *BSD, Linux, ANX, BeOS et al are all available for free, right?
"As the philosophers say, once that camel's nose gets into the tent, pretty soon the whole camel is in the tent. Referring to the fact that MS is destined to become Open Source someday,"
Oh dear! You quote a saying and from that draw a completely unconected conclusion.
Just because M$ give IE away for free (for now) doesn't mean they will Open Source it. Nor, indeed, does it necessarily mean they won't start charging for it again in the future if they feel the can get people to pay for it.
"Giving software away for free is the first step toward realizing that Open/Free Source is a superior marketing strategy in the long run..."
Yeah, right. And selling software is the first step toward realising that Open/Free Source is an inferior marketing strategy in the long run, using your own argument.
I hate to burst your bubble, but software can be given away for free without it evenr being Open Source.
"Netscape's gift to the world was not a browser, but the concept that astounding software could be free."
Ah yes, of course, because there was no free software before NS were forced to release their browser for free (note - FORCED, not CHOSE TO, but FORCED to in order to "compete" with M$ who gave their browser away for free to try to beat NS).
"I'd like to see MSoft _try_ to sell their browser any time soon."
You do realise you are talking about the company which charges people real money to beta-test M$'s software for M$, don't you?
If M$ thought they could con enough people into paying for IE, it'd be sold rather than given away again tomorrow.
Of course, they can give it away for free because they just subsidise the costs via all their other software anyway.
--
Exactly.
A few more additions to that list -
Every James Bond novel from "Man With The Golden Gun" onwards (that one was unfinished at the time of Ian Flemming's death).
Several Isaac Asimov works.
"Made In Heaven" album by Queen.
Numerous albums from other artists released after their death.
Heck, it's a free country, so why not let them go ahead and release it?
Those who want to buy it can, those who don't want to don't have to. Everyone is happy.
Adams will be far from the first person to have works finished and released after his death.
An excellent attitude, one which I wish more people would adopt!
--
Getting a bit tetchy, aren't we a/c ?
Just for you, have a sig.
--
Just curious - would you be saying the same if some bunch of lamer hackers had defaced M$'s website?
You can bet your bottom dollar/pound/franc/yenm/rupee/pebble that had it been M$ hacked, this entire section would have been filled with people gloating about how it proves how much better open source is than closed source. However,when it happens to a site running open source OS and webserver et al, the reaction is strangely different...
(Note - not implying for one second that the actual OS was the problem, which we know it wasn't).
--
All you need to do, a/c, is get an account then change your settings so as not to display the sig on posts.
Problem solved.
--
That virus is attuned to live in certain hosts without causing those hosts any long term serious problems.
Then along comes man, clears out all the jungle in that area - the hosts in which Ebola lives. Those hosts die out and Ebola comes in contact with a completely unknown host (man). It tries to behgave as it has done for ages, but this time, man being sufficiently different from its originalhost, things aren't quite as benign as before...
Not too hard to see the analogy here, I think (this is, of course, assuming there ARE virii and bacteria alive on Mars - who knows.)
--
Actually, the use of the term "spam"to describe UCE comes from the Monty Python sketch.
You remember, the one in the cafe, where everything comes with Spam, includiong such delights as "Spam, spam, spam, sausage, egg and spam" etc.
So all the food came with vast quantities of spam, obscuring the rest of the food, just as email comes with vast quantities of UCE, obscuring the real emails.
(The sketch, btw, culminates in the Vikings in a corner of the cafe singing the Spam song -
"Spam, spam, spam, spam.
Spam, spam, spam, spam,
...
"
)
--
I find it interesting that although there are a large number of posts slagging off "closed" source, and saying how this problem would have never got as bad with "open" source, not one single post has been able to point to a suitable piece of open source code which they could have used instead.
CAN anyone point to an existing open source alternative that meets all the necessary criteria?
Because if not, then I'm afraid discussion of whether or not the problem would have been as big with open source is irrelevant if there IS no such open source product to begin with.
Yes, "they" could have written software themselves, but do you really think they had the necessary expertise and time to spend writing such a product from scratch? The answer is "no", otherwise they would have.
Just something to consider.
--
Startlearning about attention spans.
Give it a few weeks and everyone will have forgotten about the whole thing. That's why, when they advertise, companies run more than just a one-off ad, for example.
Erm, had he not broken the law and hacked then he would not have been suspended.
As the old saying goes, If you can't do the time, don't do the crime.
--
Rather than tell them "You went with one of our competitors and look how
easy it is to break their security as opposed to ours" which is guaranteed
to make you look like a bad loser (not saying that IS your approach, btw!),
you may want to make it more of an advice thing.
E.g. ask them if they are aware that just by doing x, y, z (feed them
detailed instructions they can use themselves to see), any mallicious-minded
individual could gain access to a, b, c (give them details of what it means
to THEM).
Then, rather than end with, for example, "whereas our system has none of
those problems" which is a blatant sales pitch, you might want to consider
making it totally non-sales.
E.g. end by hinting to them that they may wish to take this matter up with
their existing SP immediately so as to minimise the risk to their data, or
they may wish to look around other suppliers, including yourselves, with
this additional concern in mind and see how those various SPs react and how
their services seem in light of these new concerns.
OK, some will still think it is just sour grapes, but at least you are
phrasing it more along the lines of "OK, you went elsewhere, that's no
problem. Just make sure your SP fixes blah blah blah" rather than "Ha! You
went with THEM and they are crap, you should come to us." iyswim.
Hope this helps!
--
Don't upgrade?
Whatm, you mean don't upgrade the U5s? No real plans to.
Don't upgrade our E3500 and U60s? We're supplementing them with SunBlade 1000s and SunFires. No problems with any of our equipment so far.
--
Interesting.
We have 17 U5s are work, and every single one of them have been working reliably (24 x 7) since we got them 6 - 12 months ago.
Uptimes are in months.
Complete crap!
Speaking as someone who supports a wide range of EDAtools for our designers, I can state that it is very COMMON to get permenantlicenses for any package.
However, the USUAL thing to do is buy the tool, then pay 10% - 25% (depending upon the tool, price, maturity, etc) per annum to get all updates as they are released plus full technical support.
If you decide you do NOT want to get tech support nor receive updates, then you simply don't poay the maintenance fee, and just get a permenant license instead, allowing you to permenantly run the software but not to receive upgrades.
If M$ adopted THIS strategy, then you would buy Win2k for, say, $100 and pay $20 per year to receive free updates (including Win2002, Win2004, et al) and free tech support.
Or you simply pay $100 and get Win2k and no updates and no support.
Not quite what they areproposing, though.
--
Why does 2001 resemble a few other Kubrick films? Duh! Because, as I pointed out, it was a CO-DEVELOPMENT.
Likewise, I could ask you why does 2001 resemble a few other ACC books.
As for 2010, PLEASE make sure you know which one you are talking about there - the BOOK (the original) is pretty good.
The FILM, however, (filmed after the book was written and NOT a co-development like 2001, but a mere "adaptation") is utter shite by comparison.
If you read the book then watch the film, you'll notice they make a lot of changes which completely alter the background ideas.
e.g. that final message which HAL forwards to Earth.
In the book, the message is "All these worlds are yours save Europa: attempt no landing there.".
Pretty obvious. The Monoliths are up to something with Europa and don't want us interfering, but we can do what we like with the rest and they pretyt much don't care what we get up to (reasons for that become apparant in 3001).
However, in the FILM, they spoil it completely by having the message read
"All these worlds are yours except Europa. Use them together, use them in peace".
I mean, come ON! The Monoliths care not one jot about Man, let alone whether we play nicely with each other or wipe each other out.
Part of me hopes for a film of 3001, but having seen how Hollywood ruined 2010, part of me hopes it never happens!
(And both parts of me hope there is never a film of 2061 as that was rather a letdown compared ot the other 3).
--
2001 is NOT a "Kubrick" story.
2001 was mainly written by Arthur C Clarke, in conjunction with Kubrick when they decided to make "the proverbial good Sci Fi film".
The book was written at the same time as the screenplay (although as the film was developed, certain limitations meant some changes to the script which were not reflected in the book. For example, in the book, they visit Saturn not Jupiter, purely because Kubrick didn't feel his special effects team could make a convincing Saturn backdrop. As ACC hilself says later, he was glad that turned out to be the case because of Europa).
I wish people would get their facts straight and not go round claiming 2001 was Kubrick's story! It was a collaboration (sp?), with the main story coming from ACC.
--
How about someone with a consistent track record of predicting, in detail, many ovents of the future which have come to pass as he predicted them?
;-) )
I'm thinking of the person who predicted communications satelites in such detail that when the first real ones were developed decades later, his prior art prevented them from patenting the communication satelite! (Should earn him some slashdot bonus points
I am, of course, referring to none other than Sir Arthur C Clarke.
--
You mean Techtronics at http://www.techtronics.com (an excellent company - they moded my Pioneer DVD for me and it plays all regions nicely).
They've got full details on their site (as you mentioned) at http://www.techtronics.com/uk/shop/510-nasa.html.
--
Au contraire - as you are the one making the claim that data WEREwritten, it is up to YOU to prove the validity of your claim by proving that data were written!
Over to you...
--
"was tried in Britain"?
Interesting, because we haven't HAD the census in Britain yet...
Are you trolling by any chance, Master Bait?
For a start, it is pretty difficult to murder innocent citizens from within the confort of one's prison cell, traditionally...
Then in that case why bother punishing murderes at all, if they on;ly do it once? Hmmm....
Where's your proof that the vast majority of murderes only comit one single violent crime in their entire life, please?
"What protects you from violence is being able to defend yourself, and having neighbors who are able and willing to help defend you. "
Yeah, right, and just how the fsck do you propose that Jamie Bulger (a 2 year old, remember) ought to have "defended" himself?
The FACT remains that it was CCTV which lead to the arrest and detention of the evil scum who murdered him. It is a FACT that without CCTV they would have been free to carry out further murders - do not forget that Jamie was not the first child they abducted in that way.
--
You mean the CCTVs which were responsible DIRECTLY for the identification (nd subsequent arrest and prosecution) of the murderers?
You mean the CCTVs without which those two would have been free to carry on murdering?
Nope, can't see any advantage to the CCTV cameras there...
Again, PROOF positive that you know not what you are talking about.
Hint - the TCP/IP stack is part of the OS and NOT shareware.
You were looking at OS3.9, right?
Not OS1.3 and some shareware disks, right?