A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away . . . I would have agreed with you. Apple was simply amazing.
But today we have a very different Apple. Design now means Form Over Function. Engineering takes a back seat to Fashion. Yes I'm serious. This is why you get "you're not holding it right" in order to get a signal, just cut off your pinky and ring finger, problem solved. But the phone looks so cool! Or the "courage" to remove an industry standard headphone jack, is again form over function. And to sell you outrageously priced headphones and hope that you lose or break them. And thinner and thinner phones and laptops. Because thin is cool. Nevermind that a phone / table that is just a little bit thicker with twice the battery life might be a MUCH better design choice.
Apple has lost its way. Design doesn't mean what it once did. It's all about fashion and botique computers.
It didn't work so well for Canonical Ubuntu either.
Maybe the lesson is that the phone and the desktop really are very different user experiences and really deserve different apps focused on the strengths of each respective environment.
I am having great difficulty seeing any possible way that this action by Microsoft can harm Linux or other open source projects? So why is Microsoft doing this?
Agree. I have never had FaceBook, MySpace, Twitter, Instagram, and whatever other mental defect sites that I don't even know the names of. It is actually possible to have a great life without the black hole for time that is FaceBook.
The primary design motivation for ZFS was larger pr0n collections. Now with machine generated pr0n people will need vastly more storage, much bigger hard di_ks and newer filesystem designs. If the video has a high frame rate, bigger SSDs might be needed to to ensure sufficient playback bandwidth. The vibration from those large SSD drives might shake the computer apart.
It will discredit real video evidence showing someone was victimized. By someone who would grab women by the covfefe. It's like a magnet he just has to kiss them. Needs a mouth full of tic tacs. He just can't help himself. They'll let you do anything if you're a star / potus.
The RoKu definitely does understand Netflix sub accounts. Also Hulu recently got the same feature -- sub accounts. So that Hulu can track individual viewer's habits and preferences, and this works on the RoKu.
Did it? I didn't hear. Not that I would pay attention to the irrelevant Yahoo. But geez, can't Yahoo just die already? Or can't Mozilla please, PLEASE put Yahoo out of our misery? What an irrelevant, inept, incompetent, bumbling clown circus. (and I am referring to Yahoo, not the white house.)
SCO was wrong. In too many ways to count. The court ruled in September 2007 that the copyright on "SCO's" code actually belonged to Novell. Novell had already released SCO's copyright claims earlier against IBM. The "code that is in Linux" is actually IBM's own home grown code. IBM wrote a filesystem called JFS for AIX, an implementation of Unix. Later IBM ported the JFS filesystem to OS/2. Later, IBM ported the OS/2 version of JFS to Linux. SCO claims that the JFS for AIX becomes AT&T copyrighted code because AT&T owned Unix. AT&T publicly claimed this was not the case, that if IBM or others wrote their own code and linked with licensed Unix, that they continued to own their own copyright on their own code. Therefore SCO claim against IBM is barred by promisary estoppel. (eg, you can't claim something publicly, as AT&T did, let others take business actions based on that promise, and then go back on it -- as SCO which claims to be AT&T's successor in the copyright interest in Unix.) The court ruled that SCO is NOT the successor in interest to the Unix copyright but Novell is. So SCO simply doesn't have standing to even bring the 2003 lawsuit. It took a separate trial (by Judge Alsup!) to positively confirm the ruling in Judge Kimball's court that ownership of the Unix copyrights belong to Novell, not SCO.
It is SCO that kept moving the goalposts, not open source community. SCO ammended it's complaint. Then again. And again. It tried to morph it's case into "methods and concepts" instead of copyright. It was SCO claiming that "code doesn't count" but rather "methods and concepts". The "methods and concepts" was a huge laughingstock on Y! SCOX stock boards for several years.
It was not IBM that kept dragging the case out, it was SCO. Clear back in 2003, IBM demanded SCO to produce the evidence of what SCO was claiming. If copyrighted code was in Linux, then produce exactly what Files, Versions and Lines of code that identify exactly what code SCO is suing over. SCO wouldn't IBM kept moving the court about this, and the court had to ORDER, THREE TIMES for SCO to produce some actual evidence. The third and final order was for SCO to disclose all allegedly misused materials by the FINAL deadline of Dec 22, 2005. SCO reluctantly produced a huge pile of hand waving and obfuscation. The magistrate threw 2/3 of this out without the primary trial judge even seeing it. The magistrate judge commented about the remaining 1/3 along the lines of: well, technically this is allowed but really? Is this trivial nonsense what you are claiming? (parphrased)
IBM tried to speed up the case by dropping IBM's four patent counterclaims. I forget which year that was in, maybe about 2005. But it was clearly SCO that kept dragging this out. Meanwhile SCO kept claiming very loudly and publicly that SCO was anxious for it's day in court. Finally, after several devastating rulings from the court, SCO was due to get it's day in court on a Monday. In 2007. I think it was Sept 17. On the Friday afternoon before the court date, SCO abruptly declared bankruptcy. Even though SCO was not actually insolvent. (what? bankruptcy fraud?) Then by gaming the bankruptcy court, SCO kept this farce alive for over ten years to this very day. The zombie corpse of this farcical fraud is still alive to this very day, stuck in appeals. But it looks like the end is near. SCO trolls are obviously still haunting various online forums.
SCO has done nothing but abuse the legal system with this farce.
I am only pointing out the highlights above. The tip of the iceberg. There is much, MUCH more beneath the surface for anyone who spent years following this outrageous nonsense.
Yes it can. Roku has "apps" called "channels". So I'll use Roku terminology. There is a Roku "channel" called something like "media player". (Sorry I don't have a Roku right in front of me right now.) The Media Player will play content from a USB plugin (I have not tried this) or from a network server.
One thing to be very aware of, it does not support AC3 audio. (I think that is the one.) So I make all my content use mp3 audio along with the video. Otherwise, it plays very nicely. My router allows plugging in a USB hard drive and providing its contents as a DNLA server. RoKu's in the house can all play content from this.
I'm waiting for Y10K. That is when everyone will panic at our short sightedness at limiting years to only four digits. When the year 9997 rolls around, everyone will already be in full blown panic mode. And then I will seriously brush up on my COBOL skills and get rich!
What we need is for new TVs to have twenty HDMI connectors on the set. That way you can put in a "stick" for every single content supplier since they are never going to get along.
Right now, since Roku is not a content provider, merely content delivery, they manage to deliver pretty much any content you have a paid subscription for. For example, both YouTube and Amazon Prime. And HBO, Starz, Hulu, etc.
Changing "channels" will be using the input selector to select which "stick" or "box" to use. Disgusting.
Get a Roku. It gets YouTube. It gets Amazon Prime. It gets HBO, Starz, Hulu, etc. Anything you have a subscription to already.
Roku is the perfect example of a content delivery platform that is NOT compromised by also being a content provider. It is also why we need Net Neutrality. If ISPs can also be content providers, this whole Amazon-Google spat will affect everything you ever want to see based on who your ISP is.
One part of the comment which is not stupid is that US control of the internet only benefits the US but not the other 96% of the earth's population. (Some moronic idiot once replied with a [citation needed]. Clue: google for US population. Google for world population. Divide.)
I don't think Russia is concerned about US control of DNS as a weapon. Russia is concerned about the continued operational existence of DNS under US control. The US is already taking the first step towards internet destruction with the removal of Net Neutrality. A principle the net has had since the very beginning.
And then there is also maybe a concern about the continued existence of the US itself. At least at a level of competence sufficient to continue to operate DNS and other core internet infrastructure.
Slashdot Mirror
> But apple is the best at designing things.
A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away . . . I would have agreed with you. Apple was simply amazing.
But today we have a very different Apple. Design now means Form Over Function. Engineering takes a back seat to Fashion. Yes I'm serious. This is why you get "you're not holding it right" in order to get a signal, just cut off your pinky and ring finger, problem solved. But the phone looks so cool! Or the "courage" to remove an industry standard headphone jack, is again form over function. And to sell you outrageously priced headphones and hope that you lose or break them. And thinner and thinner phones and laptops. Because thin is cool. Nevermind that a phone / table that is just a little bit thicker with twice the battery life might be a MUCH better design choice.
Apple has lost its way. Design doesn't mean what it once did. It's all about fashion and botique computers.
> So how has this worked out for Windows so far?
It didn't work so well for Canonical Ubuntu either.
Maybe the lesson is that the phone and the desktop really are very different user experiences and really deserve different apps focused on the strengths of each respective environment.
I am having great difficulty seeing any possible way that this action by Microsoft can harm Linux or other open source projects? So why is Microsoft doing this?
FaceBook is not trying to destroy society or civil discourse. They're merely trying to put a stop to it.
Agree. I have never had FaceBook, MySpace, Twitter, Instagram, and whatever other mental defect sites that I don't even know the names of. It is actually possible to have a great life without the black hole for time that is FaceBook.
The loud rattling sound the computer makes must be from the SSDs. What else could it be? And it gets worse when using anything CPU intensive.
The primary design motivation for ZFS was larger pr0n collections. Now with machine generated pr0n people will need vastly more storage, much bigger hard di_ks and newer filesystem designs. If the video has a high frame rate, bigger SSDs might be needed to to ensure sufficient playback bandwidth. The vibration from those large SSD drives might shake the computer apart.
It will discredit real video evidence showing someone was victimized. By someone who would grab women by the covfefe. It's like a magnet he just has to kiss them. Needs a mouth full of tic tacs. He just can't help himself. They'll let you do anything if you're a star / potus.
The RoKu definitely does understand Netflix sub accounts. Also Hulu recently got the same feature -- sub accounts. So that Hulu can track individual viewer's habits and preferences, and this works on the RoKu.
> I seem to not particularly want *my* web browser to be controlled by an entity which chases after big deal with advertisers.
That is why you should use FireFox instead of Chrome.
Will Facebook have the compassion of Foxconn to put up suicide nets to prevent employees from offing themselves?
Does the employment agreement allow Facebook to harvest an employee's vital organs (assuming their ISP hasn't already gotten them first)?
Isn't everyone at Facebook a user of PHP? Does PHP show up on a random drug test?
Did it? I didn't hear. Not that I would pay attention to the irrelevant Yahoo. But geez, can't Yahoo just die already? Or can't Mozilla please, PLEASE put Yahoo out of our misery? What an irrelevant, inept, incompetent, bumbling clown circus. (and I am referring to Yahoo, not the white house.)
Point by point.
SCO was wrong. In too many ways to count. The court ruled in September 2007 that the copyright on "SCO's" code actually belonged to Novell. Novell had already released SCO's copyright claims earlier against IBM. The "code that is in Linux" is actually IBM's own home grown code. IBM wrote a filesystem called JFS for AIX, an implementation of Unix. Later IBM ported the JFS filesystem to OS/2. Later, IBM ported the OS/2 version of JFS to Linux. SCO claims that the JFS for AIX becomes AT&T copyrighted code because AT&T owned Unix. AT&T publicly claimed this was not the case, that if IBM or others wrote their own code and linked with licensed Unix, that they continued to own their own copyright on their own code. Therefore SCO claim against IBM is barred by promisary estoppel. (eg, you can't claim something publicly, as AT&T did, let others take business actions based on that promise, and then go back on it -- as SCO which claims to be AT&T's successor in the copyright interest in Unix.) The court ruled that SCO is NOT the successor in interest to the Unix copyright but Novell is. So SCO simply doesn't have standing to even bring the 2003 lawsuit. It took a separate trial (by Judge Alsup!) to positively confirm the ruling in Judge Kimball's court that ownership of the Unix copyrights belong to Novell, not SCO.
It is SCO that kept moving the goalposts, not open source community. SCO ammended it's complaint. Then again. And again. It tried to morph it's case into "methods and concepts" instead of copyright. It was SCO claiming that "code doesn't count" but rather "methods and concepts". The "methods and concepts" was a huge laughingstock on Y! SCOX stock boards for several years.
It was not IBM that kept dragging the case out, it was SCO. Clear back in 2003, IBM demanded SCO to produce the evidence of what SCO was claiming. If copyrighted code was in Linux, then produce exactly what Files, Versions and Lines of code that identify exactly what code SCO is suing over. SCO wouldn't IBM kept moving the court about this, and the court had to ORDER, THREE TIMES for SCO to produce some actual evidence. The third and final order was for SCO to disclose all allegedly misused materials by the FINAL deadline of Dec 22, 2005. SCO reluctantly produced a huge pile of hand waving and obfuscation. The magistrate threw 2/3 of this out without the primary trial judge even seeing it. The magistrate judge commented about the remaining 1/3 along the lines of: well, technically this is allowed but really? Is this trivial nonsense what you are claiming? (parphrased)
IBM tried to speed up the case by dropping IBM's four patent counterclaims. I forget which year that was in, maybe about 2005. But it was clearly SCO that kept dragging this out. Meanwhile SCO kept claiming very loudly and publicly that SCO was anxious for it's day in court. Finally, after several devastating rulings from the court, SCO was due to get it's day in court on a Monday. In 2007. I think it was Sept 17. On the Friday afternoon before the court date, SCO abruptly declared bankruptcy. Even though SCO was not actually insolvent. (what? bankruptcy fraud?) Then by gaming the bankruptcy court, SCO kept this farce alive for over ten years to this very day. The zombie corpse of this farcical fraud is still alive to this very day, stuck in appeals. But it looks like the end is near. SCO trolls are obviously still haunting various online forums.
SCO has done nothing but abuse the legal system with this farce.
I am only pointing out the highlights above. The tip of the iceberg. There is much, MUCH more beneath the surface for anyone who spent years following this outrageous nonsense.
Yes it can. Roku has "apps" called "channels". So I'll use Roku terminology. There is a Roku "channel" called something like "media player". (Sorry I don't have a Roku right in front of me right now.) The Media Player will play content from a USB plugin (I have not tried this) or from a network server.
One thing to be very aware of, it does not support AC3 audio. (I think that is the one.) So I make all my content use mp3 audio along with the video. Otherwise, it plays very nicely. My router allows plugging in a USB hard drive and providing its contents as a DNLA server. RoKu's in the house can all play content from this.
Hope that helps.
You forgot Twitter. The joy is not complete unless Twitter also goes down in the destruction.
Build the walls around the gardens and make the gardens pay for it!
I'm waiting for Y10K. That is when everyone will panic at our short sightedness at limiting years to only four digits. When the year 9997 rolls around, everyone will already be in full blown panic mode. And then I will seriously brush up on my COBOL skills and get rich!
What we need is for new TVs to have twenty HDMI connectors on the set. That way you can put in a "stick" for every single content supplier since they are never going to get along.
Right now, since Roku is not a content provider, merely content delivery, they manage to deliver pretty much any content you have a paid subscription for. For example, both YouTube and Amazon Prime. And HBO, Starz, Hulu, etc.
Changing "channels" will be using the input selector to select which "stick" or "box" to use. Disgusting.
Get a Roku. It gets YouTube. It gets Amazon Prime. It gets HBO, Starz, Hulu, etc. Anything you have a subscription to already.
Roku is the perfect example of a content delivery platform that is NOT compromised by also being a content provider. It is also why we need Net Neutrality. If ISPs can also be content providers, this whole Amazon-Google spat will affect everything you ever want to see based on who your ISP is.
You mean I can have the classic shell on Windows 10 and Server 2012? Really?!?
I'll have to look into that right after I upgrade to Windows XP.
When Santa makes a database he verifies it twice to insure data integrity.
You are not very good at making lists.
If Russia does launch alternate DNS servers, will they use re-usable boosters?
One part of the comment which is not stupid is that US control of the internet only benefits the US but not the other 96% of the earth's population. (Some moronic idiot once replied with a [citation needed]. Clue: google for US population. Google for world population. Divide.)
I don't think Russia is concerned about US control of DNS as a weapon. Russia is concerned about the continued operational existence of DNS under US control. The US is already taking the first step towards internet destruction with the removal of Net Neutrality. A principle the net has had since the very beginning.
And then there is also maybe a concern about the continued existence of the US itself. At least at a level of competence sufficient to continue to operate DNS and other core internet infrastructure.