I'd like to see how these people react in a thunderstorm. If they're really as bothered by radio waves as they say, their heads should explode. More likely they don't even react.
Laws mentioned in the other article that would punish poorly secured software should target stuff like this, where software is advertized as absolutely secure. Whenever someone claims that open source software can be as insecure as commercial couterparts, they often forget that nobody says that open source is absolutely secure, often its "we think it secure, but we're not completely certain". Companies like Oracle and Microsoft instead try and advertise it as absolutely secure and give managers warm fuzzy feelings about software, to the pont where they think they don't have to worry about it ever again.
Those "others" may very well be other open source companies. For instance, I'm sure they're getting something from Mandrake for their gaming edition; if their stuff was more liberally licensed, Mandrake (and any other distro) wouldn't have to pay them a cent. There's also at least one other business built on Wine, and all their stuff could get merged into their competitors' code.
I don't like their approach, but it does make sense if they want to actually even hope to make money. Lets just hope that when they crash and burn they don't take their code with them.
(as has probably already been said repeatedly here) They probably just don't want the new iMacs to look underpowered compared to whatever new Pro machines come out. It would really take the wind out of the iMac's sails if everyone got the more powerful new machine instead of the stylish yet slower machine.
I actually like seeing new kernel announcements on here. Same goes for other big pojects like Xfree and Mozilla. I've got better stuff to do than lurk on kernel mailing lists and check mirrors every 5 minutes to see if a new kernel's out./. is usually the first place I hear about a new kernel release, and usually its posted even before its propagated to the mirrors I'd be checking.
Perhaps there should be a new "version" category for the more pointless new version announcements (although I wouldn't call this one exactly pointless. nothing major is new, but at least we know the new stuffs going here from now on) so people can filter articles like this instead of bitching about it every time
Microsoft's just printing their own money for their settlement. The only real cost to them is the loss of potential sales, and they don't even lose anything on that end, since the schools that get the stuff would either not buy any of the software in the first place or end up buying later versions once they need to upgrade their donated stuff
I'd argue that it's not that there is any less innovation, it's just that thanks to the Internet, all the early adopters get the innovative new technology in some barely usable beta state, impressive but not exciting to the point where its called "innovative", and by the time its refined to a solid and usable point, we take it for granted. Also, alot (but not all) of the "innovative" stuff in the past was doing the simple and obvious stuff in a way that was far from simple and obvious becase to get it to run on the hardware of the day would mean all sorts of fancy optimizations. Take for example innovations like streaming video. Everyone went through all sorts of effort to make ultra-efficient compression codecs and stuff, but once broadband gets to a point where its as fast as your average LAN, it will become merely the transmission of a video stream over a network in a way that seems no different than playing it locally, and won't seem like anything innovative at all
Hey, those "poor standards" are keeping my fair use rights intact! In a really crappy de facto way anyway...
I don't want to see the day when they answer those consumers' question and truthfully tell us that their DMCA protected Digital Shackles(TM) are indeed quite effective.
Best Buy doesn't appear to have it yet, but most other places around me did (CompUSA, Software Etc., etc.). Also, Walmart of all places had it already, and for only $40, compared to the $50 everyone else had it for. They didn't have the limited edition though, at least I didn't see it.
I'll wait until best buy gets it, usually they have good sales for new releases, and see if its favorable to Walmart's price.
At the very least a limited analisys to see how well quality improves at higher bit rates would be helpful, or testing where at what bitrate they match closest in quality.
Putting them inside those enclosures probably isn't the best place for heat dissipation. I know if I put my PC in something like that it wouldn't last long.
Lets just make sure he's not trying to pull an Adobe. It could very well be that there's enough support established for it from others that he knows he can reverse his opinion and still get it passed no matter how actively against it he appears to be.
A friend of mine has one of these, and it pretty much works as Taco described. So, yeah, it might be a bit "convenient" that thinkgeek just so happens to sell them, but at least he's not exaggerating.
The only scheme I have ever seen that actually works is the use of CD keys in online games to make sure that there are only unique (and in theory paid for) clients connected at any one time. Of course this scheme is useless for anything that doesn't require a net connection. So long as the online game servers are where the fun's at, the user is out in the cold without a legit copy. The key part of this scheme is the dependency on a resource that is outside the user's control and can't be modified. Without the actual use of a remote resource for a major part of he product's functionality, though, such a scheme would be intolerable (why would you want to log into the internet to listen to a cd?). This also does not prevent the thing from moving around, only the simultaneous use of a single copy.
Microsoft's WPA scheme is similar to this, but since it's only a one time verification and gives the user time before he has to set it up, it is vurnerable to tampering.
I'd like to believe that theory, but in light of their efforts to appeal to a "broader audience", I think any "arty" ambitions were merely a shallow excuse to do something "interesting" with a bit of dialog where they'd otherwise just be standing around.
The scene might have worked later in the series after such decntaminations had become routine and everyone had gotten over it (the human guy anyway, I doubt the T'Pol would have any problems with the situation), but this early I would expect some awkwardness.
It just doesn't feel right that we have to explain ourselves in the first place. The fact that they had a no-royalty policy in the first place had suggested to me that they had already figured it out.
I remember on Silicon Spin this one guy said something to the effect that Microsoft's copy protection stuff is effective, i.e. the record industry actually believes them. I think the record industry needs to take a good look at Microsoft's track record to securing their own crap.
I just wish society would adjust its judgmental attitudes to match. Unfortunately, somebody somewhere is going to object to something somebody does, no matter how trivial, and the only way to minimize that friction is to minimize how much information about ourselves we make public.
yeah, making sure they go shots of them rubbing where the sun don't shine was really arty.
I guess I can't complain too much, TOS definitely had a "healthy" attitude towards sex, and although some of it seems tame today I'm sure it was "pushing it" far more than the 7 of 9 type crap does. I just wish it was motivated more by 60's mindset of simply freer attitudes towards sex than the ratings grabbing soft porn of today.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd like to see how these people react in a thunderstorm. If they're really as bothered by radio waves as they say, their heads should explode. More likely they don't even react.
Laws mentioned in the other article that would punish poorly secured software should target stuff like this, where software is advertized as absolutely secure. Whenever someone claims that open source software can be as insecure as commercial couterparts, they often forget that nobody says that open source is absolutely secure, often its "we think it secure, but we're not completely certain". Companies like Oracle and Microsoft instead try and advertise it as absolutely secure and give managers warm fuzzy feelings about software, to the pont where they think they don't have to worry about it ever again.
Those "others" may very well be other open source companies. For instance, I'm sure they're getting something from Mandrake for their gaming edition; if their stuff was more liberally licensed, Mandrake (and any other distro) wouldn't have to pay them a cent. There's also at least one other business built on Wine, and all their stuff could get merged into their competitors' code. I don't like their approach, but it does make sense if they want to actually even hope to make money. Lets just hope that when they crash and burn they don't take their code with them.
(as has probably already been said repeatedly here) They probably just don't want the new iMacs to look underpowered compared to whatever new Pro machines come out. It would really take the wind out of the iMac's sails if everyone got the more powerful new machine instead of the stylish yet slower machine.
At least they all get slaughtered within half a second. http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,4-2001601540,00 .html
I actually like seeing new kernel announcements on here. Same goes for other big pojects like Xfree and Mozilla. I've got better stuff to do than lurk on kernel mailing lists and check mirrors every 5 minutes to see if a new kernel's out. /. is usually the first place I hear about a new kernel release, and usually its posted even before its propagated to the mirrors I'd be checking.
Perhaps there should be a new "version" category for the more pointless new version announcements (although I wouldn't call this one exactly pointless. nothing major is new, but at least we know the new stuffs going here from now on) so people can filter articles like this instead of bitching about it every time
Microsoft's just printing their own money for their settlement. The only real cost to them is the loss of potential sales, and they don't even lose anything on that end, since the schools that get the stuff would either not buy any of the software in the first place or end up buying later versions once they need to upgrade their donated stuff
I'd argue that it's not that there is any less innovation, it's just that thanks to the Internet, all the early adopters get the innovative new technology in some barely usable beta state, impressive but not exciting to the point where its called "innovative", and by the time its refined to a solid and usable point, we take it for granted. Also, alot (but not all) of the "innovative" stuff in the past was doing the simple and obvious stuff in a way that was far from simple and obvious becase to get it to run on the hardware of the day would mean all sorts of fancy optimizations. Take for example innovations like streaming video. Everyone went through all sorts of effort to make ultra-efficient compression codecs and stuff, but once broadband gets to a point where its as fast as your average LAN, it will become merely the transmission of a video stream over a network in a way that seems no different than playing it locally, and won't seem like anything innovative at all
Hey, those "poor standards" are keeping my fair use rights intact! In a really crappy de facto way anyway...
I don't want to see the day when they answer those consumers' question and truthfully tell us that their DMCA protected Digital Shackles(TM) are indeed quite effective.
Best Buy doesn't appear to have it yet, but most other places around me did (CompUSA, Software Etc., etc.). Also, Walmart of all places had it already, and for only $40, compared to the $50 everyone else had it for. They didn't have the limited edition though, at least I didn't see it.
I'll wait until best buy gets it, usually they have good sales for new releases, and see if its favorable to Walmart's price.
At the very least a limited analisys to see how well quality improves at higher bit rates would be helpful, or testing where at what bitrate they match closest in quality.
I'll wait for the GameKleinBottle
Putting them inside those enclosures probably isn't the best place for heat dissipation. I know if I put my PC in something like that it wouldn't last long.
Lets just make sure he's not trying to pull an Adobe. It could very well be that there's enough support established for it from others that he knows he can reverse his opinion and still get it passed no matter how actively against it he appears to be.
Since ogg still isn't officially finalized yet, I doubt they want to go through the effort of implementing something that could change any moment.
A friend of mine has one of these, and it pretty much works as Taco described. So, yeah, it might be a bit "convenient" that thinkgeek just so happens to sell them, but at least he's not exaggerating.
The only scheme I have ever seen that actually works is the use of CD keys in online games to make sure that there are only unique (and in theory paid for) clients connected at any one time. Of course this scheme is useless for anything that doesn't require a net connection. So long as the online game servers are where the fun's at, the user is out in the cold without a legit copy. The key part of this scheme is the dependency on a resource that is outside the user's control and can't be modified. Without the actual use of a remote resource for a major part of he product's functionality, though, such a scheme would be intolerable (why would you want to log into the internet to listen to a cd?). This also does not prevent the thing from moving around, only the simultaneous use of a single copy.
Microsoft's WPA scheme is similar to this, but since it's only a one time verification and gives the user time before he has to set it up, it is vurnerable to tampering.
I'd like to believe that theory, but in light of their efforts to appeal to a "broader audience", I think any "arty" ambitions were merely a shallow excuse to do something "interesting" with a bit of dialog where they'd otherwise just be standing around.
The scene might have worked later in the series after such decntaminations had become routine and everyone had gotten over it (the human guy anyway, I doubt the T'Pol would have any problems with the situation), but this early I would expect some awkwardness.
It already is dated, it's some old Rod Stewart song (sung by somebody else)
It just doesn't feel right that we have to explain ourselves in the first place. The fact that they had a no-royalty policy in the first place had suggested to me that they had already figured it out.
I remember on Silicon Spin this one guy said something to the effect that Microsoft's copy protection stuff is effective, i.e. the record industry actually believes them. I think the record industry needs to take a good look at Microsoft's track record to securing their own crap.
I just wish society would adjust its judgmental attitudes to match. Unfortunately, somebody somewhere is going to object to something somebody does, no matter how trivial, and the only way to minimize that friction is to minimize how much information about ourselves we make public.
yeah, making sure they go shots of them rubbing where the sun don't shine was really arty.
I guess I can't complain too much, TOS definitely had a "healthy" attitude towards sex, and although some of it seems tame today I'm sure it was "pushing it" far more than the 7 of 9 type crap does. I just wish it was motivated more by 60's mindset of simply freer attitudes towards sex than the ratings grabbing soft porn of today.
But then he'd get transporter psychosis. Hmm, ten bucks says that will be a future plot thread.
IIRC, the year when that genetic engineering war thing was supposed to have occured was 1999.