Speaking of that sorry psp astroturfing site, did you see the last entry?
Busted. Nailed. Snagged. As many of you have figured out (maybe our speech was a little too funky fresh???), Peter isn't a real hip-hop maven and this site was actually developed by Sony. Guess we were trying to be just a little too clever. From this point forward, we will just stick to making cool products, and use this site to give you nothing but the facts on the PSP.
Sony Computer Entertainment America
Well, I must say, as much as I despite Sony these days, it takes balls to come clean and coldly admit to trying to con people, instead of simply pulling the plug on the site. Hats off Sony, for once you did the right thing.
Either way, it appears to be a profitable advertising model.
Of course it is, it exploits people's inherent trust for their friends' judgement: "if X says this and X is a nice guy, then X must be true". Only if X is paid by a corporation to spew out nice stuff about some product, it basically wrecks that basic principle of human communication.
Numerous experts have said there's no practical or safe way to make a bomb from separate liquids onboard an airplane. Google for it, you'll be amazed how vaccuus the allegation from London police is.
Which leaves us with only one reason why the UK government would make such a noise around this fantasy: to raise the terror feeling in the general population in order to pass more restrictive laws and embed the police state a little deeper.
I keep wondering why nobody stands up to these clowns. There isn't a shred of evidence to support the current rules that prevent people from bringing soda pops and baby bottles in airplanes. Quite the contrary. Yet people seem to accept this. It's 1984 unfolding before our very eyes in Britain and in the US and that makes me sad...
Yes, I guess you're right. There was a time when OSS software was the solution of choice for those who didn't want to throw away semi-obsolete hardware in working order to dance the Microsoft forced upgrading dance. I suppose this means OSS solutions have gained enough traction and have become credible enough that they justify requiring newer hardware to run them, which is good.
I'm aware of xfce and blackbox and the likes, they are nice, but if you want to run mainstream software that require KDE libraries, you're still hosed.
But in the case of FF for Windows, the problem is that Win9x users (and there are many left) will find themselves in the same situation they were with IE: they'll have to keep running the latest older version of the browser that works with their OS, which will quickly become out of date. I'm sure the FF/Gecko guys have perfectly good technical reasons to leave the old platform behind, but in a sense I hope someone will fork off a Win9x tree of FF and keep developing it, otherwise it would mean OSS is no better than Microsoft with regard to software obsolescence.
Because of the new Gecko code, this release will not run on Windows 95, 98, or ME, or OS X 10.2 or earlier.
One of the great strengths of OSS compared to proprietary software is the ability to make use of older hardware. Not so with this new release of Firefox. But then it's the same with other "heavyweights" like KDE, so I guess there's a trend there. That's too bad...
Well, you could have... wait for it... RTFA and see that clearly his personal opinions did enter into his review and saved yourself the time it took you to type that first sentence.
It's called irony. You know, it's like goldy and bronzy, only it's made of iron...
Shouldn't it read "Sea Snail Toxin Offers Promise For Pain SUFFERERS"? At first I thought it was an article about some new clever torture method for Gitmo prisoners or something...
If Roblimo is a good journalist, then his personal opinions shouldn't enter into his review of the tour, i.e. he should be impartial. If on the other hand he's a rabid Linux fan, which I doubt, then I think Microsoft is right to invite him: you'd be surprised the number of pseudo-fanatics who switch side when the "enemy" treats them nice one day. We all know it won't happen with Roblimo, but Microsoft is perfectly right to try.
Its not that microsoft is such a "evil company" or intentionally releasing bad product, or not carring about the quality. It is just another case of a company getting too big and trying to do too much. In 10-15 years google will be in the same boat.
Wrong on all counts:
- Microsoft can be said to be evil as a company, because they play so rough in the marketplace that they have ruined countless companies in their growing process.
- Microsoft doesn't care about quality, they care about money. They will care about quality (and they're moving in that direction these days) when shoddy products stop making just as much money as good ones.
- It is not a case of a company growing too big: Microsoft has been doing a lot for a long time and has been extremely focused so far.
As for Google, IMHO it remains to be seen if this is not simply an enormous balloon full of hot air... At any rate, Google and Microsoft have very different company cultures, so they're not really comparable.
They somehow received a $4 million dollar investment package from Bessemer Venture Partners, Omidyar Network and individual investors with no business model. Is this a dotcom bubble style mistake or just proof of Jimmy Wales' golden touch?
Free web hosting? Jimmy Wales? dubious investors? That's *got* to be something to do with pr0n...
I must say, I'm having a feeling akin to the one I had when Netscape went over the 3.0 version number: things feel somewhat slower and buggier, with more bling that I don't really need. One of the most irritating "features" I keep hitting is whenever I open something with an extension, be it a pdf with Acrobat reader, a flash animation, a video with mplayer or a java applet: about 1 out of 10 times, the cpu goes to 100% and FF is dead in the water. I know the usual answer, which is that it's not FF's fault but the extensions', but it happens with all the extensions the same and it didn't happen so much, if at all, with earlier versions.
I don't know, perhaps there's a pattern with very large, popular open-source projects: the more popular they grow, the more developers tend to focus on adding features instead of correcting bugs...
Am I the only that thinks this is a bad idea? Either I change video cards more often than CPU's or CPU's more than graphics cards, but in either case I seldom want to upgrade both at the same time. Although I suppose I wouldn't mind a better GPU "for free" with my CPU, I suspect it won't be "for free".
Look at it this way: nowadays you can get a computer with a video "card" onboard the motherboard, but nothing prevents you from disabling it and installing a separate video card. Most likely, that's what's gonna happen in this case. But remember, one of the advantage of merging the cpu and gpu is to get around the bus bottleneck, so presumable an embedded gpu may well blow any separate video card out of the water in terms of performance. Unless of course this is just a marketting stunt, or a consumer lock-in scheme, which is just as likely...
Our directory structure contained a 3-digit sol number, and a lot of calculations were carried out using only the first 999 sols, including some code I wrote (knowing this to be the case).
John, I told you not to use COBOL in the rovers. You're so fired... --- Your boss
Whether music labels, musicians, Peter Jenner, you or I like it or not, there's a fundamental problem that everybody seems to understand: as long as lossless copies of music (or movies or photos for that matter) can be made, paying for music is dead.
What I mean is: before computers became widely available, people had the option of sharing bootleg analog copies of something (which was prone to sound degradation during copy, and media aging) or buying a legit copy of the medium with the best possible song. That is, people who wanted good quality music bought the "officially sanctionned" medium it was imprinted on. Now that everybody can copy a file a million times without any quality loss other than the one possibly introduced during sampling, who's to stop people from copying things for free? only two thing: people's sense of morality ("I don't want to steal from artists") and people's fear of the law ("I don't want to be caught with illegal copies on my hard disk"). That's hardly the basis of a healthy business model.
The one-music==one-media confusion that is the basis of the **AA's business model is dead. In reality, record companies sell plastic disks, not music, and people don't need plastic disks anymore, so record companies are now obsolete. If they want to stay alive with their obsolete business model, they have to:
- appeal to people's morality: not likely to generate revenues long-term - DRM-protect their music: easily circumvented as shown numerous times - DRM-protect hardware: easily circumvented regardless of the hardware, simply by playing and re-recording the music - push for harder copyright laws: circumvented by the sheer mass of file-sharers, which effectively means that an individual file-sharer has a next-to-null chance of getting caught
*or*... they could disappear and music bands could turn back into what they once were: live performers, who were paid to play music on a stage.
So in short: Peter Jenner is wrong. Nobody will turn to X, Y or Z licensing scheme. Eventually, people will share music for free, simply because that is the logical technical and legal way it must be, and they will pay musicians directly to give them what no amount of digital files can give them: live performances.
Human being, when they want to manipulate an object in the physical world, first think "reach the object" then "grab onto the object" (or, generally speaking, "do something with the object"). It's not conscious of course, but that's the way the human brain is designed work.
Now the GUI interface is a simulated world with objects to manipulate, therefore it's perfectly normal that people want to click. In fact, I doubt clicking is a habit that can be changed, I think it's hardwired in the brain. Imagine, back in the real world: would you reach for a pen and wait for it to attach itself to your hand? of course not, you close your fingers to pick it up. Well, same for computers: you point an object with the pointer then click to "do something". It's natural.
I'm fairly confident that by the year 2100 nanobots will be shaving us. Actually, the way I see it, they will live off of our hair for food.
More likely, people will get some kind of skin treatment to get rid of hair semi-permanently.
That's the great thing with predictions: they always turn out wrong. Remember when people in the 50s and 60s predicted that every household will have sophisticated kitchen robots to peel potatoes and carrots automatically? as it turned out, in 2006, people who don't want to peel veggies by hand buy packaged veggies. Nobody saw that one coming back in these days...
Slashdot Mirror
Speaking of that sorry psp astroturfing site, did you see the last entry?
Busted. Nailed. Snagged. As many of you have figured out (maybe our speech was a little too funky fresh???), Peter isn't a real hip-hop maven and this site was actually developed by Sony. Guess we were trying to be just a little too clever. From this point forward, we will just stick to making cool products, and use this site to give you nothing but the facts on the PSP.
Sony Computer Entertainment America
Well, I must say, as much as I despite Sony these days, it takes balls to come clean and coldly admit to trying to con people, instead of simply pulling the plug on the site. Hats off Sony, for once you did the right thing.
Either way, it appears to be a profitable advertising model.
Of course it is, it exploits people's inherent trust for their friends' judgement: "if X says this and X is a nice guy, then X must be true". Only if X is paid by a corporation to spew out nice stuff about some product, it basically wrecks that basic principle of human communication.
Numerous experts have said there's no practical or safe way to make a bomb from separate liquids onboard an airplane. Google for it, you'll be amazed how vaccuus the allegation from London police is.
Which leaves us with only one reason why the UK government would make such a noise around this fantasy: to raise the terror feeling in the general population in order to pass more restrictive laws and embed the police state a little deeper.
I keep wondering why nobody stands up to these clowns. There isn't a shred of evidence to support the current rules that prevent people from bringing soda pops and baby bottles in airplanes. Quite the contrary. Yet people seem to accept this. It's 1984 unfolding before our very eyes in Britain and in the US and that makes me sad...
which is called Compound TCP/IP (CTCP). From the article: "...security policy will come from a centralized source.
Yeah, trust a blind man to invent a new pencil...
Yes, I guess you're right. There was a time when OSS software was the solution of choice for those who didn't want to throw away semi-obsolete hardware in working order to dance the Microsoft forced upgrading dance. I suppose this means OSS solutions have gained enough traction and have become credible enough that they justify requiring newer hardware to run them, which is good.
I'm aware of xfce and blackbox and the likes, they are nice, but if you want to run mainstream software that require KDE libraries, you're still hosed.
But in the case of FF for Windows, the problem is that Win9x users (and there are many left) will find themselves in the same situation they were with IE: they'll have to keep running the latest older version of the browser that works with their OS, which will quickly become out of date. I'm sure the FF/Gecko guys have perfectly good technical reasons to leave the old platform behind, but in a sense I hope someone will fork off a Win9x tree of FF and keep developing it, otherwise it would mean OSS is no better than Microsoft with regard to software obsolescence.
Because of the new Gecko code, this release will not run on Windows 95, 98, or ME, or OS X 10.2 or earlier.
One of the great strengths of OSS compared to proprietary software is the ability to make use of older hardware. Not so with this new release of Firefox. But then it's the same with other "heavyweights" like KDE, so I guess there's a trend there. That's too bad...
Well, you could have... wait for it... RTFA and see that clearly his personal opinions did enter into his review and saved yourself the time it took you to type that first sentence.
It's called irony. You know, it's like goldy and bronzy, only it's made of iron...
Shouldn't it read "Sea Snail Toxin Offers Promise For Pain SUFFERERS"? At first I thought it was an article about some new clever torture method for Gitmo prisoners or something...
If Roblimo is a good journalist, then his personal opinions shouldn't enter into his review of the tour, i.e. he should be impartial. If on the other hand he's a rabid Linux fan, which I doubt, then I think Microsoft is right to invite him: you'd be surprised the number of pseudo-fanatics who switch side when the "enemy" treats them nice one day. We all know it won't happen with Roblimo, but Microsoft is perfectly right to try.
Its not that microsoft is such a "evil company" or intentionally releasing bad product, or not carring about the quality. It is just another case of a company getting too big and trying to do too much. In 10-15 years google will be in the same boat.
Wrong on all counts:
- Microsoft can be said to be evil as a company, because they play so rough in the marketplace that they have ruined countless companies in their growing process.
- Microsoft doesn't care about quality, they care about money. They will care about quality (and they're moving in that direction these days) when shoddy products stop making just as much money as good ones.
- It is not a case of a company growing too big: Microsoft has been doing a lot for a long time and has been extremely focused so far.
As for Google, IMHO it remains to be seen if this is not simply an enormous balloon full of hot air... At any rate, Google and Microsoft have very different company cultures, so they're not really comparable.
They somehow received a $4 million dollar investment package from Bessemer Venture Partners, Omidyar Network and individual investors with no business model. Is this a dotcom bubble style mistake or just proof of Jimmy Wales' golden touch?
Free web hosting? Jimmy Wales? dubious investors? That's *got* to be something to do with pr0n...
man's impact on the environment has been 'downgraded'
I'll celebrate by having baked beens and onions for dinner.
Pat McGovern, who organized this contest for sponsor Splunk, says, "no one talks to sysadmins unless something breaks."
Perhaps that's because so many of them are BOHF, power freaks who treat "their" users like crap.
I must say, I'm having a feeling akin to the one I had when Netscape went over the 3.0 version number: things feel somewhat slower and buggier, with more bling that I don't really need. One of the most irritating "features" I keep hitting is whenever I open something with an extension, be it a pdf with Acrobat reader, a flash animation, a video with mplayer or a java applet: about 1 out of 10 times, the cpu goes to 100% and FF is dead in the water. I know the usual answer, which is that it's not FF's fault but the extensions', but it happens with all the extensions the same and it didn't happen so much, if at all, with earlier versions.
I don't know, perhaps there's a pattern with very large, popular open-source projects: the more popular they grow, the more developers tend to focus on adding features instead of correcting bugs...
First the star wars kid and now the yelling teacher de l'enfer. I'd hate to be a school kid in Quebec, it sounds dangerous for mental sanity...
Am I the only that thinks this is a bad idea? Either I change video cards more often than CPU's or CPU's more than graphics cards, but in either case I seldom want to upgrade both at the same time. Although I suppose I wouldn't mind a better GPU "for free" with my CPU, I suspect it won't be "for free".
Look at it this way: nowadays you can get a computer with a video "card" onboard the motherboard, but nothing prevents you from disabling it and installing a separate video card. Most likely, that's what's gonna happen in this case. But remember, one of the advantage of merging the cpu and gpu is to get around the bus bottleneck, so presumable an embedded gpu may well blow any separate video card out of the water in terms of performance. Unless of course this is just a marketting stunt, or a consumer lock-in scheme, which is just as likely...
ISA is definitely the future to interface a CPU and a GPU, but I keep hearing about this VLB technology that's even hotter!
It's disabled because the MPAA is sueing Slashdot for copyright infringement.
Our directory structure contained a 3-digit sol number, and a lot of calculations were carried out using only the first 999 sols, including some code I wrote (knowing this to be the case).
John, I told you not to use COBOL in the rovers. You're so fired...
---
Your boss
he didnt want to durty his name anymore.
Either that or he's old enough to retire, speaking his mind about his company on the way out as someone in his position has the prerogative to do.
Whether music labels, musicians, Peter Jenner, you or I like it or not, there's a fundamental problem that everybody seems to understand: as long as lossless copies of music (or movies or photos for that matter) can be made, paying for music is dead.
What I mean is: before computers became widely available, people had the option of sharing bootleg analog copies of something (which was prone to sound degradation during copy, and media aging) or buying a legit copy of the medium with the best possible song. That is, people who wanted good quality music bought the "officially sanctionned" medium it was imprinted on. Now that everybody can copy a file a million times without any quality loss other than the one possibly introduced during sampling, who's to stop people from copying things for free? only two thing: people's sense of morality ("I don't want to steal from artists") and people's fear of the law ("I don't want to be caught with illegal copies on my hard disk"). That's hardly the basis of a healthy business model.
The one-music==one-media confusion that is the basis of the **AA's business model is dead. In reality, record companies sell plastic disks, not music, and people don't need plastic disks anymore, so record companies are now obsolete. If they want to stay alive with their obsolete business model, they have to:
- appeal to people's morality: not likely to generate revenues long-term
- DRM-protect their music: easily circumvented as shown numerous times
- DRM-protect hardware: easily circumvented regardless of the hardware, simply by playing and re-recording the music
- push for harder copyright laws: circumvented by the sheer mass of file-sharers, which effectively means that an individual file-sharer has a next-to-null chance of getting caught
*or*... they could disappear and music bands could turn back into what they once were: live performers, who were paid to play music on a stage.
So in short: Peter Jenner is wrong. Nobody will turn to X, Y or Z licensing scheme. Eventually, people will share music for free, simply because that is the logical technical and legal way it must be, and they will pay musicians directly to give them what no amount of digital files can give them: live performances.
Human being, when they want to manipulate an object in the physical world, first think "reach the object" then "grab onto the object" (or, generally speaking, "do something with the object"). It's not conscious of course, but that's the way the human brain is designed work.
Now the GUI interface is a simulated world with objects to manipulate, therefore it's perfectly normal that people want to click. In fact, I doubt clicking is a habit that can be changed, I think it's hardwired in the brain. Imagine, back in the real world: would you reach for a pen and wait for it to attach itself to your hand? of course not, you close your fingers to pick it up. Well, same for computers: you point an object with the pointer then click to "do something". It's natural.
I'm fairly confident that by the year 2100 nanobots will be shaving us. Actually, the way I see it, they will live off of our hair for food.
More likely, people will get some kind of skin treatment to get rid of hair semi-permanently.
That's the great thing with predictions: they always turn out wrong. Remember when people in the 50s and 60s predicted that every household will have sophisticated kitchen robots to peel potatoes and carrots automatically? as it turned out, in 2006, people who don't want to peel veggies by hand buy packaged veggies. Nobody saw that one coming back in these days...
Ok, first they made the vibrating razor. Apparently everything that vibrates is better
So tell us: what other vibrating devices do you own?
I remember reading this article back in MARCH. Seven months is a little long, even by Slashdot standards.
You're new around here aren't you?