It would be interested to just see a database that is connected to browsers, so that whenever I were to look at a page, the page data would be processed and sent to whatever search engine. Then, those sites that are updated frequently and get a lot of traffic would be more easily searched.
With decent paging most of that data being loaded to RAM would get paged out anyway and it wouldn't make for too big of an issue. It would be interesting, though, if they added some sort of paging control to Longhorn to optimize it for doing this type of thing.
That would, of course, still virtually be installing/uninstalling the program, but it doesn't really give the same impression that installing/unstalling has, I don't think.
A lot of the vulnerabilities of these systems are things that are just downright idiotic, in my opinion. We've made programs that don't really need to talk to the outside world able to do so (Word, Excel), and we've given programs that shouldn't be able to control the filesystem and other aspects of the system that privilege (Outlook, Internet Explorer). During the Summer I managed to have Internet Explorer install software for me (.NET Platform).
Why do we not look at applications and give them a domain before we just open the floodgates? Why not just say, "hey, email comes from the outside world, I don't trust the outside world, so I won't let my email client do anything it wants to". I know that this wouldn't stop all of these problems, but I think the general idea would circumvent many virii.
No, it would not be the so-called greatest gift to the Linux world. It'd just suck. What ever happened to choice, my friend? I use Gnome because I think it rocks. Some friends of mine use KDE because they think it rocks. Why don't we all just chill out, use our own thing, and be productive as we would like to be?
I mean, what good would it really do for everything to be unified, besides maybe ease of use for newbs? Even then, there's not a flame war between Mac and Windows people and others wanting to just make them both work exactly the same. Why do we have to do that in Linux?
The best analogy I can think of is a car. Most people (myself included) don't know what happens inside. We trust in GM, Ford, Chevy, or whoever, and we trust that they did their part right and the car won't spontaneously crash or corrupt itself.
That's assuming, on your part, that the poster of the above comment does not know what's under the hood, so to speak. For those of us who do, though, parts of a car can be rebuilt and fixed, and we know exactly what's going on. What we don't know we can usually find in books. Do you mean to imply as well that programmers are given the same kind of accessibility to documentation that car specialists are? Are you saying that those who are professional in the programming world are able to fix and modify DirectX when they find a problem with it? If you are, please give me a link to that source code and documentation so that I can check it out as well.
If it did, there would be an outrage and most likely a recall.
And, in addition, software that sucks has seldom if ever been recalled.
Microsoft is the software equivelent of a car manufacturer.
Microsoft doesn't really seem to be very similar to a car manufacturer, except maybe that they both make stuff. The next time your car messes up, thank your lucky stars that manufacturers give the people who work on cars some sort of documentation...a way to fix problems.
You may want to try looking at some documents on Free/Open Source software before you make comparisons of such magnitude. Yes, the guy that posted before you was seemingly being a free software zealot, but at the same time, the software development scheme that you have chosen to support has quite a few problems in it as well. Let's at least try to look at the situation with some reason... and without faulty analogies.
Corporations will most likely argue that, because of sites like Internal Memos, companies need to keep a tighter grip on the information that flows in and out of their companies.
It seems like they would have already figured out that ethical business practices are a good way to handle that.
I know this is mostly a question that should be asked of the execs at RedHat, but where will revenue come from in the Linux software world? This is an even bigger question when you wonder where revenue will come from in the Linux Home users software world.
I think that in the business world there is already a pretty solid business strategy for creating Linux revenue. Sell the software cheap (< $100), and make money off of supporting the users of the software. This model does, though, have some problems as the awareness of Linux software configuration and upkeep increases, Linux software vendors make less money on support.
The other possible solution that I see is for Linux software vendors to go into a type of trust relationship with their customers. This is fairly utopian of an idea, though, and it would take some major thought changes in industry. Basically, I see there that Linux software vendors can keep writing software, and companies make donations to their cause. When the money runs out, Linux software vendors stop writing software. Hopefully, if they write good enough software, they could keep the donations coming. It's really a kind of a "if you build it, they will come" business model.
On the desktop, though, I'm not sure of what needs to be done to make things profitable. Maybe the above, but it would require some major changes in the thought processes of today's consumers. Does anyone else have any other ideas of how Linux software vendors could develop good software, make money, and stay true to their ideals?
It looks like it's about time for all of us freedom loving Americans to move to China. Why? You ask. The Chinese are worse. You say. Well, think again.
1. China doesn't really care about copyrights, so that whole problem would be over with. You can buy DVD's for under 50 cents US on the streets there with no reprocussions.
2. China is pretty blatant about its controls. I can find out if something I do will get me in trouble, because my neighbor and others will get in trouble for it. I'll know what "right" and "wrong" are in my nation.
3. China just overall has better food than the US. Yes, yes, I did eat dog and cow's stomoch and intestines while I was there, but anyone who's ever had some nice, real Chinese food will tell you that China is a wonderful place.
So let's not gripe about copyright craziness and attack of the killer MPAA, let's just jump ship and move to Asia.
It seems like the idea still needs a whole lot of work. I mean, yes, it gets lots of cool points for having coin sized discs...but how do you carry them around. I have problems finding cds...what do you do about things that are even smaller. And, how do you carry them around and still take advantage of the tiny size. It seems having a disc clanging around in your pocket with your change would be a bit tough on it...and it seems that putting it in a nice firm jewel case would up the size a good bit. Does anyone know how they plan to take care of problems like that?
Another interesting possibility is that we may infect Mars. What if the astronauts get there, and some random bacteria is on their spacesuit? Or some other piece of equiptment for that matter? It 'd be like smallpox in the New World all over again. We could actually see life on Mars destroyed by our visit, before we ever actually get to see much of it.
Here come's the flamebait moderation, I'm sure...but I'll say what I think anyway.
The RIAA in this one is sort of on track. Here's why. First of all, I agree with everyone else that the RIAA is a group of bloodsucking (or maybe moneysucking is a more appropriate term) pigs...but they are in essence asking for something that has needed to be done for quite some time. There are two possibilities with the current laws concerning digital media and copyrights. The first possibility is that the government is right, and that this media should be protected in much the same way as physical media should be. I like to say I disagree with them, but part of me says that when I purchase the music I'm much more concerned with the music itself than the shiny media that it's on. And the first possibility is right on. It says regardless of who these artists use to get their work out, they should be protected from being trampled by the general public. The Napster situation here at my university was much like a looting situation during a riot. People knew they could get free music, and so they did. Now, I know that all of the respectable Slashdotters here never did such a thing, but many of my classmates would download entire cd's, decode them, and then burn them in the correct track order. They in essence had the original cd (minus some quality differences). This was obviously not the listening to a song and then buying the cd that everyone speaks about so highly. And in this case the artists of this music were being very blatantly cast away in attempts by fellow classmates to find some sort of pleasure by music.
This first possibility brings with it an idea that stealing digital property is wrong. And if this is true, the government should pursue those who do steal in a more appropriate manner...and treat these people like criminals. There is, though, another possibility for what is right.
Our second possibility is that the government is very wrong. This possibility brings with it some pretty serious consequences. It brings with it the idea that musicians should only be rewarded by getting what the fans think they should get. Nothing more...nothing less. This would most probably be the end of $14 cd's...and also the end of many artists. But...I think under this situation the artists who remain have fans and are doing well. So, this technique could at the same time bring the best and most followed artists to the forefront, and remove the rest.
This second possibility also brings with it something we'd all love. The removal of the RIAA and others. So, it'd have it's positives. I guess, though, we have to decide if what it is that we like is more just general listening to music...or if it was listening to music we like. Because, I have the scary feeling that much of the music that we all like would disappear if it came down to artists not being protected. I mean...would you work full time at what you like best if you could get no pay whatsoever for it, and it involved traveling around the nation full time. And even more important, would your family and those you are responsible for benefit from such a thing?
Sorry, but I don't think that is completely true. Users do exist in various subgroups, and thus user-friendliness exists in the same manner.
For example, a friend of mine recently purchased a computer game for his 2 year old daughter. She understood the interface completely. Even without labels, she knew to click on the pencil to be able to color in the various characters and she knew to click on the toilet to hear a gurgling sound, which her laugh.
I, on the other hand, was completely clueless. She handed me the mouse and wanted me to play, and I couldn't figure out one thing about the interface.
On the other hand, I love vi. And I didn't really spend tons of time learning to use vi. I sat down, a computer science professor gave me the needed instruction (press i to insert text, a to append text, etc.) and I started using it. Now I'm hooked on vi, and even when I'm working with text in windows I use a windows port of vi over other text editors.
I don't feel that user-friendly can simply be determined by the friendliness to users, basically. How on earth could my parents, for example, pick up perl with no training. I couldn't do it, and neither could they. Does that mean that perl is not user friendly? By no means. It's one of the easiest languages I've ever dealt with. You have to look at the tool, who it's meant for, and what it's meant to do when you determine user-friendliness.
While I'll agree that the debian installer is a bit difficult to get used to, I must also admit that that's more because I'm not used to it. At the same time, I know people who have had problems using Microsoft Word, simply because they weren't used to it. So, I would agree that the debian installer isn't beginner friendly...but at the same time it is user-friendly. The masses using and loving debian are living proof.
It seems that somewhere, there has to be some core code to windows that is not all built into a gui, and that handles all the memory management and basic operating system functions. Here in college they tell us it's a kernel, and that it has to be there for the operating system to work. I don't see how Microsoft could possibly say that they can't strip a bit of GUI off of the operating system. It's code. It's not a life...so it can't really be crippled. You take it out, and fix the resulting code. Or you make something new. Although I disagree with people saying that microsoft should have to strip down things and not work to their full potential, I do disagree with microsoft's statement that they "can't" do something with code. That's a blatant lie, and any programmer could tell you that.
Does anyone else get the idea that America is rapidly moving away from this idea of freedom? I mean, I'll agree that having copy protection on computers is not something that will hinder me as a person in some great degree, but at the same time, I would like to have some sort of freedom over my property. And it seems like one of the things that is my property is my computer and my cd's. It just seems odd to me that we have a government that sees fit to throw away rights. What's our reasoning behind this? I don't think that many of our congressmen see the internet and the digital realm in general as an actual community. They think it's a bunch of wires. From that, we're going to see lots of things change, I have a feeling. When you see people getting together and sharing ideas and building a community as just a bunch of wires, it seems it'd be easy to take the step of seeing a place where people live as just a bunch of houses, or a place where people work as just some walls and some equiptment. I think the government has lost all consideration that there are actually people here in America. And I think the result will be some scary times for us all.
It seems to me that someone would have come up with this idea sooner in history, and that the idea would have been seen as proposterous and this person put in their place. Oh, wait, it did happen in the past. What? We in the United States are allowed to backup our data and keep a copy of media that we purchase just in case the media goes bad?
I'm sorry, but this has gone on quite too long. It seems that many people, including the Federal Government, have forgotten what rights we do have concerning media in the United States. Now, I will admit that we have laws that are conflicted in this area, but at the same time. We need to make copies of things. Teachers need to copy worksheets so that they can pass them out to their students. I need to make audio backups so that when my cd's go bad (yes, cd's do go bad after ten years, unlike what was originally promised when they came out). Why attack people for that?
As far as I see it, we need to attack the people that are actually doing illegal things. If you want to stop pirating of movies, then find out who's pirating them and throw their butt in jail. Don't say that there's no way that you can stop it. That's just wussy.
It seems to me the Federal Government has stopped worrying about upholding the law, but has instead gone into a cycle of worrying about companies and punishing everyone when one person gets out of line. It's not working, either, and the result is going to be a big loss in freedom for all of us that are citizens.
Thanks Chuck for the many hours of enjoyable time and laughter you gave me. Thanks for teaching me the immutable laws of physics...things like you won't fall as long as you don't look down and a product from Acme can solve any situation. Thanks for teaching me that if my problem just keeps attacking me I need only dress up like a girl bunny and it'll buy me more time. Thanks for teaching me that rowdy guys like yosemite sam never win. Thanks for teaching me that goofy guys like elmer fudd sometimes win. Thanks for teaching me that really smart guys like bugs and tweety and the road runner always win.
And thanks for giving me something to do when I got to be a little too annoying to my parents and they were ready to kill me. You saved me many times.
So does this mean that burners and floppies and possibly even copy machines and pen and paper are to be illegal? The DMCA seems to be more used as an easy way for big companies to get at anyone they want than some sort of actual business protections. Is this how business works now in America? Whine to the government and they'll do whatever you want?
Of course, though, things like burners won't ever be outlawed. The companies that make most of them have too tight a grip on things at Washington.
"Little/Big endian has no effect in the performance of the system." Note the problems this has brought up. And that's just a tiny part of it.
And about the idea that the rest of the industry is playing catch-up. SPARC's have led the way in making new things happen on chips. And they have a process that makes more sense and isn't trying to keep things working back to the 386.
That was my point. Sorry if I looked like good flamebait to you or whatever you felt like. I wasn't looking for someone with a big ego, I was simply saying that Intel tends to be more about keeping the suits happy than making new cool chips.
As far as I can see it, we're in for some big problems if Intel doesn't see some competition. History has told us that Intel likes to stick with architecture designs for a long time (how long have we been x86?), and likes to refuse to make up for advances in technology/speed (little endian?). So, I see it as fairly scary to have Intel running the show completely. The golden handcuff (the marketer's favorite statement, "Yeah, your old software will work with it!"), if applied when Intel has a monopoly, means a computing industry at a standstill until some sort of competition arises.
Oh, when you have a valentine that isn't techie. I think I'm gonna end up with books, but probably nothing concerning computers. It's great when you date an english major. Maybe, though, I'll get the rest of the Harry Potter series. They're a quality read.
Slashdot Mirror
It would be interested to just see a database that is connected to browsers, so that whenever I were to look at a page, the page data would be processed and sent to whatever search engine. Then, those sites that are updated frequently and get a lot of traffic would be more easily searched.
Just a thought.
With decent paging most of that data being loaded to RAM would get paged out anyway and it wouldn't make for too big of an issue. It would be interesting, though, if they added some sort of paging control to Longhorn to optimize it for doing this type of thing.
That would, of course, still virtually be installing/uninstalling the program, but it doesn't really give the same impression that installing/unstalling has, I don't think.
A lot of the vulnerabilities of these systems are things that are just downright idiotic, in my opinion. We've made programs that don't really need to talk to the outside world able to do so (Word, Excel), and we've given programs that shouldn't be able to control the filesystem and other aspects of the system that privilege (Outlook, Internet Explorer). During the Summer I managed to have Internet Explorer install software for me (.NET Platform).
Why do we not look at applications and give them a domain before we just open the floodgates? Why not just say, "hey, email comes from the outside world, I don't trust the outside world, so I won't let my email client do anything it wants to". I know that this wouldn't stop all of these problems, but I think the general idea would circumvent many virii.
No, it would not be the so-called greatest gift to the Linux world. It'd just suck. What ever happened to choice, my friend? I use Gnome because I think it rocks. Some friends of mine use KDE because they think it rocks. Why don't we all just chill out, use our own thing, and be productive as we would like to be?
I mean, what good would it really do for everything to be unified, besides maybe ease of use for newbs? Even then, there's not a flame war between Mac and Windows people and others wanting to just make them both work exactly the same. Why do we have to do that in Linux?
The best analogy I can think of is a car. Most people (myself included) don't know what happens inside. We trust in GM, Ford, Chevy, or whoever, and we trust that they did their part right and the car won't spontaneously crash or corrupt itself.
That's assuming, on your part, that the poster of the above comment does not know what's under the hood, so to speak. For those of us who do, though, parts of a car can be rebuilt and fixed, and we know exactly what's going on. What we don't know we can usually find in books. Do you mean to imply as well that programmers are given the same kind of accessibility to documentation that car specialists are? Are you saying that those who are professional in the programming world are able to fix and modify DirectX when they find a problem with it? If you are, please give me a link to that source code and documentation so that I can check it out as well.
If it did, there would be an outrage and most likely a recall.
And, in addition, software that sucks has seldom if ever been recalled.
Microsoft is the software equivelent of a car manufacturer.
Microsoft doesn't really seem to be very similar to a car manufacturer, except maybe that they both make stuff. The next time your car messes up, thank your lucky stars that manufacturers give the people who work on cars some sort of documentation...a way to fix problems.
You may want to try looking at some documents on Free/Open Source software before you make comparisons of such magnitude. Yes, the guy that posted before you was seemingly being a free software zealot, but at the same time, the software development scheme that you have chosen to support has quite a few problems in it as well. Let's at least try to look at the situation with some reason... and without faulty analogies.
Corporations will most likely argue that, because of sites like Internal Memos, companies need to keep a tighter grip on the information that flows in and out of their companies.
It seems like they would have already figured out that ethical business practices are a good way to handle that.
I know this is mostly a question that should be asked of the execs at RedHat, but where will revenue come from in the Linux software world? This is an even bigger question when you wonder where revenue will come from in the Linux Home users software world.
I think that in the business world there is already a pretty solid business strategy for creating Linux revenue. Sell the software cheap (< $100), and make money off of supporting the users of the software. This model does, though, have some problems as the awareness of Linux software configuration and upkeep increases, Linux software vendors make less money on support.
The other possible solution that I see is for Linux software vendors to go into a type of trust relationship with their customers. This is fairly utopian of an idea, though, and it would take some major thought changes in industry. Basically, I see there that Linux software vendors can keep writing software, and companies make donations to their cause. When the money runs out, Linux software vendors stop writing software. Hopefully, if they write good enough software, they could keep the donations coming. It's really a kind of a "if you build it, they will come" business model.
On the desktop, though, I'm not sure of what needs to be done to make things profitable. Maybe the above, but it would require some major changes in the thought processes of today's consumers. Does anyone else have any other ideas of how Linux software vendors could develop good software, make money, and stay true to their ideals?
It looks like it's about time for all of us freedom loving Americans to move to China. Why? You ask. The Chinese are worse. You say. Well, think again.
1. China doesn't really care about copyrights, so that whole problem would be over with. You can buy DVD's for under 50 cents US on the streets there with no reprocussions.
2. China is pretty blatant about its controls. I can find out if something I do will get me in trouble, because my neighbor and others will get in trouble for it. I'll know what "right" and "wrong" are in my nation.
3. China just overall has better food than the US. Yes, yes, I did eat dog and cow's stomoch and intestines while I was there, but anyone who's ever had some nice, real Chinese food will tell you that China is a wonderful place.
So let's not gripe about copyright craziness and attack of the killer MPAA, let's just jump ship and move to Asia.
It seems like the idea still needs a whole lot of work. I mean, yes, it gets lots of cool points for having coin sized discs...but how do you carry them around. I have problems finding cds...what do you do about things that are even smaller. And, how do you carry them around and still take advantage of the tiny size. It seems having a disc clanging around in your pocket with your change would be a bit tough on it...and it seems that putting it in a nice firm jewel case would up the size a good bit. Does anyone know how they plan to take care of problems like that?
Another interesting possibility is that we may infect Mars. What if the astronauts get there, and some random bacteria is on their spacesuit? Or some other piece of equiptment for that matter? It 'd be like smallpox in the New World all over again. We could actually see life on Mars destroyed by our visit, before we ever actually get to see much of it.
Here come's the flamebait moderation, I'm sure...but I'll say what I think anyway.
The RIAA in this one is sort of on track. Here's why. First of all, I agree with everyone else that the RIAA is a group of bloodsucking (or maybe moneysucking is a more appropriate term) pigs...but they are in essence asking for something that has needed to be done for quite some time. There are two possibilities with the current laws concerning digital media and copyrights. The first possibility is that the government is right, and that this media should be protected in much the same way as physical media should be. I like to say I disagree with them, but part of me says that when I purchase the music I'm much more concerned with the music itself than the shiny media that it's on. And the first possibility is right on. It says regardless of who these artists use to get their work out, they should be protected from being trampled by the general public. The Napster situation here at my university was much like a looting situation during a riot. People knew they could get free music, and so they did. Now, I know that all of the respectable Slashdotters here never did such a thing, but many of my classmates would download entire cd's, decode them, and then burn them in the correct track order. They in essence had the original cd (minus some quality differences). This was obviously not the listening to a song and then buying the cd that everyone speaks about so highly. And in this case the artists of this music were being very blatantly cast away in attempts by fellow classmates to find some sort of pleasure by music.
This first possibility brings with it an idea that stealing digital property is wrong. And if this is true, the government should pursue those who do steal in a more appropriate manner...and treat these people like criminals. There is, though, another possibility for what is right.
Our second possibility is that the government is very wrong. This possibility brings with it some pretty serious consequences. It brings with it the idea that musicians should only be rewarded by getting what the fans think they should get. Nothing more...nothing less. This would most probably be the end of $14 cd's...and also the end of many artists. But...I think under this situation the artists who remain have fans and are doing well. So, this technique could at the same time bring the best and most followed artists to the forefront, and remove the rest.
This second possibility also brings with it something we'd all love. The removal of the RIAA and others. So, it'd have it's positives. I guess, though, we have to decide if what it is that we like is more just general listening to music...or if it was listening to music we like. Because, I have the scary feeling that much of the music that we all like would disappear if it came down to artists not being protected. I mean...would you work full time at what you like best if you could get no pay whatsoever for it, and it involved traveling around the nation full time. And even more important, would your family and those you are responsible for benefit from such a thing?
Maybe the corporate world hasn't gotten nearly as dumb as we all thought.
Sorry, but I don't think that is completely true. Users do exist in various subgroups, and thus user-friendliness exists in the same manner.
For example, a friend of mine recently purchased a computer game for his 2 year old daughter. She understood the interface completely. Even without labels, she knew to click on the pencil to be able to color in the various characters and she knew to click on the toilet to hear a gurgling sound, which her laugh.
I, on the other hand, was completely clueless. She handed me the mouse and wanted me to play, and I couldn't figure out one thing about the interface.
On the other hand, I love vi. And I didn't really spend tons of time learning to use vi. I sat down, a computer science professor gave me the needed instruction (press i to insert text, a to append text, etc.) and I started using it. Now I'm hooked on vi, and even when I'm working with text in windows I use a windows port of vi over other text editors.
I don't feel that user-friendly can simply be determined by the friendliness to users, basically. How on earth could my parents, for example, pick up perl with no training. I couldn't do it, and neither could they. Does that mean that perl is not user friendly? By no means. It's one of the easiest languages I've ever dealt with. You have to look at the tool, who it's meant for, and what it's meant to do when you determine user-friendliness.
While I'll agree that the debian installer is a bit difficult to get used to, I must also admit that that's more because I'm not used to it. At the same time, I know people who have had problems using Microsoft Word, simply because they weren't used to it. So, I would agree that the debian installer isn't beginner friendly...but at the same time it is user-friendly. The masses using and loving debian are living proof.
I always wondered how George Washington was able to love Mall Chinese food as much as he did.
It seems that somewhere, there has to be some core code to windows that is not all built into a gui, and that handles all the memory management and basic operating system functions. Here in college they tell us it's a kernel, and that it has to be there for the operating system to work. I don't see how Microsoft could possibly say that they can't strip a bit of GUI off of the operating system. It's code. It's not a life...so it can't really be crippled. You take it out, and fix the resulting code. Or you make something new. Although I disagree with people saying that microsoft should have to strip down things and not work to their full potential, I do disagree with microsoft's statement that they "can't" do something with code. That's a blatant lie, and any programmer could tell you that.
Does anyone else get the idea that America is rapidly moving away from this idea of freedom? I mean, I'll agree that having copy protection on computers is not something that will hinder me as a person in some great degree, but at the same time, I would like to have some sort of freedom over my property. And it seems like one of the things that is my property is my computer and my cd's. It just seems odd to me that we have a government that sees fit to throw away rights. What's our reasoning behind this? I don't think that many of our congressmen see the internet and the digital realm in general as an actual community. They think it's a bunch of wires. From that, we're going to see lots of things change, I have a feeling. When you see people getting together and sharing ideas and building a community as just a bunch of wires, it seems it'd be easy to take the step of seeing a place where people live as just a bunch of houses, or a place where people work as just some walls and some equiptment. I think the government has lost all consideration that there are actually people here in America. And I think the result will be some scary times for us all.
It seems to me that someone would have come up with this idea sooner in history, and that the idea would have been seen as proposterous and this person put in their place. Oh, wait, it did happen in the past. What? We in the United States are allowed to backup our data and keep a copy of media that we purchase just in case the media goes bad?
I'm sorry, but this has gone on quite too long. It seems that many people, including the Federal Government, have forgotten what rights we do have concerning media in the United States. Now, I will admit that we have laws that are conflicted in this area, but at the same time. We need to make copies of things. Teachers need to copy worksheets so that they can pass them out to their students. I need to make audio backups so that when my cd's go bad (yes, cd's do go bad after ten years, unlike what was originally promised when they came out). Why attack people for that?
As far as I see it, we need to attack the people that are actually doing illegal things. If you want to stop pirating of movies, then find out who's pirating them and throw their butt in jail. Don't say that there's no way that you can stop it. That's just wussy.
It seems to me the Federal Government has stopped worrying about upholding the law, but has instead gone into a cycle of worrying about companies and punishing everyone when one person gets out of line. It's not working, either, and the result is going to be a big loss in freedom for all of us that are citizens.
Thanks Chuck for the many hours of enjoyable time and laughter you gave me. Thanks for teaching me the immutable laws of physics...things like you won't fall as long as you don't look down and a product from Acme can solve any situation. Thanks for teaching me that if my problem just keeps attacking me I need only dress up like a girl bunny and it'll buy me more time. Thanks for teaching me that rowdy guys like yosemite sam never win. Thanks for teaching me that goofy guys like elmer fudd sometimes win. Thanks for teaching me that really smart guys like bugs and tweety and the road runner always win.
And thanks for giving me something to do when I got to be a little too annoying to my parents and they were ready to kill me. You saved me many times.
Thanks, Chuck Jones.
So does this mean that burners and floppies and possibly even copy machines and pen and paper are to be illegal? The DMCA seems to be more used as an easy way for big companies to get at anyone they want than some sort of actual business protections. Is this how business works now in America? Whine to the government and they'll do whatever you want?
Of course, though, things like burners won't ever be outlawed. The companies that make most of them have too tight a grip on things at Washington.
"Little/Big endian has no effect in the performance of the system." Note the problems this has brought up. And that's just a tiny part of it. And about the idea that the rest of the industry is playing catch-up. SPARC's have led the way in making new things happen on chips. And they have a process that makes more sense and isn't trying to keep things working back to the 386. That was my point. Sorry if I looked like good flamebait to you or whatever you felt like. I wasn't looking for someone with a big ego, I was simply saying that Intel tends to be more about keeping the suits happy than making new cool chips.
As far as I can see it, we're in for some big problems if Intel doesn't see some competition. History has told us that Intel likes to stick with architecture designs for a long time (how long have we been x86?), and likes to refuse to make up for advances in technology/speed (little endian?). So, I see it as fairly scary to have Intel running the show completely. The golden handcuff (the marketer's favorite statement, "Yeah, your old software will work with it!"), if applied when Intel has a monopoly, means a computing industry at a standstill until some sort of competition arises.
Oh, when you have a valentine that isn't techie. I think I'm gonna end up with books, but probably nothing concerning computers. It's great when you date an english major. Maybe, though, I'll get the rest of the Harry Potter series. They're a quality read.