I just don't get this attitude. So it's the WORLD that should change to accommodate the views held by the free software camp
I can't speak for the grandparent, but I think proprietary formats suck for many reasons. It's not just about free software, either. If you chose to use some other, non-free office suite, you'd still have to deal with compatibility issues if using proprietary, non-standards-based file formats.
You can't just expect/assume that everyone you might deal with will be using Windows and Office. PDF, that's slightly more reasonable, as the format is much more portable. XML is even better, being that it's a published, standard format (not proprietary, anyone can support it without worry of lawsuits).
The only other point in the grandparent post I agree with is web standards. A web site that assumes Windows + MSIE, and only works there -- in the vast majority of cases the site doesn't even validate (it's not valid, correct code). Many times it's not even close (missing tags, etc) and the "webmaster" is relying on the particular way that IE handles piss-poor code. Just type some crap in, trial and error, until it loads and looks "correct" in whatever IE version the "webmaster" is using.
In other cases, the "web designer" didn't feel HTML/CSS was enough, and had to use ActiveX widgets (again assuming Win+IE), telling the rest of us to "upgrade" (HA!) (I don't mind Flash or Java so much, honestly, and that's not what I'm talking about here).
The absolute worst case, though, was Capital One's online banking site. It told me that MSIE was required for -- be prepared for this -- security reasons! Seriously, these people seem to be under the impression that only MSIE supports 128-bit SSL encryption. The proper thing to do would have been to configure their SSL web server to only allow 128-bit connections (it takes two parties to hand-shake...) regardless of the particular client software in use. Not to mention the laughability of requiring a browser riddled with holes, for "security reasons".
Now, on the blue screen issue, I have to agree with you. I've seen maybe two blue-screens since going to 2000 and later XP. One was due to a faulty power supply, with the other a corrupt hard drive (third Maxtor in a row to flake out on me...) Not since 1999 have I seen random BSODs or mysterious freezes. I still get the occasional issue where it can't recoup from a memory/CPU-hogging, mis-behaving program that I've since terminated (to the point that hitting "reset" proves much faster)... but nothing like before with Win9x...
In the Windows world, there's always Windows Logo certification.
Of course, it doesn't guarantee that the software is especially useful or bug-free, it simply means that it follows certain user-interface standards (whether those "standards" are ideal is another question, but consistancy is important). Of course technically, Office 2000 and Media Player should not have passed the certification, but that's another story...
The point is, as others have pointed out: hardware testing is mostly about safety and interference concerns, none of which really applies in the software world (barring specific examples like medical, aviation, or RF software, which already are required to meet certain criteria).
I don't see any standard hardware certifications that could be applied to software (usability, design, functionality, etc). So I'm not totally sure what the OP is asking about...
Add to that, much of the time these days, hardware comes with software; be it firmware, drivers, or a full-blown OS and hard disk (set-top boxes, etc). And many times a very high-quality piece of hardware comes with a buggy, closed, crash-prone driver that makes the thing more useful as a paper weight. Or maybe I'm just bitter about my Lexmark X125...
If you want to know that a particular hardware device is a good buy, high-quality, easy-to-use... you either test it out yourself, or you find reviews from magazines or other sources you trust. You ask a friend who has one. Or you buy hardware from a company you trust, and avoid companies that you don't.
The above paragraph works equally well if you substitute software in place of hardware. Thus, I don't feel we need any standards-bodies (or much worse, any sort of mandated certification procedure) for software any more than what we already have, in those cases where it's life-critical.
I've been working "at home" for a few years, and one of the hardest parts is convincing others living with you that you are "at work". My live-in GF still has a difficult time understanding that when she's home and I'm working. I wouldn't go into her office to ask how this shirt looks, but she has a difficult time dealing with the fact that I am "at work", and thinks I'm ignoring her...
Another problem I have (living in an apartment complex) is distractions. Kids coming home from school at 3:30, upstairs neighbors walking hard on the floor (my ceiling), lawn maintenance crew every wednsday morning... a nice quiet office would be nice, but renting or buying a house might help. Plus having a separate room ("office") would be helpful with the separation issue.
With regards to human interaction, I've gotten in the habit of being "off work" and going out; concerts, bars, whatever, just to be out doing something. I keep putting off joining a local LUG (there are several in the Atlanta area), but that would be another nice getaway (my work is Windows programming, so I code in Linux for fun...)
I've always been the isolated type, so it wasn't too huge a transition for me. Often times I go for a long drive just to get away, and though it doesn't help the isolation issue it does help clear my head (it's the one place I can really crank the music).
I would be enranged if a different company began using my TV ad.
So would I.
But I don't think that's what's going on here. They are mostly recycling ads that have never been used. Ads that were produced but either weren't used by the client, or for whatever reason never made it to the general public.
I don't think you'll hear anyone saying "I'd like to buy the world a Pepsi" or "Please don't squeeze the Quilted Northern". Remember, those companies own the rights to the slogans and likely the ads themselves.
The article does mention that there may be duplicate commercials used for more than one *small* company (most likely local ads in different regions). However, I don't think you will see any large-budget ads recycled, especially those containing copyrighted/trademarked slogans, songs, etc. I'm sure that only smaller agencies, and those who have surplus content (commercials produced but never used) would participate in something like this.
And damn you for getting that Coke commercial's song stuck in my head;)
...or canceling my email address either temporarily or perminently...
In my experience, temporary doesn't work. One of my domains was completely dead (tied up with Network Solutions) for over two years, and the day I got it back, my inbox was flooded with just as much spam as back when it was active. I don't think most spammers care (or know, given forged headers) about bounces or dead addresses.
Likewise, I actually doubt the theory that many spammers "verify" addresses with the remove link. Most of the ones I've visted appear to be a form that posts to a static HTML page, which is likely completely ineffective (either for actual removal *or* verifying an address)...
I don't think people are saying "hmm, I think I'll check out the family guy." Consumers of the DVD were fans of the show.
I also suspect (like with Futurama, though to a lesser extent here) that the type of people who would allow a Nielson box in their homes are not the type of people who watch Family Guy. I also suspect that this is why we see so many "millionaire" shows, and Judge this and Jerry that...
It's a biased system in the first place, in that there is (I suspect) a rather narrow class of people that would participate in Nielson ratings (and answer Arbitron's unsolicited phone surveys, etc).
Your DVDs don't spend much time around kids or lent to other people, do they?
No, and I suppose that's a good point. I quit lending CDs out years ago to most people, and only certain people (that I know/trust/don't have kids) borrow movies and music... but I realize that I am not most people:)
With many of my points, they were not saying that DVD was better than VHS. Many of them are deficiencies in both formats. The point is that they were introducing a new format and they could have made that format substantially better rather than just a little better.
I'm not sure the tech was quite there yet to go much further than they did when the DVD spec was finalized (not that I have any references on that...) I know that MPEG4 (for the same bitrate) is far superior to MPEG2 (used on DVDs), but I don't think 4 is "done" yet even now...
Likewise, the "blue laser" technology I'd been hearing about for years still hasn't appeared. So they used a hack (multiple layers) to add capacity to the DVD. Keep in mind that in most cases, before something big is standardized it's already massively out-dated; but that's mostly because it takes time for it to become standard.
Ever watched a scratched DVD?
On that I agree fully. More than once I've had to go back up to Block Buster to bitch and ask for a replacement rental. My (cheap, older Pioneer) player does particularly poorly with scrached DVDs... bad artifacts (and given the audio dynamics of a DVD -- very LOUD audio glitches)....I have seen ads where they directly compare the quality of DVD and VHS.
I should have been more clear: yes, the DVD was (IMO) meant to replace one of the common uses of VHS; specifically movie purchase/rentals. It obviously wasn't intended (at least not yet/at the time) to replace the recording capabilities. Of course, perhaps they (the movie industry) were hoping to replace that functionality as well (with nothing)...
It's a good thing I'm looking to get a video player now. I don't want to spend too much on one because I realise it will probably be obsolete before too long, but I want one that'll last long enough to play the videos that I have sitting in boxes (from the last time I did have a video).
From my experience, all VHS decks are cheap (not "inexpensive", but "shoddy"). Whether you pay $59 at WalMart or $300 at Best Buy, it won't last as long as you'd like.
That said, my current VCR is a $59 WalMart (Emerson) model from 1999, 4 heads, hifi (digitally encoded) audio, etc -- and works just fine to this day. You'll notice they've even gotten rid of the front-panel clock -- guess too many people just couldn't figure it out:)
All the features that used to be top-of-the-line (4 heads, "flying" erase head, hifi audio, front-panel inputs, mid-loading deck...) are all standard on even the cheapest units. Of course nearly all DVD decks sold today play MP3 and VCDs...
Unfortunately a trend I've found particularly annoying is that the movie industry is abusing a "feature" of the DVD spec.
This "feature" allows the content creators to specify a section as "non-skippable". It is intended for the bogus "FBI Warning", so that for 20 seconds they can try to tell you that the Feds are on their way if you dare try to copy it.
I'm okay with that, except that the content creators have lately been using this "feature" to disallow skipping of some 4 minutes of previews! So not only is the feature bogus in the first place, but it's being badly abused.
But aside from that I agree -- you do get (mostly) random access to the content on the disc.
For movie lovers it really is nice to have the extras. There are many things I cannot stand about DVDs, but nothing in your list is on mine:
1. I have to pay for all of my old stuff again. Not so bad - it's a new format, someone has to be paid for the conversion
No, you don't have to buy your stuff again. VCRs will continue to be sold for many years to come, I'm sure. You can still buy cassette players and turn-tables today. Surely you didn't throw out your VCR when you got a DVD player?
Unless you want the extras, or the higher quality video or surround sound (as mentioned in your first list), then yes, you will have to pay for that. But then, you just validated that first list as "reasons to upgrade".
2. They're fragile. You can drop a VHS cassette onto concrete - don't try this with your DVDs
How about this: don't drop it! Seriously, if you drop a VHS cassette onto carpet, you're more likely to dammage it than a DVD disc. If you are out dropping your media onto concrete, I think you have more problems...
3. They still degrade. Not in the same way as VHS, but some of these manufacturers are putting out discs so cheap they're not even lasting as long as VHS
You get what you pay for. However, if properly stored I think any DVD/CD will outlast any magnetic media format. Likewise, DVD/CD does not wear out from play (normal use), where magnetic media does.
4. They don't actually hold that much. What's the longest thing you've seen on a single DVD? For any reasonable quality, you only seem to get about 4-5 (maybe 6) hours.
How much do you get out of a VHS with "reasonable quality"? Certainly not 6 hours; noone concerned with quality uses anything but SP on high-quality tapes.
5. They're not recordable. Yeah, yeah I know - not technically true, but how many people actually have a DVD recorder in front of the TV? It's going to be 10-15 years after the standard has been in place before recording will be an everyday thing.
Again, keep your VCR (or use a PVR/PC) for this particular use. DVDs didn't take off for home movies, they took off as a format to distribute high-quality, digital content. Best tool for the particular job...
6. Layer skips. For anyone else who has digital TV, don't you find you notice it more when there is a sudden little pop of sound than a constant hum?...
You mean that little pause as the laser seeks to the next layer? High-end players don't do that, all it takes is a couple megs of buffering to eliminate that.
Just to reiterate my main point: DVDs are great for their intended purpose (distributing main-stream media content), and for those things it cannot do, there are still many alternatives. I don't think many people threw out their VHS deck when they bought a DVD player... and you don't have to, either. Nobody ever said the DVD had to replace VHS, or that you couldn't use both. All of your points seem to assume that this is the case.
Also note how inexpensively a mid-grade 4-head "hifi" VCR goes for now days... coincidence?
A good dose of skepticism should accompany any examination of the dazzingly elegant solution.
Have you read the article? Personally I think it's an interesting method to determine, for a specific program or algorithm, what compiler options produce the fastest results. Survival of the fittest certainly works in this case.
Sure, he didn't provide a specific set of optimization flags that are "best", but that's because it's highly implementation-specific. To imply that it's all about "buzz-words" indicates you didn't really read (or understand) the article...
Personally, his method is elegant, IMO. It's definitely something I'll be looking into for my own software, at least for specific algorithms where speed is important (FFT analysis, for example).
The cost of packaging, shelf space, support, etc. outweighs the cost of hardware by so much at that level that, even if the hardware were essentially free, the product price would be around $30 or so.
Then:
On the other end, at $5 or so they become worth producing again (see PICs and such) because, at that point, no packaging or support is expected...
I'm not so sure I agree with this logic. You can buy OEM CPUs today, even for high-end CPUs, with no packaging other than a small grey box (no sink/fan/documentation/etc). I recently purchased an Athlon 2400+ like this, and it was about $20 less than the full packaged version with sink/fan.
I've seen older CPUs in computer shops going for $30 to $50, from old MMX 233 Pentiums on up to mid-range PIII chips. I see no reason the AMD 32-bit chips won't be sold at a low price once the manufacturer calls them "obsolete". It happens all the time...
I'm pretty sure people would be quick about getting the word out that their finger was just chopped off... Unless they were dead, in which case they wouldn't care anyway.
I agree, and the real point is, if someone is willing to go that far, certainly cash or a credit card suffer the same shortcomings... you can much more easily pick one's pocket than lop off their finger. And if someone goes as far as killing someone, I'm sure they'd think it much easier to just take the person's credit cards and cash than their finger (which in most cases is simply linked to one of said credit cards).
Absolutely. This will only work (as per the original poster's suggestion) if there is a valid reply-to address.
Agreed, the original poster did cover this; I didn't get from the person I replied to, however, that he was taking this precaution. It's entirely possible that he is, but I wanted to ensure not too many people took his suggestion without considering that part.
I am thinking about taking part in a little "fighting back", be it with replies, fake form-fillouts, or 800-number calls. I already got in the habit of sending back blank credit card applications in the supplied (postage paid) envelopes, etc, and I'd love to see enough of us do this with SPAM to make an impact.
Add all the spammers to an e-mail list and automatically forward any spam I get (using an address I use only for this purpose) to everyone on that list.
Having recently been a victim of having my addresses spoofed by spammers, I don't think this is a good idea. Only if the SPAM actually says to reply for more information (or to make a purchase) would this work; in other words, only if you have a reason to believe that the address is in fact going to reach the spammer.
The majority of SPAM I get does not come from a valid email address, but instead includes a URL to visit or a telephone number to call. Thus, forwarding SPAM to the From/Reply address will either just bounce, or worse, go to the unsuspecting person who's address was inappropriately used.
I know that often the spammers just use a random address from their list as the From/Reply-To, but for a couple of weeks I was the proud recipient of many thousands of bounced SPAM messages, to the extent that I had to temporarily/dev/null my Postmaster alias (violating RFCs of course).
I don't know about everyone else, but a good portion of the seemingly blank SPAM I receive are actually HTML email with no text version. I told Mozilla mail to never, ever display HTML email (and can't figure out how I did it, to replicate on my laptop!) If I look at the email in a text editor, I realize that it's full of either HTML or Base64-encoded text/html.
Mozilla Mail does properly convert normal HTML mail to text, even when a text version isn't included -- so obviously whatever tool the spammers use to compose their messages is non-compliant in some way (I haven't been bothered enough to figure out what exactly they are doing wrong).
I do quite often get other messages that appear to be just junk, or possibly Chinese/Korean characters (the majority simply look like binary data)... those I haven't figured out yet.
but, leggy, that ain't insulation (or, at least, that's not its purpose). why would you want that on a hot day?
Just wanted to point out, insulation does not necessarily imply heat insulation. It insulates the wearer from the impact. Thus, it can reasonably be called insulation in my opinion (and that's how I read it)...
Put a frog (alive) into a pot of cold water. Put the pot on low heat. If you heat the water slowly enough, the frog will not jump out, even when it eventually boils to death.
I used to use this analogy until I realized that it is not true...
[...] can code be re-licensed by people other than the authors when the original license was less restrictive?
If the original license specifies that this is allowed, then sure. Otherwise, consult the original copyright holder. In general I would say that the BSD license does allow this if the required text block is included in any source copies (though the older BSD license also required mention in the final documentation of even a binary-only distribution; I believe this was called the "Advertising Clause" or something like that).
What if Kenneth Almquist doesn't like the GPL and wants his code to be distributed that way?
Then he should have been more specific in his license. I would guess, however, that he would not have a problem with it, or he would have chosen a more restrictive license to begin with. And if he were to specify (for example) that his code must always be licensed a certain way -- well, then we have another GPL.
I'm worried that someone will claim ash is GPL and I must release the source.
Don't copy from the GPL version, else you are in fact taking GPL'd code. The copy you use to base your project on should contain a license allowing you to do so.
...but if there are bug fixes in the GPL'd code, they'd better not be in my ash, at least in the same form.
Which is why I say start with code that contains a license you can agree with. Any bug fixes you'll of course have to replicate on your own.
The copyright message in the busybox version suggests that K.A. contributed it to Berkeley and the license for that *is* the BSD license.
I am not sure if I read you correctly or not... but if it doesn't actually have a BSD license attached, then it's not BSD-licensed. Simply contributing something to Berkeley does not in itself cause it to be BSD-licensed unless Berkeley released a relicensed copy themselves.
If I want a later version than my 1989 one, I run the risk of hitting the part of the timeline where GPL contributions began.
Which is why I say not to use the newer GPL version. If you want those bug fixes, you will have to agree to the license that comes with them -- or reimplement them yourself.
In my opinion it's pretty cut and dry: simply start your closed-source project with code that is licensed to allow such use. Any code whose license does not permit this (such as the GPL) should be avoided.
They claim that Gibson will release the first digital guitar in January 2004 when the Variax has been on the market for a while now.
They serve two distinctly different purposes. The guitar you link to simply has a DSP effects processor, and though it does have some kind of digital I/O, that's merely a side-effect of having an on-board DSP.
The Gibson contains an A/D converter, and provides a digital feed via an Ethernet cable. They are hoping to establish this as a new standard for all instruments to connect. I believe it uses the same low-level (hardware-level) protocal as Ethernet, but beyond that it's not the same. There was a/. article about this a while back.
The idea is that in a few years time, an entire stage or studio may be digitally connected, eliminating electrical interference problems and allowing for pure digital mixing. Digitizing each input at the source would give the cleanest possible signal.
The only thing I'd miss is the 60 Hz BUZZZZZ as you're plugging the guitar in. I just hope you don't hear the Windows XP "device connected" sound on stage...
If there is a viable alternative to a product, then how can said product have a monopoly?
It doesn't matter that alternatives exist. It matters that Microsoft uses tactics to ensure that competing products can't get into large parts of the market. For example, you can't buy a PC from Dell, HP, Compaq, et al without paying for a Windows license.
If this were Dell/HP/Compaq's choice, then that would be fine. But it's not -- it's part of their OEM agreement, and violating (or not agreeing with) it forces them to pay full price for each Windows machine sold.
That is (one example of) where the monopolistic practices come into play.
Come on, folks, let's take care of this the American way.
Sue them? Sorry... but seriously, I see "build your own PC" arguments, but not everyone knows how, and many want the security of having an OEM behind their computer (warranties, etc). This is especially important in the business environment...
And those 1 to 2% of consumers probably built their own PC anyway and therefore didn't pay for an MS license. Let's get real here.
Not all. I personally have a laptop that came with Windows ME, that has never booted Windows ME; my first step was to insert my RedHat 7.2 CD and proceed to install Windows. This was in early 2001, and currently it dual-boots RH 7.2 and Windows XP (which of course I had to purchase separately).
I could not find a laptop for the price, and with the features I needed anywhere that didn't come with Windows, so my only real choice was to in fact purchase a copy of Windows I had no intention of using.
There are many others like me. Laptops are probably a more common case, but many people -- including Linux and other OS users -- want a machine that is warranted from the factory to work. You can say "build your own", but not everyone knows how, or wants to deal with supporting their own hardware (how does a non-expert determine if a particular problem is in the CPU, motherboard, or video card -- when each component comes from a different company?)
Besides, Microsoft has broken laws and harmed consumers. The fact that they "only" harmed a small percentage is irrelevant.
What exactly does being a successful, agressive company have to do with being "unjust?" Nobody *has* to use Microsoft now, and nobody hever has.
Go buy a name-brand x86-based PC with a warranty, and don't pay for Microsoft Windows. Go ahead, try it.
That's where the problem is. Microsoft only offers the good, OEM pricing for Windows to OEMs who agree not to sell any non-Windows equipped PCs. Otherwise, the OEM has to lose tons of money paying full price for Windows. Compare that to the (comparatively) negligable amount they lose to potential customers who don't want Windows.
Even small PC shops have received colorful broshures warning them not to sell OS-less machines, under the assumption that the user plans to pirate a copy of Windows. Pathetically many of these PC shops aren't even aware that other operating systems exist, or that one can legally transfer a Windows license from one machine to another...
In the end, consumers have no choice in the matter. Some consumers will in fact build their own PC (if they know how). Some will just pay for Windows and simply not use it. Most -- by far the most -- will just use Windows, and I'm sure many of these might have tried something else had the obstacles not been there.
The tax is easy to avoid, build your computer instead of having it pre-built.
Some people want the security of having a company behind the hardware. Not everyone knows how to build a PC, and some of those may still have a desire to use a different OS, while still having the manufacturer's warranty. Warranties on individual components vary, and sometimes it's difficult to determine exactly which component is bad.
[...] you can't buy a car without tires just because you don't like Firestone. Why should computers be different?
Firestone does not have a monopoly. If you don't like Firestone, there are plenty of other auto manufacturers selling cars with different stock tires; often the same manufacturer will have different models that come with different brands of tire.
However, if you don't like Windows, you can't easily find a name-brand PC that comes with another OS (or sans-OS).
The fact of the matter is, Dell shouldn't be obligated to sell you any other OS, or a PC without an OS. Dell has every right to offer only Microsoft Windows XP, and not offer any machines with a different configuration. That should be Dell's choice.
But there lies the problem: it's not Dell's choice. Microsoft uses tactics to force OEMs into including Windows (or at least charging for it anyway). Things like, requiring this in order to get normal OEM bulk pricing. It's part of the same contract: you get lower price, and in exchange you don't offer any machines without Windows.
It's the same strong-arming the RIAA pulled on Best Buy, Walmart, and Target, not allowing them to lower prices from the minimum set by the labels; obey, or lose out on all of the perks other stores receive. Note that (IIRC) they sued the RIAA for this and won...
The amount of business Dell loses to potential Linux customers, compared to the amount they would lose by having to pay full price for every copy of XP they ship (a significant price increase) -- what would you do in Dell's position? Would you not feel forced? And don't you, as a consumer, feel that this is unfair, that no matter which big PC company you go to, it's the same story?
"Uh, I bought this computer from you, and I installed BeOS on it, and my sound card doesn't work. Why didn't you guys give me a BeOS compatible sound card?!?"
That's a completley different argument. Nobody is asking them to support the third-party software -- only the hardware itself. In that regard, it is up to the buyer to determine that the product will be supported by their OS of choice before making the purchase.
Now, if it weren't for Microsoft's tactics, I could easily see each PC model listing what operating systems are known to work with the included hardware -- something they wouldn't dare do currently. I seem to remember a day when this was the case, many years ago...
I don't quite know how bittorrent works, but I've installed it today (just for this purpose) and the client can't seem to connect to the "tracker". I can download the.torrent file easily enough, but the client fails consistantly.
Is there a possible mirror/secondary tracker available that anyone knows about? It seems that the tracker becomes a single point of failure in an otherwise distributed system...
The error is "connection refused", so it seems like the tracker's host is down. Note that I have opened the necessary ports (6881 - 6999)...
In all, it looks like an updated RedHat 9 to me, but since I've not yet tried anything since 7.3, I figured it'd make a good second Linux box (my main Linux box runs RedHat 6.2, heavily modified/upgraded, but with no GUI).
I hate DVDs for many reasons, but the main reason is similar to this "broadcast flag". That is, there is a "feature" of DVDs that allows the creator to designate a portion that cannot be skipped.
This is so they can show you the "FBI Warning", that lies and says you would be committing a criminal act by copying the disc, and so on. Only lately they are abusing this to show previews that you cannot skip.
It's rediculous. There exists no technical reason my DVD player can't skip those previews, and likewise there's no technical reasons a tuner has to obey the "broadcast flag". Unfortunately things are headed in this direction, and there will be many, many other things that don't let us copy -- whether because of actual encryption (at least this is respectable) or some "flag", "region code", or non-standard hack (like CD copy protections schemes).
The sad thing is that, at least on a large scale: it will work. Joe Average won't know where to find DeCSS (or that it even exists), nor will he find the hacked driver (yet to be made) for newer DTV tuner cards; likewise, no manufacturer would mass-produce such devices for sale in the US. Thus, the scheme, no matter how stupid, will be effective, with the law behind it.
Slashdot Mirror
I just don't get this attitude. So it's the WORLD that should change to accommodate the views held by the free software camp
I can't speak for the grandparent, but I think proprietary formats suck for many reasons. It's not just about free software, either. If you chose to use some other, non-free office suite, you'd still have to deal with compatibility issues if using proprietary, non-standards-based file formats.
You can't just expect/assume that everyone you might deal with will be using Windows and Office. PDF, that's slightly more reasonable, as the format is much more portable. XML is even better, being that it's a published, standard format (not proprietary, anyone can support it without worry of lawsuits).
The only other point in the grandparent post I agree with is web standards. A web site that assumes Windows + MSIE, and only works there -- in the vast majority of cases the site doesn't even validate (it's not valid, correct code). Many times it's not even close (missing tags, etc) and the "webmaster" is relying on the particular way that IE handles piss-poor code. Just type some crap in, trial and error, until it loads and looks "correct" in whatever IE version the "webmaster" is using.
In other cases, the "web designer" didn't feel HTML/CSS was enough, and had to use ActiveX widgets (again assuming Win+IE), telling the rest of us to "upgrade" (HA!) (I don't mind Flash or Java so much, honestly, and that's not what I'm talking about here).
The absolute worst case, though, was Capital One's online banking site. It told me that MSIE was required for -- be prepared for this -- security reasons! Seriously, these people seem to be under the impression that only MSIE supports 128-bit SSL encryption. The proper thing to do would have been to configure their SSL web server to only allow 128-bit connections (it takes two parties to hand-shake...) regardless of the particular client software in use. Not to mention the laughability of requiring a browser riddled with holes, for "security reasons".
Now, on the blue screen issue, I have to agree with you. I've seen maybe two blue-screens since going to 2000 and later XP. One was due to a faulty power supply, with the other a corrupt hard drive (third Maxtor in a row to flake out on me...) Not since 1999 have I seen random BSODs or mysterious freezes. I still get the occasional issue where it can't recoup from a memory/CPU-hogging, mis-behaving program that I've since terminated (to the point that hitting "reset" proves much faster)... but nothing like before with Win9x...
In the Windows world, there's always Windows Logo certification.
Of course, it doesn't guarantee that the software is especially useful or bug-free, it simply means that it follows certain user-interface standards (whether those "standards" are ideal is another question, but consistancy is important). Of course technically, Office 2000 and Media Player should not have passed the certification, but that's another story...
The point is, as others have pointed out: hardware testing is mostly about safety and interference concerns, none of which really applies in the software world (barring specific examples like medical, aviation, or RF software, which already are required to meet certain criteria).
I don't see any standard hardware certifications that could be applied to software (usability, design, functionality, etc). So I'm not totally sure what the OP is asking about...
Add to that, much of the time these days, hardware comes with software; be it firmware, drivers, or a full-blown OS and hard disk (set-top boxes, etc). And many times a very high-quality piece of hardware comes with a buggy, closed, crash-prone driver that makes the thing more useful as a paper weight. Or maybe I'm just bitter about my Lexmark X125...
If you want to know that a particular hardware device is a good buy, high-quality, easy-to-use... you either test it out yourself, or you find reviews from magazines or other sources you trust. You ask a friend who has one. Or you buy hardware from a company you trust, and avoid companies that you don't.
The above paragraph works equally well if you substitute software in place of hardware. Thus, I don't feel we need any standards-bodies (or much worse, any sort of mandated certification procedure) for software any more than what we already have, in those cases where it's life-critical.
I've been working "at home" for a few years, and one of the hardest parts is convincing others living with you that you are "at work". My live-in GF still has a difficult time understanding that when she's home and I'm working. I wouldn't go into her office to ask how this shirt looks, but she has a difficult time dealing with the fact that I am "at work", and thinks I'm ignoring her...
Another problem I have (living in an apartment complex) is distractions. Kids coming home from school at 3:30, upstairs neighbors walking hard on the floor (my ceiling), lawn maintenance crew every wednsday morning... a nice quiet office would be nice, but renting or buying a house might help. Plus having a separate room ("office") would be helpful with the separation issue.
With regards to human interaction, I've gotten in the habit of being "off work" and going out; concerts, bars, whatever, just to be out doing something. I keep putting off joining a local LUG (there are several in the Atlanta area), but that would be another nice getaway (my work is Windows programming, so I code in Linux for fun...)
I've always been the isolated type, so it wasn't too huge a transition for me. Often times I go for a long drive just to get away, and though it doesn't help the isolation issue it does help clear my head (it's the one place I can really crank the music).
I would be enranged if a different company began using my TV ad.
;)
So would I.
But I don't think that's what's going on here. They are mostly recycling ads that have never been used. Ads that were produced but either weren't used by the client, or for whatever reason never made it to the general public.
I don't think you'll hear anyone saying "I'd like to buy the world a Pepsi" or "Please don't squeeze the Quilted Northern". Remember, those companies own the rights to the slogans and likely the ads themselves.
The article does mention that there may be duplicate commercials used for more than one *small* company (most likely local ads in different regions). However, I don't think you will see any large-budget ads recycled, especially those containing copyrighted/trademarked slogans, songs, etc. I'm sure that only smaller agencies, and those who have surplus content (commercials produced but never used) would participate in something like this.
And damn you for getting that Coke commercial's song stuck in my head
...or canceling my email address either temporarily or perminently...
In my experience, temporary doesn't work. One of my domains was completely dead (tied up with Network Solutions) for over two years, and the day I got it back, my inbox was flooded with just as much spam as back when it was active. I don't think most spammers care (or know, given forged headers) about bounces or dead addresses.
Likewise, I actually doubt the theory that many spammers "verify" addresses with the remove link. Most of the ones I've visted appear to be a form that posts to a static HTML page, which is likely completely ineffective (either for actual removal *or* verifying an address)...
I don't think people are saying "hmm, I think I'll check out the family guy." Consumers of the DVD were fans of the show.
I also suspect (like with Futurama, though to a lesser extent here) that the type of people who would allow a Nielson box in their homes are not the type of people who watch Family Guy. I also suspect that this is why we see so many "millionaire" shows, and Judge this and Jerry that...
It's a biased system in the first place, in that there is (I suspect) a rather narrow class of people that would participate in Nielson ratings (and answer Arbitron's unsolicited phone surveys, etc).
That's my theory anyway...
Your DVDs don't spend much time around kids or lent to other people, do they?
:)
...I have seen ads where they directly compare the quality of DVD and VHS.
:)
No, and I suppose that's a good point. I quit lending CDs out years ago to most people, and only certain people (that I know/trust/don't have kids) borrow movies and music... but I realize that I am not most people
With many of my points, they were not saying that DVD was better than VHS. Many of them are deficiencies in both formats. The point is that they were introducing a new format and they could have made that format substantially better rather than just a little better.
I'm not sure the tech was quite there yet to go much further than they did when the DVD spec was finalized (not that I have any references on that...) I know that MPEG4 (for the same bitrate) is far superior to MPEG2 (used on DVDs), but I don't think 4 is "done" yet even now...
Likewise, the "blue laser" technology I'd been hearing about for years still hasn't appeared. So they used a hack (multiple layers) to add capacity to the DVD. Keep in mind that in most cases, before something big is standardized it's already massively out-dated; but that's mostly because it takes time for it to become standard.
Ever watched a scratched DVD?
On that I agree fully. More than once I've had to go back up to Block Buster to bitch and ask for a replacement rental. My (cheap, older Pioneer) player does particularly poorly with scrached DVDs... bad artifacts (and given the audio dynamics of a DVD -- very LOUD audio glitches).
I should have been more clear: yes, the DVD was (IMO) meant to replace one of the common uses of VHS; specifically movie purchase/rentals. It obviously wasn't intended (at least not yet/at the time) to replace the recording capabilities. Of course, perhaps they (the movie industry) were hoping to replace that functionality as well (with nothing)...
It's a good thing I'm looking to get a video player now. I don't want to spend too much on one because I realise it will probably be obsolete before too long, but I want one that'll last long enough to play the videos that I have sitting in boxes (from the last time I did have a video).
From my experience, all VHS decks are cheap (not "inexpensive", but "shoddy"). Whether you pay $59 at WalMart or $300 at Best Buy, it won't last as long as you'd like.
That said, my current VCR is a $59 WalMart (Emerson) model from 1999, 4 heads, hifi (digitally encoded) audio, etc -- and works just fine to this day. You'll notice they've even gotten rid of the front-panel clock -- guess too many people just couldn't figure it out
All the features that used to be top-of-the-line (4 heads, "flying" erase head, hifi audio, front-panel inputs, mid-loading deck...) are all standard on even the cheapest units. Of course nearly all DVD decks sold today play MP3 and VCDs...
4. Random access
In theory, yes. And in most cases, yes.
Unfortunately a trend I've found particularly annoying is that the movie industry is abusing a "feature" of the DVD spec.
This "feature" allows the content creators to specify a section as "non-skippable". It is intended for the bogus "FBI Warning", so that for 20 seconds they can try to tell you that the Feds are on their way if you dare try to copy it.
I'm okay with that, except that the content creators have lately been using this "feature" to disallow skipping of some 4 minutes of previews! So not only is the feature bogus in the first place, but it's being badly abused.
But aside from that I agree -- you do get (mostly) random access to the content on the disc.
I just wanted to respond to these few points:
You know what I think? That's not a huge list.
For movie lovers it really is nice to have the extras. There are many things I cannot stand about DVDs, but nothing in your list is on mine:
1. I have to pay for all of my old stuff again. Not so bad - it's a new format, someone has to be paid for the conversion
No, you don't have to buy your stuff again. VCRs will continue to be sold for many years to come, I'm sure. You can still buy cassette players and turn-tables today. Surely you didn't throw out your VCR when you got a DVD player?
Unless you want the extras, or the higher quality video or surround sound (as mentioned in your first list), then yes, you will have to pay for that. But then, you just validated that first list as "reasons to upgrade".
2. They're fragile. You can drop a VHS cassette onto concrete - don't try this with your DVDs
How about this: don't drop it! Seriously, if you drop a VHS cassette onto carpet, you're more likely to dammage it than a DVD disc. If you are out dropping your media onto concrete, I think you have more problems...
3. They still degrade. Not in the same way as VHS, but some of these manufacturers are putting out discs so cheap they're not even lasting as long as VHS
You get what you pay for. However, if properly stored I think any DVD/CD will outlast any magnetic media format. Likewise, DVD/CD does not wear out from play (normal use), where magnetic media does.
4. They don't actually hold that much. What's the longest thing you've seen on a single DVD? For any reasonable quality, you only seem to get about 4-5 (maybe 6) hours.
How much do you get out of a VHS with "reasonable quality"? Certainly not 6 hours; noone concerned with quality uses anything but SP on high-quality tapes.
5. They're not recordable. Yeah, yeah I know - not technically true, but how many people actually have a DVD recorder in front of the TV? It's going to be 10-15 years after the standard has been in place before recording will be an everyday thing.
Again, keep your VCR (or use a PVR/PC) for this particular use. DVDs didn't take off for home movies, they took off as a format to distribute high-quality, digital content. Best tool for the particular job...
6. Layer skips. For anyone else who has digital TV, don't you find you notice it more when there is a sudden little pop of sound than a constant hum?...
You mean that little pause as the laser seeks to the next layer? High-end players don't do that, all it takes is a couple megs of buffering to eliminate that.
Just to reiterate my main point: DVDs are great for their intended purpose (distributing main-stream media content), and for those things it cannot do, there are still many alternatives. I don't think many people threw out their VHS deck when they bought a DVD player... and you don't have to, either. Nobody ever said the DVD had to replace VHS, or that you couldn't use both. All of your points seem to assume that this is the case.
Also note how inexpensively a mid-grade 4-head "hifi" VCR goes for now days... coincidence?
A good dose of skepticism should accompany any examination of the dazzingly elegant solution.
Have you read the article? Personally I think it's an interesting method to determine, for a specific program or algorithm, what compiler options produce the fastest results. Survival of the fittest certainly works in this case.
Sure, he didn't provide a specific set of optimization flags that are "best", but that's because it's highly implementation-specific. To imply that it's all about "buzz-words" indicates you didn't really read (or understand) the article...
Personally, his method is elegant, IMO. It's definitely something I'll be looking into for my own software, at least for specific algorithms where speed is important (FFT analysis, for example).
The cost of packaging, shelf space, support, etc. outweighs the cost of hardware by so much at that level that, even if the hardware were essentially free, the product price would be around $30 or so.
Then:
On the other end, at $5 or so they become worth producing again (see PICs and such) because, at that point, no packaging or support is expected...
I'm not so sure I agree with this logic. You can buy OEM CPUs today, even for high-end CPUs, with no packaging other than a small grey box (no sink/fan/documentation/etc). I recently purchased an Athlon 2400+ like this, and it was about $20 less than the full packaged version with sink/fan.
I've seen older CPUs in computer shops going for $30 to $50, from old MMX 233 Pentiums on up to mid-range PIII chips. I see no reason the AMD 32-bit chips won't be sold at a low price once the manufacturer calls them "obsolete". It happens all the time...
I'm pretty sure people would be quick about getting the word out that their finger was just chopped off... Unless they were dead, in which case they wouldn't care anyway.
I agree, and the real point is, if someone is willing to go that far, certainly cash or a credit card suffer the same shortcomings... you can much more easily pick one's pocket than lop off their finger. And if someone goes as far as killing someone, I'm sure they'd think it much easier to just take the person's credit cards and cash than their finger (which in most cases is simply linked to one of said credit cards).
Absolutely. This will only work (as per the original poster's suggestion) if there is a valid reply-to address.
Agreed, the original poster did cover this; I didn't get from the person I replied to, however, that he was taking this precaution. It's entirely possible that he is, but I wanted to ensure not too many people took his suggestion without considering that part.
I am thinking about taking part in a little "fighting back", be it with replies, fake form-fillouts, or 800-number calls. I already got in the habit of sending back blank credit card applications in the supplied (postage paid) envelopes, etc, and I'd love to see enough of us do this with SPAM to make an impact.
You could always do what I do.
/dev/null my Postmaster alias (violating RFCs of course).
Add all the spammers to an e-mail list and automatically forward any spam I get (using an address I use only for this purpose) to everyone on that list.
Having recently been a victim of having my addresses spoofed by spammers, I don't think this is a good idea. Only if the SPAM actually says to reply for more information (or to make a purchase) would this work; in other words, only if you have a reason to believe that the address is in fact going to reach the spammer.
The majority of SPAM I get does not come from a valid email address, but instead includes a URL to visit or a telephone number to call. Thus, forwarding SPAM to the From/Reply address will either just bounce, or worse, go to the unsuspecting person who's address was inappropriately used.
I know that often the spammers just use a random address from their list as the From/Reply-To, but for a couple of weeks I was the proud recipient of many thousands of bounced SPAM messages, to the extent that I had to temporarily
Who sends them and whatfor?
I don't know about everyone else, but a good portion of the seemingly blank SPAM I receive are actually HTML email with no text version. I told Mozilla mail to never, ever display HTML email (and can't figure out how I did it, to replicate on my laptop!) If I look at the email in a text editor, I realize that it's full of either HTML or Base64-encoded text/html.
Mozilla Mail does properly convert normal HTML mail to text, even when a text version isn't included -- so obviously whatever tool the spammers use to compose their messages is non-compliant in some way (I haven't been bothered enough to figure out what exactly they are doing wrong).
I do quite often get other messages that appear to be just junk, or possibly Chinese/Korean characters (the majority simply look like binary data)... those I haven't figured out yet.
but, leggy, that ain't insulation (or, at least, that's not its purpose). why would you want that on a hot day?
Just wanted to point out, insulation does not necessarily imply heat insulation. It insulates the wearer from the impact. Thus, it can reasonably be called insulation in my opinion (and that's how I read it)...
Put a frog (alive) into a pot of cold water. Put the pot on low heat. If you heat the water slowly enough, the frog will not jump out, even when it eventually boils to death.
I used to use this analogy until I realized that it is not true...
IANAL, but my take on it follows.
...but if there are bug fixes in the GPL'd code, they'd better not be in my ash, at least in the same form.
[...] can code be re-licensed by people other than the authors when the original license was less restrictive?
If the original license specifies that this is allowed, then sure. Otherwise, consult the original copyright holder. In general I would say that the BSD license does allow this if the required text block is included in any source copies (though the older BSD license also required mention in the final documentation of even a binary-only distribution; I believe this was called the "Advertising Clause" or something like that).
What if Kenneth Almquist doesn't like the GPL and wants his code to be distributed that way?
Then he should have been more specific in his license. I would guess, however, that he would not have a problem with it, or he would have chosen a more restrictive license to begin with. And if he were to specify (for example) that his code must always be licensed a certain way -- well, then we have another GPL.
I'm worried that someone will claim ash is GPL and I must release the source.
Don't copy from the GPL version, else you are in fact taking GPL'd code. The copy you use to base your project on should contain a license allowing you to do so.
Which is why I say start with code that contains a license you can agree with. Any bug fixes you'll of course have to replicate on your own.
The copyright message in the busybox version suggests that K.A. contributed it to Berkeley and the license for that *is* the BSD license.
I am not sure if I read you correctly or not... but if it doesn't actually have a BSD license attached, then it's not BSD-licensed. Simply contributing something to Berkeley does not in itself cause it to be BSD-licensed unless Berkeley released a relicensed copy themselves.
If I want a later version than my 1989 one, I run the risk of hitting the part of the timeline where GPL contributions began.
Which is why I say not to use the newer GPL version. If you want those bug fixes, you will have to agree to the license that comes with them -- or reimplement them yourself.
In my opinion it's pretty cut and dry: simply start your closed-source project with code that is licensed to allow such use. Any code whose license does not permit this (such as the GPL) should be avoided.
They claim that Gibson will release the first digital guitar in January 2004 when the Variax has been on the market for a while now.
/. article about this a while back.
They serve two distinctly different purposes. The guitar you link to simply has a DSP effects processor, and though it does have some kind of digital I/O, that's merely a side-effect of having an on-board DSP.
The Gibson contains an A/D converter, and provides a digital feed via an Ethernet cable. They are hoping to establish this as a new standard for all instruments to connect. I believe it uses the same low-level (hardware-level) protocal as Ethernet, but beyond that it's not the same. There was a
The idea is that in a few years time, an entire stage or studio may be digitally connected, eliminating electrical interference problems and allowing for pure digital mixing. Digitizing each input at the source would give the cleanest possible signal.
The only thing I'd miss is the 60 Hz BUZZZZZ as you're plugging the guitar in. I just hope you don't hear the Windows XP "device connected" sound on stage...
If there is a viable alternative to a product, then how can said product have a monopoly?
It doesn't matter that alternatives exist. It matters that Microsoft uses tactics to ensure that competing products can't get into large parts of the market. For example, you can't buy a PC from Dell, HP, Compaq, et al without paying for a Windows license.
If this were Dell/HP/Compaq's choice, then that would be fine. But it's not -- it's part of their OEM agreement, and violating (or not agreeing with) it forces them to pay full price for each Windows machine sold.
That is (one example of) where the monopolistic practices come into play.
Come on, folks, let's take care of this the American way.
Sue them? Sorry... but seriously, I see "build your own PC" arguments, but not everyone knows how, and many want the security of having an OEM behind their computer (warranties, etc). This is especially important in the business environment...
And those 1 to 2% of consumers probably built their own PC anyway and therefore didn't pay for an MS license. Let's get real here.
Not all. I personally have a laptop that came with Windows ME, that has never booted Windows ME; my first step was to insert my RedHat 7.2 CD and proceed to install Windows. This was in early 2001, and currently it dual-boots RH 7.2 and Windows XP (which of course I had to purchase separately).
I could not find a laptop for the price, and with the features I needed anywhere that didn't come with Windows, so my only real choice was to in fact purchase a copy of Windows I had no intention of using.
There are many others like me. Laptops are probably a more common case, but many people -- including Linux and other OS users -- want a machine that is warranted from the factory to work. You can say "build your own", but not everyone knows how, or wants to deal with supporting their own hardware (how does a non-expert determine if a particular problem is in the CPU, motherboard, or video card -- when each component comes from a different company?)
Besides, Microsoft has broken laws and harmed consumers. The fact that they "only" harmed a small percentage is irrelevant.
What exactly does being a successful, agressive company have to do with being "unjust?" Nobody *has* to use Microsoft now, and nobody hever has.
Go buy a name-brand x86-based PC with a warranty, and don't pay for Microsoft Windows. Go ahead, try it.
That's where the problem is. Microsoft only offers the good, OEM pricing for Windows to OEMs who agree not to sell any non-Windows equipped PCs. Otherwise, the OEM has to lose tons of money paying full price for Windows. Compare that to the (comparatively) negligable amount they lose to potential customers who don't want Windows.
Even small PC shops have received colorful broshures warning them not to sell OS-less machines, under the assumption that the user plans to pirate a copy of Windows. Pathetically many of these PC shops aren't even aware that other operating systems exist, or that one can legally transfer a Windows license from one machine to another...
In the end, consumers have no choice in the matter. Some consumers will in fact build their own PC (if they know how). Some will just pay for Windows and simply not use it. Most -- by far the most -- will just use Windows, and I'm sure many of these might have tried something else had the obstacles not been there.
And that is illegal in the US, and IMHO unjust.
The tax is easy to avoid, build your computer instead of having it pre-built .
Some people want the security of having a company behind the hardware. Not everyone knows how to build a PC, and some of those may still have a desire to use a different OS, while still having the manufacturer's warranty. Warranties on individual components vary, and sometimes it's difficult to determine exactly which component is bad.
[...] you can't buy a car without tires just because you don't like Firestone. Why should computers be different?
Firestone does not have a monopoly. If you don't like Firestone, there are plenty of other auto manufacturers selling cars with different stock tires; often the same manufacturer will have different models that come with different brands of tire.
However, if you don't like Windows, you can't easily find a name-brand PC that comes with another OS (or sans-OS).
The fact of the matter is, Dell shouldn't be obligated to sell you any other OS, or a PC without an OS. Dell has every right to offer only Microsoft Windows XP, and not offer any machines with a different configuration. That should be Dell's choice.
But there lies the problem: it's not Dell's choice. Microsoft uses tactics to force OEMs into including Windows (or at least charging for it anyway). Things like, requiring this in order to get normal OEM bulk pricing. It's part of the same contract: you get lower price, and in exchange you don't offer any machines without Windows.
It's the same strong-arming the RIAA pulled on Best Buy, Walmart, and Target, not allowing them to lower prices from the minimum set by the labels; obey, or lose out on all of the perks other stores receive. Note that (IIRC) they sued the RIAA for this and won...
The amount of business Dell loses to potential Linux customers, compared to the amount they would lose by having to pay full price for every copy of XP they ship (a significant price increase) -- what would you do in Dell's position? Would you not feel forced? And don't you, as a consumer, feel that this is unfair, that no matter which big PC company you go to, it's the same story?
"Uh, I bought this computer from you, and I installed BeOS on it, and my sound card doesn't work. Why didn't you guys give me a BeOS compatible sound card?!?"
That's a completley different argument. Nobody is asking them to support the third-party software -- only the hardware itself. In that regard, it is up to the buyer to determine that the product will be supported by their OS of choice before making the purchase.
Now, if it weren't for Microsoft's tactics, I could easily see each PC model listing what operating systems are known to work with the included hardware -- something they wouldn't dare do currently. I seem to remember a day when this was the case, many years ago...
I don't quite know how bittorrent works, but I've installed it today (just for this purpose) and the client can't seem to connect to the "tracker". I can download the .torrent file easily enough, but the client fails consistantly.
Is there a possible mirror/secondary tracker available that anyone knows about? It seems that the tracker becomes a single point of failure in an otherwise distributed system...
The error is "connection refused", so it seems like the tracker's host is down. Note that I have opened the necessary ports (6881 - 6999)...
In all, it looks like an updated RedHat 9 to me, but since I've not yet tried anything since 7.3, I figured it'd make a good second Linux box (my main Linux box runs RedHat 6.2, heavily modified/upgraded, but with no GUI).
I hate DVDs for many reasons, but the main reason is similar to this "broadcast flag". That is, there is a "feature" of DVDs that allows the creator to designate a portion that cannot be skipped.
This is so they can show you the "FBI Warning", that lies and says you would be committing a criminal act by copying the disc, and so on. Only lately they are abusing this to show previews that you cannot skip.
It's rediculous. There exists no technical reason my DVD player can't skip those previews, and likewise there's no technical reasons a tuner has to obey the "broadcast flag". Unfortunately things are headed in this direction, and there will be many, many other things that don't let us copy -- whether because of actual encryption (at least this is respectable) or some "flag", "region code", or non-standard hack (like CD copy protections schemes).
The sad thing is that, at least on a large scale: it will work. Joe Average won't know where to find DeCSS (or that it even exists), nor will he find the hacked driver (yet to be made) for newer DTV tuner cards; likewise, no manufacturer would mass-produce such devices for sale in the US. Thus, the scheme, no matter how stupid, will be effective, with the law behind it.