GUI's are like diapers, everyone grows out of them
I love to click my way around stuff - It's the primary reason I'm stuck using windoze and not linux. Linux==trip to the command line, and to me it's an unneeded hassle. I'm technically literate-but like that vast majority of the population gave up DOS when windows came along. Linux is too much like a return to DOS.
That particular troll is also full of shit (as usual). Check out his numbers...
I thought so too until I checked out VA linux (LNUX) at yahoo financial.
audio: http://biz.yahoo.com/oo/010823/63375.html A morningstar analyst says "things are looking pretty grim at best," calls the sourceforge product "a pipe dream at this point", and says VA linux stock is "essentially a penny stock". Tough words.
I wish that they would have bought Be (beos) and open sourced the operating system. They would have made money hand over fist selling distro disks.
Furthermore, we can be assured that the FSF will always pursue Free Software
Evidently it's not free enough that I can call the software that I use what I want (i.e. just "linux", not gnu/linux)
I stole this from post #2195302;
Found this interesting entry in Miguel de Icaza's weblog - http://primates.ximian.com/~miguel/activity-log.ht ml, dated Jul'28th -
I talked to Don Becker about GNU/Linux, and he had an interesting story to tell. Back in the day when he was at MIT and was an active contributor to gcc, he tried to get RMS to support Linux. RMS' answer back in the day went along the lines of `Linux is a waste of time, work on the Hurd instead, it is the future'.
An interesting twist to the Linux vs GNU/Linux debate.
GNU remains inextricably entwined in the Linux story
Only because Linus placed linux under the GNU licensing scheme. That was Linus' decision, not RMS. Granted, GNU has played a large role, but evidently not enough of a large role for everybody to stop calling it "linux" and start calling it "gnu/linux"
I think that it could be argued that without "linux", GNU tools would be backwater and little used. So it would be safe to say that "linux" has done more to shape people's image of "GNU" than the other way around. Maybe that's why everybody thinks of it as "linux" intead of "GNU/Linux".
Hmm, the meaning of life would be second on my list, right behind "women". Discovering aliens seems like it could contribute to that goal.
Actually you could put the two together and pursue "alien women". We know that the most of the people who read slashdot have more of a chance getting a date with an "alien woman" than a date with an "earth woman".
Maybe that's why see a lot of space stories on slashdot.
I keep on getting the feeling that if there is life out there it consists of little furry ground hog like creatures that will never be capable of building radios to send/receive messages.
I think "Vann Eck" phreaking is really overplayed big time. Sure it exists, but I'd be willing to bet that a light dimmer controlling some flourescents in the same room would wipe it out for all intents and purposes. They are quite broadband and would "swamp" any signals leaking from your computer. Likewise, I'd bet the HV circuitry for the LCD backlight "swamps" those LCD transistor switches.
Another thought - I bet it would be hard for the FBI to install a keyboard sniffer on a laptop. They would have to find a way to switch with an identical laptop.
I didn't say that network solutions was reliable and forthright about all expiring domains (because they aren't)- just an "average" example. I don't see why that one would "hang" up - (and they probably don't know either) because they do let a let a lot of "valuable one word" domains drop.
I have used the DNS Research service for a domain that I really wanted, but they were unsuccessful in registering it for me. At $99 with no guarantee It's pretty expensive. I didn't use snapnames as the snapback was already sold for that domain (so I knew I had competition). However, snapnames didn't register it for the customer either (I could tell because of the registries used).
If you have tried to register a domain at 6:30 am, you can tell that registries really seem to crumble under the load. So when a domain expires (and they do expire) they are only up for grabs for a few seconds. Thus the appearence that "they never expire". The name checker on enom.com website is current, so you can "watch" a name drop (that is if everbody is not trying to grab it - otherwise by time you hit refresh it's already registered). You have to be careful though, because the whois *is not* updated in real time, and many registrars use that to check name availability. You have to try to register the name to see if its available or not.
So, if you are trying to grab an expiring domain, chances are slim as you are a small fish among big fish trying to do the same thing. And yeah, the Koreans have rooms filled with machines trying to grab that "one good" domain so they can squat it. Read the above links for the full details.
If Verisign/ICANN actaully thought about fairness they could change things and make he "drop" a little bit more fair by enforcing the rules (they don't) and perhaps making the daily "drop" a little more random. In other words, ICANN would have to care, and we all know how much ICANN cares....
NPR did a story on the clock today (the links are not up yet) They talked with one of the researchers who said that the clock is accurate to 10^15 - so the BBC numbers probably work out.
The Reuters report mentions that it takes up a couple of rooms. I would think that it takes pretty exotic equipment to constantly suspend the single ion of mecury so they could bounce lasers of from it.
I'm sure someday they will get all the laser/optical processing smaller, but it is probably isn't a priority right now. The most important use of accurate clocks will come from the PARCS project.
Maybe they're actually trying to get them to go ahead and steal the DVD and have them use it in their military because they know that they can already decrypt any CSS messages in real time thanks to the linux community.
Of course for this DVD encryption to matter at all there would have to be no Chinese that read/speak English anyway, and none of them can ever read slashdot.
There was an excellent short story that appeared in OMNI magazine in the seventies that centered around that very idea. Essentially, the bulder started with one "big" robot that made smaller copies of itself, that made smaller copies of themselves, and so on - using scavenged materials from their parents.
I would appreciate it if anyone else could give the title/issue that it appeared in. I've always wanted to dig it up and read it again.
Re:I saw AI this afternoon. (SPOILERS)
on
Review: A.I.
·
· Score: 2
Good movies don't need explaining, and this movie needs a lot of it. The parent post saved me the hassle of my own post listing all the plot holes you could drive a truck through. More than one reviewer mentioned that this movie has all the "Artificial" but none of the "Intelligence" (e.g. see Ebert)
There is a very good NY times article that covers all the problems that Kubrick had with his original ideas - problems that Spielberg glossed over. Their were reasons why Kubrick wasn't able to get this project rolling, and all of them show up in this movie. Interesting ideas and a worthy goal, but the implementation falls short.
I was disappointed in the ending. The character of David's mother is not congruous from the character at the beginning with that of the "final day." I also felt like I was left with an "emotional vacuum" created by bringing back his mother the way they did. "Overworked" would be a another good description.
Good Sci-Fi is when you can watch the movie again to pick up all the nuances of a character. But as the parent post pointed out, this movie won't have any "replay" value. To put this on the level of "2001" like what Katz does is absurb.
I would recommend the movie because it is visually interesting, but I would wait for it to show up at the local "dollar theatre". But this movie should not be called a "classic."
Not one of the 6 boxes is a peecee. And of greater interest is the fact that disproving something requires only a single counterexample.
The only thing that you prove is that your a guy with 6 non-standard machines that disagrees with the seven appellant judges when they unaminoulsy said today in their ruling that Microsoft is a monopoly and it holds an OS Monopoly. (You bothered to read the opinion, right??) The arguments that you use is the same one that Microsoft used. "that there are alternative OS"
from page 15 of the ruling today;
Microsoft argues that the District Court incorrectly defined
the relevant market. It also claims that there is no barrier to
entry in that market. Alternatively, Microsoft argues that
because the software industry is uniquely dynamic, direct
proof, rather than circumstantial evidence, more appropriately
indicates whether it possesses monopoly power. Rejecting
each argument, we uphold the District Court's finding of
monopoly power in its entirety.
If you prefer larger-scale counterexamples, I offer the following: dgux, dynix, solaris, sunos, aix, xenix, macos, lunix, mvs, vms, os2, plan9, inferno, riscos, ultrix, nextstep, netware, unixware, openbsd, netbsd, freebsd, linux, hurd, tru64/digital unix, irix, unicos, amoeba, and os/400, to name merely a few of the more popular products which compete or have competed with Microsoft in the OS market.
The important thing to note here is none of these OS belong to the relevant market. The only OS worth mentioning from your list is macOS and OS2, and the court explains in detail on pages 16-23 why these don't compete with Microsoft OS monopoly in the relevant market In other words, your not going to Circuit City and find computers running solaris (or linux for that matter). Nobody is writing apps for OS2 anymore, and everybody isn't going to throw away all their intel hardware so they can go out and purchase all new (and more expensive) machines so they can run macOS. Likewise, people aren't going to pull out their old Z80 Kaypros so they can run CP/M. Just because their is some guy in a basement doing it somewhere doesn't mean it's a competing OS. You at one time could purchase Nextstep for PCs (far superior to what the Mac or MS had at the time) but nobody bought it because their was no applications for it nor was there the promise of apps on the horizon. So it died.
Just because you have examples of alternative OS running on your mini-network doesn't neccessarily prove that it's a competing OS, as it has a market share of One Nor does listing a bunch of other OS that existed at one time or another.
That's what made today's victory a hollow one for Microsoft. The appellant court affirmed what most of us have been saying all along. Microsoft holds an OS monopoly and uses it to squash competition. The question remaining for the lower court is if they were wrong to "tie" Internet Explorer to the OS and what should the corrective action should be to restore competition in the relevant markets
Really? In what market does Microsoft hold a monopoly? Operating systems? Browsers? Evil? Hardly. If someone is a monopoly that means that it has no competitors in the market in question; that is, if you have a product belonging to that market, you must have obtained it from the monopoly........Given the definition, does Microsoft hold a monopoly in any market? No. To disprove this, I need only examine my network...
You must have not been alive when DOS was the only operating systerm. Microsoft was enough of monopoly to snuff out caldera's DRDOS. Evidently they felt guilty enough to pay 150 million for what they did This antitrust case is DejaVu all over again,They did this by introducing an incompatibility in DOS according to Undocumented DOS that had no technical reason whatsoever other than to break DRDOS compatibility with Windows 3.1/DOS. DRDOS had a real chance for market penetration - it's just that MS would not allow it to be installed by OEMs. More detail here
The proof is simple and direct. The conclusion is the only one possible. Microsoft holds no monopoly in any market.
The proof is simple and direct. You are wrong. Pull your head out of the sand. The world doesn't revolve around you and your 6 pc mini-network.
Slashdot Mirror
GUI's are like diapers, everyone grows out of them
I love to click my way around stuff - It's the primary reason I'm stuck using windoze and not linux. Linux==trip to the command line, and to me it's an unneeded hassle. I'm technically literate-but like that vast majority of the population gave up DOS when windows came along. Linux is too much like a return to DOS.
That particular troll is also full of shit (as usual). Check out his numbers...
I thought so too until I checked out VA linux (LNUX) at yahoo financial.
audio: http://biz.yahoo.com/oo/010823/63375.html
A morningstar analyst says "things are looking pretty grim at best," calls the sourceforge product "a pipe dream at this point", and says VA linux stock is "essentially a penny stock". Tough words.
I wish that they would have bought Be (beos) and open sourced the operating system. They would have made money hand over fist selling distro disks.
Furthermore, we can be assured that the FSF will always pursue Free Software
t ml, dated Jul'28th -
Evidently it's not free enough that I can call the software that I use what I want (i.e. just "linux", not gnu/linux)
I stole this from post #2195302;
Found this interesting entry in Miguel de Icaza's weblog - http://primates.ximian.com/~miguel/activity-log.h
I talked to Don Becker about GNU/Linux, and he had an interesting story to tell. Back in the day when he was at MIT and was an active contributor to gcc, he tried to get RMS to support Linux. RMS' answer back in the day went along the lines of `Linux is a waste of time, work on the Hurd instead, it is the future'.
An interesting twist to the Linux vs GNU/Linux debate.
GNU remains inextricably entwined in the Linux story
Only because Linus placed linux under the GNU licensing scheme. That was Linus' decision, not RMS. Granted, GNU has played a large role, but evidently not enough of a large role for everybody to stop calling it "linux" and start calling it "gnu/linux"
I think that it could be argued that without "linux", GNU tools would be backwater and little used. So it would be safe to say that "linux" has done more to shape people's image of "GNU" than the other way around. Maybe that's why everybody thinks of it as "linux" intead of "GNU/Linux".
There are other open source C compilers on the horizon (watcom), so linux won't be dependant on any particular "GNU" compiler.
Hmm, the meaning of life would be second on my list, right behind "women". Discovering aliens seems like it could contribute to that goal.
Actually you could put the two together and pursue "alien women". We know that the most of the people who read slashdot have more of a chance getting a date with an "alien woman" than a date with an "earth woman".
Maybe that's why see a lot of space stories on slashdot.
I keep on getting the feeling that if there is life out there it consists of little furry ground hog like creatures that will never be capable of building radios to send/receive messages.
see this register's article about smart tags;
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/19943.html
Also, there is this interesting URL;
http://smarttags.manilasites.com/
This is an interesting story dealing with the legality of smart tags;
http://www.newsbytes.com/news/01/166676.html
Yeah, and Slashdot is owned by trolls posting as ACs. How it works more specifically.
When Napster made it's case before congress this spring.
It would be good for consumers, but the music industry will fight it to the death. They don't want anything that might harm $25 CD sales.
That also assumes that congress gets behind such an idea. But we already know that music industry 0wn5 congress.
Spammers need to be licensed (preferably with an ear tag, but i'll consider substitutes)
maybe spammers could be branded with a giant S with a hot-iron like they did with cattle in the old west....
I think "Vann Eck" phreaking is really overplayed big time. Sure it exists, but I'd be willing to bet that a light dimmer controlling some flourescents in the same room would wipe it out for all intents and purposes. They are quite broadband and would "swamp" any signals leaking from your computer. Likewise, I'd bet the HV circuitry for the LCD backlight "swamps" those LCD transistor switches.
Another thought - I bet it would be hard for the FBI to install a keyboard sniffer on a laptop. They would have to find a way to switch with an identical laptop.
I didn't say that network solutions was reliable and forthright about all expiring domains (because they aren't)- just an "average" example. I don't see why that one would "hang" up - (and they probably don't know either) because they do let a let a lot of "valuable one word" domains drop.
After about a 60 day "grace period" the domain goes "on hold" for about six days and then it expires at a few minutes after 6:30 am Eastern.
For the complete dynamics of domain expiring read this;
http://www.ecommercebase.com/article.php/352/20
This article has three parts, be sure you don't miss one. Also, there are links to the authors website, and he has more useful links.
These two companies "watch domains";
http://www.snapnames.com
http://www.dnsresearch.com
I have used the DNS Research service for a domain that I really wanted, but they were unsuccessful in registering it for me. At $99 with no guarantee It's pretty expensive. I didn't use snapnames as the snapback was already sold for that domain (so I knew I had competition). However, snapnames didn't register it for the customer either (I could tell because of the registries used).
If you have tried to register a domain at 6:30 am, you can tell that registries really seem to crumble under the load. So when a domain expires (and they do expire) they are only up for grabs for a few seconds. Thus the appearence that "they never expire". The name checker on enom.com website is current, so you can "watch" a name drop (that is if everbody is not trying to grab it - otherwise by time you hit refresh it's already registered). You have to be careful though, because the whois *is not* updated in real time, and many registrars use that to check name availability. You have to try to register the name to see if its available or not.
So, if you are trying to grab an expiring domain, chances are slim as you are a small fish among big fish trying to do the same thing. And yeah, the Koreans have rooms filled with machines trying to grab that "one good" domain so they can squat it. Read the above links for the full details.
If Verisign/ICANN actaully thought about fairness they could change things and make he "drop" a little bit more fair by enforcing the rules (they don't) and perhaps making the daily "drop" a little more random. In other words, ICANN would have to care, and we all know how much ICANN cares....
agreed, parent got it wrong. What attendees probably will get is some finger sandwitches and a cup of kool-aid.
Frederick Noonan, her navigator, had a drinking problem. That probably was a more of a factor in her getting lost than bad piloting.
NPR did a story on the clock today (the links are not up yet) They talked with one of the researchers who said that the clock is accurate to 10^15 - so the BBC numbers probably work out.
The Reuters report mentions that it takes up a couple of rooms. I would think that it takes pretty exotic equipment to constantly suspend the single ion of mecury so they could bounce lasers of from it.
I'm sure someday they will get all the laser/optical processing smaller, but it is probably isn't a priority right now. The most important use of accurate clocks will come from the PARCS project.
Heck, I remember playing with magic rocks when I was a kid.
I don't think wear n' tear is a factor for computers - the vast majority will suffer from obsolesence before any 'actually' wear n' tear problems.
Maybe they're actually trying to get them to go ahead and steal the DVD and have them use it in their military because they know that they can already decrypt any CSS messages in real time thanks to the linux community.
Of course for this DVD encryption to matter at all there would have to be no Chinese that read/speak English anyway, and none of them can ever read slashdot.
There was an excellent short story that appeared in OMNI magazine in the seventies that centered around that very idea. Essentially, the bulder started with one "big" robot that made smaller copies of itself, that made smaller copies of themselves, and so on - using scavenged materials from their parents.
I would appreciate it if anyone else could give the title/issue that it appeared in. I've always wanted to dig it up and read it again.
Good movies don't need explaining, and this movie needs a lot of it. The parent post saved me the hassle of my own post listing all the plot holes you could drive a truck through. More than one reviewer mentioned that this movie has all the "Artificial" but none of the "Intelligence" (e.g. see Ebert)
There is a very good NY times article that covers all the problems that Kubrick had with his original ideas - problems that Spielberg glossed over. Their were reasons why Kubrick wasn't able to get this project rolling, and all of them show up in this movie. Interesting ideas and a worthy goal, but the implementation falls short.
I was disappointed in the ending. The character of David's mother is not congruous from the character at the beginning with that of the "final day." I also felt like I was left with an "emotional vacuum" created by bringing back his mother the way they did. "Overworked" would be a another good description.
Good Sci-Fi is when you can watch the movie again to pick up all the nuances of a character. But as the parent post pointed out, this movie won't have any "replay" value. To put this on the level of "2001" like what Katz does is absurb.
I would recommend the movie because it is visually interesting, but I would wait for it to show up at the local "dollar theatre". But this movie should not be called a "classic."
I take that back, you were alive during DOS days.
Not one of the 6 boxes is a peecee. And of greater interest is the fact that disproving something requires only a single counterexample.
The only thing that you prove is that your a guy with 6 non-standard machines that disagrees with the seven appellant judges when they unaminoulsy said today in their ruling that Microsoft is a monopoly and it holds an OS Monopoly. (You bothered to read the opinion, right??) The arguments that you use is the same one that Microsoft used. "that there are alternative OS"
from page 15 of the ruling today;
Microsoft argues that the District Court incorrectly defined
the relevant market. It also claims that there is no barrier to
entry in that market. Alternatively, Microsoft argues that
because the software industry is uniquely dynamic, direct
proof, rather than circumstantial evidence, more appropriately
indicates whether it possesses monopoly power. Rejecting
each argument, we uphold the District Court's finding of
monopoly power in its entirety.
If you prefer larger-scale counterexamples, I offer the following: dgux, dynix, solaris, sunos, aix, xenix, macos, lunix, mvs, vms, os2, plan9, inferno, riscos, ultrix, nextstep, netware, unixware, openbsd, netbsd, freebsd, linux, hurd, tru64/digital unix, irix, unicos, amoeba, and os/400, to name merely a few of the more popular products which compete or have competed with Microsoft in the OS market.
The important thing to note here is none of these OS belong to the relevant market. The only OS worth mentioning from your list is macOS and OS2, and the court explains in detail on pages 16-23 why these don't compete with Microsoft OS monopoly in the relevant market In other words, your not going to Circuit City and find computers running solaris (or linux for that matter). Nobody is writing apps for OS2 anymore, and everybody isn't going to throw away all their intel hardware so they can go out and purchase all new (and more expensive) machines so they can run macOS. Likewise, people aren't going to pull out their old Z80 Kaypros so they can run CP/M. Just because their is some guy in a basement doing it somewhere doesn't mean it's a competing OS. You at one time could purchase Nextstep for PCs (far superior to what the Mac or MS had at the time) but nobody bought it because their was no applications for it nor was there the promise of apps on the horizon. So it died.
Just because you have examples of alternative OS running on your mini-network doesn't neccessarily prove that it's a competing OS, as it has a market share of One Nor does listing a bunch of other OS that existed at one time or another.
That's what made today's victory a hollow one for Microsoft. The appellant court affirmed what most of us have been saying all along. Microsoft holds an OS monopoly and uses it to squash competition. The question remaining for the lower court is if they were wrong to "tie" Internet Explorer to the OS and what should the corrective action should be to restore competition in the relevant markets
Really? In what market does Microsoft hold a monopoly? Operating systems? Browsers? Evil? Hardly. If someone is a monopoly that means that it has no competitors in the market in question; that is, if you have a product belonging to that market, you must have obtained it from the monopoly........Given the definition, does Microsoft hold a monopoly in any market? No. To disprove this, I need only examine my network ...
You must have not been alive when DOS was the only operating systerm. Microsoft was enough of monopoly to snuff out caldera's DRDOS. Evidently they felt guilty enough to pay 150 million for what they did This antitrust case is DejaVu all over again, They did this by introducing an incompatibility in DOS according to Undocumented DOS that had no technical reason whatsoever other than to break DRDOS compatibility with Windows 3.1/DOS. DRDOS had a real chance for market penetration - it's just that MS would not allow it to be installed by OEMs. More detail here
The proof is simple and direct. The conclusion is the only one possible. Microsoft holds no monopoly in any market.
The proof is simple and direct. You are wrong. Pull your head out of the sand. The world doesn't revolve around you and your 6 pc mini-network.