Germany wasnt attacking British or French colonies, they were attacking Britain and France, trying to conquer them. The point of the war from the Allies perspective was purely self defense.
In fact, it was Britain and France that declared war on Germany, not the other way round.
Anyone who uses one name "Timothy" in one place and another completely unconected and separate name "Tim" in another place is obviously intent on creating an illegal alias and must be up to no good.
Is there any formal way of protesting against someone being given an honour? Obviously I can write to my MP, but are there any other routes I can take?
What facilities are there on the Internet for setting up a petition against this?
Can anyone suggest any other things to do? -- if so, please email me at zen19725 at zen.co.uk, or add a comment to this article on my blog.
Bill Gates has done more for the world than, say, Mick Jagger or Elton John.
This is nonsense. Gates has done nothing, nothing at all to further the world's economy. On the contrary, he's done the opposite: by doing his best to prevent competition in the software industry, with his illegal monopolistic tactics, he has actually destroyed wealth. If you can't see that you have been duped by him.
Furthermore, the filthy evil worthless contemptable shit has made it his life-work to destroy freedom as far as computers are concerned. For example, he's tried to:
lock up computer data with DRM
abolish general-purpose computation with Palladium
use patents to threaten violence agaisnt those who dare to write software that competes with his
Giving gates a knighthood is about as appropriate as giving one to Saddam Hussein.
Microsoft software deservedly has a very poor reputation for security.
People who continue to use it when there are plenty of alternatives, including free ones (as in speech and beer), therefore know what they've let themselves in for, and deserve the consequences they get from their misguided decision.
(This comment entered using Mozilla running on Linux).
A modchip is a chip that modifies how a game box works. This is good news for consumers, because it means that people using Playstations can now do what they want to do with them (at least if they live in Italy), and aren't just restricted to what Sony wants to allow them to do.
There's also the wider issue. The judge in this case clearly thought Sony were being unreasonable, so he allowed circumvention of a TPM (which the EUCD and DMCA supposedly forbid), because the intention was other than to circumvent; the intention was to allow people to make backups, play games with different region codes, etc.
I expect if a similar case regarding DVDs came before an Italian court, that circumventing the DVD CSS may well be ruled legal. People are starting to wake up to the fact that what the media corporations are trying to do is out of order.
I once had to use IIS on a client's website. It was taking 30 seconds to serve simple 4K web pages. Eventually we fixed the problem by "downgrading" to an earlier version of IIS. If I'd known what problems we'd have with IIS, I would have recommended Linux+Apache.
TCO? What about Total Cost of Non-Ownership?
on
2003: Year of Apache
·
· Score: 1
When you buy proprietary software, you never own it or control it, thus you are vulnerable to your vendor's plans not falling in with your own, and related problems such as orphaned products, gratuitous incompatibilities, upgrade treadmills, and the like.
Thus, to do a fair comparison, you should include the Total Costs of Non-Ownership whenever you buy MS.
Measuring active sites only, MS is 19% and falling
on
2003: Year of Apache
·
· Score: 2, Informative
It's actually even worse than that for Microsoft
on
2003: Year of Apache
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
The figures you've quoted from my site are accurate, but the situation for Microsoft is actually worse than that.
When considering that Microsoft got 19% of new websites in 2003, it's worthwhile to consider that up to the end of 2002, Microsoft had a total of 24.74% of active sites.
This means that not only is Microsoft's share only 19%, Microsoft's market share is going down and Apache's is going up. Although Apache can run on MS Windows, it is nearly always run on Unix systems. The most popular Unix is Linux, which is busily replacing the proprietary Unices. So if Apache's share is going up (which it is) Linux's share is going up even faster:
Thus, for web servers at least, MS Windows is losing market share, and Linux is massively increasing its market share.
I don't have figures as to whether this is also the case for other types of server, but I strongly suspect it is.
Regardinng upgrade treadmills, nobody forces you to upgrade.
What if the version you are still using (e.g. Windows 98) is no longer available and you have to install a newer version on new computers? I can imagine an organisation with lots of computers wanting to standardise on one OS, web server, or other piece of software.
Incompatible file formats? Modulo Access, Office has been compatible from 97-XP and, to my recollection, has always been forwadly compatible.
My understanding is that Office is often backwards compatible (can read files generated by older versions), but less often forwards compatible (can read files generated by newer versions).
Is Sauer misguided, or is he in the pay of Microsoft?
Forking is rarely a problem for open source projects; when it does happen, it generally reflects unresolvable differences about where the project is going; which is fine, since two groups may legitimately want to do different things with it. Indeed, forking is good, because the threat to fork keeps open source honest.
If Sauer is concerned about the TCO, that's a valid concern. But a much more valid concern, which Sauer seems to ignore (I've not read his article yet) is the Total Cost of Non-Ownership: when you use Microsoft software, you never own it, and the future of the software is controlled by Microsoft, not you. Hence upgrade treadmills, deliberastely incompatible file formats, and the like. It's because one doesn't have the right to fork MS software that MS can get away with doing this. If Sauer ignores the TCNO, he is either stupid, or a Microsoft shill.
The NHS asked Microsoft for a discount. At this point it's appropriate to recall that the NHS is Europe's biggest employer with 800,000 desktops, and oughtr to merit a big discount. MS would only offer a discount of "a few percentage points" which annoyed the NHS, who then decided to go for the Sun/Linux trial.
The NHS IT director, Richard Granger, has a reputation for getting value for money, and not accepting bullshit from suppliers, so I doubt if he'd go for anything involving vendor lock-in to Sun. Granger has said:
The cost of software is going to become several orders of magnitude lower than it is now. I don't value the IP in the same way they do.
Not a troll, but Linux is immune from upgrades? This is not the way to convince people to use Linux, by implying that once you install/download Linux, you can walk away without any more upgrades.
You can upgrade Linux if you want to. You are not forced to upgrade it, due to deliberately incompatible file formats etc, in order to fit in
with Microsoft's insatiable lust for more revenue.
I'd say it depends on what sort of website she wants, what sort of content she intends to put on it.
For lots of regularly-updated stuff, a blog is good.
For mainly text-based stuff that isn't blog-like, Wiki software is good. Text-based HTML editors are also reasonable: if you only use simple tags, (like I'm doing in this post), HTML is easy to learn. You might want to help her set up CSS to make it look pretty.
I don't have much experience with WYSIWYG web-building tools, so I won't comment on the.
Slashdot Mirror
Germany wasnt attacking British or French colonies, they were attacking Britain and France, trying to conquer them. The point of the war from the Allies perspective was purely self defense.
In fact, it was Britain and France that declared war on Germany, not the other way round.
It is also arguably illegal in that it represents an unauthorised use of a computer system.
Anyone who uses one name "Timothy" in one place and another completely unconected and separate name "Tim" in another place is obviously intent on creating an illegal alias and must be up to no good.
Remember Belkin's routers that hijacked http connections? They seem to be doing the same thing as this so-called "invention".
The patent is dated 24 October 2003, however Belkin's hijack software is earlier - it dates from 15 September 2003 or earlier, so it is presumably prior art.
(IANA patent laywer).
Copyright lasts 50 years, or 25 years if the author is dead. There are no provisions against circumvention of TPMs.
This is a pretty sensible law, IMO, so they'd be stupid to change it.
And it runs Linux - Red hat to be precise.
Why would you want to?
Because some people might be persuaded by the knighthood that Gates is basically OK>
Is there any formal way of protesting against someone being given an honour? Obviously I can write to my MP, but are there any other routes I can take?
What facilities are there on the Internet for setting up a petition against this?
Can anyone suggest any other things to do? -- if so, please email me at zen19725 at zen.co.uk, or add a comment to this article on my blog.
Bill Gates has done more for the world than, say, Mick Jagger or Elton John.
This is nonsense. Gates has done nothing, nothing at all to further the world's economy. On the contrary, he's done the opposite: by doing his best to prevent competition in the software industry, with his illegal monopolistic tactics, he has actually destroyed wealth. If you can't see that you have been duped by him.
Furthermore, the filthy evil worthless contemptable shit has made it his life-work to destroy freedom as far as computers are concerned. For example, he's tried to:
Giving gates a knighthood is about as appropriate as giving one to Saddam Hussein.
Microsoft software deservedly has a very poor reputation for security.
People who continue to use it when there are plenty of alternatives, including free ones (as in speech and beer), therefore know what they've let themselves in for, and deserve the consequences they get from their misguided decision.
(This comment entered using Mozilla running on Linux).
There's also the wider issue. The judge in this case clearly thought Sony were being unreasonable, so he allowed circumvention of a TPM (which the EUCD and DMCA supposedly forbid), because the intention was other than to circumvent; the intention was to allow people to make backups, play games with different region codes, etc.
I expect if a similar case regarding DVDs came before an Italian court, that circumventing the DVD CSS may well be ruled legal. People are starting to wake up to the fact that what the media corporations are trying to do is out of order.
I once had to use IIS on a client's website. It was taking 30 seconds to serve simple 4K web pages. Eventually we fixed the problem by "downgrading" to an earlier version of IIS. If I'd known what problems we'd have with IIS, I would have recommended Linux+Apache.
When you buy proprietary software, you never own it or control it, thus you are vulnerable to your vendor's plans not falling in with your own, and related problems such as orphaned products, gratuitous incompatibilities, upgrade treadmills, and the like.
Thus, to do a fair comparison, you should include the Total Costs of Non-Ownership whenever you buy MS.
When you measure active sites only, Microsoft's market share is 19% and falling.
The figures you've quoted from my site are accurate, but the situation for Microsoft is actually worse than that. When considering that Microsoft got 19% of new websites in 2003, it's worthwhile to consider that up to the end of 2002, Microsoft had a total of 24.74% of active sites.
This means that not only is Microsoft's share only 19%, Microsoft's market share is going down and Apache's is going up. Although Apache can run on MS Windows, it is nearly always run on Unix systems. The most popular Unix is Linux, which is busily replacing the proprietary Unices. So if Apache's share is going up (which it is) Linux's share is going up even faster:
I don't have figures as to whether this is also the case for other types of server, but I strongly suspect it is.Animated 3-dimensional paperclips, obviously.
Regardinng upgrade treadmills, nobody forces you to upgrade.
What if the version you are still using (e.g. Windows 98) is no longer available and you have to install a newer version on new computers? I can imagine an organisation with lots of computers wanting to standardise on one OS, web server, or other piece of software.
Incompatible file formats? Modulo Access, Office has been compatible from 97-XP and, to my recollection, has always been forwadly compatible.
My understanding is that Office is often backwards compatible (can read files generated by older versions), but less often forwards compatible (can read files generated by newer versions).
Is Sauer misguided, or is he in the pay of Microsoft?
Forking is rarely a problem for open source projects; when it does happen, it generally reflects unresolvable differences about where the project is going; which is fine, since two groups may legitimately want to do different things with it. Indeed, forking is good, because the threat to fork keeps open source honest.
If Sauer is concerned about the TCO, that's a valid concern. But a much more valid concern, which Sauer seems to ignore (I've not read his article yet) is the Total Cost of Non-Ownership: when you use Microsoft software, you never own it, and the future of the software is controlled by Microsoft, not you. Hence upgrade treadmills, deliberastely incompatible file formats, and the like. It's because one doesn't have the right to fork MS software that MS can get away with doing this. If Sauer ignores the TCNO, he is either stupid, or a Microsoft shill.
What we really need is a law to ban all laws with contrived acronyms.
The NHS asked Microsoft for a discount. At this point it's appropriate to recall that the NHS is Europe's biggest employer with 800,000 desktops, and oughtr to merit a big discount. MS would only offer a discount of "a few percentage points" which annoyed the NHS, who then decided to go for the Sun/Linux trial.
See NHS considers moving to Linux for details.
I expect the NHS will go with Linux if MS doesn't offer big discounts; they might go with Linux even if MS do offer big discounts - like Munich did.
I wonder if this merits a visit from Ballmer?
The NHS IT director, Richard Granger, has a reputation for getting value for money, and not accepting bullshit from suppliers, so I doubt if he'd go for anything involving vendor lock-in to Sun. Granger has said:
There's more about this on my blog.Not a troll, but Linux is immune from upgrades? This is not the way to convince people to use Linux, by implying that once you install/download Linux, you can walk away without any more upgrades.
You can upgrade Linux if you want to. You are not forced to upgrade it, due to deliberately incompatible file formats etc, in order to fit in with Microsoft's insatiable lust for more revenue.
That's the Liunx difference.
145.2 of the Norweigan criminal statute "which outlaws bypassing technological restrictions to access data that one is not entitled to access."
If Johansen has only used it to access DVDs he has bought and paid for, then he does have an entitlement to access them.
I'd say it depends on what sort of website she wants, what sort of content she intends to put on it.
For lots of regularly-updated stuff, a blog is good.
For mainly text-based stuff that isn't blog-like, Wiki software is good. Text-based HTML editors are also reasonable: if you only use simple tags, (like I'm doing in this post), HTML is easy to learn. You might want to help her set up CSS to make it look pretty.
I don't have much experience with WYSIWYG web-building tools, so I won't comment on the.
What's wrong with the open source community?
Er, nothing much. We're doing fine, on the whole. Our only potential weakness is laws that make open source a crime (DMCA, EUCD, etc).