Umm, wouldn't YOU rather check the validity/authenticity of your Linux ISO rather than trust the P2P service to do so ? For exactly this reason, I would expect NO P2P service to try and check the ultimate validity/authenticity for you - it just exposes them to more liability. (Note that I mean something different than validating that the file is identical to the file the peer was sending you)
Moral? Take the test in your daily driver, and *not* your wife's car.
More than that, some cars are just easier to parallel park.
When I learned to drive my parents had an Audi station wagon (which was a huge, cavernouse car), and a Toyota Celica, and I could parallel park those cars in the tightest spots. When I asked my driving teacher how to parallel park, he simply told me "I'm not even going to try and teach you because you do it perfectly every time".
Later, I had a VW Corrado years ago, which was a pretty small car, but which was IMPOSSIBLE for me to parallel park. Sometimes it would feel like I was right up next to the car behind me, when I really had 3-4 feet. I'd feel like I was scraping the curb, when I had 2 feet, or it would feel like I was 3 feet away from the curb, until I scraped my rims.
But even now, I can parallel park minivans and cube vans perfectly fine. I just couldn't park that stupid car.
De novo, given the penetration of the Net into most of the countries surveyed, I'd say the results as presented would mean nothing.
But given that the survey comes from an Internet advocacy group (from their site : "the originators of this project believe that the Internet... will transform our social, political and economic lives"), I'd say the results mean even LESS than nothing. I doubt such a group would put out a study saying "heavy net users are social outcasts".
- it's nearly obvious that a person who spends 15 hours on the Net a week would spend less time watching TV - if only because that person has less hours in his day to do so. Let me see TV-watching statistics as a proportion of free time NOT spent on the Net.
- it's also obvious that Net users are more affluent, which correlates strongly with having better paying jobs and with having higher education levels, just like say, owning a BMW. So it's more likely they're going to spend more time reading, because i) they're more likely to be literate, ii) they're more likely to need to read as a function of their work. Let me see what Net usage looks like for owners of different cars, and then let's argue about what these statistics mean.
- because of an nearly implied level of affluence, people who can afford a Net connection are also likely to have more leisure time in general than non-Net users. It's hard to be out there socializing when you're a blue-collar joe working two jobs to make ends meet for your family of six. Do you think such a person spends much time on the Net ?
This study is useless as presented, and I frankly don't believe it. Just look at all the TV-related love-ins (Farscape/Tivo/STTNG/Futurama/etc.) here and ask whether you really believe Net users watch more TV ON AN ADJUSTED BASIS than non-Net users. The problem is that specification of a Net user is confounded with all sorts of variables.
What I want to see are numbers that show hours of "social" activity related to leisure hours NOT SPENT ON THE INTERNET. I bet they'd tell a different story. I'd bet that heavy Net users spend FAR less time doing socializing/exercising/being outside than people who use the Net moderately or less.
Considering that an Apple would most likely be on every desktop if they had allowed licensing
You mean like how they were letting a few company build Mac-compatible machines in the mid 90's, only to screw them all over royally when it came to renewing ? I remember a few people I knew buying them, but certainly neither Apples nor clones weren't flying out of the stores.
You know, after reading this post I was shocked. I don't track SCO at all, and I don't follow the case, but I assumed from all the derisive posts I'd read here that SCO's stock was in the dumper. I wonder if that's revealing.
The parent invokes the "many eyes" image as if that will necessarily mean SCO's downfall. But the parent implicitly acknowledges is that there are ALSO "many eyes" - in the market - actually, make that "many many eyes" that are scrutinizing the case and that seem to be voting that they believe there IS merit to the case.
There's several possibilities here, one is that the smart money's just playing up the price until every-day-joe jumps in and buys, at which point the smart money will dump it. Given the length and depth of SCO's rally, I think this seems unlikely (but I've been wrong many times before).
Another possibility is that maybe - just maybe - the market knows more than Slashdot zealots know - or will let themselves admit. Maybe a lot more companies than we know are paying SCO's licensing fees. IANAL, but maybe their case has much more merit than you would guess from reading/. Just because we want something to be true does not make it so.
A third possibility is that SCO's price rise is just an unhappy coincidence completely unrelated to the legal action. Who knows, maybe the case will fall flat on its face and SCO will go in the crapper as so often predicted here. The market has been wrong many times before.
But one thing is clear, you can't get a good sense of what is going on by reading the opinions of chauvinists - like, say, here or on any of the forums populated by people who've gotten rich or hope to get rich holding SCO.
It's really all relative, isn't it ? There are subjective values to things like video quality which cannot just be measured in terms of dollars because they differ from person to person. Some people might only game for an hour a week, but when they do so, they really want to have the best quality video they can.
Who is anyone to say they're "wasting" their money, especially when it is undeniable that the more expensive video cards ARE measurably better in several ways ?
Someone else might well argue that you wasted your money on your Klipsches because you could buy cheaper Logitech speakers that sound pretty good for 15 bucks. Are they wrong or are you ?
I reckon there should be a market for sub-$10 basic video cards with open specs,
Considering that the company would not only have to make the video card, but also support the video card, market them, distribute them, etc., it's hard to imagine that any market could exist for a peripheral card under 10 bucks - people might only pay 10 bucks for them, but it would cost more than 10 bucks to get them into the hands of the consumer. Name me one other peripheral card which is marketed, new, under 10 dollars. You could make a similar argument that hard drive makers ought to sell say 5 GB drives under 10 bucks too, because there's people out there who would need them. But do you really think that makes sense for the company ?
Seems to me that the market you're describing is ALREADY satisfied. People who don't care about playing games are probably mostly buying motherboards with integrated video, either themselves or indirectly through a Dell or Gateway.
This is such a crappy measure of code 'quality'; if the same company released the same study touting say MS-SQL, no doubt they would be ripped to shreds.
Finding fewer defects/line of code COULD mean that MySQL just has more lines of code, which given the same end could be construed as meaning the code is WORSE.
Also, it should be obvious that comparing ONE prominent open-source project's defect rates with a veritable spectrum (over 200) of commercial project's rates is unfair. What is the lowest defect rate of the commercial projects surveyed ? Why not hold MySQL to THAT standard ?
Here's a question I always wish I could ask managers, whenever the topic of 'outsourcing' comes up: if dealing with programmers overseas
Here's a question I have for you, Cliff. Where exactly did it say in the original query that the guy's job WAS outsourced overseas ? Or is that just playing on the FUD-in-fashion here ?
I wonder how long it takes before they'll start redoing old games, like they're doing with all old classic movies now?
That's easy. It will take exactly as long as it takes for the gaming companies to realize people will buy them. Don't knock Hollywood for spewing out remakes of old movies and 70's TV shows and comics, because they're giving the viewing public what they want (witness the success of Mission Impossible, Charlie's Angels, Spiderman, Batman, X-Men, Ocean's Eleven, etc.)
Regardless of where one stands on this issue, stupid comments like this one only diminish the arguments of those who agree with the parent. So WHAT if your cellphone has a camera ? Unless you're USING YOUR CELLPHONE TO RECORD THE MOVIE, there is no problem. But I guess it sure sounds good. Yet another example of how FUD can come from BOTH sides of an argument.
I got mine on ebay, it's a refurb but it's like brand new. I've seen them go for less than $50. Although I probably should add in the cost of shipping.
I have a Rio MP3 Receiver which I bought for $55 USD. The out-of-the-box software isn't that great, but that's easily changeable with anyone of a number of different projects. It also has a network jack (no wifi, but so what...you can just plug it into an access point for a total cost of far less than $300), plus Home PNA, and it also sounds great.
So what makes this thing worth all that extra money ?
And what do people here think about wireless multimedia devices anyways ? I've had enough problems trying to get my laptop to even talk to my wireless router through a few walls when they're less than 100 ft away... it seems to me that trying to stream multimedia over the same sort of link isn't going to be that reliable if you have a larger home and/or less than ideal geometry. It's exactly this concern that prompted me to spend the money to retrofit my house with CAT6 throughout.
How does a library sell online the 00's of books typically seen at a library book sale ? It seems the act of cataloguing and offering them for sale, then packaging and shipping them would be onerous, unless you involve a middleman, in which case a good chunk of the margin goes away. Maybe for the special cases they describe it might be worth it, but I can't see the average library selling too much of their junk like this. Not to mention the fact that the books may well have had glued-on card-sleeves, may have had taped-on spine labels, and may even be rubber-stamped, all of which are going to ruin the value of many collectible books.
I believe the FDA...could be better created as a free market Underwriter's Laboratory type corporation. Target won't sell a lamp unless its UL tested. Why would drugs be any different?
You're crazy if you think drugs are like lamps.People go into hock buying the latest snake-oil-cure-all for any one of a number of ailments. Do you really want drug companies to even be able to market drugs whose safety and efficacy has not been ascertained ?
So, if "the web" has automatic archiving, on whose shoulders falls the responsibility of providing said archiving ? The government ? The content-provider ? The ISP ? What if I change a couple of html tags. Does that get automatically archived too ? Who's going to provide the archiving mechanism the parent describes ? For archiving to be useful, and for the archive to be useful in the way a library is useful, EVERYTHING needs to be archived.
Relying on meta-information like the parent suggests almost certainly wouldn't work, because you're relying on the content-provider to provide valid meta-information. That is a mistake if you're trying to provide the kind of verification and authenticity that people would rest (for instance) citations on which their careers depend.
What if I provide an online encyclopedia, which some people are using as a reference. Now, maybe I realize there is something egregiously wrong with an entry, so I change that entry, providing the same meta-information as before (intentionally or unintentionally). What happens to people who cite my original paper ? People would pull up the page pointed to by the meta information and find that what I cited is not what is in the citation. Who would feel safe citing then ?
The only way for an archive to be useful is, as I said, if everything is archived. But this means everything as of every moment in time, which it is plain to see would a Herculean task, probably impossible. And that archive would have to be maintained and signed by an organization that everyone trusted. Who's going to do that ?
The problem is, as the tenant deposits more and more money with the landlord, the landlord's incentive to cheat on the supposed removal services goes up. If the removal costs are as large as implied by the article, don't you think more than a few unscrupulous and/or lazy landlords will retain their deposits while not actually removing the wires themselves ?
Slashdot Mirror
Umm, wouldn't YOU rather check the validity/authenticity of your Linux ISO rather than trust the P2P service to do so ? For exactly this reason, I would expect NO P2P service to try and check the ultimate validity/authenticity for you - it just exposes them to more liability. (Note that I mean something different than validating that the file is identical to the file the peer was sending you)
Moral? Take the test in your daily driver, and *not* your wife's car.
More than that, some cars are just easier to parallel park.
When I learned to drive my parents had an Audi station wagon (which was a huge, cavernouse car), and a Toyota Celica, and I could parallel park those cars in the tightest spots. When I asked my driving teacher how to parallel park, he simply told me "I'm not even going to try and teach you because you do it perfectly every time".
Later, I had a VW Corrado years ago, which was a pretty small car, but which was IMPOSSIBLE for me to parallel park. Sometimes it would feel like I was right up next to the car behind me, when I really had 3-4 feet. I'd feel like I was scraping the curb, when I had 2 feet, or it would feel like I was 3 feet away from the curb, until I scraped my rims.
But even now, I can parallel park minivans and cube vans perfectly fine. I just couldn't park that stupid car.
De novo, given the penetration of the Net into most of the countries surveyed, I'd say the results as presented would mean nothing.
... will transform our social, political and economic lives"), I'd say the results mean even LESS than nothing. I doubt such a group would put out a study saying "heavy net users are social outcasts".
But given that the survey comes from an Internet advocacy group (from their site : "the originators of this project believe that the Internet
- it's nearly obvious that a person who spends 15 hours on the Net a week would spend less time watching TV - if only because that person has less hours in his day to do so. Let me see TV-watching statistics as a proportion of free time NOT spent on the Net.
- it's also obvious that Net users are more affluent, which correlates strongly with having better paying jobs and with having higher education levels, just like say, owning a BMW. So it's more likely they're going to spend more time reading, because i) they're more likely to be literate, ii) they're more likely to need to read as a function of their work. Let me see what Net usage looks like for owners of different cars, and then let's argue about what these statistics mean.
- because of an nearly implied level of affluence, people who can afford a Net connection are also likely to have more leisure time in general than non-Net users. It's hard to be out there socializing when you're a blue-collar joe working two jobs to make ends meet for your family of six. Do you think such a person spends much time on the Net ?
This study is useless as presented, and I frankly don't believe it. Just look at all the TV-related love-ins (Farscape/Tivo/STTNG/Futurama/etc.) here and ask whether you really believe Net users watch more TV ON AN ADJUSTED BASIS than non-Net users. The problem is that specification of a Net user is confounded with all sorts of variables.
What I want to see are numbers that show hours of "social" activity related to leisure hours NOT SPENT ON THE INTERNET. I bet they'd tell a different story. I'd bet that heavy Net users spend FAR less time doing socializing/exercising/being outside than people who use the Net moderately or less.
Well, they certainly weren't smart enough to thnk about putting sucha stipulation in the contract with the clone makers, were they ?
Considering that an Apple would most likely be on every desktop if they had allowed licensing
You mean like how they were letting a few company build Mac-compatible machines in the mid 90's, only to screw them all over royally when it came to renewing ? I remember a few people I knew buying them, but certainly neither Apples nor clones weren't flying out of the stores.
You know, after reading this post I was shocked. I don't track SCO at all, and I don't follow the case, but I assumed from all the derisive posts I'd read here that SCO's stock was in the dumper. I wonder if that's revealing.
/. Just because we want something to be true does not make it so.
The parent invokes the "many eyes" image as if that will necessarily mean SCO's downfall. But the parent implicitly acknowledges is that there are ALSO "many eyes" - in the market - actually, make that "many many eyes" that are scrutinizing the case and that seem to be voting that they believe there IS merit to the case.
There's several possibilities here, one is that the smart money's just playing up the price until every-day-joe jumps in and buys, at which point the smart money will dump it. Given the length and depth of SCO's rally, I think this seems unlikely (but I've been wrong many times before).
Another possibility is that maybe - just maybe - the market knows more than Slashdot zealots know - or will let themselves admit. Maybe a lot more companies than we know are paying SCO's licensing fees. IANAL, but maybe their case has much more merit than you would guess from reading
A third possibility is that SCO's price rise is just an unhappy coincidence completely unrelated to the legal action. Who knows, maybe the case will fall flat on its face and SCO will go in the crapper as so often predicted here. The market has been wrong many times before.
But one thing is clear, you can't get a good sense of what is going on by reading the opinions of chauvinists - like, say, here or on any of the forums populated by people who've gotten rich or hope to get rich holding SCO.
$300 graphics card....don't waste your money.
It's really all relative, isn't it ? There are subjective values to things like video quality which cannot just be measured in terms of dollars because they differ from person to person. Some people might only game for an hour a week, but when they do so, they really want to have the best quality video they can.
Who is anyone to say they're "wasting" their money, especially when it is undeniable that the more expensive video cards ARE measurably better in several ways ?
Someone else might well argue that you wasted your money on your Klipsches because you could buy cheaper Logitech speakers that sound pretty good for 15 bucks. Are they wrong or are you ?
I reckon there should be a market for sub-$10 basic video cards with open specs,
Considering that the company would not only have to make the video card, but also support the video card, market them, distribute them, etc., it's hard to imagine that any market could exist for a peripheral card under 10 bucks - people might only pay 10 bucks for them, but it would cost more than 10 bucks to get them into the hands of the consumer. Name me one other peripheral card which is marketed, new, under 10 dollars. You could make a similar argument that hard drive makers ought to sell say 5 GB drives under 10 bucks too, because there's people out there who would need them. But do you really think that makes sense for the company ?
Seems to me that the market you're describing is ALREADY satisfied. People who don't care about playing games are probably mostly buying motherboards with integrated video, either themselves or indirectly through a Dell or Gateway.
This is such a crappy measure of code 'quality'; if the same company released the same study touting say MS-SQL, no doubt they would be ripped to shreds.
Finding fewer defects/line of code COULD mean that MySQL just has more lines of code, which given the same end could be construed as meaning the code is WORSE.
Also, it should be obvious that comparing ONE prominent open-source project's defect rates with a veritable spectrum (over 200) of commercial project's rates is unfair. What is the lowest defect rate of the commercial projects surveyed ? Why not hold MySQL to THAT standard ?
Here's a question I always wish I could ask managers, whenever the topic of 'outsourcing' comes up: if dealing with programmers overseas
Here's a question I have for you, Cliff. Where exactly did it say in the original query that the guy's job WAS outsourced overseas ? Or is that just playing on the FUD-in-fashion here ?
whether or not this movie manages to be even worse than the last one.
I just got married and I can tell you it's not stopping me from having sex with my girlfriend.
Just don't tell my wife.
that this story gets duped ?
I wonder how long it takes before they'll start redoing old games, like they're doing with all old classic movies now?
That's easy. It will take exactly as long as it takes for the gaming companies to realize people will buy them. Don't knock Hollywood for spewing out remakes of old movies and 70's TV shows and comics, because they're giving the viewing public what they want (witness the success of Mission Impossible, Charlie's Angels, Spiderman, Batman, X-Men, Ocean's Eleven, etc.)
What if my cellphone has a camera?
Regardless of where one stands on this issue, stupid comments like this one only diminish the arguments of those who agree with the parent. So WHAT if your cellphone has a camera ? Unless you're USING YOUR CELLPHONE TO RECORD THE MOVIE, there is no problem. But I guess it sure sounds good. Yet another example of how FUD can come from BOTH sides of an argument.
I got mine on ebay, it's a refurb but it's like brand new. I've seen them go for less than $50. Although I probably should add in the cost of shipping.
I have a Rio MP3 Receiver which I bought for $55 USD. The out-of-the-box software isn't that great, but that's easily changeable with anyone of a number of different projects. It also has a network jack (no wifi, but so what...you can just plug it into an access point for a total cost of far less than $300), plus Home PNA, and it also sounds great.
So what makes this thing worth all that extra money ?
And what do people here think about wireless multimedia devices anyways ? I've had enough problems trying to get my laptop to even talk to my wireless router through a few walls when they're less than 100 ft away... it seems to me that trying to stream multimedia over the same sort of link isn't going to be that reliable if you have a larger home and/or less than ideal geometry. It's exactly this concern that prompted me to spend the money to retrofit my house with CAT6 throughout.
How does a library sell online the 00's of books typically seen at a library book sale ? It seems the act of cataloguing and offering them for sale, then packaging and shipping them would be onerous, unless you involve a middleman, in which case a good chunk of the margin goes away. Maybe for the special cases they describe it might be worth it, but I can't see the average library selling too much of their junk like this. Not to mention the fact that the books may well have had glued-on card-sleeves, may have had taped-on spine labels, and may even be rubber-stamped, all of which are going to ruin the value of many collectible books.
The parent post shows clearly why we now need a new category so that we can score posts "-1, Needs a sense of humour".
I believe the FDA ...could be better created as a free market Underwriter's Laboratory type corporation. Target won't sell a lamp unless its UL tested. Why would drugs be any different?
You're crazy if you think drugs are like lamps.People go into hock buying the latest snake-oil-cure-all for any one of a number of ailments. Do you really want drug companies to even be able to market drugs whose safety and efficacy has not been ascertained ?
Forbes has an older article which describes
One question, though: we know it's old, but was it also posted here too ? If so, it sounds like this article is perfect for Slashdot.
So what the web needs is automatic archiving.
So, if "the web" has automatic archiving, on whose shoulders falls the responsibility of providing said archiving ? The government ? The content-provider ? The ISP ? What if I change a couple of html tags. Does that get automatically archived too ? Who's going to provide the archiving mechanism the parent describes ? For archiving to be useful, and for the archive to be useful in the way a library is useful, EVERYTHING needs to be archived.
Relying on meta-information like the parent suggests almost certainly wouldn't work, because you're relying on the content-provider to provide valid meta-information. That is a mistake if you're trying to provide the kind of verification and authenticity that people would rest (for instance) citations on which their careers depend.
What if I provide an online encyclopedia, which some people are using as a reference. Now, maybe I realize there is something egregiously wrong with an entry, so I change that entry, providing the same meta-information as before (intentionally or unintentionally). What happens to people who cite my original paper ? People would pull up the page pointed to by the meta information and find that what I cited is not what is in the citation. Who would feel safe citing then ?
The only way for an archive to be useful is, as I said, if everything is archived. But this means everything as of every moment in time, which it is plain to see would a Herculean task, probably impossible. And that archive would have to be maintained and signed by an organization that everyone trusted. Who's going to do that ?
The problem is, as the tenant deposits more and more money with the landlord, the landlord's incentive to cheat on the supposed removal services goes up. If the removal costs are as large as implied by the article, don't you think more than a few unscrupulous and/or lazy landlords will retain their deposits while not actually removing the wires themselves ?
That won't work very well if, as the article suggests :
1) you don't know where the cabling runs,
2) the previous tenant cuts the wires.
Yeah, except your examples (save the LINC, which I am not familiar with), are hardly personal computers, which the article was about.