all in all using vista is less effiecent than using XP
... use XP.
Seriously, why does everybody have to use the newest piece of every damn software package? Just use what works, and get on with your lives. Do you people "upgrade" your car every model year, too? Jesus...
In my store I use a baseball bat. While a double-edged sword is quick, it also leaves a big, bloody mess, and lots and lots of police paperwork. I prefer just to crack 'em in the kneecap with my aluminum bat. It hurts a lot, and they have to just lie there until the cops get there.
The thing is, in practice, wireless networks are still *wide* open. There are tons and tons of free, public wireless networks going up (like the one in my town), with nobody thinking about the implications. Even with being able to determine that these two packets came from the same card, that still doesn't tell anybody anything about WHO that is. With public wireless networks, anybody can still do whatever they need to do (legal or illegal), and be completely anonymous.
The only thing that Big Brother would know is that somebody with model XXX of wireless card posted kiddie porn from this WAP.
"Unfortunately, while he stood as a model environmentalist, he now stands as an example of the dangers of directly interacting with wild animals."
Why is this unfortunate? I think that this is fortunate in two ways:
1. Stupid people are less likely to mess with wild animals. That's good for the animals.
2. People are reminded that no matter what kind of technology we have, nature is going to get ALL of us in the end, and there's a good chance that many of us could be easily wiped out by something as massive as a hurricane or as wild as a stingray (apparently). It teaches people to be both humbled and awed by nature. That's good for people.
I own a retail business, and although we do use the Net for several things (credit card processing, music, web site sales), I would never depend on it. It's still several order of magnitudes less reliable than electricity and a land line. We use it every day, but I have backups for everything that we do with the Net, and Web sales aren't going to make or break us. I think that making your entire livelihood depend on an Internet connection is very foolish at this stage in the game.
I'll give it another 10-20 years, then *maybe* it'll be reliable enough that I would bet the farm on it, but not yet. The Internet is still the Wild, Wild West, complete with tons of criminals and people looking to tear shit up. It's all just cobbled together between ISPs, and of which could get a hair up their ass and ruin you instantly. Ever get black holed by some pimply, self-important spam fighter? It's happened to me before, and could happen at any time, at the whim of one annoyed person at Spamhaus. How about the ever-changing laws, regulations, and fees?
"However, those who feel this all amounts to an imminent war between the users and the ISPs over BitTorrent... "
A war? You gotta be crazy. If my ISP doesn't provide me what I'm paying for then I'm either dumping them or suing. It's that simple. There's not going to be an "war" over my ISP usage at my home or my business. I'm going to get what I pay for, or they can speak with my attorney (and yes, I do use my attorney for little stuff like this).
To the people who just have a home ISP and may not have much choice, I say: don't worry about it. Somebody will come in to provide the service eventually. Competition ensures that it'll happen. With wireless getting a little bit more useful every day, I think that we'll soon have some competition amongst ISP's again, soon.
1. If you'll notice from the article, about all they use that's open source is Linux and some compilers.
2. I run mostly MS software at my business, but the MS software that I run is highly customized. MS offers tons and tons of API's. Many more than most proprietary software companies than I've seen, in fact. If you want to find out more, visit: http://msdn.microsoft.com/
3. And, if you'll notice... companies like Google that use custom software to gain a competitive advantage certainly don't open source it.
Actually, I'm succeeding quite well, I own my own business, and I'm reasonably wealthy. So you're wrong. But unlike RMS and his ilk, I had to work very, very, very hard to get here. I would never suggest that "most people" don't have to work to earn money, and I would never suggest from my high horse that because I'm financially comfortable, that other people should be working for free. RMS's position is, dare I say, "evil"?
The fact is that RMS is loaded, and he hangs out with other such people (you know the kind.... they come up with a concept, hype it to venture capitalists, run the company into the ground or simply never produce a product, but they walk away with millions), and he is completely and totally out of touch with those of us poor souls that (God forbid!) have to WORK in order to earn money and pay our bills. Not all of us can be a blowhard that gets paid for spouting nonsense like "First of all there are many people who don't have to make money. " He sounds like a smug, pretentious asshole to me.
I don't think it's quite that simple. I think that there's also an element of which console is geared towards which demographics, because they're not the same. Nintendo is most definately geared towards kids, fox example. You're gonna see more kid games (Mario everything), and fewer games involving adult story lines (Grand Theft Auto) on Nintendo.
Who cares who is number 1, 2, and 3? Buy whatever you want. I personally don't give a flying shit what game "experts" say (that's an oxymoron, if I've ever heard one). I'm buying a PS3 because I want to.
Oh sure, this will happen. PC makers can offer a PC that's maybe $50 cheaper (if at all cheaper), and it'll come with bundled with hundreds of dollars of extra support costs (ie: "Where's the Start button"?).
These guys are hardcore gamers, that's not the kind of comment you want from guys that have this much clout.
These guys are hardcore gamers, meaning that they have little to no clout amidst the general public. Hardcore gamers are just a tiny fraction of people who buy consoles.
Besides, even people like myself (not a "hardcore" gamer) who read the geek news, just don't care. I want a good box, with good games. I've already got my gift cards set aside for the PS3, and I'll reserve one the first day that I can.
Looks like it is about time to short-sell their stock
You go ahead and do that. I'll be buying.
You clearly have no idea what Sony Corporation consists of. It's a massive multinational corporation, of which their Playstation is only a tiny segment. Besides, they couldn't care less what a few gamer freaks have to say about their box. Given the past performance of the PS2, and the current slow sales of the XBox 360 (assuming, most people like me are waiting for the PS3), I don't think that anybody there is all that worried.
Can anybody summarize for me, what exactly, is the point of any of these products, and why I, or anyone else, should even consider using these things? Sure, they may be neat-o, but don't successful products generally have some sort of purpose?
well, considering that this question has been answered here, there and virtually everywhere, repeatedly, for the last 5-6-7 years now, if you are not trying to be negative or cynical, one must suspect you of trolling.
Oh wait, let me guess... "support", right? Oh, sure. That's worked out really well for... hmm... [insert company here]... Well, maybe in abother 5-6-7 years, maybe it'll be true. Until then, just saying "money comes from support" is the troll, buddy, because it's simply not true outside of Red Hat. Or maybe you're not quite trolling, but just spreading FUD...
Unfortunately for them, it's too late. There's a whole generation of people like me who have -zero- interest in TV of any kind, and probably never will again. There simply isn't anything on TV worth watching. Everything on TV (yes, including Discovery channel, History channel, etc.) all appeals to the lowest common denominator. Cable has completely failed to offer anything of any real interest from what I've seen. I only use a cell phone, and my business has a partial T-1. I haven't written a check to a cable company for about 10 years now, and I don't miss them one bit.
Of course, that being said, people like me are a *tiny* minority. The masses are as dumb as ever and will continue to buy whatever cable companies throw at them. They just don't have the market that they could have if they actually tried to have content that appealed to people with an IQ of over 80.
How long has GE food been around, and to what extent has it been produced?
It's been around for many thousands of years, and just about every single commercial crop in the world right now has been genetically modified, either through selective cross-breeding, or via a test tube.
Thats my big beef with GE foods, its got nothing to do with productivity or efficiency. People have been growing their own food for thousands of years - widespread GE foods would essentially criminalize that activity.
OK, so why would a company want to spend many millions of dollars developing a new kind of corn, only to have a competitor buy a handful of seeds, and start selling them under their own label? Assuming all other things are equal, the company that developed the new strain is out many millions of dollars. Doesn't seem to smart to me to spend another red cent developing new strains of crops if they couldn't patent them. And if this were the case, we'd have a LOT more starving people in the world.
Well, you can't really get any support from vendors until a large number of people are using Linux actively. Right now, it's on servers, and virtually nobody uses it as a desktop machine outside of uber-geeks and a few of their family. That's tiiiiny. That number is so small that any hardware CEO that decides to spend any significant amount of money on the Linux market should be fired.
You're not going to get that kind of market share until it's easy to use (I put a DVD movie in the drive, and it plays).
Personally, I think that Linux will always be relegated to geeks and hobbysists and geek hobbyists. I don't see it solving any significant problems that Windows has, because Windows is so mature at this point. There's very little reason for the average person to use it, other than saving a hundred bucks. Most sane people aren't going to put themselves through that for $100, and if they do, then they are the kind of people who wouldn't shovel out a few hundred bucks for a new video card, anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
Never had one on Windows XP, and have had exactly one on Windows 2000 with a bad stick of RAM. Stick that in your pipe and smoke it, zealot.
all in all using vista is less effiecent than using XP
... use XP.
Seriously, why does everybody have to use the newest piece of every damn software package? Just use what works, and get on with your lives. Do you people "upgrade" your car every model year, too? Jesus...
In my store I use a baseball bat. While a double-edged sword is quick, it also leaves a big, bloody mess, and lots and lots of police paperwork. I prefer just to crack 'em in the kneecap with my aluminum bat. It hurts a lot, and they have to just lie there until the cops get there.
It's pretty damn effective.
The thing is, in practice, wireless networks are still *wide* open. There are tons and tons of free, public wireless networks going up (like the one in my town), with nobody thinking about the implications. Even with being able to determine that these two packets came from the same card, that still doesn't tell anybody anything about WHO that is. With public wireless networks, anybody can still do whatever they need to do (legal or illegal), and be completely anonymous.
The only thing that Big Brother would know is that somebody with model XXX of wireless card posted kiddie porn from this WAP.
"Unfortunately, while he stood as a model environmentalist, he now stands as an example of the dangers of directly interacting with wild animals."
Why is this unfortunate? I think that this is fortunate in two ways:
1. Stupid people are less likely to mess with wild animals. That's good for the animals.
2. People are reminded that no matter what kind of technology we have, nature is going to get ALL of us in the end, and there's a good chance that many of us could be easily wiped out by something as massive as a hurricane or as wild as a stingray (apparently). It teaches people to be both humbled and awed by nature. That's good for people.
I own a retail business, and although we do use the Net for several things (credit card processing, music, web site sales), I would never depend on it. It's still several order of magnitudes less reliable than electricity and a land line. We use it every day, but I have backups for everything that we do with the Net, and Web sales aren't going to make or break us. I think that making your entire livelihood depend on an Internet connection is very foolish at this stage in the game.
I'll give it another 10-20 years, then *maybe* it'll be reliable enough that I would bet the farm on it, but not yet. The Internet is still the Wild, Wild West, complete with tons of criminals and people looking to tear shit up. It's all just cobbled together between ISPs, and of which could get a hair up their ass and ruin you instantly. Ever get black holed by some pimply, self-important spam fighter? It's happened to me before, and could happen at any time, at the whim of one annoyed person at Spamhaus. How about the ever-changing laws, regulations, and fees?
What we need is more truth in ads.
Not really. What we need are some good class-action lawsuits.
"However, those who feel this all amounts to an imminent war between the users and the ISPs over BitTorrent... "
A war? You gotta be crazy. If my ISP doesn't provide me what I'm paying for then I'm either dumping them or suing. It's that simple. There's not going to be an "war" over my ISP usage at my home or my business. I'm going to get what I pay for, or they can speak with my attorney (and yes, I do use my attorney for little stuff like this).
To the people who just have a home ISP and may not have much choice, I say: don't worry about it. Somebody will come in to provide the service eventually. Competition ensures that it'll happen. With wireless getting a little bit more useful every day, I think that we'll soon have some competition amongst ISP's again, soon.
1. If you'll notice from the article, about all they use that's open source is Linux and some compilers.
2. I run mostly MS software at my business, but the MS software that I run is highly customized. MS offers tons and tons of API's. Many more than most proprietary software companies than I've seen, in fact. If you want to find out more, visit: http://msdn.microsoft.com/
3. And, if you'll notice... companies like Google that use custom software to gain a competitive advantage certainly don't open source it.
Actually, I'm succeeding quite well, I own my own business, and I'm reasonably wealthy. So you're wrong. But unlike RMS and his ilk, I had to work very, very, very hard to get here. I would never suggest that "most people" don't have to work to earn money, and I would never suggest from my high horse that because I'm financially comfortable, that other people should be working for free. RMS's position is, dare I say, "evil"?
The fact is that RMS is loaded, and he hangs out with other such people (you know the kind.... they come up with a concept, hype it to venture capitalists, run the company into the ground or simply never produce a product, but they walk away with millions), and he is completely and totally out of touch with those of us poor souls that (God forbid!) have to WORK in order to earn money and pay our bills. Not all of us can be a blowhard that gets paid for spouting nonsense like "First of all there are many people who don't have to make money. " He sounds like a smug, pretentious asshole to me.
I don't think it's quite that simple. I think that there's also an element of which console is geared towards which demographics, because they're not the same. Nintendo is most definately geared towards kids, fox example. You're gonna see more kid games (Mario everything), and fewer games involving adult story lines (Grand Theft Auto) on Nintendo.
Who cares who is number 1, 2, and 3? Buy whatever you want. I personally don't give a flying shit what game "experts" say (that's an oxymoron, if I've ever heard one). I'm buying a PS3 because I want to.
Oh sure, this will happen. PC makers can offer a PC that's maybe $50 cheaper (if at all cheaper), and it'll come with bundled with hundreds of dollars of extra support costs (ie: "Where's the Start button"?).
Just use Windows 2000, and set it to automatic updates. That's about as simple as you can get.
These guys are hardcore gamers, that's not the kind of comment you want from guys that have this much clout.
These guys are hardcore gamers, meaning that they have little to no clout amidst the general public. Hardcore gamers are just a tiny fraction of people who buy consoles.
Besides, even people like myself (not a "hardcore" gamer) who read the geek news, just don't care. I want a good box, with good games. I've already got my gift cards set aside for the PS3, and I'll reserve one the first day that I can.
Looks like it is about time to short-sell their stock
You go ahead and do that. I'll be buying.
You clearly have no idea what Sony Corporation consists of. It's a massive multinational corporation, of which their Playstation is only a tiny segment. Besides, they couldn't care less what a few gamer freaks have to say about their box. Given the past performance of the PS2, and the current slow sales of the XBox 360 (assuming, most people like me are waiting for the PS3), I don't think that anybody there is all that worried.
Can anybody summarize for me, what exactly, is the point of any of these products, and why I, or anyone else, should even consider using these things? Sure, they may be neat-o, but don't successful products generally have some sort of purpose?
Well, this bit of news helps me out. University of Melbourne: one less university to consider attending.
well, considering that this question has been answered here, there and virtually everywhere, repeatedly, for the last 5-6-7 years now, if you are not trying to be negative or cynical, one must suspect you of trolling.
Oh wait, let me guess... "support", right? Oh, sure. That's worked out really well for... hmm... [insert company here]... Well, maybe in abother 5-6-7 years, maybe it'll be true. Until then, just saying "money comes from support" is the troll, buddy, because it's simply not true outside of Red Hat. Or maybe you're not quite trolling, but just spreading FUD...
Apache is a non-profit charity that accepts donations. Not profitable.
MySQL is a privately owned German company, but they say that they've been funded by VC's since 2001.
So, no neither of those companies are profitable.
Unfortunately for them, it's too late. There's a whole generation of people like me who have -zero- interest in TV of any kind, and probably never will again. There simply isn't anything on TV worth watching. Everything on TV (yes, including Discovery channel, History channel, etc.) all appeals to the lowest common denominator. Cable has completely failed to offer anything of any real interest from what I've seen. I only use a cell phone, and my business has a partial T-1. I haven't written a check to a cable company for about 10 years now, and I don't miss them one bit.
Of course, that being said, people like me are a *tiny* minority. The masses are as dumb as ever and will continue to buy whatever cable companies throw at them. They just don't have the market that they could have if they actually tried to have content that appealed to people with an IQ of over 80.
How long has GE food been around, and to what extent has it been produced?
It's been around for many thousands of years, and just about every single commercial crop in the world right now has been genetically modified, either through selective cross-breeding, or via a test tube.
Thats my big beef with GE foods, its got nothing to do with productivity or efficiency. People have been growing their own food for thousands of years - widespread GE foods would essentially criminalize that activity.
OK, so why would a company want to spend many millions of dollars developing a new kind of corn, only to have a competitor buy a handful of seeds, and start selling them under their own label? Assuming all other things are equal, the company that developed the new strain is out many millions of dollars. Doesn't seem to smart to me to spend another red cent developing new strains of crops if they couldn't patent them. And if this were the case, we'd have a LOT more starving people in the world.
Well, you can't really get any support from vendors until a large number of people are using Linux actively. Right now, it's on servers, and virtually nobody uses it as a desktop machine outside of uber-geeks and a few of their family. That's tiiiiny. That number is so small that any hardware CEO that decides to spend any significant amount of money on the Linux market should be fired.
You're not going to get that kind of market share until it's easy to use (I put a DVD movie in the drive, and it plays).
Personally, I think that Linux will always be relegated to geeks and hobbysists and geek hobbyists. I don't see it solving any significant problems that Windows has, because Windows is so mature at this point. There's very little reason for the average person to use it, other than saving a hundred bucks. Most sane people aren't going to put themselves through that for $100, and if they do, then they are the kind of people who wouldn't shovel out a few hundred bucks for a new video card, anyway.