The President has no legal right to make laws. That is left to the Congress. This is why a lackey in Congress always introduces the President's bills. Tell me, who controlled the House and the Senate when Clinton signed the DMCA into law? Do you think, just maybe, that Clinton had to compromise to get some of the things he wanted past (and I mean past, as in, by) the Congress? For the first 6 years of Bush's tenure, who controlled the House and the Senate?
The Congress has way more constitutional power than it is exercising right now. The Republicans made this dictator of a President. The Republicans also kept Clinton from doing much of anything that he wanted to get done.
It isn't a bad idea. Slashdot covered this idea in 2005. In the article there is a link to a Wired story about the process. It provides gains in power, efficiency and pollution control.
I have been thinking about this process ever since I saw the story. I have been trying to convert my company's fleet supervisor to the idea, but have had no luck.
I am coming into this late, and I know someone else has pointed this out, as well, but your story is incomplete. Fanboy geeks are a nice sales force, but they do a lot less to make a company a leader than you imply.
If you were checking out cpu tech back before the K7 Athlon came along, you know that the K6 was a dog everyone liked to kick. The cpu just did not perform as well as the Intel offerings, especially in floating point operations. The motherboards were flaky and many people blamed AMD for this. The slogan then was that if you wanted 100% compatibility and stability, you had to go Intel.
And then the K7 showed up. It was a powerful chip and it beat the Intel P3 at the same clock speed. It had better floating point performance than the P3. And, of course, it was over-clockable. At the same time, Intel introduced the disaster that was the P4. Disaster is my word for it (and I am taking it directly from all the internet abuse the P4 received over the years). The Athlons introduced during the time Intel marketed the P4 consistently beat the crap out of it, and at lower clock speeds. This is when AMD's fortunes rose. Two years ago, there were months when AMD was shipping 50% of the cpus being sold in a given month. Slashdot covered this news regularly. AMD jumped ahead of Intel in another arena -- 64 bit desktop computing. Intel was busy telling people they had no plans to ship 64 bit cpus, while AMD actually sold them. Hence, you had the more quiet introduction of the EMT line of Intel chips. This is why AMD was doing so well.
Then, Intel scrapped the P4 and introduced the Core architecture and took the performance crown back from AMD. For the last 18 months, or so, there have been no AMD chips that could consistently match the Intel offerings at the top end. And the market for AMD has declined as a result.
Please re-read what you originally wrote. Rush Limbaugh attacked Michael J. Fox for exaggerating his symptoms. That implies that Fox was faking; that the tremors were not real and he faked it to get more sympathy for his cause. That is the point of the whole controversy over the issue. I did not read anything into your comments, you made them clear. You wrote that Limbaugh was right because Fox admitted to not taking his medication before taping. My response took issue with your logic and you have not refuted it. In fact, you wrote "I don't see any problem with Limbaugh pointing out what Fox had done." If Limbaugh had stated that Fox did not take his medication and that he, Limbaugh, had a problem with this, then you would have a point. Limbaugh strongly implied Fox was faking. This was a diversionary tactic to take the spotlight away from the issue and attack the messenger. That is what I already stated Limbaugh does.
And, if you think that's entertainment, well, I hope you will give that some thought.
I'm sorry, but I don't understand where you are coming from. I don't see how Michael J. Fox did anything wrong, nor exaggerated anything. What you are implying is that if Michael J. Fox can get his tremors under control with some medication, then he should show that? Is that what Parkinson's is really like? Fox did nothing wrong by not taking his medication when trying to show the American people what it is like to suffer from Parkinson's. If anything, he was brutally honest. You seem to misunderstand the meaning of the word exaggeration. If Fox had put in an Oscar winning performance by making up all sorts of tremors he does not have, then Limbaugh would have a point. Fox did NOT do this, and you have shown that to be the case. Case closed. Limbaugh showed himself to be the despicable individual he is.
If I suffer from severe stomach pain and I need to describe it to you, are you suggesting I tell you it is really not that bad at all, because I pop a Tylenol 3 every hour? Is that really the extent of the pain I am feeling? Think about it if you really need to.
Your other point is baseless, as well. I do not like Limbaugh and I formed my opinion by listening to his show. He is insulting in every way imaginable. Limbaugh's job is not to find a valid argument to counter someone's statements or actions. His job is to find ways of vilifying the person Limbaugh takes issue with. If he can do so by invoking race or sex or physical features, he will do it! For example, if a Democratic politician has a big nose, Limbaugh will use that to call the politician names and assign a variety of immoral or criminal attributes to that politician. Why, so that his faithful listeners will associate the insults with that politician every time they see him. "Oh look, he really does have a huge nose, like Rush said! He's like Pinocchio, his nose grows every time he tells a lie! The bastard!" This is what Limbaugh is all about, and that is all. Perhaps you should listen more carefully to his program.
I don't know where you get the idea that "not much" is being paid to artists and all the other staff that are involved in producing music in recorded form. Britney doesn't stay at the Hilton for free. Somebody pays. She doesn't ride around in a limo for free. She doesn't live in a McMansion for free. Do you get the point? She gets lots of money.
The recording engineers are not paid what Britney is paid -- and for putting up with her, perhaps they should be -- but I bet they bring home at least 50K/year. The advertising firms get paid well. And we could keep going. What do you define as "well paid?" These people are not working for scraps of food from the catering tray. They support families on their income.
Support the Chili Peppers, dammit, and all the other bands that do this. Make the industry wake up whether it likes it, or not.
What, is that supposed to be funny? The term "customer" can be used in a variety of ways. If you are in sales or marketing, a customer could be anyone who fits a specific demographic because that person is buying the product somewhere, but maybe not from you. If they are not your customer it is because you are not doing something right. Now, it can be argued that the music industry is not selling their product in a form the customers would like to purchase. But, from the industry's perspective it is just as easy to say that they are not doing enough to disable the ability to download their product without paying!
Nothing in this world is perfect. Sorry. You are going to have to live with it. Doesn't it suck when you buy a product advertised as being "award winning" and it breaks down just after the warranty period? Everything and everyone is hyped beyond belief in this day and age -- and it happened in the past, too. I could list examples, but it would take too long.
Right now, you can go to any music store and pull out a CD and demand they let you listen to it in the store. I did that with a CD I was unsure about a few years ago. And I say that because that is how long ago it was that I decided to purchase a CD (and no, I don't download music). You can listen to the whole thing right there, in the store. Get off your ass and do it.
You can also go to an on-line retailer and hear bits of at least half the songs on an album. Here (amazon) is an example of a Chili Peppers album. Is that not enough for you?
As for artists whose music is not available -- that's what eBay is for. You have to buy used. You have to look around. It is the same thing that has been done for long time. I was able to purchase a Tom Paxton CD I wanted through eBay (also a European release) when I could not get it in North America. That's life. Advocating downloading because it is easier does not make it right.
I would respectfully submit that your efforts would be more effective if you did not download the music being pushed by an industry you do not like. Downloading music, to my eye, shows that the music industry is doing everything right except being able to prevent you from getting the music without paying. Don't expect them to change their minds without also seeing some serious restrictions on net use being passed by 1st world governments.
How is this possibly insightful? How do you know what the "damage inflicted by her" was? How many people downloaded music from her PC? How many would have downloaded if nothing was done about it? How many dollars does that represent to the music industry?
Look, some people here like to think that the only thing the RIAA should go for in court is the cost of stamping a CD. If we assume a cost of 1 cent per disk, that is not a lot of money, even if the fine covered the cost of stamping 10,000 CDs. However, this argument is just stupid. The cost to the music industry is much greater than that. How much money was paid to Britney (or whoever) to spend time in the studio recording an album? How much money was paid to Britney as the "artist?" How much was paid to the studio engineers; the writers of the songs; musicians; the post-production staff; the caterers; the electricity provider? How much was paid for rent; the building, or use, of the stamping plant; the album advertisement? How much was paid to lawyers? All these costs and more are factored into the price of every CD you buy in the store, period. That's how it works and it's a hell of a lot more than what she was fined!
If you don't like it, don't buy the CD. Boycott the music industry. I boycott Microsoft because I don't like their business practices -- and I don't run Windows on any of my home PCs. You don't have the right to download the music created by the industry you despise and then enjoy it without payment. This is illegal and this is how you "steal" from them. You don't steal CDs, you steal money! Every business on the planet makes things for money. The goal is not to have the nicest stuff to sell, but use the things you sell to make money. If GM could make a business of selling virtual cars in a video game the company would close all of its physical plants and fire all the line workers and just sell to game players. GM has no desire to make cars for the hell of it -- cars are the product GM sells to make money. The same goes for music! The music industry doesn't care if Britney is an "artist," or if her music has deeper meaning, or any other gibberish fans like to whine about. She is simply a means of making money.
Saying that a music downloader is not a customer is not correct, either. The only person who is not a customer is one who does not have possession of the product in question. In this case, you are not a customer if you don't have Britney's music and you do not/cannot listen to it except by hearing it on the radio or watching it on TV. If you downloaded the song and are enjoying it for free, you are indeed a customer -- you just found a better deal than the one offered legally. If you were forced to get your song legally to be able to enjoy it, you would indeed be paying. And this is the message you are sending to everyone, including the music industry -- that you are a thief who likes take other people's labor without paying for it.
Well, I am glad that we agree that there has been little, if any, wrong information provided by Groklaw regarding the SCO case.
As to the issues brought up by the article in Information Week, well... Man, oh man... Look, this reporter had 500 words to write about the situation in the case at the time. He did not follow the case as closely as Groklaw, and he made some general remarks. While, on the whole, it can be argued that he was not wrong, he also did not get it right. You can see that I am not the only one to notice that -- just read some of the comments. One example is the way he stated that Novell was cleared by the judge in the matter of telling SCO to drop the lawsuit against IBM. PJ points out that Novell already ordered SCO to do this a long, long time ago. SCO fought it, and the judge now, finally, said Novell did indeed have the right to do this. You see what's going on? Both PJ and the reporter are "right" in this case. Novell already ordered SCO to drop the case, but SCO was not co-operating until the judge ruled that they must. If the reporter only read the final August 10 ruling from the judge then he can get the impression that Novell can now go ahead and order SCO to do something -- but PJ has been following the case from day one and knows that the order has already been given. The same can be said about the duration of the case quote and some of the others.
In short, the problem you have with PJ, in this case, is one of semantics rather than "facts." That, at least, is the way that I read it. Should she have bitten his head off regarding some of the generalizations made in the Information Week article? Depends on how involved you are in the case. I am sure that in law you want to be as accurate as possible with regard to every aspect of the litigation (just look at the briefs filed in the SCO litigation). Reporters, though, have to get a general viewpoint out to the masses in as clear a fashion as possible and as concisely as possible -- and, sometimes, too quickly to check the details. I am not a programmer, but if I wrote a piece and mentioned a bracket, or a quote, or an if statement in a way that is incorrect, programmers would be chewing my head off for it.
I think you are going to have to come up with some proof of your assertions about Groklaw and your claim of false "facts."
I began reading Groklaw not long after the suit was filed. Someone on Slashdot mentioned it and I checked it out. What I found was that PJ asked the same question everyone else was asking: where is the code? Some things in the initial filing by SCO were just silly, like the whole "Linux was a bicycle and IBM stole our code to make it a Cadillac" bit. PJ objected to it, as did others. The problem was that SCO never provided any real evidence. When SCO's lawyers made assertions that were wrong, Groklaw corrected them. PJ and others dug up information and discussed how relevant it was to the case. I would agree that for a while PJ's personal comments became a little tiring, so I skipped them. But, it is rather understandable when she was being personally attacked by not only SCO and their lawyers, but also by Lyons and other journalists who could not stand being called out for their "press-release reporting."
So, please show me where (and since you say it was frequent you should have no trouble there) false "facts" were presented.
I am guessing the biggest existing and potential market is amateur and pro photographers. As long as 16 bit support is missing, GIMP isn't going anywhere. Who cares about how it looks?
You are mistaken. From a few paragraphs below your quote:
"Before closing, I would like to address another misconception that I have seen publically [sic] reported. WU does not automatically update itself when Automatic Updates is turned off, this only happens when the customer is using WU to automatically install upgrades or to be notified of updates."
The only time Windows Update is upgraded is when you are using the software to notify you of new updates being available. If you have the software set to "do not update", IT IS NOT UPDATED. You will be prompted, like I was two days ago, that in order to check for updates, WU has to be upgraded. I ran the software manually.
And, to keep my Slashdot membership, I have to say that I run Vista at work only -- since I have to. I have my laptop dual-booting Kubuntu, which is what I use whenever I am NOT at work.;^)
Right on! That is exactly how I feel. I don't care about pre-installed Linux, I only care that I am not paying Microsoft for the right to use Linux! I can install Ubuntu on the thing myself. Make it compatible, is all I ask.
You will probably be served well by the Epson 4990. Go to Epson's website and check out the clearance center. You can get a 4990 for US$310. It can scan up to an 8x10 negative. Many, many film shooters use(d) this scanner.
I don't have one, but I have had some 2 1/4" x 2 1/4" (6x6) negatives scanned on a V700 at low resolution for web display. The scans came in at 13MB and I was not disappointed.
Maybe you should have read the story. You see, he responded that -- until 6 months ago -- he did not know there was dissent among the intelligence community that gave him the information he relied on to make his case. You can argue that he was stupid, or anything else you like, but he relied on his staff, and the intelligence community, to let him know what was fact and what was in dispute. According to him, this was not presented. He was told the information was "rock solid."
Give the man credit for speaking out once he found out that the system was broken. He makes a very strong argument against the way the Bush administration works.
"The vast, vast majority of music consumers don't understand about copy protection, could care less about copy protection, and won't notice copy protection."
I believe you are wrong about this. I don't know what the final outcome will be, but I can tell you that from my experience people don't need to know about computers to be affected. Almost everyone I know who has kids and PCs uses Kazaa or some other program to download music. Since these programs are available parents no longer have to spend huge sums of money every year on CDs for their kids. They just let the kids use P2P to download their tunes.
The music industry pimps at least one new boy/girl artist to kids every month -- that's a lot of CDs and money.
Many people are going to be affected by a reduction in downloadable music. That will probably mean that parents will not be willing to go back to buying a dozen CDs per kid per year. But, some money will go back to the music industry.
Again, I don't know yet what will happen then. I know that *I* don't buy much music unless it is drastically reduced in price, or is something I truly value.
Not only is that line a joke, but the whole article is a joke!
The headline for the article does not make sense because the body of the article clearly states that the OS *does* matter and that OS should be Windows! Did we miss that?
His argument is that Microsoft has won. Give them your money and allow them to do what they wish to your PC, just use this guy's document management system to view content -- which, if you did not notice, requires that you run *all* MS software (Outlook, Word, Excel, etc.)!
What a crock! Who the hell needs this *individual's* document management system if we are all supposed to use MS software? We would already have a universal system by virtue of *everyone* running the same software!
This guy is just trying to make money the easiest way he can.
All this yacking about Spielberg and Star Wars reminded me that I had read an article way back when EP1 came out regarding Lucas and the film. Most of the "review" is a condemnation of Lucas's vision and the plot holes in SW TPM. However, it is written by David Brin, a SF writer himself. I found it quite amusing back in the day.
Anyway, this 1999 article found on Salon.com does have relevance to the present discussion. The last paragraph (or second-last) briefly discusses the very issue of Spielberg and the ideas in Star Wars. It seems that David Brin also thought Spielberg would have been a better director.
Slashdot Mirror
I personally like the part where "It not only burns its fuel, it blows itself up for greater propulsion!"
Now *that's* a plane!
The President has no legal right to make laws. That is left to the Congress. This is why a lackey in Congress always introduces the President's bills. Tell me, who controlled the House and the Senate when Clinton signed the DMCA into law? Do you think, just maybe, that Clinton had to compromise to get some of the things he wanted past (and I mean past, as in, by) the Congress? For the first 6 years of Bush's tenure, who controlled the House and the Senate?
The Congress has way more constitutional power than it is exercising right now. The Republicans made this dictator of a President. The Republicans also kept Clinton from doing much of anything that he wanted to get done.
It isn't a bad idea. Slashdot covered this idea in 2005. In the article there is a link to a Wired story about the process. It provides gains in power, efficiency and pollution control.
I have been thinking about this process ever since I saw the story. I have been trying to convert my company's fleet supervisor to the idea, but have had no luck.
I am coming into this late, and I know someone else has pointed this out, as well, but your story is incomplete. Fanboy geeks are a nice sales force, but they do a lot less to make a company a leader than you imply.
If you were checking out cpu tech back before the K7 Athlon came along, you know that the K6 was a dog everyone liked to kick. The cpu just did not perform as well as the Intel offerings, especially in floating point operations. The motherboards were flaky and many people blamed AMD for this. The slogan then was that if you wanted 100% compatibility and stability, you had to go Intel.
And then the K7 showed up. It was a powerful chip and it beat the Intel P3 at the same clock speed. It had better floating point performance than the P3. And, of course, it was over-clockable. At the same time, Intel introduced the disaster that was the P4. Disaster is my word for it (and I am taking it directly from all the internet abuse the P4 received over the years). The Athlons introduced during the time Intel marketed the P4 consistently beat the crap out of it, and at lower clock speeds. This is when AMD's fortunes rose. Two years ago, there were months when AMD was shipping 50% of the cpus being sold in a given month. Slashdot covered this news regularly. AMD jumped ahead of Intel in another arena -- 64 bit desktop computing. Intel was busy telling people they had no plans to ship 64 bit cpus, while AMD actually sold them. Hence, you had the more quiet introduction of the EMT line of Intel chips. This is why AMD was doing so well.
Then, Intel scrapped the P4 and introduced the Core architecture and took the performance crown back from AMD. For the last 18 months, or so, there have been no AMD chips that could consistently match the Intel offerings at the top end. And the market for AMD has declined as a result.
Please re-read what you originally wrote. Rush Limbaugh attacked Michael J. Fox for exaggerating his symptoms. That implies that Fox was faking; that the tremors were not real and he faked it to get more sympathy for his cause. That is the point of the whole controversy over the issue. I did not read anything into your comments, you made them clear. You wrote that Limbaugh was right because Fox admitted to not taking his medication before taping. My response took issue with your logic and you have not refuted it. In fact, you wrote "I don't see any problem with Limbaugh pointing out what Fox had done." If Limbaugh had stated that Fox did not take his medication and that he, Limbaugh, had a problem with this, then you would have a point. Limbaugh strongly implied Fox was faking. This was a diversionary tactic to take the spotlight away from the issue and attack the messenger. That is what I already stated Limbaugh does.
And, if you think that's entertainment, well, I hope you will give that some thought.
I'm sorry, but I don't understand where you are coming from. I don't see how Michael J. Fox did anything wrong, nor exaggerated anything. What you are implying is that if Michael J. Fox can get his tremors under control with some medication, then he should show that? Is that what Parkinson's is really like? Fox did nothing wrong by not taking his medication when trying to show the American people what it is like to suffer from Parkinson's. If anything, he was brutally honest. You seem to misunderstand the meaning of the word exaggeration. If Fox had put in an Oscar winning performance by making up all sorts of tremors he does not have, then Limbaugh would have a point. Fox did NOT do this, and you have shown that to be the case. Case closed. Limbaugh showed himself to be the despicable individual he is.
If I suffer from severe stomach pain and I need to describe it to you, are you suggesting I tell you it is really not that bad at all, because I pop a Tylenol 3 every hour? Is that really the extent of the pain I am feeling? Think about it if you really need to.
Your other point is baseless, as well. I do not like Limbaugh and I formed my opinion by listening to his show. He is insulting in every way imaginable. Limbaugh's job is not to find a valid argument to counter someone's statements or actions. His job is to find ways of vilifying the person Limbaugh takes issue with. If he can do so by invoking race or sex or physical features, he will do it! For example, if a Democratic politician has a big nose, Limbaugh will use that to call the politician names and assign a variety of immoral or criminal attributes to that politician. Why, so that his faithful listeners will associate the insults with that politician every time they see him. "Oh look, he really does have a huge nose, like Rush said! He's like Pinocchio, his nose grows every time he tells a lie! The bastard!" This is what Limbaugh is all about, and that is all. Perhaps you should listen more carefully to his program.
I do not think that word means what you think it means.
I don't know where you get the idea that "not much" is being paid to artists and all the other staff that are involved in producing music in recorded form. Britney doesn't stay at the Hilton for free. Somebody pays. She doesn't ride around in a limo for free. She doesn't live in a McMansion for free. Do you get the point? She gets lots of money.
The recording engineers are not paid what Britney is paid -- and for putting up with her, perhaps they should be -- but I bet they bring home at least 50K/year. The advertising firms get paid well. And we could keep going. What do you define as "well paid?" These people are not working for scraps of food from the catering tray. They support families on their income.
Support the Chili Peppers, dammit, and all the other bands that do this. Make the industry wake up whether it likes it, or not.
What, is that supposed to be funny? The term "customer" can be used in a variety of ways. If you are in sales or marketing, a customer could be anyone who fits a specific demographic because that person is buying the product somewhere, but maybe not from you. If they are not your customer it is because you are not doing something right. Now, it can be argued that the music industry is not selling their product in a form the customers would like to purchase. But, from the industry's perspective it is just as easy to say that they are not doing enough to disable the ability to download their product without paying!
Nothing in this world is perfect. Sorry. You are going to have to live with it. Doesn't it suck when you buy a product advertised as being "award winning" and it breaks down just after the warranty period? Everything and everyone is hyped beyond belief in this day and age -- and it happened in the past, too. I could list examples, but it would take too long.
Right now, you can go to any music store and pull out a CD and demand they let you listen to it in the store. I did that with a CD I was unsure about a few years ago. And I say that because that is how long ago it was that I decided to purchase a CD (and no, I don't download music). You can listen to the whole thing right there, in the store. Get off your ass and do it.
You can also go to an on-line retailer and hear bits of at least half the songs on an album. Here (amazon) is an example of a Chili Peppers album. Is that not enough for you?
As for artists whose music is not available -- that's what eBay is for. You have to buy used. You have to look around. It is the same thing that has been done for long time. I was able to purchase a Tom Paxton CD I wanted through eBay (also a European release) when I could not get it in North America. That's life. Advocating downloading because it is easier does not make it right.
I would respectfully submit that your efforts would be more effective if you did not download the music being pushed by an industry you do not like. Downloading music, to my eye, shows that the music industry is doing everything right except being able to prevent you from getting the music without paying. Don't expect them to change their minds without also seeing some serious restrictions on net use being passed by 1st world governments.
How is this possibly insightful? How do you know what the "damage inflicted by her" was? How many people downloaded music from her PC? How many would have downloaded if nothing was done about it? How many dollars does that represent to the music industry?
Look, some people here like to think that the only thing the RIAA should go for in court is the cost of stamping a CD. If we assume a cost of 1 cent per disk, that is not a lot of money, even if the fine covered the cost of stamping 10,000 CDs. However, this argument is just stupid. The cost to the music industry is much greater than that. How much money was paid to Britney (or whoever) to spend time in the studio recording an album? How much money was paid to Britney as the "artist?" How much was paid to the studio engineers; the writers of the songs; musicians; the post-production staff; the caterers; the electricity provider? How much was paid for rent; the building, or use, of the stamping plant; the album advertisement? How much was paid to lawyers? All these costs and more are factored into the price of every CD you buy in the store, period. That's how it works and it's a hell of a lot more than what she was fined!
If you don't like it, don't buy the CD. Boycott the music industry. I boycott Microsoft because I don't like their business practices -- and I don't run Windows on any of my home PCs. You don't have the right to download the music created by the industry you despise and then enjoy it without payment. This is illegal and this is how you "steal" from them. You don't steal CDs, you steal money! Every business on the planet makes things for money. The goal is not to have the nicest stuff to sell, but use the things you sell to make money. If GM could make a business of selling virtual cars in a video game the company would close all of its physical plants and fire all the line workers and just sell to game players. GM has no desire to make cars for the hell of it -- cars are the product GM sells to make money. The same goes for music! The music industry doesn't care if Britney is an "artist," or if her music has deeper meaning, or any other gibberish fans like to whine about. She is simply a means of making money.
Saying that a music downloader is not a customer is not correct, either. The only person who is not a customer is one who does not have possession of the product in question. In this case, you are not a customer if you don't have Britney's music and you do not/cannot listen to it except by hearing it on the radio or watching it on TV. If you downloaded the song and are enjoying it for free, you are indeed a customer -- you just found a better deal than the one offered legally. If you were forced to get your song legally to be able to enjoy it, you would indeed be paying. And this is the message you are sending to everyone, including the music industry -- that you are a thief who likes take other people's labor without paying for it.
Well, I am glad that we agree that there has been little, if any, wrong information provided by Groklaw regarding the SCO case.
As to the issues brought up by the article in Information Week, well... Man, oh man... Look, this reporter had 500 words to write about the situation in the case at the time. He did not follow the case as closely as Groklaw, and he made some general remarks. While, on the whole, it can be argued that he was not wrong, he also did not get it right. You can see that I am not the only one to notice that -- just read some of the comments. One example is the way he stated that Novell was cleared by the judge in the matter of telling SCO to drop the lawsuit against IBM. PJ points out that Novell already ordered SCO to do this a long, long time ago. SCO fought it, and the judge now, finally, said Novell did indeed have the right to do this. You see what's going on? Both PJ and the reporter are "right" in this case. Novell already ordered SCO to drop the case, but SCO was not co-operating until the judge ruled that they must. If the reporter only read the final August 10 ruling from the judge then he can get the impression that Novell can now go ahead and order SCO to do something -- but PJ has been following the case from day one and knows that the order has already been given. The same can be said about the duration of the case quote and some of the others.
In short, the problem you have with PJ, in this case, is one of semantics rather than "facts." That, at least, is the way that I read it. Should she have bitten his head off regarding some of the generalizations made in the Information Week article? Depends on how involved you are in the case. I am sure that in law you want to be as accurate as possible with regard to every aspect of the litigation (just look at the briefs filed in the SCO litigation). Reporters, though, have to get a general viewpoint out to the masses in as clear a fashion as possible and as concisely as possible -- and, sometimes, too quickly to check the details. I am not a programmer, but if I wrote a piece and mentioned a bracket, or a quote, or an if statement in a way that is incorrect, programmers would be chewing my head off for it.
If you do dig anything up from those comments you made, I would like to know.
I think you are going to have to come up with some proof of your assertions about Groklaw and your claim of false "facts."
I began reading Groklaw not long after the suit was filed. Someone on Slashdot mentioned it and I checked it out. What I found was that PJ asked the same question everyone else was asking: where is the code? Some things in the initial filing by SCO were just silly, like the whole "Linux was a bicycle and IBM stole our code to make it a Cadillac" bit. PJ objected to it, as did others. The problem was that SCO never provided any real evidence. When SCO's lawyers made assertions that were wrong, Groklaw corrected them. PJ and others dug up information and discussed how relevant it was to the case. I would agree that for a while PJ's personal comments became a little tiring, so I skipped them. But, it is rather understandable when she was being personally attacked by not only SCO and their lawyers, but also by Lyons and other journalists who could not stand being called out for their "press-release reporting."
So, please show me where (and since you say it was frequent you should have no trouble there) false "facts" were presented.
Exactly right.
I am guessing the biggest existing and potential market is amateur and pro photographers. As long as 16 bit support is missing, GIMP isn't going anywhere. Who cares about how it looks?
I now use LightZone.
You are mistaken. From a few paragraphs below your quote:
;^)
"Before closing, I would like to address another misconception that I have seen publically [sic] reported. WU does not automatically update itself when Automatic Updates is turned off, this only happens when the customer is using WU to automatically install upgrades or to be notified of updates."
The only time Windows Update is upgraded is when you are using the software to notify you of new updates being available. If you have the software set to "do not update", IT IS NOT UPDATED. You will be prompted, like I was two days ago, that in order to check for updates, WU has to be upgraded. I ran the software manually.
And, to keep my Slashdot membership, I have to say that I run Vista at work only -- since I have to. I have my laptop dual-booting Kubuntu, which is what I use whenever I am NOT at work.
The photo editing software I use now is LightZone. It is not GPL, but it is currently free for Linux. Works for me.
Right on! That is exactly how I feel. I don't care about pre-installed Linux, I only care that I am not paying Microsoft for the right to use Linux! I can install Ubuntu on the thing myself. Make it compatible, is all I ask.
You will probably be served well by the Epson 4990. Go to Epson's website and check out the clearance center. You can get a 4990 for US$310. It can scan up to an 8x10 negative. Many, many film shooters use(d) this scanner.
I don't have one, but I have had some 2 1/4" x 2 1/4" (6x6) negatives scanned on a V700 at low resolution for web display. The scans came in at 13MB and I was not disappointed.
Maybe you should have read the story. You see, he responded that -- until 6 months ago -- he did not know there was dissent among the intelligence community that gave him the information he relied on to make his case. You can argue that he was stupid, or anything else you like, but he relied on his staff, and the intelligence community, to let him know what was fact and what was in dispute. According to him, this was not presented. He was told the information was "rock solid."
Give the man credit for speaking out once he found out that the system was broken. He makes a very strong argument against the way the Bush administration works.
Home PC is connected to an HP98753A 19" RGB fixed frequency unit. Looks to be a Sony flat tube in it. Manufacture date: 1989.
A company was throwing them out some years ago, so I picked a couple up.
I've got an IBM 6091i waiting in the wings to replace the HP, once I figure out which video card to get to run it.
I believe you are wrong about this. I don't know what the final outcome will be, but I can tell you that from my experience people don't need to know about computers to be affected. Almost everyone I know who has kids and PCs uses Kazaa or some other program to download music. Since these programs are available parents no longer have to spend huge sums of money every year on CDs for their kids. They just let the kids use P2P to download their tunes.
The music industry pimps at least one new boy/girl artist to kids every month -- that's a lot of CDs and money.
Many people are going to be affected by a reduction in downloadable music. That will probably mean that parents will not be willing to go back to buying a dozen CDs per kid per year. But, some money will go back to the music industry.
Again, I don't know yet what will happen then. I know that *I* don't buy much music unless it is drastically reduced in price, or is something I truly value.
Not only is that line a joke, but the whole article is a joke!
The headline for the article does not make sense because the body of the article clearly states that the OS *does* matter and that OS should be Windows! Did we miss that?
His argument is that Microsoft has won. Give them your money and allow them to do what they wish to your PC, just use this guy's document management system to view content -- which, if you did not notice, requires that you run *all* MS software (Outlook, Word, Excel, etc.)!
What a crock! Who the hell needs this *individual's* document management system if we are all supposed to use MS software? We would already have a universal system by virtue of *everyone* running the same software!
This guy is just trying to make money the easiest way he can.
All this yacking about Spielberg and Star Wars reminded me that I had read an article way back when EP1 came out regarding Lucas and the film. Most of the "review" is a condemnation of Lucas's vision and the plot holes in SW TPM. However, it is written by David Brin, a SF writer himself. I found it quite amusing back in the day.
Anyway, this 1999 article found on Salon.com does have relevance to the present discussion. The last paragraph (or second-last) briefly discusses the very issue of Spielberg and the ideas in Star Wars. It seems that David Brin also thought Spielberg would have been a better director.
Here's the link.