a la carte pricing is already an option. I called my cable company (Time Warner) and demanded a la carte pricing and saved over $30/month. The only cable station I care about is HBO and now that's the only one I have! Try it, you may same some money too and cut down on time wasted surfing through a wasteland of junk.
BTW - At first, the Time Warner rep insisted it wasn't an option. I had to press him on it and speak with a manager. Apparently there is already some sort of regulation that blocks forced bundling.
I've had a very similar experience with Linux, installing various distros over the past two or three years. Early on, things mostly didn't work and now I'm at the point with RedHat 7.1 and Mandrake 8.1 where most things are working. (Yes, I should upgrade both of those boxes).
It's true -- there are constant frustrations. Regarding his points about CD burners, digital cameras, fonts!!!, etc. -- I hear 'ya loud and clear!
In truth, WinXP may be a better desktop experience than Linux, but that's not why I use Linux. I use Linux because it doesn't constrain the way I use my computer. It doesn't try to obscure my data from me with convoluted binary formats for textual data. It gives me the freedom to configure the machine to fit my needs instead of the other way around.
I want some of the same things that the author wants -- simpler hardware support, fonts, etc. I also wish Linux people would stop using the word "perfectly" so loosely. (How many times have I seen something someone say "such and such device works 'perfectly' in Linux" or "xyz is 'perfect' replacement for Office." It's like a sick inside joke, but I digress...)
I found the author's assessment refreshing for his honestly. Still, I'm willing to live with an OS that's 70% - 80% there for the other reasons I mentioned.
Plus, Linux is going in the right direction so those percentages (whatever they are) will get better and better. I just hope that in a rush to fix the problems with Linux, people don't lose sight of what makes it special.
I find a lot of Perl criticism is caused by the lack of a standard framework for CGI applications written in Perl. Other programming languages (PHP, ASP) provided a relatively more confined method for writing your app, whereas Perl can be a treasure chest or a pandora's box depending on your perspective.
There are so many ways to write dynamic Web programs in Perl: embed Perl into your HTML (embperl), embed HTML into your Perl, use a templating system (HTML::Template, Mason, Template Toolkit, etc), mod_perl, and various combinations.
In the end, I think this is a good thing. It means more choices and better adaptability for various situations. However, it can discourage new users of the language that can quickly write CGI programs in Perl, but wind up writing bad programs.
For anyone looking for a Perl CGI framework, I highly encourage you to check out CGI::Application on CPAN. It integrates with HTML::Template, is lighweight, and makes it relatively easy to mod_perl-ify your code if you need performance boosts.
Why would using animals free you from ethical concerns? Whatever your belief, animals are living breathing creatures, capable of feeling pain and suffering. What gives you the right to use them for whatever your current whim is, without even bothering to ponder the ethical consequences of causing pain in a living creature to serve your own arbitrary goals?
A friend of mine has often commented that we've sold our soul to the GUI. His point is that GUIs don't always make life easier. People seem to focus on GUI for GUI's sake. I think that GUIs can make life easier, but not always.
Even when GUIs do make life easier, often the investment is not worh it -- Developers spend so much time on the GUI that either underlying functionality suffers or the entire program is bug-ridden.
What are your views on this?
What are some good alternatives to GUI development? Do you use any libraries for creating nice text-based apps with simple interfaces? If so, which ones?
Okay, I knew/. was getting bad, but how in the world did this get modded up to a '5 Insightful'? I'm hoping this is temporary.
Is it insightful to base military policy on your latest favorite blockbuster?
Are all/. moderators age 13 and under?
Sheesh.
Just when you thought MS and NBC could do a bad enough job of journalism on their own, now Newsweek is part of the mess? It boggles the mind.
Given how quickly all major news outlets are congealing into one corporate mouth piece, it's startling they let even this mildly anti-Hollywood article seep through the cracks. I like the central message though -- "The movie industry basically lies to you constantly, but tough, it's not like you can do anything about it. You'll watch what we tell you to watch, you mindless drones. Hahahahahaha."
Does this mean those constant Survivor stories on CBS "news" outlets, weren't just solid reporting on a popular social interest? CBS did those stories on iWon.com because it's a groovy site, not because they invested $50 million in it, right?
You can read science fiction books about people getting brain washed en masse, or you can flip on the television for the interactive version.
Wait. We're not a brain washed society. The Chinese are the brain washed ones. We're all about democracy and free speech. Sure, Napster tried to crush free speech by misuing "free use" copyright concepts, but that's been fixed now. The New York Times Company says this is a fair democratic land we live in, and that if it weren't for a couple stray politicians having sex and their underaged children drinking beer, everything would be just perfect. Whew! I was scaring myself there for a minute.
Anyway, I've gotta go. I'm late, and those "Knights Tale" tickets are selling out quickly for some reason.
It's not that you're wrong. It's that you framed things in the simplest of manners. Real economic systems are neither completely communist or purely capitalist. While the US is mostly capitalist, we have some communist aspects to our government and economy -- social security, public education, and yes, that's right, the Internet, are all government funded programs, that serve as examples.
China on the otherhand is much more communist than the US, but certainly has capitalistic components -- corporations and land ownership exist in China, particularly in certain special economic development zones. In some ways, China is even more capitalistic than the US. The government will only pay for the care and education of one child. Have more than one child, and it's your problem.
Also, keep in mind that per capita, China is no where near the US in prospertity, but their system manages to support 1.2 billion people with limited resources. Is that a coincidence? I myself prefer the US system, but it hasn't been tested on that scale.
As for making money from "the rich, evil people", I would never want that. But just b/c your parents are rich, doesn't mean you're entitled to live a life of luxury without work. I have no problem with parents leaving there children hard earned money, maybe up to $1 million without any taxes, but at some point, some re-distribution to the rest of society is in order. The alternative is a world of people born super rich or super poor.
Slashdot Mirror
a la carte pricing is already an option. I called my cable company (Time Warner) and demanded a la carte pricing and saved over $30/month. The only cable station I care about is HBO and now that's the only one I have! Try it, you may same some money too and cut down on time wasted surfing through a wasteland of junk.
BTW - At first, the Time Warner rep insisted it wasn't an option. I had to press him on it and speak with a manager. Apparently there is already some sort of regulation that blocks forced bundling.
For the great science news in the form of video I recommend ScienCentral.
I've had a very similar experience with Linux, installing various distros over the past two or three years. Early on, things mostly didn't work and now I'm at the point with RedHat 7.1 and Mandrake 8.1 where most things are working. (Yes, I should upgrade both of those boxes).
It's true -- there are constant frustrations. Regarding his points about CD burners, digital cameras, fonts!!!, etc. -- I hear 'ya loud and clear!
In truth, WinXP may be a better desktop experience than Linux, but that's not why I use Linux. I use Linux because it doesn't constrain the way I use my computer. It doesn't try to obscure my data from me with convoluted binary formats for textual data. It gives me the freedom to configure the machine to fit my needs instead of the other way around.
I want some of the same things that the author wants -- simpler hardware support, fonts, etc. I also wish Linux people would stop using the word "perfectly" so loosely. (How many times have I seen something someone say "such and such device works 'perfectly' in Linux" or "xyz is 'perfect' replacement for Office." It's like a sick inside joke, but I digress...)
I found the author's assessment refreshing for his honestly. Still, I'm willing to live with an OS that's 70% - 80% there for the other reasons I mentioned.
Plus, Linux is going in the right direction so those percentages (whatever they are) will get better and better. I just hope that in a rush to fix the problems with Linux, people don't lose sight of what makes it special.
I find a lot of Perl criticism is caused by the lack of a standard framework for CGI applications written in Perl. Other programming languages (PHP, ASP) provided a relatively more confined method for writing your app, whereas Perl can be a treasure chest or a pandora's box depending on your perspective.
There are so many ways to write dynamic Web programs in Perl: embed Perl into your HTML (embperl), embed HTML into your Perl, use a templating system (HTML::Template, Mason, Template Toolkit, etc), mod_perl, and various combinations.
In the end, I think this is a good thing. It means more choices and better adaptability for various situations. However, it can discourage new users of the language that can quickly write CGI programs in Perl, but wind up writing bad programs.
For anyone looking for a Perl CGI framework, I highly encourage you to check out CGI::Application on CPAN. It integrates with HTML::Template, is lighweight, and makes it relatively easy to mod_perl-ify your code if you need performance boosts.
-Will
Why would using animals free you from ethical concerns? Whatever your belief, animals are living breathing creatures, capable of feeling pain and suffering. What gives you the right to use them for whatever your current whim is, without even bothering to ponder the ethical consequences of causing pain in a living creature to serve your own arbitrary goals?
A friend of mine has often commented that we've sold our soul to the GUI. His point is that GUIs don't always make life easier. People seem to focus on GUI for GUI's sake. I think that GUIs can make life easier, but not always.
Even when GUIs do make life easier, often the investment is not worh it -- Developers spend so much time on the GUI that either underlying functionality suffers or the entire program is bug-ridden.
What are your views on this?
What are some good alternatives to GUI development? Do you use any libraries for creating nice text-based apps with simple interfaces? If so, which ones?
Okay, I knew /. was getting bad, but how in the world did this get modded up to a '5 Insightful'? I'm hoping this is temporary.
Is it insightful to base military policy on your latest favorite blockbuster?
Are all /. moderators age 13 and under?
Sheesh.
Just when you thought MS and NBC could do a bad enough job of journalism on their own, now Newsweek is part of the mess? It boggles the mind.
Given how quickly all major news outlets are congealing into one corporate mouth piece, it's startling they let even this mildly anti-Hollywood article seep through the cracks. I like the central message though -- "The movie industry basically lies to you constantly, but tough, it's not like you can do anything about it. You'll watch what we tell you to watch, you mindless drones. Hahahahahaha."
Does this mean those constant Survivor stories on CBS "news" outlets, weren't just solid reporting on a popular social interest? CBS did those stories on iWon.com because it's a groovy site, not because they invested $50 million in it, right?
You can read science fiction books about people getting brain washed en masse, or you can flip on the television for the interactive version.
Wait. We're not a brain washed society. The Chinese are the brain washed ones. We're all about democracy and free speech. Sure, Napster tried to crush free speech by misuing "free use" copyright concepts, but that's been fixed now. The New York Times Company says this is a fair democratic land we live in, and that if it weren't for a couple stray politicians having sex and their underaged children drinking beer, everything would be just perfect. Whew! I was scaring myself there for a minute.
Anyway, I've gotta go. I'm late, and those "Knights Tale" tickets are selling out quickly for some reason.
It's not that you're wrong. It's that you framed things in the simplest of manners. Real economic systems are neither completely communist or purely capitalist. While the US is mostly capitalist, we have some communist aspects to our government and economy -- social security, public education, and yes, that's right, the Internet, are all government funded programs, that serve as examples.
China on the otherhand is much more communist than the US, but certainly has capitalistic components -- corporations and land ownership exist in China, particularly in certain special economic development zones. In some ways, China is even more capitalistic than the US. The government will only pay for the care and education of one child. Have more than one child, and it's your problem.
Also, keep in mind that per capita, China is no where near the US in prospertity, but their system manages to support 1.2 billion people with limited resources. Is that a coincidence? I myself prefer the US system, but it hasn't been tested on that scale.
As for making money from "the rich, evil people", I would never want that. But just b/c your parents are rich, doesn't mean you're entitled to live a life of luxury without work. I have no problem with parents leaving there children hard earned money, maybe up to $1 million without any taxes, but at some point, some re-distribution to the rest of society is in order. The alternative is a world of people born super rich or super poor.
That was a really well structured argument against the Clinton administration. You're a smart one, aren't you? Indeed.