Exactly. The argument should be thus: Is IE the core component of Windows? Should we believe Bill Gates who defines "innovation" as the total freedom to move all sorts of things into the core component of Windows? Shouldn't the users of Windows have a say in the matter, rather than assuming that it must be one way or the other.
Yes, Internet Explorer is now an official core component of Windows. Just like Al Gore officially lost the election. Get over it.
I base this knowledge on the following things:
(1) Microsoft owns Windows. They are free to do whatever they want with it. If they integrate a firewall (a la Windows XP) to it, then it automatically becomes a core component.
(2) Microsoft has actually used IE to add additional functionality to the Windows shell, and consequently, the OS. Not only does IE provide for Active Desktop, but also for customized folder settings, thumbnail views, etc. If not for integrated IE, you couldn't put that god awful wallpaper on the back of your folders. Nor could you view.CHM (compiled HTML help) files. Nor could you use the Add/Remove programs applet in later versions of Windows.
(3) Microsoft has not limited competitor's access to install 3rd-party browser. Netscape still works as good as it ever did (which is pretty buggy, but it always has been). Netscape can even be your default browser if you wish. Can Netscape render your Active Desktop? No. Because that's a Microsoft Windows (tm) feature, and it's designed with IE in mind.
(4) Microsoft has published the interface to the component version of IE (what the Windows shell uses), and it is free for use with 3rd party programs. A lot of browsers use component IE to take care of HTML rendering (see Netcaptor).
(5) Microsoft is practicing good design skills by moving needed functionality to a shared library. There's no reason to rewrite an HTML renderer for each component/program that needs to display HTML. IMO, integrated IE is nothing more than an #include file.
So, what has MS done wrong here? They've given computer users a browser for free? They've made it more convenient to access the Web? What's the problem with that? You can even use IE to go download and install Netscape! Better than using a command line FTP client. (Oh wait that's included too, does that mean that GetRight and SmartFTP should sue?)
Feel free to bitch and moan about MS's restrictive licensing policies, their shady OEM dealings, and their outrageous software prices. You're welcome to whine about their lack of security, stability, and their inability to isolate rogue device drivers. I'll even join you in complaining about stupid design flaws that let a rogue process hijack the CPU, leaving the Windows shell locked out. But, please, let's just get over the IE debate. It's a good thing. And if you don't like it, stick with Windows 95.
How about IE4 altering the entire Windows 95 shell? I *know* there would be a lot of idiots using this feature if it was a public thing...
With a simple text editor, you can replace the windows shell with anything you want (Win9x series, at least). (See shell= in system.ini file)So, all you need to do is write your own shell and embed anything you want in it.
Oh, wait...you want to use Microsoft's shell but add your own stuff to it? You must mean like digital cameras, PaperPort, etc. have been doing for years. Once again, not too hard to do. Though, that actually takes some programming skills.
I especially liked the part of the artcile where Rosen complains that people will spend "thousands of dollars" on hard drives but won't pay for music. Makes me wonder where she buys her hard drives??
Obviously, she buys from the samevendors that the Pentagon does!
Section added to comply with non discrimation policies:
For those international readers, the US Pentagon has been known to pay $75 for a screw, $400 for a hammer, etc.
Well, it still performs the basic functions it is supposed to; it records, and can encode to other file formats. However, it still obviously has bugs as it crashes and loses some of the stored files. I think that the 2.5 out of 5 rating is valid, as it's a 50%...still an F, but almost passing.
As with all things technology, you have to review the product based on (a)it's purpose, (b)it's fulfillment of that purpose, (c)the hardware, (d)the software and drivers.
In this case, the hardware fulfilled it's purpose. It records and it converts to MPEG-2 (both presumably well, I'd imagine). The reviewer had problems with stability, processor usage, and some lacking features (customizable MPEG sizes). These can all be fixed with a simple update to the software and drivers of the product.
There's nothing inherently wrong with the product. The hardware works, the software works, and they both do as advertised. Stability and missing features are often lacking in a first release, and this is no different. Creative has a somewhat solid reputation IMO of timely releasing updated software and drivers. I'd expect a revision within the next few months.
In all, based on this review, I'd give it a 3/5 stars with a recommendation to hold off purchases until the next version of the SW is available.
Maybe you're not familiar with the notion of capitalism, but the only point of ANY company is to make money (not-for-profit companies aside, obviously).
That's why laws are and should be passed to protect consumers from companies...not the other way around.
You forgot ubiquitous. That's the sticking point. I'm well aware of Wi-Fi and its uses, as well as Freenet's-both wired and unwired. But, just like wired Freenet's didn't get everyone and their brother on the internet, neither will free wireless LANs. In case you didn't read the FL article, "The WIZ went live around the Jacksonville Landing, which is a retail, restaurant, and amusement center on the city's riverfront." It's not meant for residential use.
Well, if voice quality is what concerns you I'm amazed you weren't looking into VoIP solutions a long time ago. Regular phone lines use like 16kbps connections, possibly up to 64kbps for a digital line designed for ISDN. They're limited to half duplex and crappy mics and speakers.
I do believe that POTS is full duplex, as in you can talk and listen at the same time. If it wasn't, my arguments with my girlfriend would be a lot quieter.:) As for crappy mics and speakers, I'd have to say that even a $25 phone is superior to most VoIP solutions.
You would want to find a solution that utilized something like ogg or mp3 and probably encrypt your communications.
Interesting thought on mp3, but the decoding/encoding would be slightly intensive. But, a 20kbps streaming mp3 should be sufficiently clear and keep bandiwdth use to a minimum.
The truth is Voice over IP isn't hard as long as both ends are using IP.
Then why hasn't it been done well?
Let's just replace the phone system....I think its time we cut off the legacy BS and fat.
Bullshit. Without gov't intervention, we'll never have a system as widespread as POTS...and we only got that thru gov't intervention as well. Also don't forget that POTS is the only service to have widespread support in other nations around the world, and that a great majority of home internet users still use analog modems for connectivity.
Why? Because in a year or two we'll have wireless lans much faster than our dial-up net connections for free, without wires!
A ubiqutious free wireless WAN is nothing more than a pipe dream...A ubiquitous free wireless LAN in a year or two is a crack induced hallucination.
What I can't figure out with this (and other stupid patents) is why it takes 1500 words to describe a method of swinging!?! Evidently, the patent office gets wowed by "technical" words such as parallel, perpendicular, and X-axis. Then, they are no longer able to think rationally and approve the patent.
Or perhaps the boring, dry, technical aspect of these patent claims put them in a hypnotic trance. I guess that's why patent lawyers are paid the big bucks.
Re:How to make this work.
on
e-Denounce
·
· Score: 1
Yes but most poor students like me get their software off IRC or Kazaa. I have not gotten software of a warez website since 1998. As far as I'm concerned, if this group wants warez off the net, that's fine with me.
I'm pretty sure you meant Web there...not 'net.
Re:(offtopic) Re:The true question....
on
e-Denounce
·
· Score: 2
One of the sysadmins at my previous job pronounced it that way, and I couldn't figure out why... isn't "warez" a shortened/l33t form of "softwares"? If so, shouldn't it be pronounced the same way? War-ez just sounds like Juarez, the city in Mexico...
Interesting...I've never heard it pronounced War-ez, but I have heard of ware-ez. Sort of a play on "where is", I always figured. Note: if you hang out with software pirates long enough, everything always comes back to "where is xxx"
Personally, I think that if a film/tv show takes place in a real location (i.e. not someplace like Gotham City or Metropolis) the producers should at least have the common decency of portraying the location accurately.
But, for comedy shows (the Simpson's, in this case) is it not unreasonable to stretch the accurate portrayal for comedic effect? Not to mention that Rio does, in fact, have monkeys (and monkeys have been known to attack), a high crime rate(*), and a lot of orphan children beggars(*). So, did the Simpson's really portray the city inaccurately? Any more inaccurately than a movie set in NYC where a guy gets mugged?
And, for non comedic works, is removing/changing ad space not depicting the location accurately? I could understand the owner's of Times Square being upset if Columbia had changed all the ads to porn ads...but, c'mon. This is laughable.
Unfortunately it's not all sweetness in exuberant Rio. Even tourists will notice the favelas (shantytowns) that blanket the hillsides, providing meager comfort to more than a third of the city's population. Rio's poor lack education and medical care; drug abuse and violence litter the streets; and police corruption is more common than not. With chronic poverty and a stubbornly high crime rate, Rio is not unlike other high-density global centers. The difference is that the extremes in Rio can be difficult to ignore.
Wow, you mean if no one had ever created toilet paper, I would never have felt a need to take a shit?:)
No, but if no one had created toilet paper, you would have never felt a need to cut down a tree, shred and bleach it's pulp, make a soft and thin roll of paper, then 2-ply it and put pretty designs on it; just to wipe your nasty shit and flush it down a large porcelain shithole to an even larger shit container sitting under your yard.
Now, if God hadn't come up with assholes like you, then you wouldn't have felt a need to take a shit.:)
Um, have you noticed how expensive tape backup units are? The only practical way for people to protect themselves from drive failure is to raid. It's not speed, it's redundancy. I've raided my home system ever since a (scsi) drive failure took out a (luckily unimportant) partition. I've also gone ide because the scsi upgrades were just too expensive.
Good point. TBU's are pretty outrageous, especially when you start looking at backing up today's monstrous hard drives to a single tape (or autoloader). IDE tape drives are more reasonably priced, though. I can't say I'd recommend them though. They're a good bit slower and more prone to failure than SCSI units, in my experience.
Lucky for me, I get to keep old TBU's from customers.:) I use 1 DDS-2 (10/20GB) and 1 DDS-3 (12/24GB) SCSI TBU's to back myself up, so I can use RAID for performance and still not worry too much.
RAID SCSI doesn't rock? Why does a consumer even need raid?
Of course RAID SCSI rocks! The price is outrageous for the performance, however. And consumers don't need the added reliability of a SCSI drive, or hot swap, RAID 5, etc. But, since the HDD is still the slowest part of a modern system, it only makes sense to increase the performance of it.
if you are serious enough about HD speed to learn RAID, then you should be going SCSI.
Learn RAID? What's there to learn? We're not talking rocket science or programming here....Increases speed, can increase reliability, does away with different drive letters for smallish drives...what's not to love?
really, this is just an expensice way to try to get the advantages of SCSI.
No, SCSI is just an expensive way to get the advantages of IDE-RAID. SCSI RAID is an extremely expensive way to blow some serious cash. In a consumer environment, at least. SCSI in midrange servers is, IMO, a requirement.
What will the usefulness of 12 IDE ports be? Anyone who needs that much hard drives will be using SCSI, and its not Serial ATA, could anyone explain why this is useful to me?
According to the cut and paste job above (
Most importantly, IDE RAID...which rocks. With IDE drives, RAID lives up to it's name: Redundant Array of Inexpensive Disks. True, no hot swap, and they're not as fast as SCSI, but for a consumer board (and even non-mission-critical low-end servers), IDE-RAID is the way to go.
Then, there's the advantage of not having to put an older ATA/66 drive on the same channel as an ATA/133 drive. Or, to be able to split up your CD-ROM drive and your CD-RW to make disc to disc copying faster and more reliable. Or, put your swap drive on a different channel (and RAID it!) to give it more bandwidth.
I can think of many more uses for 5 IDE channels (assuming 2 ports to a channel) than I can for 6 USB ports (wouldn't a USB hub be just as effective), or for 2 Firewire ports (let's see...DV camera, and...uh...)
"Hardcoreware.net has the first full review of this board, which has support for 10 USB devices" "I wish it had even more built-in USB ports, but six is a good start." Am I missing something?
Yeah, the legendary Slashdot editor's inattentiveness. This is nothing new, so move along.
shows you what marketing model M$ is presently pursuing: Create a product, THEN create the need for it. IOW, create an artificial market.
Which is what most companies do. That's what advertisting and marketing are mostly about.
Normally the market works by "Here's a need, so someone makes a product for it".
Step back and really think about that for a moment. That's what they may spout in Economics 101, but it's nowhere near the truth. Most of our wants are artificial. If no one had created the WWW, would we be pining for it now? I don't think so, we'd be happy enough with our BBSes, and the rest of the public would never even think of it. How about SUV's? SUV's are little more than a glorified station wagon, but check out station wagon sales compared to SUV's. Now think about which has more marketing behind it.
Marketing and advertising are designed to create a want for the product. In this case, the logistics of creating the product failed...not necessarily creating the market. MS even says that users weren't complaining, it was their partners that brought an end to Hailstorm.
But then there is the problem of DVD region protection. Take me as an example. I live in Seattle, and own about 500 to 600 DVDs. a good portion of which are region 2 DVDs ( purchased in Europe.) . I have 14 computers in the house and 23 DVD players and 9 DVD drives.
I hate to break it to you, but you're a pretty piss poor example of MS's targeted consumers. For that matter, your a pretty poor example for about 99.5% of the population. Assuming $12/DVD, you've got over $6000 invested in movies alone. Assuming $500/PC, $50/DVD drive, and $150/DVD player, you're around $10,000 in electronics. Not many people drop $15,000 for anything short of a car or house.
A lot of people I know are switching to network file servers in their homes, and having heard about secure music path, are installing Linux with samba.
Well, you obviously hang out in different circles than most of the rest of the world. Samba and Linux are still not easy enough to install for a beginner, and even basic networking knowledge is difficult to find. I don't think anyone is worried about Samba file servers taking over the home market anytime soon.
Microsoft knows how to do one thing, but they do that thing pretty well. They create the demand for their products, whether in the minds of PHBs or in the minds of consumers. Developers are an afterthought, because they will follow the market...they haven't much choice. I don't think Hailstorm being dropped is the omen of MS's downfall, simply another failed attempt...they have many. But, in the end, their successes far outweigh their failures.
Ah yes, The Drawing of the Line. "This 'day' you speak of, at what second does it turn into 'night' exactly?"
Well, that's easy. It becomes night at sunset, of course. Or, as dictionary.com puts it, "the period between sunset and sunrise, especially the hours of darkness."
When's sunset? Well, that depends on your locale and the time of year...it's a bit complicated to figure out in your head, so there is a bit of fudging for the sake of convenience. But, for the real answer, the US Naval Observatory can help you out on it.
From one anonymous coward to another... If you're playing music for your whole office to hear. That's an unlicensed public performance.
Its also not timeshifting... I think you mean 'spaceshifting' (not a recognized legal doctrine, mind you) if then entire office has access to an mp3 file that originated from one disc. Let's stick to defending the good guys, okay?
So, if I play my CD's at a party I throw at my house, does the RIAA expect me to compensate for that? How about if a friend is in my car, and we listen to my CD's, is that a public performance? How about if 8 friends are in my Suburban?
Or maybe I go out to the pool with my boombox and throw on a CD. Do the other pool-goers constitute the public? Do I now need to wear headphones to avoid licensing fees?
When I invite a friend over to watch a movie, do I have to buy a copy of the movie for each visitor? Do I need to obtain permission from the MPAA before watching a movie with friends? How about with my cats? They like to watch tv as well, you know.
Sure, you could argue that all these are indeed a public performance. Of course, my argument would be that were the RIAA/MPAA/etc. to try and enforce any of them, they would be (a)laughed out of court, and (b)bankrupt and pennyless in a matter of weeks. Why should this case be that different?
Re:Wireless Monitor? Not happening...
on
Wireless Monitors?
·
· Score: 2
The bandwidth requirements for a wireless monitor are impractical. It's certainly possible, but the amount of RF bandwidth and/or power required to do it would either kill you, cook your intestines or give you a nice bout of cancer, depending on how you implement it.
Just a quick estimation (please don't criticize this, I have other work to do):
800 x 600 = 480,000 pixels
480 pixels x 16-bit = 7.68 Mb = 960 kB
960 kB x 60 Hz = 57.6 MB / s!
I'll readily admit I'm an idiot in the RF arena, but I have a question. What about the 2.4GHz wireless transmitters that can send the signal from a TV to another TV/monitor? Surely they're not using that kind of bandwidth, are they? How is it done?
Not to mention the fact that TV's are fed by antennas. Is each channel taking up the equivalent bandwidth?
This is a tangent, but is it really that difficult to guarantee a certain minimum throughput? E.g. when the neighborhood's segment is fully loaded, throttle traffic to & from the IPs or MACs that are using the most bandwidth. You could guarantee (total_capacity / houses_in_neighborhood) bits per second, anyhow.
Gimme a Linux box and a two weeks and I'll whip up a prototype[1]. We'll be rich.
Give me a Cisco router and we'll be rich a lot sooner.
Wow. The/. effect is at it again. 10 comments, and Cray's (maker of "the world's most powerful supercomputers") website is barely whimpering along. After 5 server timeouts, I finally got it to load. Maybe Cray should outfit their webservers with the new storage! Here's the text for those that come after me:
CRAY INC. OFFERS WORLD'S HIGHEST-CAPABILITY EXPANSION MEMORY/DATA TRANSFER SYSTEM
System Can Transfer 100 Copies of Human Genome Per Second and Quickly Handle Other Very Large, Data-Intensive Problems
SEATTLE (April 8, 2002) - Cray Inc. (Nasdaq NM: CRAY) today announced the availability of the world's highest-capability expansion memory and data transfer system. The new system, compatible with Cray SV1e(TM) and Cray SV1ex(TM) supercomputers, includes a 224-gigabyte Solid State Disk (SSD) with a data transfer rate of 80 gigabytes per second-800 or more times faster than the 10- to 100-megabytes/second speeds typical with today's disk servers.
The field-upgradeable SSD system can hold 27 copies of the Human Genome and transfer data at a rate equivalent to 100 Human Genomes per second. With their 32-gigabyte central memories and the new SSD system, Cray SV1(TM) series supercomputers now provide up to a quarter terabyte of ultrafast memory. They can also be linked to a virtually unlimited number of standard disk servers for additional capacity, and to other computer systems via high-speed networking.
"With the new SSD system, Cray SV1 series supercomputers can handle extremely large, data-intensive problems with unprecedented speed, convenience and cost-effectiveness," said Jerry Loe, Cray vice president of worldwide sales and service. "This will be particularly useful in bioinformatics, and for complex automotive and aerospace applications." The Cray SV1 series, named "Best Supercomputer" in 2001 by the readers of Scientific Computing & Instrumentation magazine, includes special hardware features for bioinformatics.
"With the new SSD, bioinformaticists will be able to work with several copies of the Human Genome at a time, or perform whole genome comparisons, or pursue drug design and discovery, without wasting valuable compute time waiting for standard disk data transfers," said Jef Dawson, Cray's manager of bioinformatics development and marketing. "The SSD can keep up with the Cray SV1 parallel supercomputers' processors, which perform up to 12 operations per clock cycle."
Dawson said the SSD will benefit virtually any application requiring large data sets. "The popular automotive application MSC/Nastran ran 2.5 times faster using the new SSD capability. Applications that run 'out of core,' including the popular GAUSSIAN chemistry codes, are also well suited to the SSD. You can think of the SSD as the world's biggest cache memory, or the world's biggest I/O buffer. Either way, it offers the world a new capability."
For more information on the Cray SV1ex series, visit www.cray.com or contact your local Cray sales representative.
Don't forget the legalese on forward looking statements, and registered trademarks as well.
don't trust any web site with what it installs on my machine. It has nothing to do with the web sites that I visit. I like Slashdot, trust it even, but I'll be damned if I install ANYTHING it offers, just because it came from/.
Viewing habits (ie, choice of entertainment) and trust are two separate issue, don't lump them together.
Which is exactly why the default is to PROMPT you before installing anything. I trust Slashdot, and most other websites I visit, to not inundate me with pop up boxes designed to trick me into installing software I don't want. If they offer an automatic download, IE will prompt me before exexcuting it. If I decide that Slashdot (or whatever site it may be) is acting a little sleazy, I'll move them to the Restricted Sites list and be done with them...I won't have to manually refuse their download any more, it'll automatically refuse it.
I never advocated letting any website install software on your machine. I just think that most webmasters are honest and aren't going to try and trick me to install software. Of course, I get prompts about it just to make sure.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, Internet Explorer is now an official core component of Windows. Just like Al Gore officially lost the election. Get over it.
I base this knowledge on the following things: .CHM (compiled HTML help) files. Nor could you use the Add/Remove programs applet in later versions of Windows.
(1) Microsoft owns Windows. They are free to do whatever they want with it. If they integrate a firewall (a la Windows XP) to it, then it automatically becomes a core component.
(2) Microsoft has actually used IE to add additional functionality to the Windows shell, and consequently, the OS. Not only does IE provide for Active Desktop, but also for customized folder settings, thumbnail views, etc. If not for integrated IE, you couldn't put that god awful wallpaper on the back of your folders. Nor could you view
(3) Microsoft has not limited competitor's access to install 3rd-party browser. Netscape still works as good as it ever did (which is pretty buggy, but it always has been). Netscape can even be your default browser if you wish. Can Netscape render your Active Desktop? No. Because that's a Microsoft Windows (tm) feature, and it's designed with IE in mind.
(4) Microsoft has published the interface to the component version of IE (what the Windows shell uses), and it is free for use with 3rd party programs. A lot of browsers use component IE to take care of HTML rendering (see Netcaptor).
(5) Microsoft is practicing good design skills by moving needed functionality to a shared library. There's no reason to rewrite an HTML renderer for each component/program that needs to display HTML. IMO, integrated IE is nothing more than an #include file.
So, what has MS done wrong here? They've given computer users a browser for free? They've made it more convenient to access the Web? What's the problem with that? You can even use IE to go download and install Netscape! Better than using a command line FTP client. (Oh wait that's included too, does that mean that GetRight and SmartFTP should sue?)
Feel free to bitch and moan about MS's restrictive licensing policies, their shady OEM dealings, and their outrageous software prices. You're welcome to whine about their lack of security, stability, and their inability to isolate rogue device drivers. I'll even join you in complaining about stupid design flaws that let a rogue process hijack the CPU, leaving the Windows shell locked out. But, please, let's just get over the IE debate. It's a good thing. And if you don't like it, stick with Windows 95.
With a simple text editor, you can replace the windows shell with anything you want (Win9x series, at least). (See shell= in system.ini file)So, all you need to do is write your own shell and embed anything you want in it.
Oh, wait...you want to use Microsoft's shell but add your own stuff to it? You must mean like digital cameras, PaperPort, etc. have been doing for years. Once again, not too hard to do. Though, that actually takes some programming skills.
Obviously, she buys from the same vendors that the Pentagon does!
Section added to comply with non discrimation policies:
For those international readers, the US Pentagon has been known to pay $75 for a screw, $400 for a hammer, etc.
As with all things technology, you have to review the product based on (a)it's purpose, (b)it's fulfillment of that purpose, (c)the hardware, (d)the software and drivers.
In this case, the hardware fulfilled it's purpose. It records and it converts to MPEG-2 (both presumably well, I'd imagine). The reviewer had problems with stability, processor usage, and some lacking features (customizable MPEG sizes). These can all be fixed with a simple update to the software and drivers of the product.
There's nothing inherently wrong with the product. The hardware works, the software works, and they both do as advertised. Stability and missing features are often lacking in a first release, and this is no different. Creative has a somewhat solid reputation IMO of timely releasing updated software and drivers. I'd expect a revision within the next few months.
In all, based on this review, I'd give it a 3/5 stars with a recommendation to hold off purchases until the next version of the SW is available.
That's why laws are and should be passed to protect consumers from companies...not the other way around.
You forgot ubiquitous. That's the sticking point. I'm well aware of Wi-Fi and its uses, as well as Freenet's-both wired and unwired. But, just like wired Freenet's didn't get everyone and their brother on the internet, neither will free wireless LANs. In case you didn't read the FL article, "The WIZ went live around the Jacksonville Landing, which is a retail, restaurant, and amusement center on the city's riverfront." It's not meant for residential use.
I do believe that POTS is full duplex, as in you can talk and listen at the same time. If it wasn't, my arguments with my girlfriend would be a lot quieter. :) As for crappy mics and speakers, I'd have to say that even a $25 phone is superior to most VoIP solutions.
Interesting thought on mp3, but the decoding/encoding would be slightly intensive. But, a 20kbps streaming mp3 should be sufficiently clear and keep bandiwdth use to a minimum.
Then why hasn't it been done well?
Bullshit. Without gov't intervention, we'll never have a system as widespread as POTS...and we only got that thru gov't intervention as well. Also don't forget that POTS is the only service to have widespread support in other nations around the world, and that a great majority of home internet users still use analog modems for connectivity.
A ubiqutious free wireless WAN is nothing more than a pipe dream...A ubiquitous free wireless LAN in a year or two is a crack induced hallucination.
Or perhaps the boring, dry, technical aspect of these patent claims put them in a hypnotic trance. I guess that's why patent lawyers are paid the big bucks.
I'm pretty sure you meant Web there...not 'net.
Interesting...I've never heard it pronounced War-ez, but I have heard of ware-ez. Sort of a play on "where is", I always figured. Note: if you hang out with software pirates long enough, everything always comes back to "where is xxx"
But, for comedy shows (the Simpson's, in this case) is it not unreasonable to stretch the accurate portrayal for comedic effect? Not to mention that Rio does, in fact, have monkeys (and monkeys have been known to attack), a high crime rate(*), and a lot of orphan children beggars(*). So, did the Simpson's really portray the city inaccurately? Any more inaccurately than a movie set in NYC where a guy gets mugged?
And, for non comedic works, is removing/changing ad space not depicting the location accurately? I could understand the owner's of Times Square being upset if Columbia had changed all the ads to porn ads...but, c'mon. This is laughable.
(*)Quoted from Yahoo! Travel:
No, but if no one had created toilet paper, you would have never felt a need to cut down a tree, shred and bleach it's pulp, make a soft and thin roll of paper, then 2-ply it and put pretty designs on it; just to wipe your nasty shit and flush it down a large porcelain shithole to an even larger shit container sitting under your yard.
Now, if God hadn't come up with assholes like you, then you wouldn't have felt a need to take a shit. :)
Good point. TBU's are pretty outrageous, especially when you start looking at backing up today's monstrous hard drives to a single tape (or autoloader). IDE tape drives are more reasonably priced, though. I can't say I'd recommend them though. They're a good bit slower and more prone to failure than SCSI units, in my experience.
Lucky for me, I get to keep old TBU's from customers. :) I use 1 DDS-2 (10/20GB) and 1 DDS-3 (12/24GB) SCSI TBU's to back myself up, so I can use RAID for performance and still not worry too much.
Of course RAID SCSI rocks! The price is outrageous for the performance, however. And consumers don't need the added reliability of a SCSI drive, or hot swap, RAID 5, etc. But, since the HDD is still the slowest part of a modern system, it only makes sense to increase the performance of it.
Learn RAID? What's there to learn? We're not talking rocket science or programming here....Increases speed, can increase reliability, does away with different drive letters for smallish drives...what's not to love?
No, SCSI is just an expensive way to get the advantages of IDE-RAID. SCSI RAID is an extremely expensive way to blow some serious cash. In a consumer environment, at least. SCSI in midrange servers is, IMO, a requirement.
You're right. My bad. 6 + 4 equals...oh wait, it does equal 10! I guess I was right all along!
BTW, they're just selling the motherboard, not the case.
According to the cut and paste job above ( Most importantly, IDE RAID...which rocks. With IDE drives, RAID lives up to it's name: Redundant Array of Inexpensive Disks. True, no hot swap, and they're not as fast as SCSI, but for a consumer board (and even non-mission-critical low-end servers), IDE-RAID is the way to go.
Then, there's the advantage of not having to put an older ATA/66 drive on the same channel as an ATA/133 drive. Or, to be able to split up your CD-ROM drive and your CD-RW to make disc to disc copying faster and more reliable. Or, put your swap drive on a different channel (and RAID it!) to give it more bandwidth.
I can think of many more uses for 5 IDE channels (assuming 2 ports to a channel) than I can for 6 USB ports (wouldn't a USB hub be just as effective), or for 2 Firewire ports (let's see...DV camera, and...uh...)
Yeah, the legendary Slashdot editor's inattentiveness. This is nothing new, so move along.
Which is what most companies do. That's what advertisting and marketing are mostly about.
Step back and really think about that for a moment. That's what they may spout in Economics 101, but it's nowhere near the truth. Most of our wants are artificial. If no one had created the WWW, would we be pining for it now? I don't think so, we'd be happy enough with our BBSes, and the rest of the public would never even think of it. How about SUV's? SUV's are little more than a glorified station wagon, but check out station wagon sales compared to SUV's. Now think about which has more marketing behind it.
Marketing and advertising are designed to create a want for the product. In this case, the logistics of creating the product failed...not necessarily creating the market. MS even says that users weren't complaining, it was their partners that brought an end to Hailstorm.
I hate to break it to you, but you're a pretty piss poor example of MS's targeted consumers. For that matter, your a pretty poor example for about 99.5% of the population. Assuming $12/DVD, you've got over $6000 invested in movies alone. Assuming $500/PC, $50/DVD drive, and $150/DVD player, you're around $10,000 in electronics. Not many people drop $15,000 for anything short of a car or house.
Well, you obviously hang out in different circles than most of the rest of the world. Samba and Linux are still not easy enough to install for a beginner, and even basic networking knowledge is difficult to find. I don't think anyone is worried about Samba file servers taking over the home market anytime soon.
Microsoft knows how to do one thing, but they do that thing pretty well. They create the demand for their products, whether in the minds of PHBs or in the minds of consumers. Developers are an afterthought, because they will follow the market...they haven't much choice. I don't think Hailstorm being dropped is the omen of MS's downfall, simply another failed attempt...they have many. But, in the end, their successes far outweigh their failures.
Well, that's easy. It becomes night at sunset, of course. Or, as dictionary.com puts it, "the period between sunset and sunrise, especially the hours of darkness."
When's sunset? Well, that depends on your locale and the time of year...it's a bit complicated to figure out in your head, so there is a bit of fudging for the sake of convenience. But, for the real answer, the US Naval Observatory can help you out on it.
So, if I play my CD's at a party I throw at my house, does the RIAA expect me to compensate for that? How about if a friend is in my car, and we listen to my CD's, is that a public performance? How about if 8 friends are in my Suburban?
Or maybe I go out to the pool with my boombox and throw on a CD. Do the other pool-goers constitute the public? Do I now need to wear headphones to avoid licensing fees?
When I invite a friend over to watch a movie, do I have to buy a copy of the movie for each visitor? Do I need to obtain permission from the MPAA before watching a movie with friends? How about with my cats? They like to watch tv as well, you know.
Sure, you could argue that all these are indeed a public performance. Of course, my argument would be that were the RIAA/MPAA/etc. to try and enforce any of them, they would be (a)laughed out of court, and (b)bankrupt and pennyless in a matter of weeks. Why should this case be that different?
I'll readily admit I'm an idiot in the RF arena, but I have a question. What about the 2.4GHz wireless transmitters that can send the signal from a TV to another TV/monitor? Surely they're not using that kind of bandwidth, are they? How is it done?
Not to mention the fact that TV's are fed by antennas. Is each channel taking up the equivalent bandwidth?
Give me a Cisco router and we'll be rich a lot sooner.
Don't forget the legalese on forward looking statements, and registered trademarks as well.
Which is exactly why the default is to PROMPT you before installing anything. I trust Slashdot, and most other websites I visit, to not inundate me with pop up boxes designed to trick me into installing software I don't want. If they offer an automatic download, IE will prompt me before exexcuting it. If I decide that Slashdot (or whatever site it may be) is acting a little sleazy, I'll move them to the Restricted Sites list and be done with them...I won't have to manually refuse their download any more, it'll automatically refuse it.
I never advocated letting any website install software on your machine. I just think that most webmasters are honest and aren't going to try and trick me to install software. Of course, I get prompts about it just to make sure.