I am so sick and tired of this idiotic pseudo-audiophile crap. Vinyl sounds like crap compared to a well-recorded CD. It has distortion that is measured on the left side of the decimal point, signal-to-noise ratio that hardly rivals a cassette deck, horrendous channel separation, uneven frequency response, and is subject to audible degradation by each piece of dust that hits the surface.
And before you waste your time telling me how it must be my system, I have a Linn turntable and a standalone high-end phono preamp with adjustable cartridge loading. Quality phono equipment improves the sound of the vinyl, but it still is a poor substitute for a well-recorded CD.
If you like the distortion and noise in vinyl, go for it, but please don't screw up digital audio formats by demanding that they incorporate the same distortion, non-linearity, and noise.
The security required is related to the value of the data and the technical capabilities that can be mustered by those who want it.
If you are interested in sending mail that does not trigger some type of corporate e-mail filtering software, this is more than adequate. If you are sending a message to someone that shares an e-mail account with their children, this is also reasonable.
Not every type of data warrents a military-strength encryption algorithm to protect it. It is just important to understand what you are protecting and how strong the encryption is.
Slashdotters should not fall into the BSA/SPA trap of viewing piracy and theft the same way. In order for it to be theft someone has to be deprived of something.
Before you say that Microsoft was deprived of money, think about whether that's really true. If the/.er with the joystick could not have pirated Windows 98, would he have paid another $90 for it -- so that his joystick price was approaching $200? I doubt it. He would have probably boxed the joystick up and returned it -- which, ironically, would have cost Microsoft a sale.
There is an ethical difference between copying software that you would never have paid for and copying it to keep from paying for it. In the former case, no one has been deprived of anything.
P.S. If you show me a way to steal a Ford truck without depriving anyone else (individuals or organizations) of one or having any reasonable likelihood of being caught, I will be driving one tomorrow.
Why, in a democratic society, should anti-trade groups feel they have to con a trade conference?
Because the WTO is not under any obligation to let dissenters speak to their members.
Should they not be able to present their views in the open?
The WTO is not "the open." The WTO has no obligation to give the floor to every non-elected, non-appointed citizen who wishes to air their views. Can you imagine the chaos that would ensue if organizations like the WTO, U.N., and NATO let each and every person/group that opposes them speak?
Seems to me that there might more progress if the WTO listened to speakers who opposed their viewpoint and the anti-trade groups tried talking instead of providing a venue for looters.
I am certain that the WTO is aware of the views of its opponents. They are well-publicized and unlikely to be overlooked.
I agree wholeheartedly with your statements against the looting and rioting by anti-WTO groups. If they think that their behavior is going to get them invited to address the WTO, they are sadly mistaken.
Their "encryption scheme" is a combinations of algorithms and hardware. If someone finds a way to decrypt the roms, whether through mathematics, brute force, or exploits of the hardware, the encryption scheme has been "cracked."
This is not the same as saying that the algorithm was found to contain a fundamental flaw or that the key storage was compromised, but the effect is the same.
It's that same old problem that the Internet applicances have faced since the beginning: They cost about as much as a low-end PC but they are so much less capable.
Let's look at real-world numbers. I put together a PC today (to use as a server/firewall in my home). Here are the specs and costs:
$61 128MB RAM
$53 AMD Duron 650
$12 heatsink and fan
$99 Hard Drive
$10 Floppy Drive
$99 All-In-One SIS based motherboard w. 10/100 Ethernet, 3D video, modem, & sound
$42 Case & 300W power supply
$20 (after rebate) 52X CD-ROM
$396 total
I buy a monitor, keyboard, and mouse and I have a complete system. A factory-refurb 17" monitor can be had for $130 and mice and keyboards are readily available for under $10 each. The total cost of this fully-capable PC is now up to about $550 and I can either go with Linux for no cost or pick up Windows 98 for under $100.
So what's the difference in price? $50-$150. But then I have a real PC with a full-sized screen (17" landscape vs. 14" portrait), access to industry-standard software, ability to upgrade and expand, and no worry that tomorrow's plug-in won't work on my system.
What I would love to see is an Internet appliance release of Linux. It would need to be robust and simplified. The "normal" screen would include just an easy-to-use browser, e-mail, and maybe a word processor so that we could all get older relatives (and other hold-outs) on the Internet. I do not want to be able to change the look & feel. I don't want to select between KDE and Gnome. I don't want multiple virtual screens or the ability to install applications. I want every one to look the same with the exception of resolution -- which could be set based on screen size and the visual acuity of the user. It should have the ability to automatically download updates and install them without user intervention.
If someone did that, we could all start taking computers that aren't up to the task of running the latest and greatest 3D games, databases, Windows, etc. and recycle them into Internet appliances for relatives. Then you would truly have a low-cost Internet appliance.
Re:Suit and 5 billion are probably justified
on
Racism At Microsoft?
·
· Score: 1
I have been in a hiring position and have seen the dearth of qualified black applicants for software engineering positions. Get some stats on the percentage of Computer Science majors that are black. In order to prove discrimination, you have to show that Microsoft made a practice of denying jobs and promotions to qualified black applicants, not just that there weren't a lot of blacks working at Microsoft. There aren't any white people working at my local McDonalds. Does that mean that McDonalds must be discriminating against white people? Use some logic.
How do I know if I will like it if I *don't* read it? That's like saying "if you don't like a new food, don't try it."
I like the concept of a wireless video camera, but if I read a story on/. about one, I want to know more about the device than who sells it and at what price.
But let the people talk about the new cool toys and some fun stuff.
I agree, but let's have some minimal amount of information. The story in question does not provide useful information about the image quality, sound quality, useful range, etc. I do not know if it is manual focus, fixed focus, or auto-focus. I don't know if I can mount it on a tripod or whether I just have to set it on the dresser when using it.;)
I don't mean to berate the author. I just believe that the people-in-charge have to set a somewhat higher standard for content than this article met.
"I bought a kid's camera at Walmart and it's neat..." is not a Slashdot story. I don't see any specs about resolution, lens information (fixed focus, auto focus, f-stop, etc.), or any other "stuff that matters" when it comes to "news for nerds." There's no hacking information (e.g., putting the guts into an old SLR body, enabling a hidden USB feature on the PCB, etc.). There is no really cool feature like the ability to pump digital data at high-speeds over the RF link. It doesn't have an IP address and talk to a wireless home network.
Before you say "it's just a camera for kids", ask yourself this: Do we really want to see content-free postings about every toy that someone thinks is neat? When did/. go from being "News for Nerds" to "Ads for Walmart"?
Unless the new processor is priced substantially lower than Intel or AMD processors, it will fail.
So, you think a low-power CPU that needs no cooling fan will be ignored by manufacturers of laptops, Internet appliances, and by embedded system engineers?
There are a lot of high-reliability applications where the ability to run without a CPU fan is valuable. Examples include military, biomedical instrumentation, process control, etc.
And, as I said elsewhere, one will probably find its way into my firewall & web/FTP/Mail server. One less fan and one less way to take my network down.
Intel is in trouble. The Duron is getting SIS chipsets that have built-in everything (video, sound, etc.) and they will kick the Celeron's butt when systems using those chips hit the market. The Thunderbirds will be able to run dual CPUs due to the AMD 760MP chipset that's been announced and sampled (released?). The P4 cannot run dual CPU yet, so the T-Birds will be stealing the high-end while the Durons will be stealing the low-end.
Will the Cyrix hurt Intel? Probably in the laptop market and the embedded market where fanless, low-power chips rule.
All most moms or anyone really needs is a 486-- maybe as much as a P-233.
In order for most moms to use a network appliance, it has to be like an appliance. If mom pushes the "Start" button on her microwave, it immediately starts humming. Her TV changes channels when she hits the up/down button. All we need is 28 instances of the e-mail program coming up because it didn't do anything when mom clicked on it the first time - so she continued clicking.
Most moms also don't want a noisy fan running all of the time. A fanless machine is a necessity according to many Internet appliance makers.
Heck, I'll probably buy one for my firewall plus mail/FTP/web server box. The last thing I want is my domain (humble though it may be) going down because the CPU fan died. I also don't need ANY more noise than I already have.
I am sick and tired of seeing all these articles about poor computer users. For crying out loud, I have been clacking away for 20 years and have never had a problem.
Not everyone responds identically to every physical activity. What injures one person might not even bother another. Why not consider yourself lucky instead of berating people who suffer from carpal tunnel syndrome?
If people would just use some sense when they are typing, we wouldn't need to waste development money on designing new keyboards.
And just what is "common sense" that these people are not using? Maybe you feel that people who work in data entry jobs should just quit or take more breaks than they are allowed?
At this point they are just fine.
No, the one-size-fits-all keyboards are not "fine." If they were, people would not be getting carpal tunnel syndrome from them, would they?
Noone ever got carpal tunnel from using a typewriter.
You are right. We developed carpal tunnels in the womb. Carpal tunnel syndrome was a term first used in the 1930's to describe an entrapment neuropathy of the median nerve at the wrist. The first open carpal tunnel release surgical procedure was described in 1947. Do you think that those people got it from computers?
Yea, and that makes it so much less credible than say an "unbiased" source like CNN!? WND is a Right leaning site but their news and facts still have to be checked.
Right you are. And medical studies funded by tobacco companies have proven that smoking does not cause cancer. And fundamentalist Christian publications have articles proving that creationism is the how everything came to be.
The right-wing press is infamous for their willingness to print anything that supports their position. After Vince Foster's suicide, all kinds of claims were made in the right-wing press about what investigators found at the scene -- despite the fact that it was fabricated and completely uncoroborated by any witnesses. Rush Limbaugh is a perfect example of right wing "journalists." His shows are comprised largely of half-truths, bungled statistics, and flawed reasoning passed off as truth.
My point was that Windows software is almost always easier to install, configure, and use, not just install.
If software for Linux is so easy to install and configure, why did id Software (Quake folks) drop out of the market? They said that it was a support nightmare. If Linux apps are just as easy, or easier, to install and configure as Windows apps, Linux users must just not be as smart (flamebait) if they have so much more trouble installing and using an app than their Windows counterparts.
While I appreciate rpm and think that Windows could learn a lot from it, the fact is that I can upgrade from Win95 to Win98 to Win98SE to WinMe and not break my apps. I don't need one binary for each version of Windows.
Besides, Webwasher and The Proxomitron are wonderfully powerful apps that are a joy to use and configure. The same cannot be said of the competing products in the open source arena.
It's not just web filtering software that makes the choice. It's just about everything. I exchange Word documents with my clients. I'm not about to use some Linux product that CLAIMS to be compatible and only breaks in the heat of the job or, worse, produces a file that they cannot use. If I want top-quality games, I have a wealth under Windows. If I want office productivity software, again, Windows is the way to go.
I'd love to see a serious competitor to Windows on the desktop, but until the Linux community gets its act together and standardizes, it's hopeless. As I've said before, pick Gnome or KDE and stop the silly infighting. Either one is adequate. The same can be said for so many of the tools for Linux.
Your post is amazing : Spend the time and the money to put up a site and fill it with content, but don't waste my time.
Advertising does not need to waste my time and bandwidth. If you put up a small banner ad, I might see it and might click on it. If you put up a full-length Shockwave/Flash ad that lasts 30 seconds or more, I will circumvent it.
I have a question for you: Do you watch all of the ads on the television, even when you have recorded the show? Do you think that you have a moral obligation to watch those ads? Is that somehow different in your mind than ads on web pages?
Actually there is a very real implicit contract : Don't watch the ads and they'll go out of business.
That may be a statement of fact (in some cases), but it is not a contract.
Why should I watch a 30 second commercial for some product or service that I probably won't buy just so that I can see if a web site has content that I want? Who wants to watch a commercial every time that they go from one web page to another? Imagine how that would affect the average search one does on a search engine. Want to check out 50 hits? Figure on an hour by the time you watch the ads on each site.
AOLify your web site if you want, but don't expect me to download and read all of the ads.
Do you hit the "mute" button when the commercials start? Do you run to the fridge to get a beer/soda? You probably fast-forward through commercials when watching shows that you have recorded on VHS or Tivo and I bet that you skip the previews on rental movies. If so, you are a hypocrite.
What I object to is the theft of my time. If you want to put a little banner ad on my screen, go ahead. When I had PSTN modem access, I blocked them but now that I have cable modem, they come down so quickly that they aren't such an annoyance. But if you want to make me sit through an ad for feminine deodorant spray, Preparation H, or even priceline.com in order to get to your web site, that's my time you are wasting. If you are going to be that inconsiderate of my time, then you have no right to complain when I use the computer equivalent of the VCR fast-forward button.
they're all finding that the advertiser supported model simply doesn't work on the web where there are so many cheats
What is a "cheat"? Is the guy supporting his family on $150/month in Russia a "cheat" if he skips the ad for the Chevy Blazer on your web site? Is the European who pays by the byte a "cheat" because he elects not to download your 200K+ Flash ad for fax machines that won't work on his phone system? Is the guy in the office who doesn't want blaring music from some ad on your site a "cheat" if he circumvents the ad?
Of course a bunch of socialist, no-clue-what-they-talking about little fucks would undoubtably start ripping content and posting it somewhere else
And then a bunch of capitalist, no-clue-what-they-are-talking-about big fucks like you come to Slashdot and read the content that's been taken from elsewhere, posted, and summarized here. Please, spare me your self-righteous, hypocritical rantings.
Just because someone runs a web site with expenses does not mean that they have a moral right to be supported by their readers or that the readers have an obligation to view ads that the site owner tries to put on their screens. There is no contract on the part of either party. You may think that the entire Internet moving towards the AOL model of more ads than content is a good thing but I do not.
P.S. Before writing me off as a "socialist... little fuck", be aware that I am a 39 year old software engineer working as a sole proprietor in the aerospace industry.
Both The Proxomitron and Webwasher are good examples of why open source Linux products are not the be-all, end-all of software. The authors of these products did not "copy the ideas developed by free Unix/Linux software" and I think that the author of The Proxomitron (for which he asks no money) would be justly offended by your unfounded Linux prima donna accusations.
There are people that have work to do and cannot dick around and recompile every third app that they want to run. If I can do a purchase req. for Webwasher and run its auto-install, that saves my client hundreds of dollars over having me scavenge the web for an open-source Linux app that needs to be recompiled, manually installed, and then configured using some arcane series of command line invocations and spells. Yes, I know that there are exceptions, but, by and large, it's a lot less painful to install and run Windows apps (just ask id Software).
Besides, I have yet to see you (or anyone else) recommend UNIX/Linux alternatives that are comparable in features, ease of use, and performance to the aforementioned Windows products.
P.S. I run Caldera OpenLinux 2.4, BeOS 5.0, and FreeBSD 4.2 (in addition to Windows 98 and Windows Me) so don't even think of claiming that I am unaware of non-Windows OSs.
Censorship is when some person or organization is limiting what you see against your will.
If you use an ISP that has MAPS, it is your choice. Only ISP in the area? Then stay off the net if it offends you. They are running a private business and feel that the reduction in spam outweighs the complaints of some users who don't like MAPS.
I have no sympathy for the author. His firm is hosting a site that is selling spamming tools. Taking an anti-spam stance and then turning a blind eye to the peddlers of these tools would be absurd and MAPS has done the right thing. Want to get off of MAPS' list? Drop the site and tell the customer that he needs to start selling products for which there is a legitimate use.
This should be a wake-up call to the Linux community: Standardize or die. If you install RedHat on one machine and Caldera on the other, they should behave identically. The only differences between them should be the value-added packages by each vendor. If you upgrade from one version of the Linux kernel to another, you should not have to deal with applications breaking en masse. If the community demands a standard and stops buying distros that violate that standard, then they might get some more commercial software support.
Instead, the Linux community is too busy with their petty squabbles about whether KDE or Gnome is better. Either one is adequate and the Linux vendors should choose one by coin toss and then standardize on it. As long as getting Linux users together behind something is like herding cats, it will remain a cult OS with limited commercial product support.
Many people have suggested Meade telescopes and at least one person has suggested their auto-pointing scopes. As an amateur astronomer for over 25 years, I have owned (and built) both good and bad telescopes. The Meade telescopes that you find at Walmart are just imported, undersized, rickety junk. Meade is willing to put their name on junk if they make a profit doing it. For that reason, I will not buy their products -- even those that are good.
Some basic info:
1. The most important two qualities are the light gathering (pi-r-squared) and the sturdiness of the mount. A small (under 3") telescope is almost useless for astronomy (except seeing the moon). A telescope that vibrates and shakes in the calmest breeze is also worthless.
2. Magnification is unimportant. I have an 8" Celestron and rarely exceed 100x. The maximum magnification (Dawes' Limit) is 50x per inch of aperture. Therefore, a 4" scope can use no more than 200x. More magnification will result in a blurry, dim image.
3. If the scope uses.965" eyepieces, it is junk. Any "real" telescope uses 1.25" or 2" eyepieces. The.965" are a Japanese standard that is popular on poor-quality department store scopes.
4. Computer pointed and guided scopes are absolutely the wrong thing to get for a beginner. Much of the joy of astronomy is learning the night sky and discovering, through your own skill, what can be seen. She may decide that she wants a computer pointed scope in the future, but spend your money on aperture, mount, and quality eyepieces.
5. I strongly recommend the book Star Ware: The Amateur Astronomer's Ultimate Guide to Choosing, Buying, and Using Telescopes and Accessories, 2nd Edition. This book is a must-read and will help assure that the telescope you buy is the best choice possible.
6. Do not buy the telescope at a department store. Camera stores are not much better. I recommend buying from a telescope store. Orion is one of the largest and you can reach their website at www.telescope.com.
If I can be of help, please do not hesitate to write me at fbm{at}techie{dot}com.
If you honestly think that the GPL office productivity suites even hold a candle to Microsoft's Office product, you've probably never worked in an office.
In addition to Word and Excel being superb packages, they are the standard. If you ever have a business relationship with a client, you will find that they will not be willing to exchange documents with you using some semi-compatible format from a GPL office suite. Save your Microsoft bashing for some other post. Regardless of how screwed up Windows it, their Office suite is sweet.
P.S. Good luck landing a high-paying job writing free software. As a software engineer, I'm happy to support companies that pay software engineers.
Pardon me while I shed crocodile tears. Maybe we should hold a bake sale for the poor, beleaguered proprietary software company. ApplixWare doesn't have a God-given right to my $99, $49, or $1.
I never said that they have a right to your money. But if you choose to use free software over commercial products, don't whine about the commercial products going away. You don't have a right to become indignant when a commercial vendor chooses not to sell a product to the Linux marketplace when:
1. The vast majority of users would use a free alternative if it was available.
2. There is a faction within the Linux/GNU/"free software" community that will write a free alternative.
It's ironic, but the Windows market is much more capable of weathering free software than is the Linux market. It is a large enough market that if even 50% of the users chose the superb Software 602 alternatives to MS Word and Excel, there would still be an adequate customer base to support numerous commercial packages. Linux is not that big a market.
While you are shedding crocodile tears, there may be decent, hard-working, talented people at Applixware losing their jobs because of this. But you probably think that would be great if it happened in the name of the all-important GNU cause.
Slashdot Mirror
I am so sick and tired of this idiotic pseudo-audiophile crap. Vinyl sounds like crap compared to a well-recorded CD. It has distortion that is measured on the left side of the decimal point, signal-to-noise ratio that hardly rivals a cassette deck, horrendous channel separation, uneven frequency response, and is subject to audible degradation by each piece of dust that hits the surface.
And before you waste your time telling me how it must be my system, I have a Linn turntable and a standalone high-end phono preamp with adjustable cartridge loading. Quality phono equipment improves the sound of the vinyl, but it still is a poor substitute for a well-recorded CD.
If you like the distortion and noise in vinyl, go for it, but please don't screw up digital audio formats by demanding that they incorporate the same distortion, non-linearity, and noise.
If you are interested in sending mail that does not trigger some type of corporate e-mail filtering software, this is more than adequate. If you are sending a message to someone that shares an e-mail account with their children, this is also reasonable.
Not every type of data warrents a military-strength encryption algorithm to protect it. It is just important to understand what you are protecting and how strong the encryption is.
Before you say that Microsoft was deprived of money, think about whether that's really true. If the /.er with the joystick could not have pirated Windows 98, would he have paid another $90 for it -- so that his joystick price was approaching $200? I doubt it. He would have probably boxed the joystick up and returned it -- which, ironically, would have cost Microsoft a sale.
There is an ethical difference between copying software that you would never have paid for and copying it to keep from paying for it. In the former case, no one has been deprived of anything.
P.S. If you show me a way to steal a Ford truck without depriving anyone else (individuals or organizations) of one or having any reasonable likelihood of being caught, I will be driving one tomorrow.
Because the WTO is not under any obligation to let dissenters speak to their members.
Should they not be able to present their views in the open?
The WTO is not "the open." The WTO has no obligation to give the floor to every non-elected, non-appointed citizen who wishes to air their views. Can you imagine the chaos that would ensue if organizations like the WTO, U.N., and NATO let each and every person/group that opposes them speak?
Seems to me that there might more progress if the WTO listened to speakers who opposed their viewpoint and the anti-trade groups tried talking instead of providing a venue for looters.
I am certain that the WTO is aware of the views of its opponents. They are well-publicized and unlikely to be overlooked.
I agree wholeheartedly with your statements against the looting and rioting by anti-WTO groups. If they think that their behavior is going to get them invited to address the WTO, they are sadly mistaken.
This is not the same as saying that the algorithm was found to contain a fundamental flaw or that the key storage was compromised, but the effect is the same.
Let's look at real-world numbers. I put together a PC today (to use as a server/firewall in my home). Here are the specs and costs:
$61 128MB RAM
$53 AMD Duron 650
$12 heatsink and fan
$99 Hard Drive
$10 Floppy Drive
$99 All-In-One SIS based motherboard w. 10/100 Ethernet, 3D video, modem, & sound
$42 Case & 300W power supply
$20 (after rebate) 52X CD-ROM
$396 total
I buy a monitor, keyboard, and mouse and I have a complete system. A factory-refurb 17" monitor can be had for $130 and mice and keyboards are readily available for under $10 each. The total cost of this fully-capable PC is now up to about $550 and I can either go with Linux for no cost or pick up Windows 98 for under $100.
So what's the difference in price? $50-$150. But then I have a real PC with a full-sized screen (17" landscape vs. 14" portrait), access to industry-standard software, ability to upgrade and expand, and no worry that tomorrow's plug-in won't work on my system.
What I would love to see is an Internet appliance release of Linux. It would need to be robust and simplified. The "normal" screen would include just an easy-to-use browser, e-mail, and maybe a word processor so that we could all get older relatives (and other hold-outs) on the Internet. I do not want to be able to change the look & feel. I don't want to select between KDE and Gnome. I don't want multiple virtual screens or the ability to install applications. I want every one to look the same with the exception of resolution -- which could be set based on screen size and the visual acuity of the user. It should have the ability to automatically download updates and install them without user intervention.
If someone did that, we could all start taking computers that aren't up to the task of running the latest and greatest 3D games, databases, Windows, etc. and recycle them into Internet appliances for relatives. Then you would truly have a low-cost Internet appliance.
I have been in a hiring position and have seen the dearth of qualified black applicants for software engineering positions. Get some stats on the percentage of Computer Science majors that are black. In order to prove discrimination, you have to show that Microsoft made a practice of denying jobs and promotions to qualified black applicants, not just that there weren't a lot of blacks working at Microsoft. There aren't any white people working at my local McDonalds. Does that mean that McDonalds must be discriminating against white people? Use some logic.
How do I know if I will like it if I *don't* read it? That's like saying "if you don't like a new food, don't try it."
I like the concept of a wireless video camera, but if I read a story on /. about one, I want to know more about the device than who sells it and at what price.
But let the people talk about the new cool toys and some fun stuff.
I agree, but let's have some minimal amount of information. The story in question does not provide useful information about the image quality, sound quality, useful range, etc. I do not know if it is manual focus, fixed focus, or auto-focus. I don't know if I can mount it on a tripod or whether I just have to set it on the dresser when using it. ;)
I don't mean to berate the author. I just believe that the people-in-charge have to set a somewhat higher standard for content than this article met.
Before you say "it's just a camera for kids", ask yourself this: Do we really want to see content-free postings about every toy that someone thinks is neat? When did /. go from being "News for Nerds" to "Ads for Walmart"?
So, you think a low-power CPU that needs no cooling fan will be ignored by manufacturers of laptops, Internet appliances, and by embedded system engineers?
There are a lot of high-reliability applications where the ability to run without a CPU fan is valuable. Examples include military, biomedical instrumentation, process control, etc.
And, as I said elsewhere, one will probably find its way into my firewall & web/FTP/Mail server. One less fan and one less way to take my network down.
Intel is in trouble. The Duron is getting SIS chipsets that have built-in everything (video, sound, etc.) and they will kick the Celeron's butt when systems using those chips hit the market. The Thunderbirds will be able to run dual CPUs due to the AMD 760MP chipset that's been announced and sampled (released?). The P4 cannot run dual CPU yet, so the T-Birds will be stealing the high-end while the Durons will be stealing the low-end.
Will the Cyrix hurt Intel? Probably in the laptop market and the embedded market where fanless, low-power chips rule.
In order for most moms to use a network appliance, it has to be like an appliance. If mom pushes the "Start" button on her microwave, it immediately starts humming. Her TV changes channels when she hits the up/down button. All we need is 28 instances of the e-mail program coming up because it didn't do anything when mom clicked on it the first time - so she continued clicking.
Most moms also don't want a noisy fan running all of the time. A fanless machine is a necessity according to many Internet appliance makers.
Heck, I'll probably buy one for my firewall plus mail/FTP/web server box. The last thing I want is my domain (humble though it may be) going down because the CPU fan died. I also don't need ANY more noise than I already have.
Not everyone responds identically to every physical activity. What injures one person might not even bother another. Why not consider yourself lucky instead of berating people who suffer from carpal tunnel syndrome?
If people would just use some sense when they are typing, we wouldn't need to waste development money on designing new keyboards.
And just what is "common sense" that these people are not using? Maybe you feel that people who work in data entry jobs should just quit or take more breaks than they are allowed?
At this point they are just fine.
No, the one-size-fits-all keyboards are not "fine." If they were, people would not be getting carpal tunnel syndrome from them, would they?
Noone ever got carpal tunnel from using a typewriter.
You are right. We developed carpal tunnels in the womb. Carpal tunnel syndrome was a term first used in the 1930's to describe an entrapment neuropathy of the median nerve at the wrist. The first open carpal tunnel release surgical procedure was described in 1947. Do you think that those people got it from computers?
Right you are. And medical studies funded by tobacco companies have proven that smoking does not cause cancer. And fundamentalist Christian publications have articles proving that creationism is the how everything came to be.
The right-wing press is infamous for their willingness to print anything that supports their position. After Vince Foster's suicide, all kinds of claims were made in the right-wing press about what investigators found at the scene -- despite the fact that it was fabricated and completely uncoroborated by any witnesses. Rush Limbaugh is a perfect example of right wing "journalists." His shows are comprised largely of half-truths, bungled statistics, and flawed reasoning passed off as truth.
If software for Linux is so easy to install and configure, why did id Software (Quake folks) drop out of the market? They said that it was a support nightmare. If Linux apps are just as easy, or easier, to install and configure as Windows apps, Linux users must just not be as smart (flamebait) if they have so much more trouble installing and using an app than their Windows counterparts.
While I appreciate rpm and think that Windows could learn a lot from it, the fact is that I can upgrade from Win95 to Win98 to Win98SE to WinMe and not break my apps. I don't need one binary for each version of Windows.
Besides, Webwasher and The Proxomitron are wonderfully powerful apps that are a joy to use and configure. The same cannot be said of the competing products in the open source arena.
It's not just web filtering software that makes the choice. It's just about everything. I exchange Word documents with my clients. I'm not about to use some Linux product that CLAIMS to be compatible and only breaks in the heat of the job or, worse, produces a file that they cannot use. If I want top-quality games, I have a wealth under Windows. If I want office productivity software, again, Windows is the way to go.
I'd love to see a serious competitor to Windows on the desktop, but until the Linux community gets its act together and standardizes, it's hopeless. As I've said before, pick Gnome or KDE and stop the silly infighting. Either one is adequate. The same can be said for so many of the tools for Linux.
Advertising does not need to waste my time and bandwidth. If you put up a small banner ad, I might see it and might click on it. If you put up a full-length Shockwave/Flash ad that lasts 30 seconds or more, I will circumvent it.
I have a question for you: Do you watch all of the ads on the television, even when you have recorded the show? Do you think that you have a moral obligation to watch those ads? Is that somehow different in your mind than ads on web pages?
Actually there is a very real implicit contract : Don't watch the ads and they'll go out of business.
That may be a statement of fact (in some cases), but it is not a contract.
Why should I watch a 30 second commercial for some product or service that I probably won't buy just so that I can see if a web site has content that I want? Who wants to watch a commercial every time that they go from one web page to another? Imagine how that would affect the average search one does on a search engine. Want to check out 50 hits? Figure on an hour by the time you watch the ads on each site.
AOLify your web site if you want, but don't expect me to download and read all of the ads.
What I object to is the theft of my time. If you want to put a little banner ad on my screen, go ahead. When I had PSTN modem access, I blocked them but now that I have cable modem, they come down so quickly that they aren't such an annoyance. But if you want to make me sit through an ad for feminine deodorant spray, Preparation H, or even priceline.com in order to get to your web site, that's my time you are wasting. If you are going to be that inconsiderate of my time, then you have no right to complain when I use the computer equivalent of the VCR fast-forward button.
they're all finding that the advertiser supported model simply doesn't work on the web where there are so many cheats
What is a "cheat"? Is the guy supporting his family on $150/month in Russia a "cheat" if he skips the ad for the Chevy Blazer on your web site? Is the European who pays by the byte a "cheat" because he elects not to download your 200K+ Flash ad for fax machines that won't work on his phone system? Is the guy in the office who doesn't want blaring music from some ad on your site a "cheat" if he circumvents the ad?
Of course a bunch of socialist, no-clue-what-they-talking about little fucks would undoubtably start ripping content and posting it somewhere else
And then a bunch of capitalist, no-clue-what-they-are-talking-about big fucks like you come to Slashdot and read the content that's been taken from elsewhere, posted, and summarized here. Please, spare me your self-righteous, hypocritical rantings.
Just because someone runs a web site with expenses does not mean that they have a moral right to be supported by their readers or that the readers have an obligation to view ads that the site owner tries to put on their screens. There is no contract on the part of either party. You may think that the entire Internet moving towards the AOL model of more ads than content is a good thing but I do not.
P.S. Before writing me off as a "socialist... little fuck", be aware that I am a 39 year old software engineer working as a sole proprietor in the aerospace industry.
There are people that have work to do and cannot dick around and recompile every third app that they want to run. If I can do a purchase req. for Webwasher and run its auto-install, that saves my client hundreds of dollars over having me scavenge the web for an open-source Linux app that needs to be recompiled, manually installed, and then configured using some arcane series of command line invocations and spells. Yes, I know that there are exceptions, but, by and large, it's a lot less painful to install and run Windows apps (just ask id Software).
Besides, I have yet to see you (or anyone else) recommend UNIX/Linux alternatives that are comparable in features, ease of use, and performance to the aforementioned Windows products.
P.S. I run Caldera OpenLinux 2.4, BeOS 5.0, and FreeBSD 4.2 (in addition to Windows 98 and Windows Me) so don't even think of claiming that I am unaware of non-Windows OSs.
If you use an ISP that has MAPS, it is your choice. Only ISP in the area? Then stay off the net if it offends you. They are running a private business and feel that the reduction in spam outweighs the complaints of some users who don't like MAPS.
I have no sympathy for the author. His firm is hosting a site that is selling spamming tools. Taking an anti-spam stance and then turning a blind eye to the peddlers of these tools would be absurd and MAPS has done the right thing. Want to get off of MAPS' list? Drop the site and tell the customer that he needs to start selling products for which there is a legitimate use.
Taking down a server at a legitimate business and annoying MILLIONS of people is what he did. He deserves the seven years.
Instead, the Linux community is too busy with their petty squabbles about whether KDE or Gnome is better. Either one is adequate and the Linux vendors should choose one by coin toss and then standardize on it. As long as getting Linux users together behind something is like herding cats, it will remain a cult OS with limited commercial product support.
Some basic info:
1. The most important two qualities are the light gathering (pi-r-squared) and the sturdiness of the mount. A small (under 3") telescope is almost useless for astronomy (except seeing the moon). A telescope that vibrates and shakes in the calmest breeze is also worthless.
2. Magnification is unimportant. I have an 8" Celestron and rarely exceed 100x. The maximum magnification (Dawes' Limit) is 50x per inch of aperture. Therefore, a 4" scope can use no more than 200x. More magnification will result in a blurry, dim image.
3. If the scope uses .965" eyepieces, it is junk. Any "real" telescope uses 1.25" or 2" eyepieces. The .965" are a Japanese standard that is popular on poor-quality department store scopes.
4. Computer pointed and guided scopes are absolutely the wrong thing to get for a beginner. Much of the joy of astronomy is learning the night sky and discovering, through your own skill, what can be seen. She may decide that she wants a computer pointed scope in the future, but spend your money on aperture, mount, and quality eyepieces.
5. I strongly recommend the book Star Ware: The Amateur Astronomer's Ultimate Guide to Choosing, Buying, and Using Telescopes and Accessories, 2nd Edition. This book is a must-read and will help assure that the telescope you buy is the best choice possible.
6. Do not buy the telescope at a department store. Camera stores are not much better. I recommend buying from a telescope store. Orion is one of the largest and you can reach their website at www.telescope.com.
If I can be of help, please do not hesitate to write me at fbm{at}techie{dot}com.
-- Fred Maxwell --
Maybe you are a form of artificial ignorance.
p.s. Just kidding. I couldn't resist.
In addition to Word and Excel being superb packages, they are the standard. If you ever have a business relationship with a client, you will find that they will not be willing to exchange documents with you using some semi-compatible format from a GPL office suite. Save your Microsoft bashing for some other post. Regardless of how screwed up Windows it, their Office suite is sweet.
P.S. Good luck landing a high-paying job writing free software. As a software engineer, I'm happy to support companies that pay software engineers.
I never said that they have a right to your money. But if you choose to use free software over commercial products, don't whine about the commercial products going away. You don't have a right to become indignant when a commercial vendor chooses not to sell a product to the Linux marketplace when:
1. The vast majority of users would use a free alternative if it was available.
2. There is a faction within the Linux/GNU/"free software" community that will write a free alternative.
It's ironic, but the Windows market is much more capable of weathering free software than is the Linux market. It is a large enough market that if even 50% of the users chose the superb Software 602 alternatives to MS Word and Excel, there would still be an adequate customer base to support numerous commercial packages. Linux is not that big a market.
While you are shedding crocodile tears, there may be decent, hard-working, talented people at Applixware losing their jobs because of this. But you probably think that would be great if it happened in the name of the all-important GNU cause.