Even better - use an old Amiga or Atari. Just as capable of performing such a task but less likely (even than the original, almost untouchable machine) to be cracked due to their rarity. Plus, you can pick up some of them - say, an A600 - for almost nothing, it's very small and you can run it through a TV for even lower cost and footprint.
... but this isn't the only cost. They have to pay for marketting, distribution, studio costs - and all this for hundreds of artists who we've never heard of as no-one bought their music. Yet the labels still have to pay for their costs.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think that the current system is serving either artist or consumer especially well. But to pretend that everything beyond the production cost of the CD is pure profit is either naive or malicious. Not sure which, yet, in this case.
That's a big assumption, and one I wouldn't want to make
Intel want us to move to IA64/Itanium - but it's not a straightforward migration path and it's not too clever re: performance of legacy stuff - or, at least, wasn't last time I heard.
Now, AMD have x86-64/Sledegammer sitting there - fully backwards compatible, but extended. Also, if current form continues, better bang per buck.
Now, who's _honestly_ going to buy something that's slower for the price, and where the performance sucks even more for everything you've got right now - the only benefit is with stuff months down the line?
Intel could well have dropped the ball here. I'd honestly reckon AMD's route has an equal - at worst - chance of success.
Plenty of people seem to think that Linux can take over from Windows and MacOS within the foreseeable future. While this sort of issue remains, it's not even close.
If an OS is going to suceed, it has to be usable by a total technophobe who thinks Macs are complicated. Sure, you or I may not have a problem routing through an RPM and installing it manually, but your average Clueless Wonder Newbie isn't going to even think of that. If it doesn't just work, it's broken and useless. As for recompliling to your machine, forget it - unless the installation system does it automatically, which we have discussed in KOSH.
In practice, they may not actually be incompatible. You may well be able to make it work properly without too much effort. But, for your generic newbie - or experienced user at that level of knowledge, who's surprisingly common - it's incompatible, end of story.
I know I never even considered it as I'd be embarrased to have most of their stuff on my CV. I don't doubt that it's technically very good, but the amount of time I spend screaming at daft functionality or annoying interfaces is ridiculous. I find it hard to believe no-one else does, and don't particularly want to show up at a subsequent interview and admit 'yes, I was partially responsible for this program you scream at all day.'
Before anyone goes through my URL and finds my CV - which happened last time this came up - yes, it _does_ mention Office. It says I can _use_ the daft software. What I don't want is to say I _wrote_ it.
The other side is that I've long considered them an immoral monopoly and I don't particularly want my conscience to have to carry the load that I'm profiting from it.
My apologies if I've got the wrong end of the stick or a different event here, but wasn't the problem with Taiwan and the UN that the Taiwanese government had retained the _Chinese_ UN seat, as the pre-revolutionary government had hopped across to Taiwan so the logic was that they were still legitimately in charge and giving the seat to the current Chinese government would be recognising a coup?
The other thing to consider, of course, is the castly different user bases. Unix boxes will often get used by geeks who like being able to bost aout an uptime in months, Macs tend to get used as workstations by the designers. Hence likely lower average uptime as they get switched off at the end of the day.
It's a few years since I've used a Mac unfortunately - though I want to play with iMovie:) - but my memory of their uptime was that some apps would crash fairly frequently but the system stayed up pretty well. And, importantly, when it _did_ crash, it was quick to reboot.
To a user, a crash matters a lot more if the rebooot takes 10 minutes (as with my Windows box if it has to ScanDisk) than if it takes 10 seconds (as with my old Amiga before I started adding lots of toys to it...)
The flipside is that sometimes the poster is relevant. For example, if we had another thread about Quake 1 GPL fun, a post from a genuine John Carmack explaining life would be worth rather more than one from me seeing how well I could start a rumour - not that I do such things, honest;)
Normally, moderation shouldn't be affected by the poster. But every now and then, it's relevant. I understand the sentiment but I'd rather see it reflected in moderator guidelines and pulled out more by M2.
I know this is late and so the chances of anyone seeing it are minimal, but I only just found the comment via M2.
Anwyay. The law in the UK is that it doesn't matter whether it _is_ illegal, it's whether it _appears_ illegal. In other words, you can legally publish the material as long as the participants are of legal age - though you may be required to prove it - but modifying the results so they appear to be of illegal age isn't permitted. Otherwise you have a huge hole through which every defence would instantly dive.
My personal view? I'd have to agree with the courts. If you take free speech as an absolute right which goes above all else, it creates problems. Which is greater, the right of the adult to such speech or the right of the child to life without such abuse? I'd have to say the child wins, every time.
Sorry, bad luck. You've hit someone who's studied that period of history fairly extensively:)
France was defeated mostly as the command structure was a mess and society was rapidly falling apart. They had the numerical superiority but didn't have the will to do anything about it. Net result, German troops pushed through. Of course, that's an over simplification, but it gives you the idea.
The defeat in Russia is partly for the reasons you've said but not entirely. Yes, they _did_ practice scorched earth - though more by dismantling and rebuilding east of the Urals - but that wasn't the only thing that won them the war.
Leningrad and Moscow were held in siege for _ages_ and survived. No scorched earth was possible with either. How? Well, they resorted to tactics others wouldn't. Prison regiments, for example. Convicts were sent out as cannon fodder to probe enemy defences. If they returned without being fairly severely injured, they were sent straight back out or shot. Net result, they could get a good idea of German defences - and demoralise them - at little or no cost to their proper troops. You also had locals living in conditions that would have made most cities surrender.
Now, look at the numbers. They didn't use convicts as they were running out, they used them because they could. German commanders were reported on several occasions as saying that the Russian resources seemed practically inexhaustible. No matter how much of anything they took out - resources or men - they were replenished. Which the Germans couldn't do.
Then, the Germans weren't reallly equipped for the war that developed. The campaign started too late, while the winter was nasty. So, they were freezing. We're talking weather so cold that soup could freeze between your bowl and your mouth. They weren't used to this and didn't have the winter equipment so were basically sitting ducks. Cold like we can't imagine, with almost no working guns or vehicles. But the Russian troops were used to this and equipped accordingly . They were observed regularly lyingin ambush in the snow, simply waiting for the right time and knowing the Germans could do nothing.
Then, look at the supply lines. Most stuff had to use trains as the roads weren't good enough, but Russian railways used a different gague to German so they had to build the trainlines out behind them - which is slow and expensive. Then, they got so long that the trains literally had to be left behind. The only way they could make it all run at an acceptable speed was to dump the carriages at the railheads and return, or the time it took to unload them became a problem.
Now, look at the length of the frontier. Simply too long for the number of troops they had to handle it. I remember doing the maths way back and discovering that each company had to handle several miles by itself - a bad idea.
They had to stay behind their own lines, too. The Russians managed a very effective partisan campaign, taking out resources in land the Germans already held. This, predictably, creates a big drain.
Germany won its previous battles by Blitzkrieg - lightning war, literally. Send the tanks across fast, secure the frontiers. Very successful against a relatively small land mass such as Poland or northern France. But it was all they could do. Their armed forces had been established too fast in the 1930s to give them a broad spectrum of abilities, so they'd gone for a Blitzkrieg army. This meant, for example, that their tanks weren't actually that powerful - mostly just fast.
Now, apply this to Russia and it falls apart. You charge at them, they run back just as fast, safe in the knowledge that they can run back for a very long way and, the further in they go, the harder it gets for you to follow them. Also safe in the knowledge that, as a dictatorship, they can get away with things we couldn't have done as the population don't really matter. We have an army which was ill-equipped, insufficiently trained and overextended in the Russian campaign. That army, under that command and at that time, simply couldn't have won in Russia. Whatever your view of their relative technological states, they weren't good enough for that campaign, while the Russian forces were.
Now, look at the modern US. Sure, laser guided bombs and chemical weapons have their limitations - but they're very good at spreading fear. Tanks aren't ideal at population control but they do tend to scare off buses and trucks carrying troops as both drivers know who will win given half a chance.
I'm not saying that the US military could certainly win a civil war against a well organised nationwide private army. It'd inevitably become guerilla war, and Vietnam and Afghanistan have both shown the problems inherent there. But an armed population on the current model isn't really much of a defence, Sun Tzu or not.
I understand absolutely why there's this attachment to an armed population in the US. But I also understand that armies are different now and that it has consequences.
Go back 200 years and military technology wasn't that hot. Net result, you could get your hands on the materials necessary to equip a useful pricte army. Now? Forget it. The US military is awesomely powerful and is _not_ going to be held up by the level of arms available to the population if they decide to rise up against them.
The other side is that an armed population increases the amount of violent crime. Non-gun related, the UK has _higher_ crime than the US. But rates of gun violence and murder are _way_ lower.
If you think the perceived protection against the state is worth the huge cost to your society of gun violence, it's your country. Not mine. And your decision, as a US citizen, whether you consider that to be a balanced cost-benefit equation. But it isn't a price I'd pay were I in your shoes.
I understand the reasons why some Americans are so attached to guns, but I can't say I agree.
You'd be hard pushed to find a country with tighter gun control than the UK. Handguns of any form are basically illegal. So, what does this mean? Well, clearly less guns are going to be in circulation and, by definition only the criminals have them, outside military and law enforcement - who, incidentally, aren't routinely armed simply as they don't have to be.
This also means that it's a lot harder for the criminals to get the guns. If they can't get them legally then we're talking about smuggled weapons so it's a lot harder. You have to _really_ want a gun and know who to ask as you just can't get them from an ordinary shop.
Even if the population wants it - which is far from certain - disarming the USA will be a huge challenge due to the massive pre-existing arsenal. But I'd certainly consider it worthwhile and it's not as bad as that. Take away the guns of law-abiding private citizens and you take a lot away from minor criminals, too.
Making _all_ software manufacturers liable for _any_ damages resulting from _any_ use of their software would be ridiculous, clearly. For example, look at Windows 98. It's clearly marketted as a consumer operating system rather than an ideal solution for that mission critical server. Run it as a server and you're on your own. But run it for your games, Internet and letters to the family and you can reasonably expect it to work. If, in the course of this work, it causes you substantial damages somehow, Microsoft should be liable.
Over here in the UK, the principle is that of the reasonable man. Would a reasonable man expect something to work in such a way? If something is advertised as being the ideal solution for your business - or whatever - then you have a right to expect it to work. If I run NT and Office Professional (for example) I should have a right to expect that a competently set up and administered box running on good hardware is suitable for general office tasks. If it fails and loses my business money somehow, the liability should be clear.
If, on the other hand, I'm using 98 and some program I've found on shareware.com, caveat emptor.
Just because our current economy is partially based on an incorrect assumption doesn't mean that it should be maintained.
There's a difference between something being difficult to play and being structurally complex. Note again that I'm talking as someone who's trained in music and has a reasonable understanding of classical music.
I can understand fully that a lot of what drew early fand to Metallica is gone, but their newer stuff is - musically, at least - more complex and deeper. Lyrically I'm not so sure about but I'm a musician more than a poet and, until it gets silly in either direction, I don't much care.
Ultimately, it doesn't much matter. I like it, you don't. But I wish people would realise that there are valid reasons why I might prefer their newer music which don't involve my being a musically illiterate pop lover.
I've long wondered why I seem to be one of the few people who prefer Metallica's current work.
I can see the appeal of their previous music, I really can. But it isn't for me. I like metal as it's a tremendously powerful genre which can produce genuinely exciting music but it can also produce some very simplistic music.
Go back to their earlier music and Metallica fit in quite well with the Slashdot profile. Cutting a new groove, going against the establishment and not much caring what others think. Net result, they get a fanbase which is really pretty similar to what we have here.
As a young 21 year old, there wasn't really any way I was going to get into Metallica back when they were really heavy. Master of Puppets coming out when I was 7, And Justice for All when I was 10 IIRC. I have a vague recollection of hearing Enter Sandman on the radio.
Now, a few years back, I was revising for exams. MTV was on in the background simply as noise. At a guess I'd got bored of my (then very limited) music collection and found nothing on the radio. I'm not exactly their typical viewer as my CD collection would testify:)
Much as many fans hate Metallica for doing this, I saw Until It Sleeps. Fun, I think, sounds a bit like they're trying to do grunge. Maybe I should listen to that, see what they're like the rest of the time.
So, I borrow Load from a library. And I'm blown away.
They may have lost something in attitude but they've gained a lot in musical presence and construction IMO. Speaking as someone who's well used to orchestral music and learnt the trumpet well enough to play in a county youth orchestra a few years back.
Metallica, to my ears, now present a fuller sound. Their song construction - at its best - is more complex. They sound, to me at least, like angry young men who've calmed down and learnt to play and write properly.
There's plenty of their earlier stuff I like. Master of Puppets and Battery are excellent, as is The Call of the Kthulu. Interestingly, I prefer the recordings on S&M as they feel like they've got more presence.
I'm sorry to hear that they're no longer to your taste, but they are now to mine and I am _not_ a pop fan, regardless of what got me into them:) They've undoubtedly changed but I would argue for the better and I suspect that I'm not alone.
It's clearly used for unauthorised distribution of copyrighted material, and that would seem to be the primary purpose for most users. We can argue until we're blue in the face whether it's right for them to restrict distribution or about the ethics of the record industry, but the simple fact is that distributing something without the permission of the copyright holder isn't right.
For Napster: While it's used for illegal distribution, it may well actually help them.
Inevitably, some of their users are going to be people who can afford and would buy the recordings legally, but have chosen to obtain illegal copies instead. But I wouldn't say they're in the majority.
Experience with friends suggests that most people like having a smart, original copy with the nice cover art and are glad to have rewarded their favourite artists - well, glad to have felt like they had, even if the current system means they haven't really some of the time... Experience also says that most illegal copies are either people transferring media so they can listen elsewhere - my copying a CD to tape to listen to in my car, for example - or people who simply can't afford the original.
I don't pretend for one moment that I don't have a single track illegally. But those I have are where I like an album but don't have the money to buy it yet. So, I copy it and then buy it when I find a copy at a price I can afford at a later date. Which may mean a secondhand copy, or may mean a full price, brand new copy when I'm richer. I've done both.
The point is that the illegal recordings don't represent a lost sale but help ensure a future sale by maintaining my interest in the artist concerned. So by blocking this they're removing one potential channel for people to learn about their art and feed their interest until such a time as they can afford to buy a legitimate copy.
Napster is definitely facilitating an illegal distribution, and are a _dreadful_ rallying point for the free software community. Openly supporting them allows the media to suggest that all Linux users (a group which doesn't include me, I'd better say) are nasty theives who are undermining the economy and depriving artists of what they are due.
But that doesn't necessarily mean that it's a good thing for the record industry and various bands to attack Napster. They may well be shooting themselves in the foot.
IBM were sued over their alleged monopoly in the mainframe market, not PCs.
Broadly, though, I agree. Microsoft could well be looking at IBM and feel reluctant as they see a Computing giant that came ratehr close to going under after losing focus due to anti-trust proceedings. A long time after, but arguably still due to the trial.
Personally, I can't see what Microsoft are so afraid of. Splitting them would probably result in a higher total valuation, while resulting in a series of companies more able to react to changes in the market. It could be the best thing to happen to them in years.
Which, if I'm honest, is why I'd prefer to see them simply obliterated totally. All their IP assets placed in the public domain, all their patents revoked, all their physical assets sold off. Not very realistic, but there are days when it seems a nice idea:)
They _didn't_ turn the PC into something usable by all. Apple and Commodore both did better jobs with the Mac and Amiga respectively, but lost as Microsoft had already been given the market by IBM, amongst other reasons.
Just because they've been dominant while this happened doesn't mean they initiated it.
I'd support their breakup as it's a clean way of getting them to abide by the law. They've consistently shown contempt for antitrust laws for some time now, but a conduct verdict would require huge, expensive oversight. Whereas breaking them up would require rather less and arguably be more effective. No more cross subsidising products. No more secret APIs. And no more feeling that you need to by Microsoft because they did Windows so their stuff must automatically be best, right? Don't laugh, that's a surprisingly common view amongst the less tech savvy. And one that forcing one or more of the various companies created by a breakup to rename would kill.
Breaking up Microsoft is good for everyone, and should happen soon.
Though perhaps my tagline is a trifle ironic in this post;-)
I suppose it depends on your definition of boring. Nothing is that exciting in that sector of the market TBH. But the ZX performs well enough for its class, handles well (for a FWD family hatch, that is. I'm not pretending it's a BMW) and is comfortable enough. I like mine. Nothing like a Volvo, which tend to have only lipservice paid to chassis engineering but concentrate hugely on safety and interior space. Neither of which are bad things, but I don't need that much interior space and I'd like them to notice what happens to the wheels.
Perhaps our original poster saw Citroen and assumed 2CV?
Interestingly, you might want to check some roadtests for that period. I was looking for something 7-9 years old when I got mine, so checked group tests from back then. The ZX came out consistently at or near the top. Yet it tends to work out cheaper as the secondhand market don't really trust Citroens due to the hydraulic suspension on some models. Expensive to fix when it breaks, to say the least. Except the ZX has conventional springs:)
I'm just as much of a car nerd as I am a computer nerd, and have been for years. Ran out of places to store old car magazines a long time ago. And I'd definitely recommend a ZX to anyone who wants an early-mid '90s family hatch. I didn't end up with one by mistake, I actively _chose_ it.
I used ViaVoice (the voive app here) a while back, and experimented with this sort of thing.
It was trained with the stereo off, but one day I did some dictation with the stereo on. It's fairly loud and less than 2 metres from my computer to the nearest speaker. I think it was Deep Purple's Made in Japan, for those who know the album:)
Anyway, it _didn't_ recognise stuff from the lyrics, though the accuracy did go down a little.
What I'm wondering is how this is going to be practical. ViaVoice is designed around a headset with the microphone about a inch from your mouth. I would _love_ this sort of toy - and would pay that much - but I can't see where I'd put the mic that it could work. It wouldn't be acceptable to have a system which only worked if I was wearing a headset or throat mic. The website (http://ghs.ssd.k12.wa.us/~pdavis/projects/emvax.h tml will get you through, the link given above doesn't work) doesn't specify this sort of thing, unfortunately.
The other thing that puzzles me is why ViaVoice? It simply isn't that good. Having used both it and Dragon NaturallySpeaking for a little while, I'd have to say that NaturallySpeaking is _far_ more powerful. Though ViaVoice comes with a better headset:)
It might also be a bit of a problem fitting one to my Citroen ZX - the stereo's an odd size as an anti-theft measure - but if I could find a way then this sounds nice. Assuming it could have a radio with AM and UK frequencies, that is.
Dialogs are often useful, and modal dialogs are sometimes necessary. It's perfectly possible for you to have a sensible, useful dialog which could be completely stuffed up by changes to the data in the originating window.
Modal dialogs can be necessary for them to be meaningful and avoid data corruption. The problem is that there's an awful lot which are modal because it saved the UI coder thinking about whether this was necessary or not. But banning modal dialogs completely creates its own problems.
Speaking as a Palm user and a NaturallySpeaking user, I'd be delighted if they could be combined. It's far from perfect yet, but I'd say it's giving accuracy comparable to OCR programs 5-6 years ago. _Good_ OCR programs, that is. Certainly more accurate than Graffiti, which has started consistently misrecognising 'e', of all the letters to get wrong:(
Dictation is a valuable facility that works well. It's certainly something I regard as a worthwhile addition, and I can type pretty well.
Slashdot Mirror
Even better - use an old Amiga or Atari. Just as capable of performing such a task but less likely (even than the original, almost untouchable machine) to be cracked due to their rarity. Plus, you can pick up some of them - say, an A600 - for almost nothing, it's very small and you can run it through a TV for even lower cost and footprint.
... but this isn't the only cost. They have to pay for marketting, distribution, studio costs - and all this for hundreds of artists who we've never heard of as no-one bought their music. Yet the labels still have to pay for their costs.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think that the current system is serving either artist or consumer especially well. But to pretend that everything beyond the production cost of the CD is pure profit is either naive or malicious. Not sure which, yet, in this case.
That's a big assumption, and one I wouldn't want to make
Intel want us to move to IA64/Itanium - but it's not a straightforward migration path and it's not too clever re: performance of legacy stuff - or, at least, wasn't last time I heard.
Now, AMD have x86-64/Sledegammer sitting there - fully backwards compatible, but extended. Also, if current form continues, better bang per buck.
Now, who's _honestly_ going to buy something that's slower for the price, and where the performance sucks even more for everything you've got right now - the only benefit is with stuff months down the line?
Intel could well have dropped the ball here. I'd honestly reckon AMD's route has an equal - at worst - chance of success.
... but you're assuming the current audience.
Plenty of people seem to think that Linux can take over from Windows and MacOS within the foreseeable future. While this sort of issue remains, it's not even close.
If an OS is going to suceed, it has to be usable by a total technophobe who thinks Macs are complicated. Sure, you or I may not have a problem routing through an RPM and installing it manually, but your average Clueless Wonder Newbie isn't going to even think of that. If it doesn't just work, it's broken and useless. As for recompliling to your machine, forget it - unless the installation system does it automatically, which we have discussed in KOSH.
In practice, they may not actually be incompatible. You may well be able to make it work properly without too much effort. But, for your generic newbie - or experienced user at that level of knowledge, who's surprisingly common - it's incompatible, end of story.
I know I never even considered it as I'd be embarrased to have most of their stuff on my CV. I don't doubt that it's technically very good, but the amount of time I spend screaming at daft functionality or annoying interfaces is ridiculous. I find it hard to believe no-one else does, and don't particularly want to show up at a subsequent interview and admit 'yes, I was partially responsible for this program you scream at all day.'
Before anyone goes through my URL and finds my CV - which happened last time this came up - yes, it _does_ mention Office. It says I can _use_ the daft software. What I don't want is to say I _wrote_ it.
The other side is that I've long considered them an immoral monopoly and I don't particularly want my conscience to have to carry the load that I'm profiting from it.
My apologies if I've got the wrong end of the stick or a different event here, but wasn't the problem with Taiwan and the UN that the Taiwanese government had retained the _Chinese_ UN seat, as the pre-revolutionary government had hopped across to Taiwan so the logic was that they were still legitimately in charge and giving the seat to the current Chinese government would be recognising a coup?
;)
Anyway. That's probably a long enough sentence
Picky :P
;)
_Domestic_ Unix boxes tend to get _owned_ by geeks - and no, I don't mean 0wn3d by 31337 hax0rs...
OK?
The other thing to consider, of course, is the castly different user bases. Unix boxes will often get used by geeks who like being able to bost aout an uptime in months, Macs tend to get used as workstations by the designers. Hence likely lower average uptime as they get switched off at the end of the day.
:) - but my memory of their uptime was that some apps would crash fairly frequently but the system stayed up pretty well. And, importantly, when it _did_ crash, it was quick to reboot.
It's a few years since I've used a Mac unfortunately - though I want to play with iMovie
To a user, a crash matters a lot more if the rebooot takes 10 minutes (as with my Windows box if it has to ScanDisk) than if it takes 10 seconds (as with my old Amiga before I started adding lots of toys to it...)
The flipside is that sometimes the poster is relevant. For example, if we had another thread about Quake 1 GPL fun, a post from a genuine John Carmack explaining life would be worth rather more than one from me seeing how well I could start a rumour - not that I do such things, honest ;)
Normally, moderation shouldn't be affected by the poster. But every now and then, it's relevant. I understand the sentiment but I'd rather see it reflected in moderator guidelines and pulled out more by M2.
I know this is late and so the chances of anyone seeing it are minimal, but I only just found the comment via M2.
Anwyay. The law in the UK is that it doesn't matter whether it _is_ illegal, it's whether it _appears_ illegal. In other words, you can legally publish the material as long as the participants are of legal age - though you may be required to prove it - but modifying the results so they appear to be of illegal age isn't permitted. Otherwise you have a huge hole through which every defence would instantly dive.
My personal view? I'd have to agree with the courts. If you take free speech as an absolute right which goes above all else, it creates problems. Which is greater, the right of the adult to such speech or the right of the child to life without such abuse? I'd have to say the child wins, every time.
Sorry, bad luck. You've hit someone who's studied that period of history fairly extensively :)
France was defeated mostly as the command structure was a mess and society was rapidly falling apart. They had the numerical superiority but didn't have the will to do anything about it. Net result, German troops pushed through. Of course, that's an over simplification, but it gives you the idea.
The defeat in Russia is partly for the reasons you've said but not entirely. Yes, they _did_ practice scorched earth - though more by dismantling and rebuilding east of the Urals - but that wasn't the only thing that won them the war.
Leningrad and Moscow were held in siege for _ages_ and survived. No scorched earth was possible with either. How? Well, they resorted to tactics others wouldn't. Prison regiments, for example. Convicts were sent out as cannon fodder to probe enemy defences. If they returned without being fairly severely injured, they were sent straight back out or shot. Net result, they could get a good idea of German defences - and demoralise them - at little or no cost to their proper troops. You also had locals living in conditions that would have made most cities surrender.
Now, look at the numbers. They didn't use convicts as they were running out, they used them because they could. German commanders were reported on several occasions as saying that the Russian resources seemed practically inexhaustible. No matter how much of anything they took out - resources or men - they were replenished. Which the Germans couldn't do.
Then, the Germans weren't reallly equipped for the war that developed. The campaign started too late, while the winter was nasty. So, they were freezing. We're talking weather so cold that soup could freeze between your bowl and your mouth. They weren't used to this and didn't have the winter equipment so were basically sitting ducks. Cold like we can't imagine, with almost no working guns or vehicles. But the Russian troops were used to this and equipped accordingly . They were observed regularly lyingin ambush in the snow, simply waiting for the right time and knowing the Germans could do nothing.
Then, look at the supply lines. Most stuff had to use trains as the roads weren't good enough, but Russian railways used a different gague to German so they had to build the trainlines out behind them - which is slow and expensive. Then, they got so long that the trains literally had to be left behind. The only way they could make it all run at an acceptable speed was to dump the carriages at the railheads and return, or the time it took to unload them became a problem.
Now, look at the length of the frontier. Simply too long for the number of troops they had to handle it. I remember doing the maths way back and discovering that each company had to handle several miles by itself - a bad idea.
They had to stay behind their own lines, too. The Russians managed a very effective partisan campaign, taking out resources in land the Germans already held. This, predictably, creates a big drain.
Germany won its previous battles by Blitzkrieg - lightning war, literally. Send the tanks across fast, secure the frontiers. Very successful against a relatively small land mass such as Poland or northern France. But it was all they could do. Their armed forces had been established too fast in the 1930s to give them a broad spectrum of abilities, so they'd gone for a Blitzkrieg army. This meant, for example, that their tanks weren't actually that powerful - mostly just fast.
Now, apply this to Russia and it falls apart. You charge at them, they run back just as fast, safe in the knowledge that they can run back for a very long way and, the further in they go, the harder it gets for you to follow them. Also safe in the knowledge that, as a dictatorship, they can get away with things we couldn't have done as the population don't really matter. We have an army which was ill-equipped, insufficiently trained and overextended in the Russian campaign. That army, under that command and at that time, simply couldn't have won in Russia. Whatever your view of their relative technological states, they weren't good enough for that campaign, while the Russian forces were.
Now, look at the modern US. Sure, laser guided bombs and chemical weapons have their limitations - but they're very good at spreading fear. Tanks aren't ideal at population control but they do tend to scare off buses and trucks carrying troops as both drivers know who will win given half a chance.
I'm not saying that the US military could certainly win a civil war against a well organised nationwide private army. It'd inevitably become guerilla war, and Vietnam and Afghanistan have both shown the problems inherent there. But an armed population on the current model isn't really much of a defence, Sun Tzu or not.
Oh, come off it.
I understand absolutely why there's this attachment to an armed population in the US. But I also understand that armies are different now and that it has consequences.
Go back 200 years and military technology wasn't that hot. Net result, you could get your hands on the materials necessary to equip a useful pricte army. Now? Forget it. The US military is awesomely powerful and is _not_ going to be held up by the level of arms available to the population if they decide to rise up against them.
The other side is that an armed population increases the amount of violent crime. Non-gun related, the UK has _higher_ crime than the US. But rates of gun violence and murder are _way_ lower.
If you think the perceived protection against the state is worth the huge cost to your society of gun violence, it's your country. Not mine. And your decision, as a US citizen, whether you consider that to be a balanced cost-benefit equation. But it isn't a price I'd pay were I in your shoes.
Brit here, for what it's worth.
I understand the reasons why some Americans are so attached to guns, but I can't say I agree.
You'd be hard pushed to find a country with tighter gun control than the UK. Handguns of any form are basically illegal. So, what does this mean? Well, clearly less guns are going to be in circulation and, by definition only the criminals have them, outside military and law enforcement - who, incidentally, aren't routinely armed simply as they don't have to be.
This also means that it's a lot harder for the criminals to get the guns. If they can't get them legally then we're talking about smuggled weapons so it's a lot harder. You have to _really_ want a gun and know who to ask as you just can't get them from an ordinary shop.
Even if the population wants it - which is far from certain - disarming the USA will be a huge challenge due to the massive pre-existing arsenal. But I'd certainly consider it worthwhile and it's not as bad as that. Take away the guns of law-abiding private citizens and you take a lot away from minor criminals, too.
I suppose this is a question of degree, TBH.
Making _all_ software manufacturers liable for _any_ damages resulting from _any_ use of their software would be ridiculous, clearly. For example, look at Windows 98. It's clearly marketted as a consumer operating system rather than an ideal solution for that mission critical server. Run it as a server and you're on your own. But run it for your games, Internet and letters to the family and you can reasonably expect it to work. If, in the course of this work, it causes you substantial damages somehow, Microsoft should be liable.
Over here in the UK, the principle is that of the reasonable man. Would a reasonable man expect something to work in such a way? If something is advertised as being the ideal solution for your business - or whatever - then you have a right to expect it to work. If I run NT and Office Professional (for example) I should have a right to expect that a competently set up and administered box running on good hardware is suitable for general office tasks. If it fails and loses my business money somehow, the liability should be clear.
If, on the other hand, I'm using 98 and some program I've found on shareware.com, caveat emptor.
Just because our current economy is partially based on an incorrect assumption doesn't mean that it should be maintained.
There's a difference between something being difficult to play and being structurally complex. Note again that I'm talking as someone who's trained in music and has a reasonable understanding of classical music.
I can understand fully that a lot of what drew early fand to Metallica is gone, but their newer stuff is - musically, at least - more complex and deeper. Lyrically I'm not so sure about but I'm a musician more than a poet and, until it gets silly in either direction, I don't much care.
Ultimately, it doesn't much matter. I like it, you don't. But I wish people would realise that there are valid reasons why I might prefer their newer music which don't involve my being a musically illiterate pop lover.
I've long wondered why I seem to be one of the few people who prefer Metallica's current work.
:)
:) They've undoubtedly changed but I would argue for the better and I suspect that I'm not alone.
I can see the appeal of their previous music, I really can. But it isn't for me. I like metal as it's a tremendously powerful genre which can produce genuinely exciting music but it can also produce some very simplistic music.
Go back to their earlier music and Metallica fit in quite well with the Slashdot profile. Cutting a new groove, going against the establishment and not much caring what others think. Net result, they get a fanbase which is really pretty similar to what we have here.
As a young 21 year old, there wasn't really any way I was going to get into Metallica back when they were really heavy. Master of Puppets coming out when I was 7, And Justice for All when I was 10 IIRC. I have a vague recollection of hearing Enter Sandman on the radio.
Now, a few years back, I was revising for exams. MTV was on in the background simply as noise. At a guess I'd got bored of my (then very limited) music collection and found nothing on the radio. I'm not exactly their typical viewer as my CD collection would testify
Much as many fans hate Metallica for doing this, I saw Until It Sleeps. Fun, I think, sounds a bit like they're trying to do grunge. Maybe I should listen to that, see what they're like the rest of the time.
So, I borrow Load from a library. And I'm blown away.
They may have lost something in attitude but they've gained a lot in musical presence and construction IMO. Speaking as someone who's well used to orchestral music and learnt the trumpet well enough to play in a county youth orchestra a few years back.
Metallica, to my ears, now present a fuller sound. Their song construction - at its best - is more complex. They sound, to me at least, like angry young men who've calmed down and learnt to play and write properly.
There's plenty of their earlier stuff I like. Master of Puppets and Battery are excellent, as is The Call of the Kthulu. Interestingly, I prefer the recordings on S&M as they feel like they've got more presence.
I'm sorry to hear that they're no longer to your taste, but they are now to mine and I am _not_ a pop fan, regardless of what got me into them
Against Napster:
It's clearly used for unauthorised distribution of copyrighted material, and that would seem to be the primary purpose for most users. We can argue until we're blue in the face whether it's right for them to restrict distribution or about the ethics of the record industry, but the simple fact is that distributing something without the permission of the copyright holder isn't right.
For Napster: While it's used for illegal distribution, it may well actually help them.
Inevitably, some of their users are going to be people who can afford and would buy the recordings legally, but have chosen to obtain illegal copies instead. But I wouldn't say they're in the majority.
Experience with friends suggests that most people like having a smart, original copy with the nice cover art and are glad to have rewarded their favourite artists - well, glad to have felt like they had, even if the current system means they haven't really some of the time... Experience also says that most illegal copies are either people transferring media so they can listen elsewhere - my copying a CD to tape to listen to in my car, for example - or people who simply can't afford the original.
I don't pretend for one moment that I don't have a single track illegally. But those I have are where I like an album but don't have the money to buy it yet. So, I copy it and then buy it when I find a copy at a price I can afford at a later date. Which may mean a secondhand copy, or may mean a full price, brand new copy when I'm richer. I've done both.
The point is that the illegal recordings don't represent a lost sale but help ensure a future sale by maintaining my interest in the artist concerned. So by blocking this they're removing one potential channel for people to learn about their art and feed their interest until such a time as they can afford to buy a legitimate copy.
Napster is definitely facilitating an illegal distribution, and are a _dreadful_ rallying point for the free software community. Openly supporting them allows the media to suggest that all Linux users (a group which doesn't include me, I'd better say) are nasty theives who are undermining the economy and depriving artists of what they are due.
But that doesn't necessarily mean that it's a good thing for the record industry and various bands to attack Napster. They may well be shooting themselves in the foot.
Erm...
:)
IBM were sued over their alleged monopoly in the mainframe market, not PCs.
Broadly, though, I agree. Microsoft could well be looking at IBM and feel reluctant as they see a Computing giant that came ratehr close to going under after losing focus due to anti-trust proceedings. A long time after, but arguably still due to the trial.
Personally, I can't see what Microsoft are so afraid of. Splitting them would probably result in a higher total valuation, while resulting in a series of companies more able to react to changes in the market. It could be the best thing to happen to them in years.
Which, if I'm honest, is why I'd prefer to see them simply obliterated totally. All their IP assets placed in the public domain, all their patents revoked, all their physical assets sold off. Not very realistic, but there are days when it seems a nice idea
I have plenty against Microsoft.
;-)
I don't use CLIs that often.
They _didn't_ turn the PC into something usable by all. Apple and Commodore both did better jobs with the Mac and Amiga respectively, but lost as Microsoft had already been given the market by IBM, amongst other reasons.
Just because they've been dominant while this happened doesn't mean they initiated it.
I'd support their breakup as it's a clean way of getting them to abide by the law. They've consistently shown contempt for antitrust laws for some time now, but a conduct verdict would require huge, expensive oversight. Whereas breaking them up would require rather less and arguably be more effective. No more cross subsidising products. No more secret APIs. And no more feeling that you need to by Microsoft because they did Windows so their stuff must automatically be best, right? Don't laugh, that's a surprisingly common view amongst the less tech savvy. And one that forcing one or more of the various companies created by a breakup to rename would kill.
Breaking up Microsoft is good for everyone, and should happen soon.
Though perhaps my tagline is a trifle ironic in this post
I suppose it depends on your definition of boring. Nothing is that exciting in that sector of the market TBH. But the ZX performs well enough for its class, handles well (for a FWD family hatch, that is. I'm not pretending it's a BMW) and is comfortable enough. I like mine. Nothing like a Volvo, which tend to have only lipservice paid to chassis engineering but concentrate hugely on safety and interior space. Neither of which are bad things, but I don't need that much interior space and I'd like them to notice what happens to the wheels.
:)
Perhaps our original poster saw Citroen and assumed 2CV?
Interestingly, you might want to check some roadtests for that period. I was looking for something 7-9 years old when I got mine, so checked group tests from back then. The ZX came out consistently at or near the top. Yet it tends to work out cheaper as the secondhand market don't really trust Citroens due to the hydraulic suspension on some models. Expensive to fix when it breaks, to say the least. Except the ZX has conventional springs
I'm just as much of a car nerd as I am a computer nerd, and have been for years. Ran out of places to store old car magazines a long time ago. And I'd definitely recommend a ZX to anyone who wants an early-mid '90s family hatch. I didn't end up with one by mistake, I actively _chose_ it.
I used ViaVoice (the voive app here) a while back, and experimented with this sort of thing.
:)
h tml will get you through, the link given above doesn't work) doesn't specify this sort of thing, unfortunately.
:)
It was trained with the stereo off, but one day I did some dictation with the stereo on. It's fairly loud and less than 2 metres from my computer to the nearest speaker. I think it was Deep Purple's Made in Japan, for those who know the album
Anyway, it _didn't_ recognise stuff from the lyrics, though the accuracy did go down a little.
What I'm wondering is how this is going to be practical. ViaVoice is designed around a headset with the microphone about a inch from your mouth. I would _love_ this sort of toy - and would pay that much - but I can't see where I'd put the mic that it could work. It wouldn't be acceptable to have a system which only worked if I was wearing a headset or throat mic. The website (http://ghs.ssd.k12.wa.us/~pdavis/projects/emvax.
The other thing that puzzles me is why ViaVoice? It simply isn't that good. Having used both it and Dragon NaturallySpeaking for a little while, I'd have to say that NaturallySpeaking is _far_ more powerful. Though ViaVoice comes with a better headset
It might also be a bit of a problem fitting one to my Citroen ZX - the stereo's an odd size as an anti-theft measure - but if I could find a way then this sounds nice. Assuming it could have a radio with AM and UK frequencies, that is.
Dialogs are often useful, and modal dialogs are sometimes necessary. It's perfectly possible for you to have a sensible, useful dialog which could be completely stuffed up by changes to the data in the originating window.
Modal dialogs can be necessary for them to be meaningful and avoid data corruption. The problem is that there's an awful lot which are modal because it saved the UI coder thinking about whether this was necessary or not. But banning modal dialogs completely creates its own problems.
I'd have to agree with that.
:(
Speaking as a Palm user and a NaturallySpeaking user, I'd be delighted if they could be combined. It's far from perfect yet, but I'd say it's giving accuracy comparable to OCR programs 5-6 years ago. _Good_ OCR programs, that is. Certainly more accurate than Graffiti, which has started consistently misrecognising 'e', of all the letters to get wrong
Dictation is a valuable facility that works well. It's certainly something I regard as a worthwhile addition, and I can type pretty well.
I may well be missing the point as I'm British and so don't know the companies concerned, but...
There's at least one non-Erricsson phone sold over here as triple-band GSM so capable of worldwide roaming - the Motorola Timeport.
Oh, please, no.
That would be a real shame. From all I knew of it then, it was a seriously nice algorithm.
Oh well. Maybe somone can now write something better?