The whole point of Science is to be an instrument that will always overcome bias. Because there is always bias, you create a dialog which employs the scientific method. Microsoft has hypothisized that their system is programming language neutral, the author of this article disagrees.
To reject either viewpoint as biased is pure laziness. You are unable to analyze the arguments yourself, so you are asking someone to do your thinking for you. I suppose if they are smart enough they can hoodwink you into thinking they are unbiased!
If you do have kids you know that there are times when you just have to stop a show and deal with them. Or maybe your favorite show is starting while you are still putting them to bed.
If you have the flexibility to drop everything and watch TV when the networks decide to broadcast, you don't need Tivo.
Here in San Diego it feels like we're outside of radio markets - at least all the ones that don't suck. I would pay for these services *if* they carried something I was interested in - a Pacifica station, KPFK, WFMU in Hoboken, anything good! But no such luck I guess.
This is pretty clearly sabotage, either a bomb in a suitcase or some insider on the maintenance team. Maybe they'll think a little harder about implementing some real security measures now.
Over 50% of AOL's support calls are for Microsoft problems. This costs AOL a fortune and saves Microsoft a fortune. Any sane company would do whatever they can to avoid paying for Microsoft's lousy tech support..
Draeker adds: "The reason people use Linux is not because it's a great way to run Windows software. If you want Windows software then you should be running Windows. Our customers use Linux to run Linux software."
Ok, suppose I want to run Linux software and Windows software? Is that outside the realm of possibility? In that case I have two choices, Wine and Cygwin.
Open source programmers are basically the same people as commercial programmers, maybe by night or maybe as different jobs come and go. The difference is that most open source projects arise from a person's need, and it is natural to ease up on the effort once that need is filled, i.e. once the program is good enough for your personal use.
Well, I'm sure it is all very funny in the U.K. But your post doesn't really say much -- what is the minimum necessary infringement? Who is to say and how do they know? Utterly meaningless. On Septermber 11 the minimum jumped way up over here.
I have one on order for a similar purpose. I figure no motherboard has really high fidelity audio on-board anyway, so if it gives me any trouble I'll stick something in the PCI slot.
I disagree, you should do these tests on the best audio system you can find, because the files you will be producing are archival. You can always upgrade your playback equipment, but once encoded you can never upgrade this source material.
You say "The fact is..." -- just where do you get your golden facts? If you want to show us how right you are and how wrong they are you'll have to do better than this.
Any sophmore in college can write an encryption program in a few days that has no back door and can't be cracked by anyone. All these laws will do is perhaps make it easier for the black hats to obtain sensitive information they might need to carry out their missions.
Only a small fraction of software has ever been written to become finished products sitting on a store shelf. Most software is written for custom applications or single use, or for use within an organization. There has never been a reason to protect this type of software and it has generally been freely shared.
Open source is simply a formalization of this situation, a mechanism by which efforts expended towards producing this type of non-product software can be pooled and shared to save expense and effort.
It is exactly analogous to the way scholars have always published their findings in journals for all to read. Why don't they hoard all that knowledge for themselves? Because the overall result would be much slower progress for everyone.
By saying `if it is good people should have the right to use it' you are implying that a boycott will somehow deprive someone of this right. A boycott is simply declining to buy a product and using free speech to express an opinion about it to others. You would have to be a timid creature indeed to equate this with depriving someone else of their rights.
This whole thread is way out of date
on
IBM Wants Linux
·
· Score: 1
Don't you know that IBM is already spending huge amounts of time and effort on Linux. They have painted the sides of buildings touting their association with Linux. Conventional wisdom does not always explain IBM's actions. In this case they are trying something new.
...about this not being Microsoft's fault. 90% The machines running code red have no system administrators, because they are home machines whose owners have no idea they are even running a web server? Why? Because Microsoft, in its miniscule wisdom, installs IIS (silently, and in the default zero security mode) whenever the user installs any of various pieces of Microsoft software.
Slashdot Mirror
The whole point of Science is to be an instrument that will always overcome bias. Because there is always bias, you create a dialog which employs the scientific method. Microsoft has hypothisized that their system is programming language neutral, the author of this article disagrees.
To reject either viewpoint as biased is pure laziness. You are unable to analyze the arguments yourself, so you are asking someone to do your thinking for you. I suppose if they are smart enough they can hoodwink you into thinking they are unbiased!
If you do have kids you know that there are times when you just have to stop a show and deal with them. Or maybe your favorite show is starting while you are still putting them to bed.
If you have the flexibility to drop everything and watch TV when the networks decide to broadcast, you don't need Tivo.
Letterman was making fun of Tivo every night for a while. I'm surprised that didn't help.
Here in San Diego it feels like we're outside of radio markets - at least all the ones that don't suck. I would pay for these services *if* they carried something I was interested in - a Pacifica station, KPFK, WFMU in Hoboken, anything good! But no such luck I guess.
Is this the new unit of storage measurement? Will we soon see 50 megasong drives from Seagate? What if songs start getting longer again?
This is pretty clearly sabotage, either a bomb in a suitcase or some insider on the maintenance team. Maybe they'll think a little harder about implementing some real security measures now.
Over 50% of AOL's support calls are for Microsoft problems. This costs AOL a fortune and saves Microsoft a fortune. Any sane company would do whatever they can to avoid paying for Microsoft's lousy tech support..
So just pray your card never breaks...
Ok, suppose I want to run Linux software and Windows software? Is that outside the realm of possibility? In that case I have two choices, Wine and Cygwin.
Open source programmers are basically the same people as commercial programmers, maybe by night or maybe as different jobs come and go. The difference is that most open source projects arise from a person's need, and it is natural to ease up on the effort once that need is filled, i.e. once the program is good enough for your personal use.
On my fv24 XFree86-4.1.0 locks the machine up tight as soon as I start it. Maybe I'm doing something stupid (besides running X, that is.)
Well, I'm sure it is all very funny in the U.K. But your post doesn't really say much -- what is the minimum necessary infringement? Who is to say and how do they know? Utterly meaningless. On Septermber 11 the minimum jumped way up over here.
Wake up! You should be *happy* they are doing these searches. They are protecting you.
I have one on order for a similar purpose. I figure no motherboard has really high fidelity audio on-board anyway, so if it gives me any trouble I'll stick something in the PCI slot.
Where can I get one??
I disagree, you should do these tests on the best audio system you can find, because the files you will be producing are archival. You can always upgrade your playback equipment, but once encoded you can never upgrade this source material.
You say "The fact is..." -- just where do you get your golden facts? If you want to show us how right you are and how wrong they are you'll have to do better than this.
Any sophmore in college can write an encryption program in a few days that has no back door and can't be cracked by anyone. All these laws will do is perhaps make it easier for the black hats to obtain sensitive information they might need to carry out their missions.
This bug may have caused the dates on some of the files in the XFree86 source tree to be reset to Jan 1, 1970. Or maybe not.
Only a small fraction of software has ever been written to become finished products sitting on a store shelf. Most software is written for custom applications or single use, or for use within an organization. There has never been a reason to protect this type of software and it has generally been freely shared.
Open source is simply a formalization of this situation, a mechanism by which efforts expended towards producing this type of non-product software can be pooled and shared to save expense and effort.
It is exactly analogous to the way scholars have always published their findings in journals for all to read. Why don't they hoard all that knowledge for themselves? Because the overall result would be much slower progress for everyone.
By saying `if it is good people should have the right to use it' you are implying that a boycott will somehow deprive someone of this right. A boycott is simply declining to buy a product and using free speech to express an opinion about it to others. You would have to be a timid creature indeed to equate this with depriving someone else of their rights.
Don't you know that IBM is already spending huge amounts of time and effort on Linux. They have painted the sides of buildings touting their association with Linux. Conventional wisdom does not always explain IBM's actions. In this case they are trying something new.
It is true that it is not installed by default with the operating system, that is not what I said. It is installed with other applications.
...about this not being Microsoft's fault. 90% The machines running code red have no system administrators, because they are home machines whose owners have no idea they are even running a web server? Why? Because Microsoft, in its miniscule wisdom, installs IIS (silently, and in the default zero security mode) whenever the user installs any of various pieces of Microsoft software.
What is the point of your message? Do you think
posting it enough will make such lazy sysadmins
go away?