This is hardly convincing evidence. An iMac might be a better machine than the Dell model you chose -- but how about the cost of building your own (which is not an option with any Apple machine...) or other comparable machines? Apple REALLY sucks on cost when you look at high end machines. And I don't really buy the "G4 is better than P4" line of reasoning either. I prefer Athlons to Intel chips, partly because they provide great performance at a lower price, and partly because I don't care for Intel as a company -- but the point is that Athlons are available for PCs and the cost of a comparable Athlon-based PC is way cheaper than an Apple machine.
The bottom line is that the only component that Apple machines have that might be considered an advantage is the G4 chips. Everything else is basically the same as a PC, so it hardly justifies the price differential. Particularly on models like the iMac which are basically appliances -- you'll never be able to slap a new motherboard & chip into your iMac, or add a new video card or sound card. It's basically a sealed box -- not what many people are looking for.
However, there are *far* more Mac OS X applications out there than there are Linux applications, despite your statement. This is mostly because most Linux applications happily run on OS X (and more and more are coming precompiled in a double-clickable installer).
This is a load of crap. I've tried compiling a number of programs under OS X with mixed success. If you're a guru you can get more apps working, but for the average person - forget it. I gave up on OS X about six months ago and sold my iMac, so I can't test this -- but I seriously doubt it's anything like easy to compile a GNOME or KDE application for OS X. Some apps like MySQl and Apache are now available and easier to install -- but a lot of the client apps are not.
What about asking why people aren't considering Apple? Seems to me they're just soliciting favorable commentary.
If I was in Apple's marketing department I'd be asking "what would it take to get you to switch to Macs?" not "why are you thinking about buying a Mac?" or "Now that we have your money, what do you think?"
There are two main things stopping Apple from gaining greater market share: Price and Applications. They cost too damn much (for what you get) and don't have all the apps that Windows (or even Linux, these days) has.
I'd really like to see Apple get their act together and take about 30% of the desktop market instead of the pathetic share they have now. I'd be happy as a clam if Linux could steal just 20% of the market, give Apple 30% and let Microsoft keep the majority but keep them on their toes.
Actually, it's the bullet that causes the major problems. It takes a lot more effort to kill someone with a gun and no bullets...especially if they're faster than you are...
Instead it's claiming ownership over derived works as well.
No one is forcing you -- or anyone else -- to make use of GPL'ed code. Why aren't the people who complain about the constraints of the GPL complaining about the constraints of having to license commercial libraries or other code? Lots of companies charge fees for code to be included in commercial apps. You have to pay to use their code. You have a choice whether or not to use the code. It's the same with the GPL, except the people who use the GPL want a different kind of payment. If that payment is unacceptable to you -- fine. Don't use it. There seems to be a large number of people who think that requiring money for code is fine, but requiring code for code is somehow a horrible thing.
The real FUD is the perpetual claims of GPLers that somehow they would be deprived of their code is someone else used it in a commercial app.
The fear is that if a company, say Microsoft, "embraces and extends" an application they will make changes that cause the derivative program to be incompatible with the original and then the derivative program becomes the standard and users are forced to go with a proprietary application. Whether this happens in every instance or not is debatable, but that is the reason for concern. I don't believe that it qualifies as FUD -- whether you agree with the conclusion or not. It's a legitimate reason for concern, unlike real FUD.
Have you ever exhibited at a trade show? They have a freaking three-inch three-ring binder full of rules. When I attended LinuxWorld Expo and some of the other Linux trade shows, I got to see the kind of ridiculous rules that they come up with -- if you try hard enough, you can point out a violation at any booth. That's not an accident, promoters want ways they can shut down any exhibitor that they have a problem with. Hell, most shows have rules that forbid exhibitors to plug in their own electrical components or stand on a ladder. I'm not kidding. It might be different in Germany, but since most shows are held in facilities that are union shops, any work that could conceivably be done by a union worker (and charged for, of course) is verboten for exhibitors. I highly doubt that Microsoft didn't break several rules themselves, but Sony wasn't standing around trying to catch them at it.
It's very easy to believe that Sony (or any other company) could be unaware of a rule -- and other posts seem to suggest Sony wasn't the only booth allowing people to play the consoles. The promoters frequently wink at violations, especially when they come around after the first day or two of the show to get your company to re-up for next time.
This was a case of Microsoft digging up anything they could think of to try to harm a competitor -- to try to prevent people seeing a comparison between the Xbox and PS2.
Re:I *TRIED* to buy shareware.. this is the proble
on
More On Policing Shareware
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I would venture a guess that your experiences have been atypical. I'm pretty sure that Ambrosia has done what they can to ensure that people will have an easy path to registration.
I've only registered two shareware programs, both times it was a snap.
Since I started using Linux there isn't much that I want to do that isn't solved by Free/Open Source software. But, when I was doing the Windows thing I found a few shareware proggys that I liked and I registered them when they became programs that I relied on. However, I never would have mailed in a check -- if I wouldn't have been able to pay online I wouldn't have registered.
Now that there are several easy ways for merchants to collect money online (Yahoo!, PayPal -- even though PayPal seems a little sleezy these days...) there should be no reason why it should be difficult.
Maybe -- but the point of the discussion is whether you're even allowed to use something else.
Microsoft's remote assistance might be better than VNC -- but they should have no right to tell users that they can't use VNC. If you pay for XP (or get it preloaded...) you should be able to use it any way you choose.
I do wonder if that clause in the license was meant to prevent using VNC, or if it was an attempt to prevent multiple users from accessing a single Microsoft box and running multiple instances of Office or something like that. Perhaps the author of the original story should have contacted M$ and asked what their take was on that. I'm sure that they would likely have disavowed that they were trying to prevent using VNC in conjuntion with XP. (I doubt they could enforce it anyway...)
The downside to this, other than potentially having to track down every author is that you'd have to give the author a reason for wanting the license. That would probably compromise the security of the project, at least potentially. Even saying "the use will be classified" is probably too much information in some instances.
I think that the military would be within legal rights to use GPL'ed code without redistribution as long as they were using it internally only.
Unfortunately, many people don't really seem to understand the GPL or its implications. If I download the kernel and modify it, as long as I don't distribute the changes (source or binary) I don't have to tell anyone or give up my code.
then go to court to make them release all their software as Open Source.
More than likely, this wouldn't happen. The most likely outcome would be that a judge would uphold the clause in the GPL that forbids future distribution of GPL'ed code -- but I doubt that a few lines of GPL'ed code would cause a judge to require M$ to GPL, say, Windows.
Even if Microsoft had to GPL something, it's likely they could limit it to one application or library -- for instance, if they used GPL'ed code for something in Word, they would probably only have to GPL that version of Word and could excise the GPL'ed code from that version and release the next version under their normal licensing. Even if they violate the GPL, they still hold the copyright and the worst that could be done is force them to release one GPL'ed version of source code. But using GPL'ed code in one app wouldn't require them to release everything.
It would, however, be a big embarrassment to M$ and I wouldn't mind seeing them squirm a little.
Are you telling me that an actual lawyer or lawyers is responsible for advising a business to hide taxible income and break copyright law? I'm not a lawyer, but isn't that grounds for disbarment?
I think this advice is disgusting. If you don't want to pay for software, don't use it -- particularly for business use. If you can't or won't pay the fees, use free or open source software or go without. I'm no fan of Microsoft, and I think that license fees are outrageous -- but one of the justifications that M$, Adobe and the rest use to excuse their huge license fees is "piracy." I suppose you'd advocate ways for businesses to avoid paying invoices for other services and products.
BTW: your solution is not "100% legal." That implies that you're following the letter of the law, which you are not. Your solution may be 100% prosecution proof, but it is not 100% legal.
Also: didn't the recent warez busts prove that it's not that difficult to get search warrants for private residences to search for "pirated" software? The BSA and SPA are not government agencies, so they can't get a warrant regardless -- the FBI or local law enforcement will be the ones breaking down your door and confiscating your equipment.
What's more depressing, seeing 9/11 footage or watching X-Files on life support?
Oh, gee...let me think about that. What's more depressing...thousands of innocent people dying or a TV series being run into the ground?
Are you so emotionally stunted that you actually find a TV series of failing quality to be more depressing than the attack on the WTC? The waste of thousands of innocent lives and the fact that there are actually people (I use the term very loosely) so full of hate that they're capable of killing themselves and thousands of innocents disturbs me greatly. The fact that Fox didn't pull the plug on the X Files soon enough doesn't really affect me at all.
I'd rather watch anything but more footage of the 9/11 WTC attack.
Why? Because it's unbelievably depressing, and watching yet more footage of the carnage isn't going to help anyone. I'm not saying that people should forget or anything like that, but I'll leave that kind of voyeuristic masturbation to others.
Watching WTC footage isn't "meaningful." It doesn't help anyone. If you really want to do something "meaningful" go donate blood or some of your time to help charities. Go visit a senior's center and spend time with old people who have no family to visit. Write a letter to one of our troops in Afghanistan.
CBS may be doing this with the best of intentions, but the bottom line is they're still capitalizing on a horrible event. If the networks really wanted to do something meaningful they'd take an evening and go dark for three hours so people could spend time with their family or do something in their community instead of numbing themselves with television.
Imagine that for a second -- if every network agreed to go dark for three or four hours simultaneously for an evening on the anniversary of September 11th. (They would have to promote the hell out of it beforehand for safety's sake -- otherwise half the population would go batshit because they'd think someone had attacked and knocked out all the television stations...)
Yes, the Star Wars movies have had plenty of cutesy characters, but Jar Jar had far too much screen time and his "antics" were a lot more intrusive than anything in the first three films. The accent was absolutely horrid. (Note to George: Knock it off with the accents. Really.)
I gather I'm in the minority on this issue.
That's a pretty safe bet. I'm expecting Jar Jar to make a brief appearance, just because Lucas doesn't want to back down completely and admit the character was a mistake, but I figure he'll be pushed to the background pretty quickly -- maybe even killed. (Oh please, oh please...)
I promise you, your life will not be significantly altered if you refuse to pay $10 to be dissapointed for two hours.
Nor will my life be significantly altered if I do pay $7.50 (going rate in Denver) to see the next movie. I wasn't disappointed with Phantom Menace, and I expect that I'll enjoy this one as well. Granted, there were some parts of PM that were lacking, but overall I enjoyed it.
Even if Clones is disappointing, it won't be the end of the world...but if it's good, I'd rather see it on a decent-sized screen.
I'm part of a generation which grew up expecting a nuclear war.
No kidding. I was sure that at any moment during Reagan's presidency there would be a nuclear war. It went away (mostly) after the Soviet Union crumbled, but it's been nagging my brain since Sept. 11.
It's really hard to take a day job seriously anymore, or worring about retirement... it seems like such a joke now. If you're not going to be killed, then some asshole like Ken Lay will vaporize your 401K and you'll spend your retirement years scraping for change, working at McDonalds or something just to get by...
Does this mean I get to do cocaine again?
Well, this is the 21st century. Try Ecstacy, I think it's cheaper. (I admit to being clueless on this front -- I've never tried either...)
Apparently someone's editor decided they had to find a way to mention "iMac" in the story, and the writer had to fit the story around it. Or they decided that since Apple is supposed to be the innovator, someone had to be copying them, not the other way around.
This story would have gotten a solid "F" in J-school, but apparently it's good enough for C|Net to run and for Slashdot to post. High school newspapers have higher quality standards than this.
Three developers out of all of KDE's developers criticize the KDE dev process and it's newsworthy?
Now it's guaranteed to be picked up by other "news" sources and generate a bunch of useless controversy. Sometimes when I see what Newsforge (gag) puts out, I wonder if they have a secret agenda to discredit Open Source development. A quote from someone (Tina) at Newsforge about their policy of posting any and everything:
I've gotten this response from them before, and they don't seem to understand the difference between filtering crap and saying that they shouldn't post critical or negative commentary. Yes, by all means, run a negative story if it's important, but don't run crap -- positive or negative. Posting a diatribe by three KDE developers -- folks, that's crap.
In other words "don't look to us for news, because we don't do perform any kind of quality checking or the typical gatekeeper function you'd expect from real journalists. Someone submits it, we'll post it somewhere."
I'm not saying that it's wrong to report on genuine conflicts or negative stories when they're important, but this really doesn't qualify IMHO. When a site purports to be a news site, there should be some quality checking and filtering going on. Stories that are comprised of nothing more than a rant or stories that are obviously biased or outright false should not be picked up -- or at the very least have a disclaimer attached.
Microsoft must love the fact that Free and Open Source software development discussion takes place in the open where everyone can examine and dissect every personality conflict and internal bitchfest. It makes the Linux and Open Source community look like a bunch of fractious losers while no matter what Microsoft PR's department spews everyone marches in lock-step to it.
Urrrr. No. VMWare is a Virtual PC clone, if anything. Virtual PC was around for quite a while before VMWare. Connectix was founded in 1988 and shipped Virtual PC in 1997. (Their first product was virtual memory...) VMWare, OTOH was founded in 1998 and shipped VMWare in 1999.
That's the problem. Where is he supposed to go for an upstream provider?
That's his problem. Yes, there are plenty of potential problems with the lack of major providers and the consolidation of ISPs. But it's his fault he's been threatened with having his service terminated. He does not have to provide an open relay to run his business. If he cannot find an ISP that will tolerate an open relay, that should say something about how repugnant it is to run an open relay. It's not as if Verio is abusing their position as an upstream provider in this particular case.
I realize it's not popular to say so, but choice is essential for freedom.
I wasn't aware this was unpopular. The argument you seem to be making is that since there aren't very many major providers, they should have to tolerate customers who ultimately harm their other customers, refuse to follow their Terms of Service and cost the company untold amounts of money by wasting bandwidth and spreading virii. Remember, his open relay is probably spewing spam into hundreds or thousands of inboxes owned by other Verio customers -- chewing up bandwidth and other Verio resources and annoying their other customers -- not to mention giving Verio a reputation as a provider that tolerates open relays. (Someone else mentioned that Verio hosts other spammers. That doesn't mean that they shouldn't kick Gilmore, but they should also be getting rid of the other spammers as well.)
Whether there are four major ISPs or four hundred, none of them should have to tolerate a customer like Gilmore. Endorsing their ability to kick a customer who runs an open relay is not an endorsement of any of their other business practices.
If a smaller ISP hosted Gilmore, would it be okay for them to kick him? Should a mom and pop ISP have to host someone like Gilmore? If not, Verio should not be required to either.
It's not his fault people are using his service illegally
It's his fault that they are able to, however. He is aware of the potential for harm and does nothing (or very little) to abate the problem.
The question is really this: does Verio have the right to cut him off? I'd say they do. It's their network, they receive lots of complaints, ill-will and their other customers suffer because of this man's actions.
The difference between his situation and the file-sharing services is this: He is buying a service from Verio, they have a right to set the terms of service. They are not a government entity, they are not bound by any first amendment considerations -- even if this is a free speech issue, which I would say it is not.
OTOH, the file-sharing services have done nothing wrong by providing their service. The record companies should be going after individual users, not Kazaa or Napster or Morpheus if they're guilty of trading copyrighted material. They offer a legitimate service and there is no easy way to filter "legal" content from "illegal" content. There are easy ways to filter who can use a mail server and who can't. The fact is that this jackass doesn't want to set up authentication, which would solve the problem quite handily
Does this guy's open relay have legitimate uses? Sure, but the fact is he's not providing it on his own network -- he's providing it on someone else's service. Verio has the right -- even the responsibility -- to terminate his service. The whole thing about MAPS and so forth is a red herring -- they simply publish a list of offending servers, which many ISPs and users choose to subscribe to. If people didn't feel so strongly about getting spam, they wouldn't use these lists.
I don't believe the record companies should have the right to terminate the existence of a service that might infringe on their interest when it also has legitimate uses -- they should have to pursue the people who are actually guilty of sharing copyrighted material. Whether Morpheus or Kazaa should cancel the service of people who abuse their service or assist the RIAA in prosecuting them is the real question. They probably should, though that would make them very unpopular.
The fact here is that the RIAA is loathe to try to sue 200,000 people who are illegally copying material because that would be a PR disaster. Even if they could make their case in court, they would piss off millions of people -- and that's not good for business. Verio is already pissing off people by allowing this open relay to continue to exist.
when Verio gets a clue, they may get their laywers in on the game and sue him.
I don't see why they don't just cut him off entirely. Surely their ToS allow them to disconnect any customer who has an open relay.
Since they have that option, I can't see that they'd have grounds for action. But it's insane that Verio is letting this loudmouth intimidate them into continuing his service.
I do wonder if it'd be possible for another ISP or the recipients of spam sent through his relay to sue him for negligence. Wish I had the money to do so.
"Dear God" was a fairly big hit, depending on your definitions of "Hit" and "Big" and also where you live.
It never charted in the US, I don't know about the UK. It got a bit of radio play and even made rotation on MTV, but was pulled pretty quickly after PDs realized what the lyrics were...
Slashdot Mirror
This is hardly convincing evidence. An iMac might be a better machine than the Dell model you chose -- but how about the cost of building your own (which is not an option with any Apple machine...) or other comparable machines? Apple REALLY sucks on cost when you look at high end machines. And I don't really buy the "G4 is better than P4" line of reasoning either. I prefer Athlons to Intel chips, partly because they provide great performance at a lower price, and partly because I don't care for Intel as a company -- but the point is that Athlons are available for PCs and the cost of a comparable Athlon-based PC is way cheaper than an Apple machine.
The bottom line is that the only component that Apple machines have that might be considered an advantage is the G4 chips. Everything else is basically the same as a PC, so it hardly justifies the price differential. Particularly on models like the iMac which are basically appliances -- you'll never be able to slap a new motherboard & chip into your iMac, or add a new video card or sound card. It's basically a sealed box -- not what many people are looking for.
However, there are *far* more Mac OS X applications out there than there are Linux applications, despite your statement. This is mostly because most Linux applications happily run on OS X (and more and more are coming precompiled in a double-clickable installer).
This is a load of crap. I've tried compiling a number of programs under OS X with mixed success. If you're a guru you can get more apps working, but for the average person - forget it. I gave up on OS X about six months ago and sold my iMac, so I can't test this -- but I seriously doubt it's anything like easy to compile a GNOME or KDE application for OS X. Some apps like MySQl and Apache are now available and easier to install -- but a lot of the client apps are not.
What about asking why people aren't considering Apple? Seems to me they're just soliciting favorable commentary.
If I was in Apple's marketing department I'd be asking "what would it take to get you to switch to Macs?" not "why are you thinking about buying a Mac?" or "Now that we have your money, what do you think?"
There are two main things stopping Apple from gaining greater market share: Price and Applications. They cost too damn much (for what you get) and don't have all the apps that Windows (or even Linux, these days) has.
I'd really like to see Apple get their act together and take about 30% of the desktop market instead of the pathetic share they have now. I'd be happy as a clam if Linux could steal just 20% of the market, give Apple 30% and let Microsoft keep the majority but keep them on their toes.
Actually, it's the bullet that causes the major problems. It takes a lot more effort to kill someone with a gun and no bullets...especially if they're faster than you are...
Instead it's claiming ownership over derived works as well.
No one is forcing you -- or anyone else -- to make use of GPL'ed code. Why aren't the people who complain about the constraints of the GPL complaining about the constraints of having to license commercial libraries or other code? Lots of companies charge fees for code to be included in commercial apps. You have to pay to use their code. You have a choice whether or not to use the code. It's the same with the GPL, except the people who use the GPL want a different kind of payment. If that payment is unacceptable to you -- fine. Don't use it. There seems to be a large number of people who think that requiring money for code is fine, but requiring code for code is somehow a horrible thing.
The real FUD is the perpetual claims of GPLers that somehow they would be deprived of their code is someone else used it in a commercial app.
The fear is that if a company, say Microsoft, "embraces and extends" an application they will make changes that cause the derivative program to be incompatible with the original and then the derivative program becomes the standard and users are forced to go with a proprietary application. Whether this happens in every instance or not is debatable, but that is the reason for concern. I don't believe that it qualifies as FUD -- whether you agree with the conclusion or not. It's a legitimate reason for concern, unlike real FUD.
Have you ever exhibited at a trade show? They have a freaking three-inch three-ring binder full of rules. When I attended LinuxWorld Expo and some of the other Linux trade shows, I got to see the kind of ridiculous rules that they come up with -- if you try hard enough, you can point out a violation at any booth. That's not an accident, promoters want ways they can shut down any exhibitor that they have a problem with. Hell, most shows have rules that forbid exhibitors to plug in their own electrical components or stand on a ladder. I'm not kidding. It might be different in Germany, but since most shows are held in facilities that are union shops, any work that could conceivably be done by a union worker (and charged for, of course) is verboten for exhibitors. I highly doubt that Microsoft didn't break several rules themselves, but Sony wasn't standing around trying to catch them at it.
It's very easy to believe that Sony (or any other company) could be unaware of a rule -- and other posts seem to suggest Sony wasn't the only booth allowing people to play the consoles. The promoters frequently wink at violations, especially when they come around after the first day or two of the show to get your company to re-up for next time.
This was a case of Microsoft digging up anything they could think of to try to harm a competitor -- to try to prevent people seeing a comparison between the Xbox and PS2.
I would venture a guess that your experiences have been atypical. I'm pretty sure that Ambrosia has done what they can to ensure that people will have an easy path to registration.
I've only registered two shareware programs, both times it was a snap.
Since I started using Linux there isn't much that I want to do that isn't solved by Free/Open Source software. But, when I was doing the Windows thing I found a few shareware proggys that I liked and I registered them when they became programs that I relied on. However, I never would have mailed in a check -- if I wouldn't have been able to pay online I wouldn't have registered.
Now that there are several easy ways for merchants to collect money online (Yahoo!, PayPal -- even though PayPal seems a little sleezy these days...) there should be no reason why it should be difficult.
remote assistance is much more efficient than VNC
Maybe -- but the point of the discussion is whether you're even allowed to use something else.
Microsoft's remote assistance might be better than VNC -- but they should have no right to tell users that they can't use VNC. If you pay for XP (or get it preloaded...) you should be able to use it any way you choose.
I do wonder if that clause in the license was meant to prevent using VNC, or if it was an attempt to prevent multiple users from accessing a single Microsoft box and running multiple instances of Office or something like that. Perhaps the author of the original story should have contacted M$ and asked what their take was on that. I'm sure that they would likely have disavowed that they were trying to prevent using VNC in conjuntion with XP. (I doubt they could enforce it anyway...)
The downside to this, other than potentially having to track down every author is that you'd have to give the author a reason for wanting the license. That would probably compromise the security of the project, at least potentially. Even saying "the use will be classified" is probably too much information in some instances.
I think that the military would be within legal rights to use GPL'ed code without redistribution as long as they were using it internally only.
Unfortunately, many people don't really seem to understand the GPL or its implications. If I download the kernel and modify it, as long as I don't distribute the changes (source or binary) I don't have to tell anyone or give up my code.
WTF?
Your reply has nothing to do with my post. It really has nothing to do with the parent post that I responded to.
then go to court to make them release all their software as Open Source.
More than likely, this wouldn't happen. The most likely outcome would be that a judge would uphold the clause in the GPL that forbids future distribution of GPL'ed code -- but I doubt that a few lines of GPL'ed code would cause a judge to require M$ to GPL, say, Windows.
Even if Microsoft had to GPL something, it's likely they could limit it to one application or library -- for instance, if they used GPL'ed code for something in Word, they would probably only have to GPL that version of Word and could excise the GPL'ed code from that version and release the next version under their normal licensing. Even if they violate the GPL, they still hold the copyright and the worst that could be done is force them to release one GPL'ed version of source code. But using GPL'ed code in one app wouldn't require them to release everything.
It would, however, be a big embarrassment to M$ and I wouldn't mind seeing them squirm a little.
Are you telling me that an actual lawyer or lawyers is responsible for advising a business to hide taxible income and break copyright law? I'm not a lawyer, but isn't that grounds for disbarment?
I think this advice is disgusting. If you don't want to pay for software, don't use it -- particularly for business use. If you can't or won't pay the fees, use free or open source software or go without. I'm no fan of Microsoft, and I think that license fees are outrageous -- but one of the justifications that M$, Adobe and the rest use to excuse their huge license fees is "piracy." I suppose you'd advocate ways for businesses to avoid paying invoices for other services and products.
BTW: your solution is not "100% legal." That implies that you're following the letter of the law, which you are not. Your solution may be 100% prosecution proof, but it is not 100% legal.
Also: didn't the recent warez busts prove that it's not that difficult to get search warrants for private residences to search for "pirated" software? The BSA and SPA are not government agencies, so they can't get a warrant regardless -- the FBI or local law enforcement will be the ones breaking down your door and confiscating your equipment.
What's more depressing, seeing 9/11 footage or watching X-Files on life support?
Oh, gee...let me think about that. What's more depressing...thousands of innocent people dying or a TV series being run into the ground?
Are you so emotionally stunted that you actually find a TV series of failing quality to be more depressing than the attack on the WTC? The waste of thousands of innocent lives and the fact that there are actually people (I use the term very loosely) so full of hate that they're capable of killing themselves and thousands of innocents disturbs me greatly. The fact that Fox didn't pull the plug on the X Files soon enough doesn't really affect me at all.
I'd rather watch anything but more footage of the 9/11 WTC attack.
Why? Because it's unbelievably depressing, and watching yet more footage of the carnage isn't going to help anyone. I'm not saying that people should forget or anything like that, but I'll leave that kind of voyeuristic masturbation to others.
Watching WTC footage isn't "meaningful." It doesn't help anyone. If you really want to do something "meaningful" go donate blood or some of your time to help charities. Go visit a senior's center and spend time with old people who have no family to visit. Write a letter to one of our troops in Afghanistan.
CBS may be doing this with the best of intentions, but the bottom line is they're still capitalizing on a horrible event. If the networks really wanted to do something meaningful they'd take an evening and go dark for three hours so people could spend time with their family or do something in their community instead of numbing themselves with television.
Imagine that for a second -- if every network agreed to go dark for three or four hours simultaneously for an evening on the anniversary of September 11th. (They would have to promote the hell out of it beforehand for safety's sake -- otherwise half the population would go batshit because they'd think someone had attacked and knocked out all the television stations...)
I don't get all the animus towards Jar Jar.
Yes, the Star Wars movies have had plenty of cutesy characters, but Jar Jar had far too much screen time and his "antics" were a lot more intrusive than anything in the first three films. The accent was absolutely horrid. (Note to George: Knock it off with the accents. Really.)
I gather I'm in the minority on this issue.
That's a pretty safe bet. I'm expecting Jar Jar to make a brief appearance, just because Lucas doesn't want to back down completely and admit the character was a mistake, but I figure he'll be pushed to the background pretty quickly -- maybe even killed. (Oh please, oh please...)
I promise you, your life will not be significantly altered if you refuse to pay $10 to be dissapointed for two hours.
Nor will my life be significantly altered if I do pay $7.50 (going rate in Denver) to see the next movie. I wasn't disappointed with Phantom Menace, and I expect that I'll enjoy this one as well. Granted, there were some parts of PM that were lacking, but overall I enjoyed it.
Even if Clones is disappointing, it won't be the end of the world...but if it's good, I'd rather see it on a decent-sized screen.
I'm part of a generation which grew up expecting a nuclear war.
No kidding. I was sure that at any moment during Reagan's presidency there would be a nuclear war. It went away (mostly) after the Soviet Union crumbled, but it's been nagging my brain since Sept. 11.
It's really hard to take a day job seriously anymore, or worring about retirement... it seems like such a joke now. If you're not going to be killed, then some asshole like Ken Lay will vaporize your 401K and you'll spend your retirement years scraping for change, working at McDonalds or something just to get by...
Does this mean I get to do cocaine again?
Well, this is the 21st century. Try Ecstacy, I think it's cheaper. (I admit to being clueless on this front -- I've never tried either...)
Apparently someone's editor decided they had to find a way to mention "iMac" in the story, and the writer had to fit the story around it. Or they decided that since Apple is supposed to be the innovator, someone had to be copying them, not the other way around.
This story would have gotten a solid "F" in J-school, but apparently it's good enough for C|Net to run and for Slashdot to post. High school newspapers have higher quality standards than this.
merely that there are certainly two sides to this issue.
Hallelujah! Now, could someone beat the Slashdot and Newsforge *kaf* "editors" with a cluebat so they'll figure that out?
If they have to post crap like this, the least they could do is give a direct link to the actual mail archive and a link to some of the rebuttal.
Three developers out of all of KDE's developers criticize the KDE dev process and it's newsworthy?
Now it's guaranteed to be picked up by other "news" sources and generate a bunch of useless controversy. Sometimes when I see what Newsforge (gag) puts out, I wonder if they have a secret agenda to discredit Open Source development. A quote from someone (Tina) at Newsforge about their policy of posting any and everything:
we assume that our readers are smart enough to separate the sheep from the goats
I've gotten this response from them before, and they don't seem to understand the difference between filtering crap and saying that they shouldn't post critical or negative commentary. Yes, by all means, run a negative story if it's important, but don't run crap -- positive or negative. Posting a diatribe by three KDE developers -- folks, that's crap.
In other words "don't look to us for news, because we don't do perform any kind of quality checking or the typical gatekeeper function you'd expect from real journalists. Someone submits it, we'll post it somewhere."
I'm not saying that it's wrong to report on genuine conflicts or negative stories when they're important, but this really doesn't qualify IMHO. When a site purports to be a news site, there should be some quality checking and filtering going on. Stories that are comprised of nothing more than a rant or stories that are obviously biased or outright false should not be picked up -- or at the very least have a disclaimer attached.
Microsoft must love the fact that Free and Open Source software development discussion takes place in the open where everyone can examine and dissect every personality conflict and internal bitchfest. It makes the Linux and Open Source community look like a bunch of fractious losers while no matter what Microsoft PR's department spews everyone marches in lock-step to it.
It's a vmware clone.
Urrrr. No. VMWare is a Virtual PC clone, if anything. Virtual PC was around for quite a while before VMWare. Connectix was founded in 1988 and shipped Virtual PC in 1997. (Their first product was virtual memory...) VMWare, OTOH was founded in 1998 and shipped VMWare in 1999.
That's the problem. Where is he supposed to go for an upstream provider?
That's his problem. Yes, there are plenty of potential problems with the lack of major providers and the consolidation of ISPs. But it's his fault he's been threatened with having his service terminated. He does not have to provide an open relay to run his business. If he cannot find an ISP that will tolerate an open relay, that should say something about how repugnant it is to run an open relay. It's not as if Verio is abusing their position as an upstream provider in this particular case.
I realize it's not popular to say so, but choice is essential for freedom.
I wasn't aware this was unpopular. The argument you seem to be making is that since there aren't very many major providers, they should have to tolerate customers who ultimately harm their other customers, refuse to follow their Terms of Service and cost the company untold amounts of money by wasting bandwidth and spreading virii. Remember, his open relay is probably spewing spam into hundreds or thousands of inboxes owned by other Verio customers -- chewing up bandwidth and other Verio resources and annoying their other customers -- not to mention giving Verio a reputation as a provider that tolerates open relays. (Someone else mentioned that Verio hosts other spammers. That doesn't mean that they shouldn't kick Gilmore, but they should also be getting rid of the other spammers as well.)
Whether there are four major ISPs or four hundred, none of them should have to tolerate a customer like Gilmore. Endorsing their ability to kick a customer who runs an open relay is not an endorsement of any of their other business practices.
If a smaller ISP hosted Gilmore, would it be okay for them to kick him? Should a mom and pop ISP have to host someone like Gilmore? If not, Verio should not be required to either.
It's not his fault people are using his service illegally
It's his fault that they are able to, however. He is aware of the potential for harm and does nothing (or very little) to abate the problem.
The question is really this: does Verio have the right to cut him off? I'd say they do. It's their network, they receive lots of complaints, ill-will and their other customers suffer because of this man's actions.
The difference between his situation and the file-sharing services is this: He is buying a service from Verio, they have a right to set the terms of service. They are not a government entity, they are not bound by any first amendment considerations -- even if this is a free speech issue, which I would say it is not.
OTOH, the file-sharing services have done nothing wrong by providing their service. The record companies should be going after individual users, not Kazaa or Napster or Morpheus if they're guilty of trading copyrighted material. They offer a legitimate service and there is no easy way to filter "legal" content from "illegal" content. There are easy ways to filter who can use a mail server and who can't. The fact is that this jackass doesn't want to set up authentication, which would solve the problem quite handily
Does this guy's open relay have legitimate uses? Sure, but the fact is he's not providing it on his own network -- he's providing it on someone else's service. Verio has the right -- even the responsibility -- to terminate his service. The whole thing about MAPS and so forth is a red herring -- they simply publish a list of offending servers, which many ISPs and users choose to subscribe to. If people didn't feel so strongly about getting spam, they wouldn't use these lists.
I don't believe the record companies should have the right to terminate the existence of a service that might infringe on their interest when it also has legitimate uses -- they should have to pursue the people who are actually guilty of sharing copyrighted material. Whether Morpheus or Kazaa should cancel the service of people who abuse their service or assist the RIAA in prosecuting them is the real question. They probably should, though that would make them very unpopular.
The fact here is that the RIAA is loathe to try to sue 200,000 people who are illegally copying material because that would be a PR disaster. Even if they could make their case in court, they would piss off millions of people -- and that's not good for business. Verio is already pissing off people by allowing this open relay to continue to exist.
when Verio gets a clue, they may get their laywers in on the game and sue him.
I don't see why they don't just cut him off entirely. Surely their ToS allow them to disconnect any customer who has an open relay.
Since they have that option, I can't see that they'd have grounds for action. But it's insane that Verio is letting this loudmouth intimidate them into continuing his service.
I do wonder if it'd be possible for another ISP or the recipients of spam sent through his relay to sue him for negligence. Wish I had the money to do so.
"Dear God" was a fairly big hit, depending on your definitions of "Hit" and "Big" and also where you live.
It never charted in the US, I don't know about the UK. It got a bit of radio play and even made rotation on MTV, but was pulled pretty quickly after PDs realized what the lyrics were...