Plus, you can only be a work-from-home reservation agent if you live in Utah; they won't let you work-from-home from Tulsa, or Ancorage, or Burbank, or Peoria, or Atlanta, or...
by pressing Command + q, you can simply skip the registration process
Ah, yes -- the intuitive Apple interface. Command + q is so obvious! Now, where is the "Command" key -- I see "Control" and "Option", but I don't see any "Command"... Ahhh, so intuitive I could just shit.
You don't assemble the dash board of every car you use before you drive it, why should you with software either?
Excellent analogy! Because if my car's dashboard was software I would re-configure it! Why not? Take the cupholder from that Dodge and the console from this Taurus and the glovebox from an Oldsmobile and the instrument cluster from that old Corvette you loved as a kid. Wouldn't that be great? Obviously we can't because cars are hardware.
That's supposed to be the point of software, right? It's soft -- you should be able to change it! I'm not saying give the end-user a box of parts and tell them to build it themselves, but why can't we change the "default"? Then you just need a half-way decent "default" and let us optimize it ourselves. Heck, that's the whole idea behind emacs, isn't it?
If the open source community could ever get together on this (yeah, right! -- Microsoft will do it way before the O.S. crowd [on the 12th of Never], yet this is a perfect example of how the O.S. community could trump Microsoft) the UI configuration file could be global, so if I wanted "Page Layout" under the "Bozo" menu I could set it once and it would be there for all apps. I'd Pay Money (anyone listening?) for that, but it'll never happen. *sigh*
Excuse me, but you're forgetting the target market. Most Linux users are their sysadmin. In other words, they don't have a "real" one. The few people making any money at this Linux stuff are those who assume the end-user is their own sysadmin, starting with O'Reilly, who sell bunches of books to them.
When I used "real" unix machines I was not allowed/able to install software. If you're the "real" sysadmin of a set of Linux boxes, you should be able to similarly restrict your users.
Why can't programers apply a technical solution to this problem? Let the user configure the UI! It's not that difficult. If the user wants to use Ctrl-J for "Delete The Character To The Left Of The Cursor", let them! What's the problem? If they want "Page Layout" under the Bozo menu, let them put it there. What's the harm in giving us the option?
My biggest complaint about Microsoft is that they almost, but not quite, give you full control over the UI. Why the hell can't they open it all up, not just some of it? And why doesn't all open-source code open it up? (yes, I know, I could fix it myself -- but why should we all have to do this? why isn't it done by the orignal programmers in the first place?)
Note to Microsoft: Seven OS's later and you still won't let me put the "create new directory" icon (which you already have so it's no new code) in Explorer? Meanwhile, I can reach the Internet from the frigging Recycle Bin? Tell me again how you've improved Winoze, because I don't see it.
There's still the issue of Google's cache. Because they cache all pages, including those that copyright holders claim violate the DMCA, the pro-DMCA folks would argue that Google is an accessory after the fact.
It really bugs me that people are judging me for simply answering a question.
Welcome to Slashdot!:-)
Sorry if I misunderstood your position. From your post (the one I responded to) I thought you were a Real media content producer who liked their tools.
What are your firewall settings? I'd consider installing Real (on a throw-away box I wouldn't mind losing if they hacked it) if I had some assurance I could stop Real from hacking my computer. Read their license: it grants them the right to hack your computer! As if I'd allow anything on my box under those terms. Yet people load it all the fucking time! Morons.
Jeeze, at least Micro$oft only nags you to get the updates, they don't force them down your throat unannounced.
I think their viewer is awful, but the rest of it is pretty cool. Try making some actual content with it, and you will likely agree with me.
That's the secret of their business model. It's just like the Clams and celebrities: They pamper the content providers, like you and NPR, who think it's really cool tech. Thus much/most content is only available in Real format, driving the public to use their player. The content providers (you/NPR) fail to understand or ignore the downside to your customers, believing Real's player isn't that bad (although you admit it's "awful"). Well, I've got news for you (and NPR): you've just lost some customers. By choosing a non-open format, you've locked a segment out. By choosing Real in particular, you've locked out those of us who read the license agreements and don't care for their (Real's) terms. Just remember, those of us who read the license are generally in a much higher income bracket than the sheeple who don't. Do you really want to alienate the top-end of your market?
If you don't know what I'm talking about, read the license yourself sometime (you have to download and install the software to read it). They don't put the license for their media creation software on their web site, so I haven't read it, but I assume it doesn't have the same draconian clauses as the player's license, otherwise folks like you and NPR wouldn't dare use it on production computers. You did read the license, didn't you?
Depends. If the call is between customers of two different cell companies (say, Verizon and AT&T) then yes, it goes over POTS between cells. If it's the same company, then no, it goes over their own network.
That's why in an emergency you will often find you can call other customers of your cell provider, but can't call anyone else; the local telco is down and can't route the calls to any other company, but the cell networks are up and can route calls within themselves. This happened last year in the Seattle earthquake.
You forgot coverage. Cell phones don't work at my house (we're behind a hill) or I'd have dropped USQWest a long time ago.
Cell phones don't work in a lot of places, including urban places. I drive two interstates in my commute, and the signal comes and goes -- not even complete coverage on the damn interstates! Rather than put all their money into 2.5G systems, they should build out the 2G coverage -- idiots! And they wonder why they have 3% churn each month, and why they're all losing money. I'd be part of that churn, but there's nobody with any better coverage that the outfit I'm with today.
No kidding. Dr_Marvin_Monroe states exactly what I thought when I read the story. Back-door regulation of the do-it-yourselfer, who doesn't even know this is in the pipeline. If this is approved, community nets are dead.
But if people want the connection, why shouldn't the government change the regulatory environment to make it profitable for companies to do so?
I'm sorry, but you lost me there. I live in a rural area. AT&T Broadband found a profitable way to bring me a high-speed internect connection. Qwest has not found a profitable way to do this, and thus ATTBI is my only option; Qwest has told me flat-out that we will "never" (direct quote) get DSL -- or even POTS faster than 26k -- due to our distance from the switch. And the low rural population density makes it prohibitive for them to build a closer switch.
Now, why on Earth should the government tax ATTBI enough to make DSL profitable for Qwest? Why should the government tax someone's success to subsidize someone else's failure? With your logic, the government should tax Borders and Barnes&Nobel to subsidize Amazon.com! The government should not be in the business of choosing winners and losers in the marketplace.
I certainly don't care what a tax and spend Republican like Bush (oh, and all the rest of them, too) thinks about economics.
You should, since they run things now. They don't care what you think, they only care what their supporters think. They will do what they will with the economy, and to hell with the rest of us. That was the point of my post, which you apparantly missed.
This guys idea would essentially ruin the Carnivore project.
This guy's idea is a load of crap. It won't work. Why? First, let's see how this works: He proposes the ISP put a "vault" on the network to store all the traffic, and the "vault" would be designed to only allow the FBI to see the data a judge permitted them to see with a court order.
OK, assuming for a moment the judge wouldn't simply grant the FBI permission to open the entire vault, this idea totally misses the point of Carnivore. Carnivore is a box that sits on the ISP's network and snoops the traffic, looking for whatever the FBI wants. It would sit on the network right next to the "vault" and see the exact same traffic the "vault" sees; nothing the "vault" does would hid anything from the Carnivore box. Get it?
THIS IDEA WILL NOT WORK.
Ah, Dartmouth, home of Usenet's greatest genius. Must be the water.
Slashdot Mirror
That's supposed to be the point of software, right? It's soft -- you should be able to change it! I'm not saying give the end-user a box of parts and tell them to build it themselves, but why can't we change the "default"? Then you just need a half-way decent "default" and let us optimize it ourselves. Heck, that's the whole idea behind emacs, isn't it?
If the open source community could ever get together on this (yeah, right! -- Microsoft will do it way before the O.S. crowd [on the 12th of Never], yet this is a perfect example of how the O.S. community could trump Microsoft) the UI configuration file could be global, so if I wanted "Page Layout" under the "Bozo" menu I could set it once and it would be there for all apps. I'd Pay Money (anyone listening?) for that, but it'll never happen. *sigh*
When I used "real" unix machines I was not allowed/able to install software. If you're the "real" sysadmin of a set of Linux boxes, you should be able to similarly restrict your users.
My biggest complaint about Microsoft is that they almost, but not quite, give you full control over the UI. Why the hell can't they open it all up, not just some of it? And why doesn't all open-source code open it up? (yes, I know, I could fix it myself -- but why should we all have to do this? why isn't it done by the orignal programmers in the first place?)
Note to Microsoft: Seven OS's later and you still won't let me put the "create new directory" icon (which you already have so it's no new code) in Explorer? Meanwhile, I can reach the Internet from the frigging Recycle Bin ? Tell me again how you've improved Winoze, because I don't see it.
Q: How long will the DMCA be used to trample freedom of speech, expression, and fair use?
A: Until Congress gets it into their thick skulls that this is BAD LEGISLATION, and repeals it.
Sorry if I misunderstood your position. From your post (the one I responded to) I thought you were a Real media content producer who liked their tools.
Jeeze, at least Micro$oft only nags you to get the updates, they don't force them down your throat unannounced.
If you don't know what I'm talking about, read the license yourself sometime (you have to download and install the software to read it). They don't put the license for their media creation software on their web site, so I haven't read it, but I assume it doesn't have the same draconian clauses as the player's license, otherwise folks like you and NPR wouldn't dare use it on production computers. You did read the license, didn't you?
That's why in an emergency you will often find you can call other customers of your cell provider, but can't call anyone else; the local telco is down and can't route the calls to any other company, but the cell networks are up and can route calls within themselves. This happened last year in the Seattle earthquake.
You forgot coverage. Cell phones don't work at my house (we're behind a hill) or I'd have dropped USQWest a long time ago.
Cell phones don't work in a lot of places, including urban places. I drive two interstates in my commute, and the signal comes and goes -- not even complete coverage on the damn interstates! Rather than put all their money into 2.5G systems, they should build out the 2G coverage -- idiots! And they wonder why they have 3% churn each month, and why they're all losing money. I'd be part of that churn, but there's nobody with any better coverage that the outfit I'm with today.
Now, why on Earth should the government tax ATTBI enough to make DSL profitable for Qwest? Why should the government tax someone's success to subsidize someone else's failure? With your logic, the government should tax Borders and Barnes&Nobel to subsidize Amazon.com! The government should not be in the business of choosing winners and losers in the marketplace.
OK, assuming for a moment the judge wouldn't simply grant the FBI permission to open the entire vault, this idea totally misses the point of Carnivore. Carnivore is a box that sits on the ISP's network and snoops the traffic, looking for whatever the FBI wants. It would sit on the network right next to the "vault" and see the exact same traffic the "vault" sees; nothing the "vault" does would hid anything from the Carnivore box. Get it?
THIS IDEA WILL NOT WORK.
Ah, Dartmouth, home of Usenet's greatest genius. Must be the water.
How do you *know* they didn't even try? Please cite references.