This thing looks great but its
pricey when you compare it to the costs of off the shelf components. [snip] Currently, you can get a mini-ATX with integrated LAN/video/modem/sound for well under $100 US. Pitch the dimm slots, processor ZIF socket, and PCI/ISA slots for non-expandable, non-upgradeable permanant RAM, processor and a firewire or USB expansion standard. This would cut even more overhead off the cost of the individual components.
What are you smoking? Sure, it sounds good on paper, but have you priced PC104 motherboards lately? That's the form factor you're looking at here, and it's an industry standard so it should be cheap (at least, cheaper than building a custom motherboard from scratch). Find me one with a 486 or better for under $100. No, really, please find me one -- I can imagine a Beowulf culster of them, and I'd love to build one, but at current prices it's just not an option.
By changing these plugins to ActiveX, it increases the possibility that these plugins will stop being supported
on non-Windows platforms.
True, and I know the Microsoft KB article says to switch to ActiveX, but Cringly said ActiveX infringes on the Patent, and I can't see where he's wrong on that point (without looking at the patent, and even then IANAL).
On the other hand, Cringly says.Net is the "solution", but I'm not sure.Net won't violate the patent, either. Well,.Net may not violate it, but.Net won't be able to "embed program objects or applets in the browser", or implement "dynamic, bi-directional communications between Web browsers and external applications" (i.e.,.Net apps running on a server). I'm not sure how.Net is supposed to get around this patent.
I hate to point out the obvious to a Master, but my point was that it could be not just "pretty worthles" but possibly dangerous to have a spare you, because the spare may want some of your parts some day! (unless you keep them on ice).
It may not be a blimp, but it's not a dirigible, either. When most people say "Zeppelin" they really mean "dirigible", the way people mean "facial tissue" when they say "Kleenex". This is like Kimberly Clark making "Kleenex NT" out of polyester instead of cellulose fibers. Just ain't the same, and not worthy of the name.
The half billion cubic feet of hydrogen (if that's an accurate figure) obviously contributed, but it would have been as big a disaster (total loss of hull, loss of some life) if the thing had been filled with helium.
I agree with what you say about C&H, and I can see your point about Peanuts, but if Charlie Brown and his friends "charm faded and faded", it was the way Grandpa's charm fades. Don't you remember ever visiting Grandpa when you really wanted to play with your friends? Don't you remember how much you missed him when he was gone? Peanuts became like family to many people; maybe we didn't read it every day, or even every month, but it was always warm and familiar when we did see it, and now that it's gone there's another empty space in our hearts.
I miss Calvin and Hobbes, too (and Mom and Dad and Suzie). Maybe more than I miss Charlie Brown and Snoopy. But I still miss Snoopy. Goodby, Charlie, and fairwell.
P.S. I don't really miss Milo and Opus much, and I certainly don't miss Steve Dallas or Bill the Cat.
I wasn't FUDing Red Hat. I wasn't FUDing Gateway, either. Funny how you thought I was FUDing one but not the other, when I said almost the exact same about both. Or did you think I was FUDing Gateway but didn't care?
I would have called 'organ factory' the most ethical use
Remember, you don't get adults when you make clones, you get babies. So if you need a new heart, you can't wait 18 or even 16 or 15 years for the clone to become an adult; a baby's heart won't do you much good. If 'organ factory' clonning becomes practical, it will be for the rich, those whose parents can afford to buy them a clone when they're young enough that the clone would be the right age when they might need some parts. An insurance policy, if you will.
OK, so then what happens when your clone needs a part and goes after you to get it?
Of course, it is only a matter of time until someone does publish, probably anonymously, and [HDCP] dies the
death it so richly deserves.
HDCP won't last one year if nobody buys it. Remember Digital Video Express (DIVX)? That's the death they richly deserve. The more money they lose on stupid ideas that nobody will buy, the less likely they'll try it again.
You're absolutely right, which is why it's just as important for Linux distributions to come locked down tight as it is for Windows distributions to come locked down tight. Microsoft isn't listening; are RedHat and the others?
Also, Microsoft is supposed to be open to XP configuration changes by the hardware vendors. Does that extend to default security settings? If so, we can only hope that PC Magazine and the rest will rate new computers on how secure they are out-of-the-box. Are Dell, Compaq, Gateway, and the others listening? Is the computer press listening? If I know Dells come secure but Gateways ship Microsoft-default-wide-open, I'll recommend Dell to my friends and family. If I know Debian comes secure but RedHat installs wide open I'll recommend Debian. But only if I know, and I'll only know if the press does their job and tells me.
This is a social problem, not a technical problem, and it requires a social solution. That means that everyone in the society must play their part -- the companies, the press, and the consumers. If Microsoft won't be a good citizen, bad on them. But why should they be a good citizen if their enemies are not, and especially if their friends are not?
I agree completely with everything you said, but this line made me LOL! Thanks:-)
P.S. Well, I disagree with one thing, your comment about "maximizing license auction revenues" -- if the FCC (rather, Congress) wanted to maximize the revenues, they'd lease the spectrum rather than sell it.
Oh, I don't know. Anyone making their airplanes out of "high-carbon material" may well be interested in this. Of course, Boeing and Airbus and Lockheed and Beech and Mooney and the rest usually use aluminum, but they also use carbon-fiber composites, which perhaps could qualify as "high-carbon material":-)
If I were Palm, I'd see if there were any common thread, like the same motherboard manufacturer, or the same chip on motherboards from different manufacturers. If there were a common thread other than Palm, I'd look there.
In general, the best thing to do in a situation like this is to appear to care and appear to try to fix it. Even if you really care and eventually don't fix it, if you at least look like you care, the public will cut you some slack. It's sad but true that if you can fake sincerity you can do anything.
It's like when an airplane crashes. You can bend over backward, fly the families in and put them up for free, provide them with emergency cash to tide them over, and act like you care. Or you can blame Boeing or Airbus or the weather or whoever and say it's not your fault. Either way it's a tragedy, but one way you look like a friend and the other way you look like an ogre. It's Palm's choice. They can still fight the lawsuit while looking like they care, or they can just fight the lawsuit and look like any other faceless corporation only concerned with the bottom line.
Given that the Handspring Visor is a pretty nice Palm clone with a non-metalic case, I'd say their best bet is to not upset their customers. If you don't understand what a non-metalic case has to do with it, you haven't been paying attention.
How many hits do you think Slashdot gets a month
that are redirected to slashdot.org from slashdot.com?
Uh, none. Try it. Hits to slashdot.com are directed to slashdot.com. Same content as slashdot.org, but it's still slashdot.com. Once there, try to log in. That's when you'll find yourself redirected to slashdot.org, where you must log in again. You may have to erase your cookies to make this happen, because if you already have a slashdot.org cookie then you don't have to log in there and you miss the fact that your slashdot.com login cookie is ignored by slashdot.org.
Your suggestion to make them use osdn.com/slashdot,
osdn.com/sourceforge, etc. would just make the Internet harder to use.
Gee, you're right. It's so much harder to click on this than it is to click on this.
It's usually a bad idea to make a general rule to deal with a specific case (e.g. your tobacco company
example). I think the goal should be helping people to go where they want to go on the Internet, not to
score political or idealogical points.
Ordinarily I would agree, except that ICANN has already made it a political and idealogical issue. What I propose is not a general rule to deal with a specific case, it's a general rule to deal with a general case: we're running out of domain names, so why not ration them? Limit everyone to one and only one domain. Period. The proposal doesn't target anyone in particular so it's non-discriminatory. Why should anyone be allowed to own a domain they don't use?
The result would be that anyone trying to maintain any kind of brand identity (or just prevent porn sites from
snapping up similar names) would have to employ a full time person just to continually register names.
Sounds like what we need is not more top-level domains, but rather a law that says you may only own one domain. Period. If you're General Motors , you can have gm.com or generalmotors.com, but not both. then Pontiac cannot have pontiac.com, it must be www.gm.com/pontiac or something similar.
Now, this is just my personal prejudice showing, but I think it would solve the problem you raise as well. I support it because I don't think Kraft foods should be allowed to have www.kraft.com; they should be forced to use www.phillipmorris.com/kraft, so everyone knows they're a tobacco company, not a food company. And I'm not picking on Kraft; Nabisco is also a tobacco company, as is Chateau Ste. Michelle and many other companies most people have no idea are in the tobacco business. And I'm not just picking on tobacco; lots of businesses are really fronts for other owners, owners they'd rather their customers didn't know about. What's wrong with shining a little light on the cockroaches, especially if it frees up some domain names?
I thought the whole idea behind.biz was that we were running out of room in.com. Acme Plumbing lost out on acme.com to Acme Anvils and now had a shot at acme.biz. If Acme Anvils gets to pick acme.biz first then what's the point?
This is all so bogus. If all the trademark owners who already have.com domains grab all the.biz domains, then A) what's the point of.biz? and B) what's the problem with.com?
It's all just a scam to sell virtual addresses to people who don't understand the internet. Really, if someone clicks on Slashdot do they really care if the link takes them to "slashdot.org" or "slashdot.com" or "slashdot.biz" or "www.reallycoolwebhost.com/slashdot"? As long as some plug-in doesn't redirect them here, what's the problem? I.e., what's the need for.biz?
What if going to the GM web page triggered one plug-in to open a window looking at the Ford web page, which triggered another plug-in to open a window looking at the Toyota web page, which triggered yet another plug-in to open a window looking at the GM web page, until all your RAM is consumed by dozens of self-opening web pages?
Slashdot Mirror
What are you smoking? Sure, it sounds good on paper, but have you priced PC104 motherboards lately? That's the form factor you're looking at here, and it's an industry standard so it should be cheap (at least, cheaper than building a custom motherboard from scratch). Find me one with a 486 or better for under $100. No, really, please find me one -- I can imagine a Beowulf culster of them, and I'd love to build one, but at current prices it's just not an option.
True, and I know the Microsoft KB article says to switch to ActiveX, but Cringly said ActiveX infringes on the Patent, and I can't see where he's wrong on that point (without looking at the patent, and even then IANAL).
On the other hand, Cringly says .Net is the "solution", but I'm not sure .Net won't violate the patent, either. Well, .Net may not violate it, but .Net won't be able to "embed program objects or applets in the browser", or implement "dynamic, bi-directional communications between Web browsers and external applications" (i.e., .Net apps running on a server). I'm not sure how .Net is supposed to get around this patent.
I miss Calvin and Hobbes, too (and Mom and Dad and Suzie). Maybe more than I miss Charlie Brown and Snoopy. But I still miss Snoopy. Goodby, Charlie, and fairwell.
P.S. I don't really miss Milo and Opus much, and I certainly don't miss Steve Dallas or Bill the Cat.
Nah, Waterson was a piker. C&H only ran a bit over ten years. This dude did his strip for "a long-ass time!"
Don't be so sensitive, this is /.
Remember, you don't get adults when you make clones, you get babies. So if you need a new heart, you can't wait 18 or even 16 or 15 years for the clone to become an adult; a baby's heart won't do you much good. If 'organ factory' clonning becomes practical, it will be for the rich, those whose parents can afford to buy them a clone when they're young enough that the clone would be the right age when they might need some parts. An insurance policy, if you will.
OK, so then what happens when your clone needs a part and goes after you to get it?
Yes, this is informative. But this is helpful.
Very good stuff. Too bad you didn't link it in your post.
HDCP won't last one year if nobody buys it. Remember Digital Video Express (DIVX)? That's the death they richly deserve. The more money they lose on stupid ideas that nobody will buy, the less likely they'll try it again.
Also, Microsoft is supposed to be open to XP configuration changes by the hardware vendors. Does that extend to default security settings? If so, we can only hope that PC Magazine and the rest will rate new computers on how secure they are out-of-the-box. Are Dell, Compaq, Gateway, and the others listening? Is the computer press listening? If I know Dells come secure but Gateways ship Microsoft-default-wide-open, I'll recommend Dell to my friends and family. If I know Debian comes secure but RedHat installs wide open I'll recommend Debian. But only if I know, and I'll only know if the press does their job and tells me.
This is a social problem, not a technical problem, and it requires a social solution. That means that everyone in the society must play their part -- the companies, the press, and the consumers. If Microsoft won't be a good citizen, bad on them. But why should they be a good citizen if their enemies are not, and especially if their friends are not?
I agree completely with everything you said, but this line made me LOL! Thanks :-)
P.S. Well, I disagree with one thing, your comment about "maximizing license auction revenues" -- if the FCC (rather, Congress) wanted to maximize the revenues, they'd lease the spectrum rather than sell it.
If they're only paying for typos, nevermind.
You replied: "The articles listed seems like some sort of press release."
READ this again, and think about it.
Sometimes the posts just moderate themselves...
In general, the best thing to do in a situation like this is to appear to care and appear to try to fix it. Even if you really care and eventually don't fix it, if you at least look like you care, the public will cut you some slack. It's sad but true that if you can fake sincerity you can do anything.
It's like when an airplane crashes. You can bend over backward, fly the families in and put them up for free, provide them with emergency cash to tide them over, and act like you care. Or you can blame Boeing or Airbus or the weather or whoever and say it's not your fault. Either way it's a tragedy, but one way you look like a friend and the other way you look like an ogre. It's Palm's choice. They can still fight the lawsuit while looking like they care, or they can just fight the lawsuit and look like any other faceless corporation only concerned with the bottom line.
Given that the Handspring Visor is a pretty nice Palm clone with a non-metalic case, I'd say their best bet is to not upset their customers. If you don't understand what a non-metalic case has to do with it, you haven't been paying attention.
Uh, none. Try it. Hits to slashdot.com are directed to slashdot.com. Same content as slashdot.org, but it's still slashdot.com. Once there, try to log in. That's when you'll find yourself redirected to slashdot.org, where you must log in again. You may have to erase your cookies to make this happen, because if you already have a slashdot.org cookie then you don't have to log in there and you miss the fact that your slashdot.com login cookie is ignored by slashdot.org.
Gee, you're right. It's so much harder to click on this than it is to click on this.
Ordinarily I would agree, except that ICANN has already made it a political and idealogical issue. What I propose is not a general rule to deal with a specific case, it's a general rule to deal with a general case: we're running out of domain names, so why not ration them? Limit everyone to one and only one domain. Period. The proposal doesn't target anyone in particular so it's non-discriminatory. Why should anyone be allowed to own a domain they don't use?
Sounds like what we need is not more top-level domains, but rather a law that says you may only own one domain. Period. If you're General Motors , you can have gm.com or generalmotors.com, but not both. then Pontiac cannot have pontiac.com, it must be www.gm.com/pontiac or something similar.
Now, this is just my personal prejudice showing, but I think it would solve the problem you raise as well. I support it because I don't think Kraft foods should be allowed to have www.kraft.com; they should be forced to use www.phillipmorris.com/kraft, so everyone knows they're a tobacco company, not a food company. And I'm not picking on Kraft; Nabisco is also a tobacco company, as is Chateau Ste. Michelle and many other companies most people have no idea are in the tobacco business. And I'm not just picking on tobacco; lots of businesses are really fronts for other owners, owners they'd rather their customers didn't know about. What's wrong with shining a little light on the cockroaches, especially if it frees up some domain names?
This is all so bogus. If all the trademark owners who already have .com domains grab all the .biz domains, then A) what's the point of .biz? and B) what's the problem with .com?
It's all just a scam to sell virtual addresses to people who don't understand the internet. Really, if someone clicks on Slashdot do they really care if the link takes them to "slashdot.org" or "slashdot.com" or "slashdot.biz" or "www.reallycoolwebhost.com/slashdot"? As long as some plug-in doesn't redirect them here, what's the problem? I.e., what's the need for .biz?
I figure it's a matter of when, not if.