yeah but the two operating systems aren't named the same thing - one is "Microsoft Windows" and the other is "LindowsOS". "Microsoft Windows" is generally referred to as 'Windows 2000' or 'Windows XP' further clarifying the difference.
So you can't name an operating system 'Windows' because that already exists (fair enough), but now you can't name an operating system called something that rhymes with windows?
that's great if you have directTV. For those that don't TIVOs are significantly more expensive.
I had DISH and their PVR (not as functional as a Tivo) and got hooked. But then I had to go back to the cable world for broadband and found myself missing the PVR so I hooked up an old PC with a $30 ATI all-in-wonder and a 200 GB HD ($130) and showshifter($50) with digiguide ($10) and xmltv (free) and DGShow (free). Didn't take more than a couple of hours to get everything installed and setup - $220 plus a doorstop I wasn't using anyways. And it's an MP3 player, and a game-y type machine, with web browsing and email.
I dunno - I'd rather have an expert in wireless security spend his (or her) time securing wirelessly, than learning html...it's bad enough engineers have to make pretty powerpoint slides to get funding from PHBs - let's be happy about the information presented and not how they managed to get the information to the web.
but to answer your question - it has been reported a bit in the last 6 months or so...mostly about how it will improve security, and that it will be a while before it is available.
Seeing as the original poster was talking $200, I don't think $1700 is a realistic recommendation - even if he could sell it for $2000 in a year for a $300 profit, if you have $200 you cannot buy a $1700 camera.
Other posters have suggested manual mode cameras. These are great for learning photography, but while you are learning you won't be taking many good pictures with this camera. A relatively modern camera will allow you to go into full manual mode for learning, but will also have the full-auto mode (and many modes in between) to allow you to take great pictures at events (for example Christmas while you are enjoying an eggnog or 6 and don't want to bother manually setting everything to get a picture of uncle Bill spewing beer out his nose).
It's sort of the best of both worlds, and a used model can be found on your budget.
I cannot emphasize enough the benefit of the near-instantaneous of digital, but if you don't have the cash up front it is irrelevant as a prosumer digital (even non-SLR) is gonna cost you about $500 minimum.
All that being said, I can't help but mention I have two Canons (a G1 Digital and a Rebel SLR) that are now doorstops (after about 3 years each) - they failed (in different ways) with no real abuse I can think of. The cost of repairing was not worth it, so I now have Nikons. Only had them for 6 months or so, so I can't comment on their durability, but I'm sort of anti-Canon at the moment (although they both took great pictures until they broke).
it's a quarter per unit. Most of these things (cameras, PDAs etc) cost in the hundreds of dollars range/unit. BFD. If they sell more than 250 000 units, it's even less than that. Again, BFD.
They shouldn't have used someone else's IP in the first place, but the cost of using it now is pretty trivial.
It makes absolutely no sense why the RIAA would give a damn about DeCSS - it enables people to watch their over-priced DVDs in foreign countries. This requires at least some purchase. What's the deal?
I'm sure that the RIAA doesn't really give a damn about DeCSS - they are more concerned about MP3 file sharing seeing as they are the recording artist association - it's mainly the MPAA that is concerned about DeCSS.
Did you read the article? Did it mention RIAA anywhere?
Colecovision wasn't a rival of the 2600 - it was a replacement with 5 year newer technology. You didn't buy a Colecovision instead of a 2600 - you begged your parents to buy you one so you could throw your 5 year old Atari in the trash.
You may be correct about the 45 crap games, or rather 45 games, some of which appeal to others, but not you (or me). However let's say there are 10 games you used to play and enjoy - that's $2 per game that you'd use. If you play each of those games for 15 minutes, that's 2.5 hours of entertainment for $20 - that's about the equivalent in time and prices of a movie with popcorn and a drink.
Therefore, it's questionable whether this is really circumventing a copy-protection mechanism, since this method only allows the "rightful licensee" to extract the AAC. If that's not fair use, then I don't know what is.
This is absolutely circumventing copy protection, no question about it. The copy protection is there, preventing copying, and you make a copy, thus circumventing copy protection.
Whether this act in and of itself is a copyright violation, or other illegal act depends upon what you do with the copy and where you happen to be when you do it (ie which laws are applicable in the country in which you are located). It certainly may be covered under 'fair use' guidelines, then again it may not, but that is a separate issue.
You seem to have gotten a funny moderation, but I suspect you were serious.
The 'rights online' part probably has to do with the 'theft of communication' charge, that would make wardriving punishable under canadian law but up to ten years in prison.
i won't comment on whether that is appropriate or not, but it is certainly something to keep in mind if you were to feel like 'borrowing' some bandwidth from others via their wireless network.
what specific technical feature of Linux prevents spyware from working on it? As far as I know a process running under a user account can access the network. It can also access the keystrokes of the user (actually with X, it can access the keystrokes of users on other X desktops if their security is not set up correctly). So what is stopping the spyware besides different default settings in some distributions and applications?
I disagree...it is MUCH better to have the entire program destroyed and no trace left whatsoever that the key logger/trojan/whatever you want to call it was there. That way a post mortem could not determine whether a specific machine was compromised.
What would be scarier to you if you were in charge of machines with valuable data on them - a warning that said there was a potential breach, and check here, here and here to see if you were affected, or a warning that said there was a potential breach, however there is no way to determine whether you were affected or not? The latter situation certainly sounds scarier to me (if I acutally had anything that mattered on my PC)
$4000 per pair is NOT really that expensive - look at the list price of current phones - they are generally $300->$400 for a relatively fancy one, and over $500 for the PDA versions.
So $2000 vs $500 is not that big of a deal, especially for the corporate execs will find this very useful (or at lesat NAH6 will be hoping they find it very useful). After all they are spending the peons' raises and not their own money:)
You are absolutely right - it is up to them to decide - however the other articles from that issue are there, so I doubt it is a question of 'space', or a simple re-organization. If so, then the article would still appear in the contents, however without the hyperlink, or a valid link to a page that indicates that the article has been removed.
The issue is NOT that they have removed it, but why? If it was because of political pressure, then the system really needs to be looked at. If it is because someone at TIME thinks the article should have been removed, then I, as a reader would like to know what bias exists now, that did not exist before.
I think you have not read the article, or have misunderstood it. Belkin is sending you to an ad on their website instead of the page you requested via their hardware that you've already purchased.
Now if Belkin gave me my router for free, with the caveat that it would do this, I could certainly accept it, like I accept the ads at the top of Slashdot. However I've already paid for the router (and I really have - my wireless router at home is a Belkin) and expect it to be a router, not a Belkin ad distributor.
I would prefer to be able to ride my mountain bike along some trails, and not have my view of nature obscured by your house. What gives you the right to put up a house on your property that pollutes my visual environment?
It's not that I like seeing billboards and ads on park benches but I have as much right to ask you to remove your house as I do to ask them to remove their ads.
And what were they doing between March and September of this year? Working on the time machine to get their $10 million from the future into the past so they wouldn't be working on contingency?
actually it's in 2038 and we've already started the conversion, and it seems like it will last us for a bit, of course perhaps I'm being shortsighted...
from 64-bit UNIX time would be safe for the indefinite future, as this variable won't overflow until 2**63 or 9,223,372,036,854,775,808 (over nine quintillion) seconds after the beginning of the UNIX epoch - corresponding to GMT 15:30:08, Sunday, December 4, 292,277,026,596 C.E. This is a rather artificial and arbitrary date, considering that it is several times the average lifespan of a sun like our solar system's, the very same celestial body by which we measure time. The sun is estimated at present to be about four and a half billion years old, and it may last another five billion years before running out of hydrogen and turning into a white dwarf star.
Slashdot Mirror
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
okay everyone who didn't read this please respond to this comment
The market for Lindows is greater in the US than outside of it
HUH????
ARE YOU KIDDING? Please tell me you're kidding...
He's kidding right?
yeah but the two operating systems aren't named the same thing - one is "Microsoft Windows" and the other is "LindowsOS". "Microsoft Windows" is generally referred to as 'Windows 2000' or 'Windows XP' further clarifying the difference.
So you can't name an operating system 'Windows' because that already exists (fair enough), but now you can't name an operating system called something that rhymes with windows?
Will Tivo record directly to MPEG4? DivX? XVid?
Just wondering...
Total $398... And you don't have to do any work.
that's great if you have directTV. For those that don't TIVOs are significantly more expensive.
I had DISH and their PVR (not as functional as a Tivo) and got hooked. But then I had to go back to the cable world for broadband and found myself missing the PVR so I hooked up an old PC with a $30 ATI all-in-wonder and a 200 GB HD ($130) and showshifter($50) with digiguide ($10) and xmltv (free) and DGShow (free). Didn't take more than a couple of hours to get everything installed and setup - $220 plus a doorstop I wasn't using anyways. And it's an MP3 player, and a game-y type machine, with web browsing and email.
I dunno - I'd rather have an expert in wireless security spend his (or her) time securing wirelessly, than learning html...it's bad enough engineers have to make pretty powerpoint slides to get funding from PHBs - let's be happy about the information presented and not how they managed to get the information to the web.
but to answer your question - it has been reported a bit in the last 6 months or so...mostly about how it will improve security, and that it will be a while before it is available.
Seeing as the original poster was talking $200, I don't think $1700 is a realistic recommendation - even if he could sell it for $2000 in a year for a $300 profit, if you have $200 you cannot buy a $1700 camera.
Other posters have suggested manual mode cameras. These are great for learning photography, but while you are learning you won't be taking many good pictures with this camera. A relatively modern camera will allow you to go into full manual mode for learning, but will also have the full-auto mode (and many modes in between) to allow you to take great pictures at events (for example Christmas while you are enjoying an eggnog or 6 and don't want to bother manually setting everything to get a picture of uncle Bill spewing beer out his nose).
It's sort of the best of both worlds, and a used model can be found on your budget.
I cannot emphasize enough the benefit of the near-instantaneous of digital, but if you don't have the cash up front it is irrelevant as a prosumer digital (even non-SLR) is gonna cost you about $500 minimum.
All that being said, I can't help but mention I have two Canons (a G1 Digital and a Rebel SLR) that are now doorstops (after about 3 years each) - they failed (in different ways) with no real abuse I can think of. The cost of repairing was not worth it, so I now have Nikons. Only had them for 6 months or so, so I can't comment on their durability, but I'm sort of anti-Canon at the moment (although they both took great pictures until they broke).
it's a quarter per unit. Most of these things (cameras, PDAs etc) cost in the hundreds of dollars range/unit. BFD. If they sell more than 250 000 units, it's even less than that. Again, BFD.
They shouldn't have used someone else's IP in the first place, but the cost of using it now is pretty trivial.
The remedy is for companies not to use patented code in their products without getting the rights to that patented code up front.
Using open source is one solution, developing stuff yourself is another way. Using others IP without an agreement with them is not a way.
It makes absolutely no sense why the RIAA would give a damn about DeCSS - it enables people to watch their over-priced DVDs in foreign countries. This requires at least some purchase. What's the deal?
I'm sure that the RIAA doesn't really give a damn about DeCSS - they are more concerned about MP3 file sharing seeing as they are the recording artist association - it's mainly the MPAA that is concerned about DeCSS.
Did you read the article? Did it mention RIAA anywhere?
Timeline:
1977 Atari releases 2600
1980 Mattel releases Intellivison
1982 Coleco Releases ColecoVision
Colecovision wasn't a rival of the 2600 - it was a replacement with 5 year newer technology. You didn't buy a Colecovision instead of a 2600 - you begged your parents to buy you one so you could throw your 5 year old Atari in the trash.
You may be correct about the 45 crap games, or rather 45 games, some of which appeal to others, but not you (or me). However let's say there are 10 games you used to play and enjoy - that's $2 per game that you'd use. If you play each of those games for 15 minutes, that's 2.5 hours of entertainment for $20 - that's about the equivalent in time and prices of a movie with popcorn and a drink.
Unless--well, it is possible that they are trade secrets. But then why is Best Buy waving around the DMCA, a copyright law?
it would be hard to convince a judge that anything is a trade secret if you purposely publish it and send it out freely to millions of people
Therefore, it's questionable whether this is really circumventing a copy-protection mechanism, since this method only allows the "rightful licensee" to extract the AAC. If that's not fair use, then I don't know what is.
This is absolutely circumventing copy protection, no question about it. The copy protection is there, preventing copying, and you make a copy, thus circumventing copy protection.
Whether this act in and of itself is a copyright violation, or other illegal act depends upon what you do with the copy and where you happen to be when you do it (ie which laws are applicable in the country in which you are located). It certainly may be covered under 'fair use' guidelines, then again it may not, but that is a separate issue.
You seem to have gotten a funny moderation, but I suspect you were serious.
The 'rights online' part probably has to do with the 'theft of communication' charge, that would make wardriving punishable under canadian law but up to ten years in prison.
i won't comment on whether that is appropriate or not, but it is certainly something to keep in mind if you were to feel like 'borrowing' some bandwidth from others via their wireless network.
what specific technical feature of Linux prevents spyware from working on it? As far as I know a process running under a user account can access the network. It can also access the keystrokes of the user (actually with X, it can access the keystrokes of users on other X desktops if their security is not set up correctly). So what is stopping the spyware besides different default settings in some distributions and applications?
I disagree...it is MUCH better to have the entire program destroyed and no trace left whatsoever that the key logger/trojan/whatever you want to call it was there. That way a post mortem could not determine whether a specific machine was compromised.
What would be scarier to you if you were in charge of machines with valuable data on them - a warning that said there was a potential breach, and check here, here and here to see if you were affected, or a warning that said there was a potential breach, however there is no way to determine whether you were affected or not? The latter situation certainly sounds scarier to me (if I acutally had anything that mattered on my PC)
$4000 per pair is NOT really that expensive - look at the list price of current phones - they are generally $300->$400 for a relatively fancy one, and over $500 for the PDA versions.
:)
So $2000 vs $500 is not that big of a deal, especially for the corporate execs will find this very useful (or at lesat NAH6 will be hoping they find it very useful). After all they are spending the peons' raises and not their own money
You are absolutely right - it is up to them to decide - however the other articles from that issue are there, so I doubt it is a question of 'space', or a simple re-organization. If so, then the article would still appear in the contents, however without the hyperlink, or a valid link to a page that indicates that the article has been removed.
The issue is NOT that they have removed it, but why? If it was because of political pressure, then the system really needs to be looked at. If it is because someone at TIME thinks the article should have been removed, then I, as a reader would like to know what bias exists now, that did not exist before.
I think you have not read the article, or have misunderstood it. Belkin is sending you to an ad on their website instead of the page you requested via their hardware that you've already purchased.
Now if Belkin gave me my router for free, with the caveat that it would do this, I could certainly accept it, like I accept the ads at the top of Slashdot. However I've already paid for the router (and I really have - my wireless router at home is a Belkin) and expect it to be a router, not a Belkin ad distributor.
My next router will certainly NOT be a Belkin.
I would prefer to be able to ride my mountain bike along some trails, and not have my view of nature obscured by your house. What gives you the right to put up a house on your property that pollutes my visual environment?
It's not that I like seeing billboards and ads on park benches but I have as much right to ask you to remove your house as I do to ask them to remove their ads.
Hardly working on contingency.
And what were they doing between March and September of this year? Working on the time machine to get their $10 million from the future into the past so they wouldn't be working on contingency?
actually it's in 2038 and we've already started the conversion, and it seems like it will last us for a bit, of course perhaps I'm being shortsighted...
from
64-bit UNIX time would be safe for the indefinite future, as this variable won't overflow until 2**63 or 9,223,372,036,854,775,808 (over nine quintillion) seconds after the beginning of the UNIX epoch - corresponding to GMT 15:30:08, Sunday, December 4, 292,277,026,596 C.E. This is a rather artificial and arbitrary date, considering that it is several times the average lifespan of a sun like our solar system's, the very same celestial body by which we measure time. The sun is estimated at present to be about four and a half billion years old, and it may last another five billion years before running out of hydrogen and turning into a white dwarf star.
and it will remain secure until someone breaks it.
Imagine thinking you can trust a 'from' address, when you can't!
If copyrights were only applicable to works for sale, then it seems SCO has won since you couldn't copyright Linux if you didn't sell it.