The music channels are commercial free. XM makes no false pretenses about other channels. The closest thing that you get to a commercial on the music channels that the DJ might mention a show on another XM channel.
Content that comes from third party sources may include breaks for commericals because they are carried on commercial radio stations. That's just the way those shows are created. They don't make a commercial free version of Al Franken or Michael Savage.
For example, talk radio material comes from major syndicators (e.g. Premier Radio Network, Talk Radio Network, Air America, and ABC Radio Networks). Those shows are programmed to have hard breaks. Go check the websites for the syndicators for the clocks.
Same goes for the simulcasts of the cable news channels (Fox News Channel, MSNBC, CNN, etc.) and the sports radio channels (Fox Sports, Sporting News, and ESPN Radio).
In many instances, the space used for commericals is populated by a number of non-advertisement filler features and blurbs. Among those I've heard:
Audio Book Cafe (description of new audio books) Between the Lines (interview with authors) Earth and Sky (science and nature news) Film Clips (movie reviews from Mike Reynolds) Country Music Report (Natalie Windsor) Megabyte Minute (tech news) Into Tomorrow (tech news with Dave Graveline) Technofile (tech news with Lazlow) NASCAR News (reports from Clarie B. Lang)
Taking the initial reports with a grain of salt. Yonhapnews, whom other press agencies are basing their report, has a article which expresses skepticism on this being a nuclear-related blast. Among the reasons given for the skepticism: mountainous terrain, presense of railways nearby, and proximity to the border with China.
The corruption runs on both sides of the aisle, so lose the sanctimony. The entertainment industry funnels large sums of money into the Democratic National Comittee's warchest as well.
Every once in a while this strategy backfires on companies. Take Eli Lilly & Co.'s recent court loss that invalidated some of their clever patenting on Prozac. The company's stock price to a bath in the markets as a result.
Kanadjian has all but said that this move is to "head off a potential rival". It smacks of an admission to anticompetitive measures to drive up pricing. I'm surprised the trade press hasn't raised the issue of the Federal Trade Comission putting the smackdown on this racket. This is one case where one can actually say that consumers will be harmed.
It's an inevitable fact of life -- nothing ventured, nothing gained. Every form of investment carries with it a degree of risk. If this is scary to you, Mr. Katz, perhaps you should buy gold and hole it up in a vault somewhere.
The Academy Awards has become just blip in an ever increasing glut of televised shows where viewers can ogle celebrities and the industry can pat itself on the back. Perhaps Warhol was wrong. Not everyone will be famous for 15 minutes, but at the rate things are going, everyone who is famous will receive an award for fame every 15 minutes.
The entertainment industry is so awash in self-importance that it sickens me. Actors affiliate themselves with trendy pet causes to compensate for the fact that they are wealthy for being people they aren't. I'm tired of celebrities telling me what I should look like, what I should buy, what I should donate money to, how I should vote.
I'm tired of a business where the only way to derive respect is to be as offensive as possible. I can't stand the fawning entertainment press that can't help but describe this stench as anything other than "bold" and "intelligent."
I'm offended the entertainment industry's attitude that portrays itself as a victim of censorship while at the same time trying to eradicate any expression on the net that may undermine its empire.
The definition of what a "UNIX" system is set by the Open Group because they own the trademark registration. There is a specification and certifcation process that goes well beyond the existence of a few shells and command line tools.
There are UNIX 95 and 98 specifications along with delineations between server and workstation class machines.
You can view version 2 of the specs on line at this URL:
They are useful for distinguishing between what is BSD, SVR4, POSIX, and modern UNIX.
If you read some of the specification docs, it states what C-language system calls must be implemented and draws the boundaries between what features must exist and what features are up to the discretion of the implementor.
Note that it is possible for systems that are not traditional UNIX to get the certification. I think DEC did this with OpenVMS. The Interix product also has this certification.
There is an effort to bring UNIX and POSIX closer together. Information can be found here:
I think that the article looks more or less like a plug for Network Associates security software. I don't think it is necessarily an attack against Linux or Solaris for that matter. It is a wake up call to network administrators to be vigilant of their machines that are out on the net. A system is only as secure as the administrators make it. If anything, it is just some opportunistic PR efforts from Network Associates to drum up business for their security tools. I wouldn't get all bent out of shape. Just consider the source.
For some time now, I have enjoyed the benefits of being able to filter out articles posted by JonKatz. I would have hoped this would help me to avoid hearing from or about him ever again. However, it appears that slashdot has decided to plug JonKatz's latest work and promote an interview of him. I would prefer to have this filtered out as well. The feasible alternative would be to put stories like this under a JonKatz category and allow people to opt out of that as well.
In English -- Existence without life. That was the mantra that a Nazi propaganda film used to justify the killing of the handicapped. As surely as it was wrong then, it should be deemed wrong now.
The highest good in eyes of humanistic thinkers has become the elimination of suffering in both the present and perceived future. I'm not sure whose suffering Singer is trying to limit in his vision of the world. Is it some sort of communal suffering that is caused by society having to bear the cost of caring for the person? Is it that the parents have to suffer because of the extra time and effort they put into caring for their child? Or is it the personal pain that the handicapped child may encounter through a difficult life? I would expect that Singer and others would place emphasis on society and the parent at the expense of the child. After all, if a baby in a mother's womb isn't a life until it is born in the court's eyes, why not extend it to newborns with limited functionality. It's a slippery slope we're on, and it sickens me to see the likes of Singer promoting it.
I was raised in a parochial school where we were taught abortion was a sin, but I don't think I really learned about the miracle of life until recently. Some friends of ours gave birth to a baby girl who was diagnosed with tuberous sclerosis. It's a rare genetic disorder which causes tumors. She was rushed to newborn intensive care immediately after she was born. Tests showed that she had an "exceptional" tumor on her heart, tumors behind her eyes, and a tumor on her brain. Aside from the fact that she needed ventillation, she looked like a normal baby.
After a week in the hospital, the baby was released to go home. It wasn't a week later before she was back in. In the middle of the night as she was crying, she had stopped breathing. The parents performed CPR, and she was rushed off to the hospital. She would remain there for two months, going through ups and downs. She grew and became strong enough to breathe on her own again. She was released from the hospital in early August and hasn't had to return since then.
Despite the fact that she spent days on ventilation and underwent two exploratory surgeries, she is a very happy baby. The parents have been through a lot of emotional suffering, too, but after all of this, they say that they do not regret what they have been through. It has made them stronger people, and they have developed a stronger bond with their baby daughter.
Singer should get off of his high horse, get out of his ivory tower, and live life a little before trying to draw up some euthanistic utopia where no suffering exists!
I've made postings in the past that have encouraged advocates to use eloquent means of communicating their point of view, and I will continue to do so. However, I have to say that I don't really feel much sympathy for Unisys in this situation.
Publicly traded corporations are accountable to their stockholders, and the Unisys representative makes that clear. However, shareholder interests are not an absolute justification for corporate boorishness.
Attempting to exploit a patent to get an exorbitant cut of someone else's revenue stream is arguably one of the supreme examples of wrongheadedness. The whole strategy of demanding payment for use of a widespread and freely used (up to around 1995) technology smacks of opportunism and is more of an indicator that Unisys is so bereft of original ideas that they have to result to hustling for revenue.
Deriving revenue at any price is not always in the best interests of the shareholder. If the activity damages the reputation of the company so badly that it drives away future customers of more legitimate offerings, what is the long-term gain? What am I, as a potential customer of Unisys products and services, supposed to expect from a company that devotes so much energy to legal sabre rattling? Are they investing adequately to deliver high quality products? Will they price things as exhorbitantly as they do with their LZW patent racket?
The PR statement at http://corp2.unisys.com/LeadStory/lzw-license.html , which by the way, contrary to the the present feature's author _is_ referenced on the slashdot article a few days ago, makes a disingenuous attempt to argue that they have a right to demand this sum of money because they developed it. While it may be true that they hold a patent on the LZW algorithm, they by no means developed it. It was developed by its predecessor Sperry.
An excellent history of this issue for those who are interested can be found here:
http://www.cloanto.com/users/mcb/19950127giflzw. html
As for the secretary, I do feel sorry for her, but I know that putting up with that kind of garbage is part of the job. I used to work in software Technical Support and had my share of it. If Unisys' brass has any soul left, they would have enough sense to foot the bill for the flowers, and not just on Secretary's Day.
examining the quality of the journalism
on
Microsoft Janus
·
· Score: 2
When I see articles such as this, it makes me wish that that trade press wasn't so eager to pass along claims and speculations from unnamed sources as real news.
Let's look at these point-by-point.
Claim number 1:
(Windows 2000 Data Center Server) will feature advanced clustering services such as robust fail-over and load balancing features as well as support for 16 processors out of the box
This comes to us from "sources familiar with the effort as well as company information." There is no attempt to substantiate the claim. Hearsay and press releases are taken as a given.
Claim number 2
Some OEMs may push the envelope by incorporating as many as 64 to 128 CPUs...
Again, more info from unnamed sources. No actual words from any actual OEMs out there. It might be IBM or Compaq, but who can say?
Now the time horizon...
is expected to debut in the first half of next year, or 60 to 120 days after Windows 2000's debut
This is attributed to an unnamed Microsoft spokesperson. You would think if this was for real, you might have someone like Steve Ballmer or Ed Muth crowing about it.
Enter the value-added reseller
One VAR said Janus will let Windows 2000 play in the big leagues. "This is supposed to have the power of Unix,"
Is this an informed opinion or just a wishful thought. Naturally the VAR may want something like this because it might enhance his or her revenue stream. This isn't really all that revealing. It's like going to a Chevrolet dealership and asking a salesman to comment on whether next year's Corvette will sell well.
More from our VAR...
Linux today is a toy techies play with but as it matures and becomes more user friendly, it will be a more serious threat. [Janus] will build upon [the] base of NT with Unix-like power and compatibility.
The "toy" reference reminds me of a technical support call I handled three years ago from a reseller who just couldn't believe that we would port Mathematica to a "toy" OS like Linux but wouldn't support SCO's UNIX (R).
Now the analysts, also without name.
As it edges closer to the high availability and reliability of Unix, Microsoft's enhanced Windows 2000 server will provide a more formidable challenge as an industrial strength OS for complex, transactional applications, analysts said.
What isn't clear is whether the analysts believe that the edging is happening now or is supposed to happen when Microsoft ships this new data center variant of NT. It's all built upon an expectation of things that have no concrete existence yet.
You may also find it interesting to note that the only quotations for which there are attributions are negative things about Windows NT now and Windows 2000 later.
Quoth Don Roy of IBM:
Load balancing is necessary for multinode, scalable clusters. For certain application environments or multinode databases, and certain Web serving and e-commerce applications with multiple inquiries coming into it, you want to balance that load with all your resources. Windows 2000 today does not have that.
And one from Rob Enderle of GIGA Information Group.
A lot of companies will wait for a refresh of Windows 2000 before deploying it because it will include bug fixes and optimized code not in the first versions
Translation: Businesses aren't putting too much faith in Microsoft's promises of Windows 2000. They'll wait for the service packs to come out.
Scroll just past the halfway point on the page to find the article.
The publication date on that page is March 13.
I would hope that the people with a propensity to flame columnists would refrain from sending the author a second barrage of unnecessary vitriol for this.
I sent a note encouraging them to respect the privacy of those who send them e-mails and visit their website. Here is a transcript of the message.
From: P.J. Hinton To: administrator@www.mindcraft.com Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 13:49:00 -0500 (CDT) Subject: privacy issues with your website Organization: "Wolfram Research, Inc." Message-ID:
I reviewed the transcripts of hateful e-mail messages sent to your sales mail alias regarding this webpage:
http://www.mindcraft.com/linux-net-rage.html
Regardless of the merits of the authors' arguments, I find it to be a deplorable violation of privacy on behalf of your website to post complete transcripts of mailings without first having received (or at least indicating a that you have received) permission from the authors.
I would think that as a corporation that derives a major portion of its sustinence from the world wide web that you would be aware of what is accepted as ethical use of user-submitted data and content. Your website does not have any perceivable privacy statement on its home page or immediate links thereon. There is no listing for you at truste.org, either.
I would encourage you to rethink your decision to publish unsolicited e-mails such as this and to articulate to the public a policy that respects the privacy of your website visitors -- be they friendly or hostile.
-- P.J. Hinton Mathematica Programming Group paulh@wolfram.com Wolfram Research, Inc. Disclaimer: Opinions expressed herein are those of the author alone.
Slashdot Mirror
An old adage sums it up best...
Do you live to work, or do you work to live?
Sounds like the ex-Google employees in question have decided the latter. Good for them!
Disclaimer: I am an XM subscriber.
The music channels are commercial free. XM makes no false pretenses about other channels. The closest thing that you get to a commercial on the music channels that the DJ might mention a show on another XM channel.
Content that comes from third party sources may include breaks for commericals because they are carried on commercial radio stations. That's just the way those shows are created. They don't make a commercial free version of Al Franken or Michael Savage.
For example, talk radio material comes from major syndicators (e.g. Premier Radio Network, Talk Radio Network, Air America, and ABC Radio Networks). Those shows are programmed to have hard breaks. Go check the websites for the syndicators for the clocks.
Same goes for the simulcasts of the cable news channels (Fox News Channel, MSNBC, CNN, etc.) and the sports radio channels (Fox Sports, Sporting News, and ESPN Radio).
In many instances, the space used for commericals is populated by a number of non-advertisement filler features and blurbs. Among those I've heard:
Audio Book Cafe (description of new audio books)
Between the Lines (interview with authors)
Earth and Sky (science and nature news)
Film Clips (movie reviews from Mike Reynolds)
Country Music Report (Natalie Windsor)
Megabyte Minute (tech news)
Into Tomorrow (tech news with Dave Graveline)
Technofile (tech news with Lazlow)
NASCAR News (reports from Clarie B. Lang)
--
P.J. Hinton
Taking the initial reports with a grain of salt. Yonhapnews, whom other press agencies are basing their report, has a article which expresses skepticism on this being a nuclear-related blast. Among the reasons given for the skepticism: mountainous terrain, presense of railways nearby, and proximity to the border with China.
The corruption runs on both sides of the aisle, so lose the sanctimony. The entertainment industry funnels large sums of money into the Democratic National Comittee's warchest as well.
Every once in a while this strategy backfires on companies. Take Eli Lilly & Co.'s recent court loss that invalidated some of their clever patenting on Prozac. The company's stock price to a bath in the markets as a result.
1 035860.html
http://www.thestreet.com/_yahoo/stocks/biotech/
Kanadjian has all but said that this move is to "head off a potential rival". It smacks of an admission to anticompetitive measures to drive up pricing. I'm surprised the trade press hasn't raised the issue of the Federal Trade Comission putting the smackdown on this racket. This is one case where one can actually say that consumers will be harmed.
It's an inevitable fact of life -- nothing ventured, nothing gained. Every form of investment carries with it a degree of risk. If this is scary to you, Mr. Katz, perhaps you should buy gold and hole it up in a vault somewhere.
I hate to sound so jaded, but I am.
The Academy Awards has become just blip in an ever increasing glut of televised shows where viewers can ogle celebrities and the industry can pat itself on the back. Perhaps Warhol was wrong. Not everyone will be famous for 15 minutes, but at the rate things are going, everyone who is famous will receive an award for fame every 15 minutes.
The entertainment industry is so awash in self-importance that it sickens me. Actors affiliate themselves with trendy pet causes to compensate for the fact that they are wealthy for being people they aren't. I'm tired of celebrities telling me what I should look like, what I should buy, what I should donate money to, how I should vote.
I'm tired of a business where the only way to derive respect is to be as offensive as possible. I can't stand the fawning entertainment press that can't help but describe this stench as anything other than "bold" and "intelligent."
I'm offended the entertainment industry's attitude that portrays itself as a victim of censorship while at the same time trying to eradicate any expression on the net that may undermine its empire.
I will not shut up and sit on the couch!!!
The definition of what a "UNIX" system is set by the Open Group because they own the trademark registration. There is a specification and certifcation process that goes well beyond the existence of a few shells and command line tools.
7 99
There are UNIX 95 and 98 specifications along with delineations between server and workstation class machines.
You can view version 2 of the specs on line at this URL:
http://www.opengroup.org/online-pubs?DOC=007908
API tables can be viewed here:
http://www.UNIX-systems.org/apis.html
They are useful for distinguishing between what is BSD, SVR4, POSIX, and modern UNIX.
If you read some of the specification docs, it states what C-language system calls must be implemented and draws the boundaries between what features must exist and what features are up to the discretion of the implementor.
Note that it is possible for systems that are not traditional UNIX to get the certification. I think DEC did this with OpenVMS. The Interix product also has this certification.
There is an effort to bring UNIX and POSIX closer together. Information can be found here:
http://www.opengroup.org/austin/
I think that the article looks more or less like a plug for Network Associates security software. I don't think it is necessarily an attack against Linux or Solaris for that matter. It is a wake up call to network administrators to be vigilant of their machines that are out on the net. A system is only as secure as the administrators make it. If anything, it is just some opportunistic PR efforts from Network Associates to drum up business for their security tools. I wouldn't get all bent out of shape. Just consider the source.
For some time now, I have enjoyed the benefits of being able to filter out articles posted by JonKatz. I would have hoped this would help me to avoid hearing from or about him ever again. However, it appears that slashdot has decided to plug JonKatz's latest work and promote an interview of him. I would prefer to have this filtered out as well. The feasible alternative would be to put stories like this under a JonKatz category and allow people to opt out of that as well.
--
P.J. Hinton
In English -- Existence without life. That was the mantra that a Nazi propaganda film used to justify the killing of the handicapped. As surely as it was wrong then, it should be deemed wrong now.
The highest good in eyes of humanistic thinkers has become the elimination of suffering in both the present and perceived future. I'm not sure whose suffering Singer is trying to limit in his vision of the world. Is it some sort of communal suffering that is caused by society having to bear the cost of caring for the person? Is it that the parents have to suffer because of the extra time and effort they put into caring for their child? Or is it the personal pain that the handicapped child may encounter through a difficult life? I would expect that Singer and others would place emphasis on society and the parent at the expense of the child. After all, if a baby in a mother's womb isn't a life until it is born in the court's eyes, why not extend it to newborns with limited functionality. It's a slippery slope we're on, and it sickens me to see the likes of Singer promoting it.
I was raised in a parochial school where we were taught abortion was a sin, but I don't think I really learned about the miracle of life until recently. Some friends of ours gave birth to a baby girl who was diagnosed with tuberous sclerosis. It's a rare genetic disorder which causes tumors. She was rushed to newborn intensive care immediately after she was born. Tests showed that she had an "exceptional" tumor on her heart, tumors behind her eyes, and a tumor on her brain. Aside from the fact that she needed ventillation, she looked like a normal baby.
After a week in the hospital, the baby was released to go home. It wasn't a week later before she was back in. In the middle of the night as she was crying, she had stopped breathing. The parents performed CPR, and she was rushed off to the hospital. She would remain there for two months, going through ups and downs. She grew and became strong enough to breathe on her own again. She was released from the hospital in early August and hasn't had to return since then.
Despite the fact that she spent days on ventilation and underwent two exploratory surgeries, she is a very happy baby. The parents have been through a lot of emotional suffering, too, but after all of this, they say that they do not regret what they have been through. It has made them stronger people, and they have developed a stronger bond with their baby daughter.
Singer should get off of his high horse, get out of his ivory tower, and live life a little before trying to draw up some euthanistic utopia where no suffering exists!
I've made postings in the past that have encouraged advocates to use eloquent means of communicating their point of view, and I will continue to do so. However, I have to say that I don't really feel much sympathy for Unisys in this situation.
l , which by the way, contrary to the the present feature's author _is_ referenced on the slashdot article a few days ago, makes a disingenuous attempt to argue that they have a right to demand this sum of money because they developed it. While it may be true that they hold a patent on the LZW algorithm, they by no means developed it. It was developed by its predecessor Sperry.
. html
Publicly traded corporations are accountable to their stockholders, and the Unisys representative makes that clear. However, shareholder interests are not an absolute justification for corporate boorishness.
Attempting to exploit a patent to get an exorbitant cut of someone else's revenue stream is arguably one of the supreme examples of wrongheadedness. The whole strategy of demanding payment for use of a widespread and freely used (up to around 1995) technology smacks of opportunism and is more of an indicator that Unisys is so bereft of original ideas that they have to result to hustling for revenue.
Deriving revenue at any price is not always in the best interests of the shareholder. If the activity damages the reputation of the company so badly that it drives away future customers of more legitimate offerings, what is the long-term gain? What am I, as a potential customer of Unisys products and services, supposed to expect from a company that devotes so much energy to legal sabre rattling? Are they investing adequately to deliver high quality products? Will they price things as exhorbitantly as they do with their LZW patent racket?
The PR statement at http://corp2.unisys.com/LeadStory/lzw-license.htm
An excellent history of this issue for those who are interested can be found here:
http://www.cloanto.com/users/mcb/19950127giflzw
As for the secretary, I do feel sorry for her, but I know that putting up with that kind of garbage is part of the job. I used to work in software Technical Support and had my share of it. If Unisys' brass has any soul left, they would have enough sense to foot the bill for the flowers, and not just on Secretary's Day.
When I see articles such as this, it makes me wish that that trade press wasn't so eager to pass along claims and speculations from unnamed sources as real news.
Let's look at these point-by-point.
Claim number 1:
This comes to us from "sources familiar with the effort as well as company information." There is no attempt to substantiate the claim. Hearsay and press releases are taken as a given.
Claim number 2
Again, more info from unnamed sources. No actual words from any actual OEMs out there. It might be IBM or Compaq, but who can say?
Now the time horizon...
This is attributed to an unnamed Microsoft spokesperson. You would think if this was for real, you might have someone like Steve Ballmer or Ed Muth crowing about it.
Enter the value-added reseller
Is this an informed opinion or just a wishful thought. Naturally the VAR may want something like this because it might enhance his or her revenue stream. This isn't really all that revealing. It's like going to a Chevrolet dealership and asking a salesman to comment on whether next year's Corvette will sell well.
More from our VAR...
The "toy" reference reminds me of a technical support call I handled three years ago from a reseller who just couldn't believe that we would port Mathematica to a "toy" OS like Linux but wouldn't support SCO's UNIX (R).
Now the analysts, also without name.
What isn't clear is whether the analysts believe that the edging is happening now or is supposed to happen when Microsoft ships this new data center variant of NT. It's all built upon an expectation of things that have no concrete existence yet.
You may also find it interesting to note that the only quotations for which there are attributions are negative things about Windows NT now and Windows 2000 later.
Quoth Don Roy of IBM:
And one from Rob Enderle of GIGA Information Group.
Translation: Businesses aren't putting too much faith in Microsoft's promises of Windows 2000. They'll wait for the service packs to come out.
I guess, among other things, that this demonstrates how slow the Detroit Free Press is in publishing syndicated columns.
9 .htm
I saw this column over three months ago up on the San Jose Mercury site.
http://www.mercurycenter.com/business/top/05032
Scroll just past the halfway point on the page to find the article.
The publication date on that page is March 13.
I would hope that the people with a propensity to flame columnists would refrain from sending the author a second barrage of unnecessary vitriol for this.
I sent a note encouraging them to respect the privacy of those who send them e-mails and visit their website. Here is a transcript of the message.
From: P.J. Hinton
To: administrator@www.mindcraft.com
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 13:49:00 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: privacy issues with your website
Organization: "Wolfram Research, Inc."
Message-ID:
I reviewed the transcripts of hateful e-mail messages sent to your sales mail alias regarding this webpage:
http://www.mindcraft.com/linux-net-rage.html
Regardless of the merits of the authors' arguments, I find it to be a deplorable violation of privacy on behalf of your website to post complete transcripts of mailings without first having received (or at least indicating a that you have received) permission from the authors.
I would think that as a corporation that derives a major portion of its sustinence from the world wide web that you would be aware of what is accepted as ethical use of user-submitted data and content. Your website does not have any perceivable privacy statement on its home page or immediate links thereon. There is no listing for you at truste.org, either.
I would encourage you to rethink your decision to publish unsolicited e-mails such as this and to articulate to the public a policy that respects the privacy of your website visitors -- be they friendly or hostile.
--
P.J. Hinton
Mathematica Programming Group paulh@wolfram.com
Wolfram Research, Inc.
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed herein are those of the author alone.
Michael Surkan, who is usually the first to come to Microsoft's defense, minimizes the significance of PC Week's tests.
3 51,402634,00.html
http://www.zdnet.com/pcweek/stories/columns/0,4
It is surprising that he sings the praises of non NT OSes in their ability to use resources more efficiently on non high-end machines.
The trade pubs like to refer to IBM's mainframe offerings as "Big Iron." It would be kinda neat if they dubbed these boxes as "Open Iron." :-)