the RioVolt 250 gets close to it, but it doesn't resume play.
I have a Rio Volt SP250, and yes, it does resume play. There is a setting for it in the menu, I don't remember if it's enabled by default or not. It also does everything else you're looking for.
Let me ask you this. Let's say _I_ bought Qwest and required people to use Microsoft Outlook. I could do that, right? Would that be a shitty thing to do? So you say. Could I do it? OF COURSE! Is it because I have a monopoly in some area? Not that I know of. If you have a problem with that, find another ISP.
Sure you could. But you haven't been found in a court of law to be a monopoly. Microsoft has, and because of this they have to play by a different set of rules, because monopolies hurt free trade.
But if _you_ bought Qwest and required people to use _your_ email client, that _you_ wrote, and is not already installed on millions of computers, there would be more of an outcry. You would lose a lot more users than if you required Outlook Express, because most users already have OE installed. See the difference?
You are right in one thing - the users of Qwest had no choice in this.Qwest screwed them . THEY sold their ISP to a Windows-only ISP supplier. It doesn't even matter that it's Microsoft. It's only fun to bitch about because it IS Microsoft.
No question about it. We're in absolute agreement here.
You can perform the same functions with a PC, an x86 PC, with or without MS.
That's just not true. I can't play Diablo II on Battle.net on my x86 PC without Windows. There is lots of hardware that only have Windows drivers (like winmodems). Fortunately, there are some equivalent functions that do not require windows, but not all functions have a non-windows equivalent.
Microsoft is not monopoly. The very existenance of a high-quality non-MS operating system for desktop computers proves that.
It proves nothing of the sort. The existence of some kind of alternative does not constitute proof against a monopoly, just ask the courts.
Furthermore, my original post was moderated 1 Flamebait, and 2 Troll. Its clear that Slashdot as a community cant take criticism or tolerate outside opinions.
Well, now, that is sad, but there's nothing I can do about that.
> Now, they are unfairly leveraging their monopoly to enter a new market.
How? How is this different than AOL buying Qwest and requiring an AOL email client? They could do that, couldn't they?
It's not different, except that AOL hasn't done this, while Microsoft has. I would be extremely pissed if AOL bought my ISP and started requiring the use of an AOL email client to read my mail.
We are talking about Qwest selling their ISP service to MSN. How does this leverage MS's monopoly?
The only reason Microsoft can get away with this is because they are a monopoly. 90% or more of desktop computers use Windows, and most of those already have Outlook Express installed. They can get away with requiring Outlook Express, because most of their users already have it. People will bitch and moan about this, but in the end most of them will just start using OE, if they don't already.
If, on the other hand, some fictitious company XYZ bought up Qwest's ISP services, and decided to start requiring the XYZ email client to access email, how successful would they be? I'm not sure if even AOL could get away with that.
People cry "Monopoly!" anytime MS does anything, even when it does not apply, like in this case.
Just to clarify, I didn't cry "Monopoly!" I responded to someone else's claim that Microsoft is not a monopoly. But I would argue that it does apply here -- companies that have been found to be a monopoly must play by a more restricted set of rules.
Microsoft has no monopoly power in the ISP market. And that is the market we are talking about, right?
Microsoft has a monopoly on the desktop. The U.S. courts have agreed on this. Now, they are unfairly leveraging their monopoly to enter a new market.
If MS started selling steaks would you start screaming they are leveraging their monopoly power in the meat industry?
Of course not. But that's not what is happening here. They are leveraging their monopoly to enter the ISP market. It is impossible to buy a PC that is preloaded with Windows and not be bombarded with MSN ads.
Every single argument you have here is with Qwest, not Microsoft.
Ummm, no. My argument was with the original poster's claim that Microsoft is not a monopoly.
The courts are wrong. And so are most sheeple including yourself. For proof, please visit here
Just what exactly is that supposed to prove? I see nothing on RedHat's web site to indicate that Microsoft is not a monopoly. And, incidentally, if I were one of the people affected by this change, I wouldn't be able to check my email if I used RedHat. So what point were you trying to make here?
It is impossible to reconcile the existenance of substantive choice and the influence of monopolists. They are mutally exclusive. Either choice exisits ergo their is no monopoly OR no choice exisits and their is a monopoly.
By your reasoning, AT&T did not have a monopoly on long distance phone service, because you could write a letter instead of using the phone. Most people wouldn't see that as a reasonable choice. Just because some kind of choice exists does not mean there is no monopoly. A monopoly exists when there are no reasonable alternatives.
The quality of service you get from a dialup internet connection is not the same as what you get from a broadband connection. Nor is it the same betwen satellite and cable/DSL. Your argument falls flat if you take that into account.
And by the way, I never claimed to have a right to high-speed internet access. I was just refuting your claims that Microsoft is not a monopoly.
You're kidding, right? How could any reasonably intelligent person who has more than a passing acquaintance with a computer possibly think that "Microsoft has no monopoly power"? Even if the U.S. court system agrees that Microsoft is a monopoly.
and furthermore because there is vast choice in the ISP market
Unfortunately, this just is not true. Especially for DSL, cable, or other broadband internet access. For example, if I want anything other than dialup, I have to use AT&T Broadband. The unfortunate users who signed up with QWest, and are now faced with this, might not have any alternative if they want broadband access.
and finally because there is vast choice in the way in which you access, send, and recieve electronic mail.
Did you actually read the link, or any of the postings here? Microsoft is trying to take away their users' choice in how they receive email. If SPA is required to access a POP account, then you will only be able to access it with a Microsoft client like Outlook, until somebody reverse engineers the protocol.
Go get a different ISP, or, bend to their will.
These people signed up with QWest, not Microsoft. I would sure be pissed if Microsoft bought out my ISP and I was suddenly faced with this. Especially since I can't just get a different ISP and still have broadband. Getting a different ISP is not an option for everyone.
1. ssh-keygen -t rsa
2. typed in a 12 character password
3. copied the dsa_key.pub from my desktop and pasted it to ~/.ssh/authorized_keys2 on the server.
Are you sure you copied the right key? You generated an RSA key, but you copied a file called dsa_key.pub. The default RSA key filename for openSSH is id_rsa.
Why? As others have said, SMB is not a good filesystem.
A much better solution, IMHO, would be to port a Free NFS client/server to windows.
Re:One of Zelazny's best
on
Lord of Light
·
· Score: 2
Couldn't resist posting, given my nick. Needless to say, Nine Princes in Amber is one of my favorite books. If you liked LOL, you might also like The Mask of Loki, by Zelazny and Thomas T. Thomas. My Name is Legion is another excellent Zelazny book.
Any chance of a followup interview? Lars made some very good points here, and he also raised a lot of new questions, in my mind anyway. While I can now see where he's coming from on some of these issues, I still think that he doesn't fully grasp the situation. For instance, there is no way Napster could filter out Metallica's music. If, as he says, Metallica really wants to increase public awareness and encourage debates, wouldn't/. be a good forum?
This is the 'Napster generates sales' defence. I've often seen it used, but never seen it verified. Anecdotal evidence aside, is there any hard evidence that 'piracy' leads to increased sales and/or readers?
How about the fact that the music industry lost negative $1,400,000,000 in CD sales in 1999? Okay, it's not hard evidence, but it certainly seems to indicate that increasing your audience will increase your sales.
Slashdot Mirror
"Stone walls do not a prison make ..."
I have a Rio Volt SP250, and yes, it does resume play. There is a setting for it in the menu, I don't remember if it's enabled by default or not. It also does everything else you're looking for.
Sure you could. But you haven't been found in a court of law to be a monopoly. Microsoft has, and because of this they have to play by a different set of rules, because monopolies hurt free trade.
But if _you_ bought Qwest and required people to use _your_ email client, that _you_ wrote, and is not already installed on millions of computers, there would be more of an outcry. You would lose a lot more users than if you required Outlook Express, because most users already have OE installed. See the difference?
You are right in one thing - the users of Qwest had no choice in this.Qwest screwed them . THEY sold their ISP to a Windows-only ISP supplier. It doesn't even matter that it's Microsoft. It's only fun to bitch about because it IS Microsoft.
No question about it. We're in absolute agreement here.
That's just not true. I can't play Diablo II on Battle.net on my x86 PC without Windows. There is lots of hardware that only have Windows drivers (like winmodems). Fortunately, there are some equivalent functions that do not require windows, but not all functions have a non-windows equivalent.
Microsoft is not monopoly. The very existenance of a high-quality non-MS operating system for desktop computers proves that.
It proves nothing of the sort. The existence of some kind of alternative does not constitute proof against a monopoly, just ask the courts.
Furthermore, my original post was moderated 1 Flamebait, and 2 Troll. Its clear that Slashdot as a community cant take criticism or tolerate outside opinions.
Well, now, that is sad, but there's nothing I can do about that.
How? How is this different than AOL buying Qwest and requiring an AOL email client? They could do that, couldn't they?
It's not different, except that AOL hasn't done this, while Microsoft has. I would be extremely pissed if AOL bought my ISP and started requiring the use of an AOL email client to read my mail.
We are talking about Qwest selling their ISP service to MSN. How does this leverage MS's monopoly?
The only reason Microsoft can get away with this is because they are a monopoly. 90% or more of desktop computers use Windows, and most of those already have Outlook Express installed. They can get away with requiring Outlook Express, because most of their users already have it. People will bitch and moan about this, but in the end most of them will just start using OE, if they don't already.
If, on the other hand, some fictitious company XYZ bought up Qwest's ISP services, and decided to start requiring the XYZ email client to access email, how successful would they be? I'm not sure if even AOL could get away with that.
People cry "Monopoly!" anytime MS does anything, even when it does not apply, like in this case.
Just to clarify, I didn't cry "Monopoly!" I responded to someone else's claim that Microsoft is not a monopoly. But I would argue that it does apply here -- companies that have been found to be a monopoly must play by a more restricted set of rules.
Microsoft has a monopoly on the desktop. The U.S. courts have agreed on this. Now, they are unfairly leveraging their monopoly to enter a new market.
If MS started selling steaks would you start screaming they are leveraging their monopoly power in the meat industry?
Of course not. But that's not what is happening here. They are leveraging their monopoly to enter the ISP market. It is impossible to buy a PC that is preloaded with Windows and not be bombarded with MSN ads.
Every single argument you have here is with Qwest, not Microsoft.
Ummm, no. My argument was with the original poster's claim that Microsoft is not a monopoly.
Just what exactly is that supposed to prove? I see nothing on RedHat's web site to indicate that Microsoft is not a monopoly. And, incidentally, if I were one of the people affected by this change, I wouldn't be able to check my email if I used RedHat. So what point were you trying to make here?
It is impossible to reconcile the existenance of substantive choice and the influence of monopolists. They are mutally exclusive. Either choice exisits ergo their is no monopoly OR no choice exisits and their is a monopoly.
By your reasoning, AT&T did not have a monopoly on long distance phone service, because you could write a letter instead of using the phone. Most people wouldn't see that as a reasonable choice. Just because some kind of choice exists does not mean there is no monopoly. A monopoly exists when there are no reasonable alternatives.
The quality of service you get from a dialup internet connection is not the same as what you get from a broadband connection. Nor is it the same betwen satellite and cable/DSL. Your argument falls flat if you take that into account.
And by the way, I never claimed to have a right to high-speed internet access. I was just refuting your claims that Microsoft is not a monopoly.
You're kidding, right? How could any reasonably intelligent person who has more than a passing acquaintance with a computer possibly think that "Microsoft has no monopoly power"? Even if the U.S. court system agrees that Microsoft is a monopoly.
and furthermore because there is vast choice in the ISP market
Unfortunately, this just is not true. Especially for DSL, cable, or other broadband internet access. For example, if I want anything other than dialup, I have to use AT&T Broadband. The unfortunate users who signed up with QWest, and are now faced with this, might not have any alternative if they want broadband access.
and finally because there is vast choice in the way in which you access, send, and recieve electronic mail.
Did you actually read the link, or any of the postings here? Microsoft is trying to take away their users' choice in how they receive email. If SPA is required to access a POP account, then you will only be able to access it with a Microsoft client like Outlook, until somebody reverse engineers the protocol.
Go get a different ISP, or, bend to their will.
These people signed up with QWest, not Microsoft. I would sure be pissed if Microsoft bought out my ISP and I was suddenly faced with this. Especially since I can't just get a different ISP and still have broadband. Getting a different ISP is not an option for everyone.
Well that's not a default install then, is it?
No IIS servers I installed got hit by code red because - gasp - the default install was not done.
The original poster's point was that by default, IIS installs just about everything.
Someone please mod this up.
2. typed in a 12 character password
3. copied the dsa_key.pub from my desktop and pasted it to ~/.ssh/authorized_keys2 on the server.
Are you sure you copied the right key? You generated an RSA key, but you copied a file called dsa_key.pub. The default RSA key filename for openSSH is id_rsa.
A much better solution, IMHO, would be to port a Free NFS client/server to windows.
Couldn't resist posting, given my nick. Needless to say, Nine Princes in Amber is one of my favorite books. If you liked LOL, you might also like The Mask of Loki, by Zelazny and Thomas T. Thomas. My Name is Legion is another excellent Zelazny book.
Any chance of a followup interview? Lars made some very good points here, and he also raised a lot of new questions, in my mind anyway. While I can now see where he's coming from on some of these issues, I still think that he doesn't fully grasp the situation. For instance, there is no way Napster could filter out Metallica's music. If, as he says, Metallica really wants to increase public awareness and encourage debates, wouldn't /. be a good forum?
How about the fact that the music industry lost negative $1,400,000,000 in CD sales in 1999? Okay, it's not hard evidence, but it certainly seems to indicate that increasing your audience will increase your sales.