Okay, but you CAN'T make copies of the couch (that is likely to be protected).
Look it's this simple - if I produce something then I (me the creator) set the rules, not YOU the consumer. Now if you don't like the rules then fine - go away and have nothing to do with the product (I can't MAKE you buy it). This nonsense about rights is all backwards - customers don't set rules, (within reason) the creators of a product do. (I say "within reason" because clearly if I make a product that is dangerous then I cannot reasonably expect to go unchallenged)
If I want to make a mouse and tell you it'll cost you $5000 dollars, and you can only connect it to one PC, I'm quite within my rights to do so (of course I expect to go bust doing that, and nobody will buy it, but THAT is my right).
That surly doesn't wash - if I make plates with my thumb print in the middle (or maybe signed, which on reflection sounds rather nicer) then I'm a monopoly? Music isn't a monopoly, a recording might be unique (and indeed it is, in some sense) but you could use that argument to claim that a painter was monopolistic.
This isn't a monopoly as we understand the term (like "the only place you can get water is from the water company" monopoly.
Your kidding right? Where is the monopoly? If I want to sing I can (maybe you wouldn't want to play to hear it... that's a different issue) nothing stops me from "competing" (apart of a lack of talent). You could argue that the record companies have a lot of power (and they do) but they don't OWN music (or even think they do). What they lay claim to is recording, musical scores, lyrics but I am free to create NEW ones!
It's this simple, you don't want to pay for music - fine, nobody is making you, just don't rip it off! If I create something that others want then I should be allowed to charge for it (and as much as I like). If I charge too much then the market is free to say "no that's too much, we'll pass" not just take it anyway.
Music is like software in this regard, you can steal it, and I still have it - not like other things at all. But stealing is what you're doing. You are still getting a benefit without paying for it.
If you're asking me, "so do you believe in the status quo", well no there are plenty of activities that the music industry does that are morally wrong. But denying the right of artists to charge for their work (because that's what it is) isn't morally right either.
I think the argument is somewhat spurious, if I build a house it's to live in. But lets suppose I built a house that WASN'T to live in - you'd expect that I'd want to get some form of re-numeration, perhaps running tours? (Okay it'd have to be one hell of a house)
Now you're sneaking in, looking WITHOUT paying - are you doing anything wrong? (Err, trespass comes to mind)
Artists have always been paid, sometimes by directly selling their work, sometimes by patrons. The idea that just because we CAN steal that it is RIGHT doesn't make much sense. Where is the morality in that? Laws can't be THAT fluid, just because they are hard to enforce, and law breaking is commonplace doesn't make the law wrong. (Consider the drink drive laws as an example)
Artist have to get paid, or all music will have an agenda (like: "Why the f*** aren't I getting paid for this?")
Personally I think that the Internet is a great delivery platform, now we have to figure out what's fair and what isn't (and just taking everything and giving nothing back ISN'T fair).
But perhaps you're right, maybe we need to educate people, what is right and what is wrong.
Free speech is all about my right to say that RIAA is draconian (which it is) not about my right to download music for free (or software for that matter).
Sure if the creator of that work WANTS to give me that right then great "show me the links". But otherwise it is stealing (it's not sharing).
I know we all like something for nothing (it's true) but sometime, somewhere we have to draw the line and realise that we've crossed the line. What I think people are forgetting is that these retailers in SK are not rich, and they are losing their jobs - is that RIGHT? Now imagine you work in a record shop, do you think it's right that people should rip-off music to such an extent that YOU lose your job?
Do I feel sorry for the rich kids in the music industry - no not really - they have over charged us for years. But this DOESN'T give me the right to steal from them. Free speech says I can complain about it, take political action about it, it DOESN'T say I can steal.
And no the RIAA hasn't turned us ALL into criminals our actions determine that. But sure I think the punishments are totally unjustified.
Err h4x0r running Windows?! Really?! I doubt that anyone we'd recognise as a h4x0r runs Windows. They might use Windows sometimes (and even set up their PC to dual boot to Windows) this is just a reality that sometimes it's necessary but then it's just a "passing visit". (Of course this is exactly the crowd that Apple are targeting at present, as MSOffice runs on the Mac, and the Mac is Unix then our h4x0r can be kept happy without reboots)
Of course you can't get THAT many games on the Mac, and maybe that also accounts for the supposed high IQ of Mac users. (of course this is also a reason that lots of Mac owners also run PCs, or PS2s) Macs also look better (prove me wrong - I want a stylish PC - don't forget the monitor if you're taking the challenge, I'd really like to be wrong:-) Honest!) and fit well with tasteful decor.
Yeah, my point was I see little to support this "innovation" claim. There seems to be little on software that's actually innovative. Really that's also true in hardware.
I think what we've seen is rapid (and sometimes not so rapid) refinement. But the discontinuous "innovation" is a very rare beast indeed. Personally I feel that the rush to move jobs off shore is very short sighted, and claims that we'll replace it with something else are hard to swallow. This "innovation" claim seems like hogwash.
BTW I knew the Minix connection - somewhere I have (or at least had) a copy of Minix. Unrelated to this, but doesn't that make SCO's claims seem even more foolish?
Who said anything about it being American?! (BTW I'm a Brit too)
My point was how little real innovation there actually is, American or otherwise. My point about Linux was that it's a Unix clone, it has some interesting design choices that make it easy to port, but hardly something "innovative". What is innovative about Linux is HOW it was built (nobody has ever attempted such a large project with the mantra "release early, release often" before). The innovation here is social not technical.
As for the browser/webserver - OK you don't want to count that (and your objection sounds just like the kind of thing I'd say), we'll agree to differ.
Okay, but it's not the "Wow the world has fundamentally changed" kind of innovation. Personally I'd see this as refinement NOT innovation. This is the kind of stepwise refinement that we accept has been done better offshore in the past. (Like Japanese radios, they didn't invent it, but they have refined the product)
I think "innovation" is rather overused in connection with software. We tend to call refinement "innovation" in IT, we're in danger of believing our own hype.
REAL innovation is much rarer, rapid refinement is much more common. I'd put DirectX into that camp. I'd also argue that if we expect to support large numbers of US (or UK) workers then we can't do it on "innovation", it simply doesn't happen often enough.
Sure, but software isn't printing you don't run out of "ink". Sure there are power issues, but given enough money these problems will be ironed out (and they are getting enough money now). I don't think Indians will be the poor competitors in software they have been in other industries. Things are coming together for them.
I agree with your point about hiring, I'd not thought about that. I guess we also need to iron out international employment law - now that'll be tough!
But I do think changing the relative buying power would do a lot to help.
I didn't touch on disadvantages of course - not least is the time difference, but that can also be an asset (so perhaps it equals out).
OK so we're saying that "we're good at innovation so we'll be okay" - but where is the evidence?
What have we really innovated in software in recent times? Windows? From a user perspective little have changed since Windows95 (from an engineer's perspective little has changed from WindowsNT3.1!)
Linux isn't an example either (firstly it's non-commercial, second it's a rewrite of Unix - the change is more social than technical).
I guess the browser is THE standout example - now how long did it take for that to become a commodity item? Not long. In software innovation is hard, but refinement is easy. I don't think that this "innovation" thing is going to protect us (even if we are "better at it" and I don't see any evidence to suggest that we are anyway).
The real issue here is the massive disparity of wages in the "global economy". American workers (and British, like me) can't live on the wages that Indian workers can, money here doesn't go as far (Indian workers are getting wages that are generous for the region - they are doing well). So we simply cannot compete - what is required is to attack the root cause of this - the disparity of the buying power of money across the global economy, because this outsourcing ISN'T a sign of the health of the global economy it's a symptom a massive distortion in the market.
Of course how you do this is difficult to see, but THIS is the end that we need to look at. We need to be VERY careful how this is done, because large and rapid corrections would be catastrophic to Indian workers and they deserve protection too. But shipping IT jobs (and hence skills) to off shore locations isn't smart in the medium term. Indians aren't stupid, if they are doing all the technical work, why will they be happy to report to foreign management forever?
I don't believe they will, Indians can be just as enterprising as anyone - they will have a ready work force of skilled workers, trained by OUR companies, it won't be hard to motivate them to set up on competition with US companies (stock options, maybe?)
It seems that we're underestimating the skills and drive of the Indian people, this is a fundamental mistake.
If we REALLY want to make the "global economy" work we must correct the distortions within it. I'm sure that the we can compete with India (and other emerging regions) if this is done (it won't kill the outsourcing, but at least we'll all be on a level playing field). Don't think I'm underestimating the Indians, I think they are as capable as any of us, and I think companies that are massively outsourcing either don't understand this OR the decision makers are not concerned with the long term (only short term profits).
Hmm... That's true. I'd not thought of it that way. But doesn't root get the password that was FIRST entered when the system was installed? (I'm sure I didn't knowingly set root's password to my login password - but they ended up the same) I know on the NeXT the "me" account didn't have a password and it was the act of giving it a password that made the machine ask for login credentials (a new system just brought up the desktop for the "me" account - they were simpler times). What you're saying is that root is the exact invert of that - right?
What stops applications just issuing "su" then? (because they sure as hell can't do that with the default settings) As I understand it, when you first set Mac OS X up the system disallows root to login (VERY common on Unix boxes... that how "Essential System Administration" {Publisher: O'Reilly UK, ISBN: 0596003439} recommends you set up a Unix based systems - mostly as su is captured in the logs, but of course it adds another password)
This is hardly a virus, it doesn't "infect" the computer - it just looks like Word, and it removes all the files that the user has in their home folder ("rm *" - not much of a virus is it?)
Really this is just social engineering (and really pretty pathetic at that). I could recreate this in about the time it takes to type this! (It's hardly a taxing shell script). It seem that this user has been REALLY dumb. It also should serve as a cautionary tale to everyone who downloads programs from untrusted sources (and if you trust Limewire then you shouldn't have a computer).
I guess the package folder held something BIG to make the size plausible. Of course if all it did was remove all the files from his home folder then he was lucky. I suppose it didn't collect his root password? (Usually required on the Mac to install applications).
If you manage Macs, it's worth restricting users' ability to run "untrusted" applications (you can do that) and not tell them the root password - so that they can't do this to themselves! Macs ship with the ability of the root user to login turned off, but the "first user" and "root" have the same password by default - again it's worth changing that too (just change either password) so if you're asked by a program for your password, you can't inadvertently give that application root privilege.
Well okay, BUT isn't the issue here that computers do lie. Maybe it'd be possible to look at the sites in question and see if a flurry of redirects is to blame?
Perhaps there is a case here for a browser with a transaction log? Seriously, surfers are being held more and more accountable for what they do on the web, maybe is isn't too much to ask that browsers actually keep an HONEST account of what was entered and what was clicked?
I agree there are some BIG issues with this (privacy?) but if it can stop you from going to jail, maybe it is worth it. The biggest problem I can see is from the computer logging passwords and personal details (credit card number?) but maybe this could be addressed.
Anyway I think being convicted on the evidence of IE is pretty unfair (as it stands). If a log of Internet activity is to be used against you, at least it should be a fair and reasonable account of your actions! Aren't the real criminals the ones with the illegal content?
Well FC1 is pretty good on my "system" (a rather motley machine actually). I did have trouble with the network card (an EtherLink XL - hardly exotic) but it works fine with adaptor from a Mac server. It seems okay to me (YMMV).
Err... Isn't "the community" that which created all this stuff? I've been kicking the tires of FC1, and actually I really like it (YMMV).
I think if I was deploying it "somewhere that mattered" I'd use the Enterprise WS edition - and honestly what's so evil about that?
RH9 was a strange half way house - fast moving (like FC1) and supported (a bit) like Enterprise. I don't quite understand why we all miss it so much? For Enterprise work then WS looks like a good option, for home FC1 is really very nice.
Cost savings?! Err does anyone understand how that works? (Since when was using DIFFERENT parts cheaper?)
I'm confused... Looks to me like a rather sad was to keep the pros buying Tungsten series Palms. (And that's NOT smart as consumers will be put off upgrading if they change the connectors every time)
Ahh, yeah THAT makes perfect sense. I can see that deploying these in the Enterprise would be an utter pain (even more than normal!). You are right the Universal Connector is the "Pro" feature.
But is it just me that thinks this is an odd way forwards? It seems that the "non-Pro" machines are crippled for no good reason. Or am I missing something?
Okay, these are very sweet systems, BUT this seem to cut off the air supply of some of the "Pro" versions. So are we going to see some new "Pro" hardware from PalmOne? When will be see a Palm OS Cobalt (PalmOS6) system?
I really like the look of the Zire 72, but the new 31's colour looks a bit "iffy" in the pictures (like the colour of old BluTack). Anyone seen one of these in real life?
Of course even this could be revisited every so often. In this case the transitory nature of the media might actually help, if the media was more robust we might forget the issue of changing file types.
This is a HUGE issue for other historic data that won't have someone able to lavish so much care over it.
OK here I'm with EA - you ruin the game for other players you can't play. It's their ball after all. If you spoiled a "real game" (something non-cyber) you'd expect to be ejected, right?
How is this different? Why do people think it's okay to ruin the game for other players? What about their rights? They have paid good money to play (real money) and enjoy the game. This is like someone who talks through the movie.
And this is happening in LOTS of games too, even Rainbow Six 3. I encountered some moron who though it was funny to stand in front of a door half way through the mission so we (the other players) couldn't complete it. Where did this guy get off? I just don't get it, spend all the money om an online game, just to ruin it for everyone one else playing. Okay the damage done was small, we moved off that server and contiuned, not so easy with other games, but still annoying.
Why can't we all just play the game and get along?
I still can't believe my "joke" got a modded as "offtopic".
Anyway, is navigating a desert so hard? You can use GPS to plot position, and if you're on the ground you can't hit it! There aren't any significant drops that can't be detected by satalite are there? (I know the dunes move, but a significantly large rover isn't going to have a problem there is it?)
Sure you the device was to be deployed in a non-desert setting things would be harder.
Slashdot Mirror
Okay, but you CAN'T make copies of the couch (that is likely to be protected).
Look it's this simple - if I produce something then I (me the creator) set the rules, not YOU the consumer. Now if you don't like the rules then fine - go away and have nothing to do with the product (I can't MAKE you buy it). This nonsense about rights is all backwards - customers don't set rules, (within reason) the creators of a product do. (I say "within reason" because clearly if I make a product that is dangerous then I cannot reasonably expect to go unchallenged)
If I want to make a mouse and tell you it'll cost you $5000 dollars, and you can only connect it to one PC, I'm quite within my rights to do so (of course I expect to go bust doing that, and nobody will buy it, but THAT is my right).
That surly doesn't wash - if I make plates with my thumb print in the middle (or maybe signed, which on reflection sounds rather nicer) then I'm a monopoly? Music isn't a monopoly, a recording might be unique (and indeed it is, in some sense) but you could use that argument to claim that a painter was monopolistic.
This isn't a monopoly as we understand the term (like "the only place you can get water is from the water company" monopoly.
Your kidding right? Where is the monopoly? If I want to sing I can (maybe you wouldn't want to play to hear it ... that's a different issue) nothing stops me from "competing" (apart of a lack of talent). You could argue that the record companies have a lot of power (and they do) but they don't OWN music (or even think they do). What they lay claim to is recording, musical scores, lyrics but I am free to create NEW ones!
It's this simple, you don't want to pay for music - fine, nobody is making you, just don't rip it off! If I create something that others want then I should be allowed to charge for it (and as much as I like). If I charge too much then the market is free to say "no that's too much, we'll pass" not just take it anyway.
Music is like software in this regard, you can steal it, and I still have it - not like other things at all. But stealing is what you're doing. You are still getting a benefit without paying for it.
If you're asking me, "so do you believe in the status quo", well no there are plenty of activities that the music industry does that are morally wrong. But denying the right of artists to charge for their work (because that's what it is) isn't morally right either.
I think the argument is somewhat spurious, if I build a house it's to live in. But lets suppose I built a house that WASN'T to live in - you'd expect that I'd want to get some form of re-numeration, perhaps running tours? (Okay it'd have to be one hell of a house)
Now you're sneaking in, looking WITHOUT paying - are you doing anything wrong? (Err, trespass comes to mind)
Artists have always been paid, sometimes by directly selling their work, sometimes by patrons. The idea that just because we CAN steal that it is RIGHT doesn't make much sense. Where is the morality in that? Laws can't be THAT fluid, just because they are hard to enforce, and law breaking is commonplace doesn't make the law wrong. (Consider the drink drive laws as an example)
I know what I'd think: "Why am I doing this?"
Artist have to get paid, or all music will have an agenda (like: "Why the f*** aren't I getting paid for this?")
Personally I think that the Internet is a great delivery platform, now we have to figure out what's fair and what isn't (and just taking everything and giving nothing back ISN'T fair).
But perhaps you're right, maybe we need to educate people, what is right and what is wrong.
Err isn't this stealing?
Free speech is all about my right to say that RIAA is draconian (which it is) not about my right to download music for free (or software for that matter).
Sure if the creator of that work WANTS to give me that right then great "show me the links". But otherwise it is stealing (it's not sharing).
I know we all like something for nothing (it's true) but sometime, somewhere we have to draw the line and realise that we've crossed the line. What I think people are forgetting is that these retailers in SK are not rich, and they are losing their jobs - is that RIGHT? Now imagine you work in a record shop, do you think it's right that people should rip-off music to such an extent that YOU lose your job?
Do I feel sorry for the rich kids in the music industry - no not really - they have over charged us for years. But this DOESN'T give me the right to steal from them. Free speech says I can complain about it, take political action about it, it DOESN'T say I can steal.
And no the RIAA hasn't turned us ALL into criminals our actions determine that. But sure I think the punishments are totally unjustified.
Err h4x0r running Windows?! Really?! I doubt that anyone we'd recognise as a h4x0r runs Windows. They might use Windows sometimes (and even set up their PC to dual boot to Windows) this is just a reality that sometimes it's necessary but then it's just a "passing visit". (Of course this is exactly the crowd that Apple are targeting at present, as MSOffice runs on the Mac, and the Mac is Unix then our h4x0r can be kept happy without reboots)
:-) Honest!) and fit well with tasteful decor.
Of course you can't get THAT many games on the Mac, and maybe that also accounts for the supposed high IQ of Mac users. (of course this is also a reason that lots of Mac owners also run PCs, or PS2s) Macs also look better (prove me wrong - I want a stylish PC - don't forget the monitor if you're taking the challenge, I'd really like to be wrong
Yeah, my point was I see little to support this "innovation" claim. There seems to be little on software that's actually innovative. Really that's also true in hardware.
I think what we've seen is rapid (and sometimes not so rapid) refinement. But the discontinuous "innovation" is a very rare beast indeed. Personally I feel that the rush to move jobs off shore is very short sighted, and claims that we'll replace it with something else are hard to swallow. This "innovation" claim seems like hogwash.
BTW I knew the Minix connection - somewhere I have (or at least had) a copy of Minix. Unrelated to this, but doesn't that make SCO's claims seem even more foolish?
Who said anything about it being American?! (BTW I'm a Brit too)
My point was how little real innovation there actually is, American or otherwise. My point about Linux was that it's a Unix clone, it has some interesting design choices that make it easy to port, but hardly something "innovative". What is innovative about Linux is HOW it was built (nobody has ever attempted such a large project with the mantra "release early, release often" before). The innovation here is social not technical.
As for the browser/webserver - OK you don't want to count that (and your objection sounds just like the kind of thing I'd say), we'll agree to differ.
Okay, but it's not the "Wow the world has fundamentally changed" kind of innovation. Personally I'd see this as refinement NOT innovation. This is the kind of stepwise refinement that we accept has been done better offshore in the past. (Like Japanese radios, they didn't invent it, but they have refined the product)
I think "innovation" is rather overused in connection with software. We tend to call refinement "innovation" in IT, we're in danger of believing our own hype.
REAL innovation is much rarer, rapid refinement is much more common. I'd put DirectX into that camp. I'd also argue that if we expect to support large numbers of US (or UK) workers then we can't do it on "innovation", it simply doesn't happen often enough.
Sure, but software isn't printing you don't run out of "ink". Sure there are power issues, but given enough money these problems will be ironed out (and they are getting enough money now). I don't think Indians will be the poor competitors in software they have been in other industries. Things are coming together for them.
I agree with your point about hiring, I'd not thought about that. I guess we also need to iron out international employment law - now that'll be tough!
But I do think changing the relative buying power would do a lot to help.
I didn't touch on disadvantages of course - not least is the time difference, but that can also be an asset (so perhaps it equals out).
OK so we're saying that "we're good at innovation so we'll be okay" - but where is the evidence?
What have we really innovated in software in recent times? Windows? From a user perspective little have changed since Windows95 (from an engineer's perspective little has changed from WindowsNT3.1!)
Linux isn't an example either (firstly it's non-commercial, second it's a rewrite of Unix - the change is more social than technical).
I guess the browser is THE standout example - now how long did it take for that to become a commodity item? Not long. In software innovation is hard, but refinement is easy. I don't think that this "innovation" thing is going to protect us (even if we are "better at it" and I don't see any evidence to suggest that we are anyway).
The real issue here is the massive disparity of wages in the "global economy". American workers (and British, like me) can't live on the wages that Indian workers can, money here doesn't go as far (Indian workers are getting wages that are generous for the region - they are doing well). So we simply cannot compete - what is required is to attack the root cause of this - the disparity of the buying power of money across the global economy, because this outsourcing ISN'T a sign of the health of the global economy it's a symptom a massive distortion in the market.
Of course how you do this is difficult to see, but THIS is the end that we need to look at. We need to be VERY careful how this is done, because large and rapid corrections would be catastrophic to Indian workers and they deserve protection too. But shipping IT jobs (and hence skills) to off shore locations isn't smart in the medium term. Indians aren't stupid, if they are doing all the technical work, why will they be happy to report to foreign management forever?
I don't believe they will, Indians can be just as enterprising as anyone - they will have a ready work force of skilled workers, trained by OUR companies, it won't be hard to motivate them to set up on competition with US companies (stock options, maybe?)
It seems that we're underestimating the skills and drive of the Indian people, this is a fundamental mistake.
If we REALLY want to make the "global economy" work we must correct the distortions within it. I'm sure that the we can compete with India (and other emerging regions) if this is done (it won't kill the outsourcing, but at least we'll all be on a level playing field). Don't think I'm underestimating the Indians, I think they are as capable as any of us, and I think companies that are massively outsourcing either don't understand this OR the decision makers are not concerned with the long term (only short term profits).
Hmm... That's true. I'd not thought of it that way. But doesn't root get the password that was FIRST entered when the system was installed? (I'm sure I didn't knowingly set root's password to my login password - but they ended up the same) I know on the NeXT the "me" account didn't have a password and it was the act of giving it a password that made the machine ask for login credentials (a new system just brought up the desktop for the "me" account - they were simpler times). What you're saying is that root is the exact invert of that - right?
What stops applications just issuing "su" then? (because they sure as hell can't do that with the default settings) As I understand it, when you first set Mac OS X up the system disallows root to login (VERY common on Unix boxes... that how "Essential System Administration" {Publisher: O'Reilly UK, ISBN: 0596003439} recommends you set up a Unix based systems - mostly as su is captured in the logs, but of course it adds another password)
This is hardly a virus, it doesn't "infect" the computer - it just looks like Word, and it removes all the files that the user has in their home folder ("rm *" - not much of a virus is it?)
Really this is just social engineering (and really pretty pathetic at that). I could recreate this in about the time it takes to type this! (It's hardly a taxing shell script). It seem that this user has been REALLY dumb. It also should serve as a cautionary tale to everyone who downloads programs from untrusted sources (and if you trust Limewire then you shouldn't have a computer).
I guess the package folder held something BIG to make the size plausible. Of course if all it did was remove all the files from his home folder then he was lucky. I suppose it didn't collect his root password? (Usually required on the Mac to install applications).
If you manage Macs, it's worth restricting users' ability to run "untrusted" applications (you can do that) and not tell them the root password - so that they can't do this to themselves! Macs ship with the ability of the root user to login turned off, but the "first user" and "root" have the same password by default - again it's worth changing that too (just change either password) so if you're asked by a program for your password, you can't inadvertently give that application root privilege.
Hope this helps.
Well okay, BUT isn't the issue here that computers do lie. Maybe it'd be possible to look at the sites in question and see if a flurry of redirects is to blame?
Perhaps there is a case here for a browser with a transaction log? Seriously, surfers are being held more and more accountable for what they do on the web, maybe is isn't too much to ask that browsers actually keep an HONEST account of what was entered and what was clicked?
I agree there are some BIG issues with this (privacy?) but if it can stop you from going to jail, maybe it is worth it. The biggest problem I can see is from the computer logging passwords and personal details (credit card number?) but maybe this could be addressed.
Anyway I think being convicted on the evidence of IE is pretty unfair (as it stands). If a log of Internet activity is to be used against you, at least it should be a fair and reasonable account of your actions! Aren't the real criminals the ones with the illegal content?
Well FC1 is pretty good on my "system" (a rather motley machine actually). I did have trouble with the network card (an EtherLink XL - hardly exotic) but it works fine with adaptor from a Mac server. It seems okay to me (YMMV).
Err... Isn't "the community" that which created all this stuff? I've been kicking the tires of FC1, and actually I really like it (YMMV).
I think if I was deploying it "somewhere that mattered" I'd use the Enterprise WS edition - and honestly what's so evil about that?
RH9 was a strange half way house - fast moving (like FC1) and supported (a bit) like Enterprise. I don't quite understand why we all miss it so much? For Enterprise work then WS looks like a good option, for home FC1 is really very nice.
So what's the problem again?
Cost savings?! Err does anyone understand how that works? (Since when was using DIFFERENT parts cheaper?)
I'm confused... Looks to me like a rather sad was to keep the pros buying Tungsten series Palms. (And that's NOT smart as consumers will be put off upgrading if they change the connectors every time)
Am I missing something?
Ahh, yeah THAT makes perfect sense. I can see that deploying these in the Enterprise would be an utter pain (even more than normal!). You are right the Universal Connector is the "Pro" feature.
But is it just me that thinks this is an odd way forwards? It seems that the "non-Pro" machines are crippled for no good reason. Or am I missing something?
Okay, these are very sweet systems, BUT this seem to cut off the air supply of some of the "Pro" versions. So are we going to see some new "Pro" hardware from PalmOne? When will be see a Palm OS Cobalt (PalmOS6) system?
I really like the look of the Zire 72, but the new 31's colour looks a bit "iffy" in the pictures (like the colour of old BluTack). Anyone seen one of these in real life?
How do these stack up against the latest phones?
Ahh, but what format should they be encoded in?
Of course even this could be revisited every so often. In this case the transitory nature of the media might actually help, if the media was more robust we might forget the issue of changing file types.
This is a HUGE issue for other historic data that won't have someone able to lavish so much care over it.
OK here I'm with EA - you ruin the game for other players you can't play. It's their ball after all. If you spoiled a "real game" (something non-cyber) you'd expect to be ejected, right?
How is this different? Why do people think it's okay to ruin the game for other players? What about their rights? They have paid good money to play (real money) and enjoy the game. This is like someone who talks through the movie.
And this is happening in LOTS of games too, even Rainbow Six 3. I encountered some moron who though it was funny to stand in front of a door half way through the mission so we (the other players) couldn't complete it. Where did this guy get off? I just don't get it, spend all the money om an online game, just to ruin it for everyone one else playing. Okay the damage done was small, we moved off that server and contiuned, not so easy with other games, but still annoying.
Why can't we all just play the game and get along?
I thought nobody used Morse anymore, is it still used in shipping? If not where is it used?
I still can't believe my "joke" got a modded as "offtopic".
Anyway, is navigating a desert so hard? You can use GPS to plot position, and if you're on the ground you can't hit it! There aren't any significant drops that can't be detected by satalite are there? (I know the dunes move, but a significantly large rover isn't going to have a problem there is it?)
Sure you the device was to be deployed in a non-desert setting things would be harder.