I guess the question is: what HP model? My wife and I just bought an HP1200n and it runs wonnderfully over the network with our G4 running OS X, her PB G3 running OS 9, our Dell running Win98SE, and my iBook running OS X. The iBook is the greatest pleasure out of that experience, as I couldn't print via wireless when we still had our clunky LaserWriter IIg on the network.
However, there were no issues setting it up to print via LPR - all the computers like it.
Of course, I personally think that modding down for spelling ("loose?" "flaimbait?" - the words are "lose" and "flamebait") and misuse of the apostrophe is quite appropriate.
Oh, whatever. I had other things, MUCH more important things on my mind and Word obviously didn't give me the spelling I was looking for. I blame Bill Gates.
Not that anybody else around here knows what "igneous" means, especially those who still irritate me with the misuse of "your" ("Your a no good bastard!"). I hesitate to say the education system changed that much since I've been out of high school (11 years), but how can something so simple be screwed up by so many?
Office is a drag and drop install - just drag it to your hard drive and it copies (it asks for the CD key when you first run it). You don't get the Value Pack (dictionaries, thesaurus, equation editor, clip art) with the drag and drop, though.
So, the kid figured he'd save some download time and not pull it from a warez server. Then he would find a key on the net later. Igneous little bugger - he knew the employees wouldn't have a clue. Too bad (for him) that the customers sometimes do.
My question is: Why the hell was Office on there? Whenever I used to do Apple Demo Days we were clearly told only to install what Apple told us to install. Now, I typically threw demos and freeware on there to spiff up my presentation, but what the hell was Office on there for?
A few months ago I found out that my university was in the midst of renegotiating the campus site licenses with MS. It seems MS wants to pull the OS upgrades out of the agreements - and they want us to roll all of the upgraded OSs back to their pre-upgraded status (basically the campus would be moved back to 98 and NT 4). Of course, they're willing to cut us a deal on XP Professional licensing...
Raymond's conclusions are on track. For numerous years the theory has been that MS really didn't care about the OS - they were more focused on productivity software. I would argue that.Net and the Xbox both point in the direction that MS really isn't in this for the OS - they want to have a more insidious avenue into the household via your entertainment center (Xbox), your e-commerce (.Net), your mobile communications (PocketPC). Ballmer and Gates both have said that MS is becoming this (fuzzy) "services company." When you consider the way they've backed bids with the DirecTV and AT&T Broadband buyouts and you can see that MS is only using the OS as a means to an end, not the end itself.
Of course WIndows will become obsolete, because there will come a point where MS won't care about your PC any longer because MS will OwN j00!
I'm going to argue that numerous users don't know what that right-click can do. I run a help desk that supports over 45,000 people and it is amazing to learn how many of them have no clue that the right mouse button does something.
Maybe you think it's a user preference. I, as a sorta-webmaster, prefer to open new windows.
But did he sign-off on the article? More and more these days a news organization (for right or wrong) will go back to their sources and make sure that the source is cool with what was written. For all we know Box was speaking completely tongue-in-cheek and the ZDNet hack had no clue how to look through that.
That said, Box's cred would rise greatly if he weren't basically a spokespuppet for MS. And if he isn't a spokespuppet, maybe it's time to leave MS.
I can agree to this except on the point of opening blank windows. I always link to blank windows because I, personally, hate having to use the back button when I'm surfing when I can just kill a window instead and be right back at the page I jumped from.
That said, I agree that the browsers should have an option to turn the target="_blank" off because it is your perogative as to whether you want one or more than one browser window open at a time (I currently have three open).
I read the "flipping" article and, as most of the FUD coming from MS nowadays, I found it poorly written and amazingly bad at getting details across. Personally, I really don't care if the dude's an ubergeek and works 200-hour work weeks: I'm sick as shit of MS coming down from the mountain with stone tablets in hand and declaring that something is over, or something is new, or something is presently acceptable. And, personally, I don't consider calling something a cockroach to be a compliment - even if he does think it's going to survive. It's gottne to the point where I really could care less about anything coming out of any MS employee's mouth. The company is continually churning out apologists and cutthroat geeks who have no damned idea how to actually think within the real world - only the world that MS has created.
I'm sick of it. There are more important things in this life other than Bill (Bill! BILL!) and his twobit company's skewed view of the future.
I'm going to go over and grumble some more in the corner.
As are Apple's, and Sun's, and Oracle's. Let's not forget FTP, oh and throw SMTP in there, too.
Maybe I'm just getting a little George Carlin- grumpy lately, maybe it's because I'm writing a eulogy for a friend's funeral, maybe it's because I'm sick of people at MS attempting to form competent sentences (please, stick with those inspired dance routines!), but please tell me: What's days aren't numbered?
HTTP has its issues, but referring to it as "the cockroah of the internet" and saying its days are numbered, and then saying that MS has a P2P solution!, just goes to show that not only are they power hungry in Redmond but seriously power-tripping...
Like most of the geeks I know, I don't throw stuff away. I give to others, I donate it, I put in my office museum...
The/. introduction from Jeff is a little misleading - Byron Sher's bill is for CRTs, Gloria Romero's is for everything.
I seriously wonder if Sher really knows what he's talking about - a CRT is not a pop bottle and has a much longer life. My Macintosh (Model M0001) still can attest to the life of a CRT. Collecting fees on the consumer level is utterly silly and isn't going to make me want to move to Cali any time soon.
Romero's plan might have some feasibility in that the emphasis would be placed on the company to come up with a reclaimation program, not placing fees on the consumers. I personally think that, in the long run, it would be cheaper for a company to take back the old machines. They can reclaim the gold from the boards, etc., and if they use proper plastic they could recycle to cases.
Now, I'm not a fan of Dell (politcally or in terms of OS choice), but I'm throughly impressed by the fact that whe Dell receives an off-lease machine back they clean it up and sell it on eBay for a decent price. I consider that a first step in the direction Romero and Sher are headed. I just think Sher could have talked with some folks in the real world before drafting his bill.
But we would agree that Carmack is not the most corporate of folks, right? I'm not surprised that the Q3 servers are open - Carmack's that kind of guy, and that's his and id's decision to make. Just as it is Blizzard's decision to go in the opposite direction.
I'm trying to make a larger point here: I see/.ers complaining every day that the government is intrusive, that business should be left alone, etc. Now we find ourselves at a point where a business is dictating its terms and wants, and there are now so many of you complaining. The answer is very, very simple: Don't buy or play the games until Blizzard changes. Companies will listen to users if the users 1) know what they're talking about; and 2) approach the company en masse.
That said, I think Blizzard could be a little less restrictive about this. However, since I don't have issues with the Battle.net servers, it doesn't really bother me.
No, you own the copy - the media. You own the disc the copy resides on. By installing the game you are agreeing to the license, whether you like it or not. Personally, I don't install things with licenses I don't like (call it common sense, if you will). And the copyright in the front of a book is legally binding - try copying King's latest and then go and try to publish it...
Oh, and I know fair use inside and out - you're wrong. You can't go and photocopy an entire book - that's infringing on the author's rights and, arguably, you're not paying said author.
End all and be all is that eventually there will be iron-clad licenses, if there aren't already, that are completely legal. I don't see an issue with Blizzard saying "don't do this" when they give you numerous protocol options if you want to play in your home (those of you complaining about that) nor do I see an issue with Blizzard wanting you to use their servers. Hell, man, it's all over the packaging ("Play via Battle.net").
I personally think you're just pissy, not becuase you're paranoidicly worried of "an invasive police state."
Wrong. You bought a copy of the game. You don't have the source code, and you don't own the game, Blizzard does. You only own a copy. Ask any copyright lawyer. Another example: You don't own The Matrix on DVD, you own a copy.
Right, BnetD isn't their property, but it infringes on it. For example, I have the right to cut down the branch from said neighbor's prized Japanese cherry blossom tree if it's hanging over my fence. The tree is his property, but it's infringing on my property.
When you paid for your copy of the game you paid to play the game (no pun intended) by Blizzard's rules.
Sure, it's closed software. That's their decision to make - they have the right to open or close what they want to because they made it and own it. IMHO, if you don't like it, start an open source game company. FreeCiv is an excellent example of a game that can be shaped as someone sees fit, and obviously Sid Meier doesn't mind. However, if he thought it was infringing on his copyright I'm sure he would be doing the same thing as Blizzard, and he would have that right.
No, you bought a copy of the game (not the game itself) and a license which allows you to run it; you do not own the game. The copy of the Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade poster hanging on my wall is a copy, not the original, and I can't do things to it that I could do if I owned the original (i.e., make copies of my own and sell them). I couldn't go and make my own copies of the board game Diplomacy, but I own a copy.
(As a side note, all of the play by e-mail players of Diplomacy are supposed to have their own copies of the board game - as dictated by Avalon Hill, and now Hasbro, in order to not be infringing on the game's copyright. Otherwise the game is basically considered pirated. Same situation Blizzard is in, just a different medium.)
So, if I buy a car or a toaster I am not buying a copy of a car or a toaster - it is physical property that I now own. If I buy a CD, though, I have the right, under fair use, to share the music with my friends, but that is the sticking point here: Art can be shared - but not for profit. However, a game is a product that can be distributed as the maker sees fit.
There is no true need to rely on the DMCA for this argument, it comes down to a license: you bought the product, you agreed to the license. Don't buy it and don't play it if you disagree with said license.
Slashdot Mirror
However, there were no issues setting it up to print via LPR - all the computers like it.
No, I was talking about you and the parent. I'm equal opportunity in my grumpiness, son.
Of course, I personally think that modding down for spelling ("loose?" "flaimbait?" - the words are "lose" and "flamebait") and misuse of the apostrophe is quite appropriate.
Hmmm. I generally agree with your other points. But you're wrong: I'm in Detroit and just had lunch for less than $4.
Not that anybody else around here knows what "igneous" means, especially those who still irritate me with the misuse of "your" ("Your a no good bastard!"). I hesitate to say the education system changed that much since I've been out of high school (11 years), but how can something so simple be screwed up by so many?
Anyhow, I apologize - Office XP sucks.
So, the kid figured he'd save some download time and not pull it from a warez server. Then he would find a key on the net later. Igneous little bugger - he knew the employees wouldn't have a clue. Too bad (for him) that the customers sometimes do.
My question is: Why the hell was Office on there? Whenever I used to do Apple Demo Days we were clearly told only to install what Apple told us to install. Now, I typically threw demos and freeware on there to spiff up my presentation, but what the hell was Office on there for?
Wow. I didn't realize it was either stable or consistent.
Oh, I should add to that that we don't have to roll the OS upgrades back, but for a while MS was making noises about that...
Raymond's conclusions are on track. For numerous years the theory has been that MS really didn't care about the OS - they were more focused on productivity software. I would argue that .Net and the Xbox both point in the direction that MS really isn't in this for the OS - they want to have a more insidious avenue into the household via your entertainment center (Xbox), your e-commerce (.Net), your mobile communications (PocketPC). Ballmer and Gates both have said that MS is becoming this (fuzzy) "services company." When you consider the way they've backed bids with the DirecTV and AT&T Broadband buyouts and you can see that MS is only using the OS as a means to an end, not the end itself.
Of course WIndows will become obsolete, because there will come a point where MS won't care about your PC any longer because MS will OwN j00!
Maybe you think it's a user preference. I, as a sorta-webmaster, prefer to open new windows.
That said, Box's cred would rise greatly if he weren't basically a spokespuppet for MS. And if he isn't a spokespuppet, maybe it's time to leave MS.
That said, I agree that the browsers should have an option to turn the target="_blank" off because it is your perogative as to whether you want one or more than one browser window open at a time (I currently have three open).
I'm sick of it. There are more important things in this life other than Bill (Bill! BILL!) and his twobit company's skewed view of the future.
I'm going to go over and grumble some more in the corner.
Maybe I'm just getting a little George Carlin- grumpy lately, maybe it's because I'm writing a eulogy for a friend's funeral, maybe it's because I'm sick of people at MS attempting to form competent sentences (please, stick with those inspired dance routines!), but please tell me: What's days aren't numbered?
HTTP has its issues, but referring to it as "the cockroah of the internet" and saying its days are numbered, and then saying that MS has a P2P solution!, just goes to show that not only are they power hungry in Redmond but seriously power-tripping...
Arrgghhhh....
Why is this "Off-Topic?" 9632 makes a perfectly good point. I figure we can charge id, to, while we're at...
The /. introduction from Jeff is a little misleading - Byron Sher's bill is for CRTs, Gloria Romero's is for everything.
I seriously wonder if Sher really knows what he's talking about - a CRT is not a pop bottle and has a much longer life. My Macintosh (Model M0001) still can attest to the life of a CRT. Collecting fees on the consumer level is utterly silly and isn't going to make me want to move to Cali any time soon.
Romero's plan might have some feasibility in that the emphasis would be placed on the company to come up with a reclaimation program, not placing fees on the consumers. I personally think that, in the long run, it would be cheaper for a company to take back the old machines. They can reclaim the gold from the boards, etc., and if they use proper plastic they could recycle to cases.
Now, I'm not a fan of Dell (politcally or in terms of OS choice), but I'm throughly impressed by the fact that whe Dell receives an off-lease machine back they clean it up and sell it on eBay for a decent price. I consider that a first step in the direction Romero and Sher are headed. I just think Sher could have talked with some folks in the real world before drafting his bill.
I'm trying to make a larger point here: I see /.ers complaining every day that the government is intrusive, that business should be left alone, etc. Now we find ourselves at a point where a business is dictating its terms and wants, and there are now so many of you complaining. The answer is very, very simple: Don't buy or play the games until Blizzard changes. Companies will listen to users if the users 1) know what they're talking about; and 2) approach the company en masse.
That said, I think Blizzard could be a little less restrictive about this. However, since I don't have issues with the Battle.net servers, it doesn't really bother me.
In the end, it's all IMHO.
Oh, and I know fair use inside and out - you're wrong. You can't go and photocopy an entire book - that's infringing on the author's rights and, arguably, you're not paying said author.
End all and be all is that eventually there will be iron-clad licenses, if there aren't already, that are completely legal. I don't see an issue with Blizzard saying "don't do this" when they give you numerous protocol options if you want to play in your home (those of you complaining about that) nor do I see an issue with Blizzard wanting you to use their servers. Hell, man, it's all over the packaging ("Play via Battle.net").
I personally think you're just pissy, not becuase you're paranoidicly worried of "an invasive police state."
Wrong. You bought a copy of the game. You don't have the source code, and you don't own the game, Blizzard does. You only own a copy. Ask any copyright lawyer. Another example: You don't own The Matrix on DVD, you own a copy.
You're Blizzard. What do you do?
I state an opinion that goes against the consensus and you mod me down, you little pricks?
Hmmm...maybe it's flamebait instead...
When you paid for your copy of the game you paid to play the game (no pun intended) by Blizzard's rules.
Sure, it's closed software. That's their decision to make - they have the right to open or close what they want to because they made it and own it. IMHO, if you don't like it, start an open source game company. FreeCiv is an excellent example of a game that can be shaped as someone sees fit, and obviously Sid Meier doesn't mind. However, if he thought it was infringing on his copyright I'm sure he would be doing the same thing as Blizzard, and he would have that right.
(As a side note, all of the play by e-mail players of Diplomacy are supposed to have their own copies of the board game - as dictated by Avalon Hill, and now Hasbro, in order to not be infringing on the game's copyright. Otherwise the game is basically considered pirated. Same situation Blizzard is in, just a different medium.)
So, if I buy a car or a toaster I am not buying a copy of a car or a toaster - it is physical property that I now own. If I buy a CD, though, I have the right, under fair use, to share the music with my friends, but that is the sticking point here: Art can be shared - but not for profit. However, a game is a product that can be distributed as the maker sees fit.
There is no true need to rely on the DMCA for this argument, it comes down to a license: you bought the product, you agreed to the license. Don't buy it and don't play it if you disagree with said license.
This isn't brain surgery.
Sorry about the italics...I should have previewed...