Caveat: I'm a Sofware Architect with Zend Framework.
You're characterizing ZF incorrectly. It is _both_ a library of uncoupled components _and_ a full-stack framework. It's quite clear that you've never used it and are in fact letting the blogosphere do your thinking for you. Additionally, while CakePHP and Symfony are both full-stack frameworks, Symfony is moving towards a more loosely coupled architecture now. Also, Symfony uses Yaml for configuration, not XML.
I personally never recommend one framework or language over another. You should always evaluate your application and business needs, and determine what tools will solve those best. Recommending a tool to somebody without telling them _why_ they might want to use it does nobody any good (for instance, why use CakePHP? Answer: convention over configuration, leading to RAD; PHP 4 compatibility; etc.). Answer the questions you do know, please.
If they just want normal day-to-day tasks, like reading email or the latest news, go with Windows -- there's nothing wrong with that.
Actually, those are arguments for using linux, not Windows. Email and web browsing are things that are truly cross-platform; reading mail in linux is as easy or easier than in Windows (contrary to popular belief, there are GUI email clients in linux, such as Thunderbird and Evolution), and linux users can choose from a plethora of web browsing clients, including the cross-platform Firefox.
The only place I've seen Windows as necessary is for some business applications (Project comes to mind, as well as some Windows-only proprietary thick clients for things such as mail order management platforms). Most general purpose tasks -- email, web browsing, word processing, spreadsheets, etc. -- have good equivalents in the free and open source world.
I used to be a rabid blackbox user, and helped contribute a patch or two (both to blackbox and to ROX-Filer so it would play well with blackbox). The big selling point for me was its small memory footprint -- this was especially important on my aging 366MHz machine.
However, a couple years ago, it felt like development towards 0.70 had stalled... and this after being on 0.65 for a year or two. I started investigating other window managers, just to see what was out there.
I discovered that xfwm4 had a similar footprint, but was already emwh compliant and offered some great eye candy as well. Not long after, I started trying OroboROX (visit the ROX website's software index for links to it). OroboROX offers similar functionality to xfwm4 with an even smaller footprint.
When I saw 0.70 had come out a few weeks ago, I wanted to see how things had progressed. It's certainly a nice window manager, and the emwh compliance is very well done. However, I did some benchmarking against OroboROX... and discovered that OroboROX actually used a smaller memory footprint than the new blackbox! And still has more eye candy!
So, kudos to blackbox, for finally getting to the 0.70 release... but I won't be using it.
But then, i don't think it has been designed with security in mind as much as convenience, exactly the same predicament that made IE such a huge security hole. There is auto-install of plug-ins
But you're missing two key differences: Firefox is not tied to the OS like IE is, and extensions are written in XUL, which isn't binary. In addition, on multi-user systems, you have to be an administrator (Windows) or root (*nix) in order to install an extension globally. What all this means is that if you download and install malware:
it may only affect you, as, on a multiuser system, only your profile will be affected
it may only affect your browser installation (if the plugin is installed globally).
Finally, if exploits are found in Mozilla's code, there's an army of developers out there ready to patch the code to eliminate it. All in all, I'd say the Firefox approach to extensions is head-and-shoulders beyond IE.
I've seen it in Win98SE and W2K, in both cases with Symantec Enterprise (for grouping various Norton utilities, like AV, Ghost, etc.). First I saw it was last fall, however.
I'm typically a Linux user, though I use neither GNOME nor KDE, and didn't start using a system tray until this past fall with xfwm4 and the xfce taskbar -- and none of the apps I've used need any grouping.
The patent application dates to 2001; it may possible be valid.
I started playing with linux on a laptop over four years ago. At first, it was simply to play with, see what it had to offer.
Later that year, my workstation died. I'd had a number of proprietary programs installed from a job I had only recently quit, so I no longer had access to them. Linux on my workstation was a no-brainer -- I could put on the GIMP, StarOffice (OpenOffice wasn't yet released), and Mozilla, and have just about everything I'd had before, without needing to shell out the money.
I stuck with linux for a variety of reasons. At first, cost was an issue. Later, I was running on underpowered hardware (200MHz, 64MB machine) on which Windows was sluggish, but linux with a minimal window manager flew; performance became the issue.
Now, years later, I'm working in a primarily Windows shop -- all our users use Windows, but our servers are linux. When I first started here, I tried to perform my job with Windows. But I discovered quickly that I simply couldn't get Windows to adapt to my work habits. I've grown accustomed to multiple workspaces, highlighting automatically going to the clipboard, shading windows, and, of all things, a command line. In addition, I'm accustomed to administering services at the CLI level, and the point-and-click interface of windows really feels unintuitive -- no handy man pages or a --help switch to give me command options.
So, in the end, I wiped my windows partition and went to linux -- and this time it was a usability issue. I'm simply more comfortable in an X and CLI environment than Win32.
I've been anti-microsoft in the past, and I still disagree with many of their decisions, business strategies, and technical decisions, but in the end, these are not my primary reasons for sticking with an OSS operating system; usability is.
Obviously you didn't follow the entire series of articles -- this was the 5th of 5 reviews of commercial Debian distros the author reviewed. In the first page of this particular one, he even notes that it will be long as he'll be comparing Xandros 2.0 features to those of the other distros he'd reviewed. Admittedly, I think it would have been better to do a shorter review of Xandros, and then a sixth article summing up, but he did make his intentions clear in the intro.
I've read a number of comments over the months saying that users can utilize P2P as a backup mechanism, as well as for making backup copies available remotely.
The problem with this is that if you are putting copyrighted content up on a P2P network, you're making it available to everyone -- not just you, the "end user" or consumer. Sure, some of the files you've got there may be legitimately copylefted, but how many P2P users who are swapping music and/or video are actually doing that as their primary use? Come on, be honest!
If you want a backup or to be able to remotely access the files, put them up on a server somewhere that requires authentication -- webserver, ftp server, ssh, whatever. There are any number of companies that will give you 150MB of space for 9.95/month US. Or, if you're on broadband, utilize some dynamic dns service and operate the servers yourself (put them on non-standard ports if your contract with the ISP doesn't allow you to run services).
But don't go crying foul when the RIAA legitimately claims that you are posting copyrighted material in a public forum for distribution.
I read this shortly after it arrived in paperback. I'd never read Michael Chabon before (although I'd been intrigued by the movie rendition of his book Wonder Boys), but the cover caught my eye.
It's an epic tale, with characters who engaged my interest far beyond my completion of the novel - I even named the computers on my network after them (I'm such a geek).
You don't need to be interested in comics to enjoy the story (I've recommended it to several people, including my wife, who have all enjoyed it). You've got youth, mystery, sex (of all sorts), death, middle age, innocence, corruption, politics, and more; there's something in it for just about anybody.
My only complaint is that it's so well written, you don't want to put it down, but the length of the book precludes reading it one sitting.
If the charge did come direct from the purchaser, the purchaser would choose a credit card that offered the lowest charge.
You're forgetting that the purchaser is choosing a card that offers the lowest charge -- the lowest interest rate, that is.
Credit card companies are making money on both ends of the transaction: transaction charges from the merchant, interest from the purchaser. As you said, we need to work around the problem of the credit card company transaction fees -- they need to adapt to a market that utilizes credit transactions for any amount of purchase, not just large purchases. Probably the best solution is to charge the lesser of 3% or $0.25 per transaction.
One comment that popped up in each review I read was how "slow-paced" FOTR was, and how the Two Towers kept a good pace throughout. Personally, I was shocked by the pace of FOTR -- I didn't remember the books being so action-oriented and violent. (My wife and I were gripping each other throughout the film, and wondering who the morons were who brought their 7-year-old kids to the flick.)
I re-read the books after seeing the film, and my impression remains: chapters of relative calm between brief episodes of intense adventure.
If FOTR was slow-paced, I'm leery of seeing the Two Towers... though I know I'll be going.
Pixar may have made the movie, but Disney distributes it and has at least partial ownership on the trademarks related to it. Kind of like the recording industry... artists make the music, but the companies pay to distribute.
Most OSS programs provide some sort of detail regarding who maintains the program -- usually in an AUTHORS file or a README file. And, usually, these files explain where the project's website is. Going there, you'll, again, usually, find a lot of resources for you, the user: mailing lists, forums, IRC channels, and more. (I personally prefer mailing lists.) Use those resources to dig around a little -- see if the bug has been addressed already and a fix is in CVS or a new version. If, and only if, you find that the "bug" you've found has not been addressed and is specific to this application, should you go to the bug tracking system for that project -- and on the BTS maintained by your distribution or package maintainer (this way they will release a new version). If the bug has been addressed, and you're seeing it because you have an outdated version from your distribution's packaging system, then file a bug on the packaging system's BTS asking them to upgrade to the newer version in order to fix the bug.
If you can't wait for your disto's new package to be released, consider rolling your own with by compiling the program and using such utilities as 'checkinstall'.
I can't comment on BSD, but I can comment on Slack vs. Debian.
I've used Mandrake, Slack, and Debian for my server. Mandrake almost maxed out my 2GB harddrive (/home was a separate 3GB harddrive, and was used for all data), Slack had it at approximately 53% disk usage, Debian currently has it at 37% usage. In addition, I noticed significantly better performance immediately under Debian, and much better stability (I had something like 5 kernel panics over the course of 6 months under Slack, none so far in 8 months under Debian). Security updates are also much easier to perform on Debian (a crontab entry to do updates from security.debian.org can do them unassisted in most cases). I liked Slack... but maintaining it was too non-trivial to justify my time.
1) They got broadband internet into a rural area (DSL) 2) (1) was achieved by creating a co-op
Contrary to the popular belief of some slashdot folks, broadband does not exist everywhere. From reading the page, it appears that they were unable to get broadband, wanted it, and found a solution (co-opting the Qwest lines and establishing their own CO for the DSL lines). They can't share a connection that doesn't exist, so they created a connection in the best way they could.
I work in IT, with no certifications other than a BA in Comparative Religion. My computer skills are entirely self-taught, and I have been able to work in areas of increasing responsibility and complexity.
Typically, I've switched jobs or applied for new ones based on who I know at the new job, or what I know about them. The biggest thing you can do for yourself is to identify _where_ you want to work -- and then do your research. Do you know anybody who works there -- or have friends of friends who work there -- who can tell you more about the place, including what positions are open, what skills they need? I identified an employer I wanted to work for based on their reputation in the community, and then started asking questions. When I discovered they needed people with PHP experience, I taught myself PHP and applied -- and got the job.
In another instance, with a freelance job, I knew somebody tangentially related to a department that needed some webwork done on contract -- and she put in a word for me. It was my communication skills, in the end, that got me the job.
While your resume may shine, and you've got it plastered all over town, people still like to go with known variables -- so you'll need to circulate, and get to know people (in case you don't already;) ).
Go to Toastmasters, and participate. Or find somebody who can coach you through some interviews -- chances are there's a job service in your area with whom you can sign up that could help you.
Don't expect to get a job on your skills and talent alone. A workplace isn't just a computer -- it's people, and they need to know that they can communicate with you, and vice versa, before they hire you. Programmers do not work in isolated environments anymore.
If you don't have any illegal or pirated software, what have you to hide? Basically the fact that you are so worried about it indicates that you do have something to hide...
You're then claiming that the person is guilty until proven innocent?
Have you ever worked in a medium-to-large sized corporation and tried to keep track of licenses? It's difficult even in small businesses. Unless a system is designed and put into practice from the first day a computer is bought, it's incredibly difficult to ensure that an IT officer knows from one day to the next what software the company owns, which computers that software may be on, and the serial numbers of all hardware and software components for each particular computer. Add to that the fact that many users install software of their own (in spite of company policies) and that the particular software and OS choices the department needed to make to support the software needed may not prevent the users from doing so... well, you can see the conundrum.
When an organization as large as a university needs to conduct an audit, it will never end up being 100% accurate, if nothing else because the time involved in performing it is bound to allow people to go back and make changes to their system after the auditors have passed through.
Basically, what I'm saying is that proving your innocence in the matter is going to be difficult, if not impossible, because of the large number of machines and users involved. Proving that you at least try to comply can be easier, especially if there are documented policies about hardware and software installation and usage.
The BSA, and those who utilize the BSA, are asking end users for an absolute compliance which is unrealistic in most real-world situations -- and thus criminalize even those that make a sincere effort to comply.
This OS -- and its Darwin offspring -- extensively use what are called "daemons" (which is how Pagans write "demon" -- they are notoriously poor spellers: magick, vampyre, etc.)... hmmm, evidently these people, hoaxers or otherwise, overlooked the fact that daemon, a word used in the bible, means "helper"...
Did you read the post? He said "I'm involved in a project that's planning to create open source toys for educating people around complicated policy questions (e.g., policy on prescription drugs)," and that the cost of Flash is "more than some of the community group folks we want to involve can afford". It sounds to me like he's working for a non-profit and that there will be volunteer developers assisting in the project. And THAT would be a perfect use for free (as in beer) software coded by open source developers. Get off your high horse and stop trolling.
I studied AI briefly in college... and ended up studying comparative religion. What it came down to was this: computer scientists are trying to determine how to make a "thinking" machine, and artificial "intelligence". We would talk a little bit about ethics -- "would it be ethical to pull the plug on an artificial intelligence?" -- and about non-binary thought, but all this left me with more questions than answers.
But what is thinking? what is intelligence? Can human intelligence truly be separated from our bodies? how do we account for desires, fears, joys? how do we account for emotions? Do not all of these contribute to intelligence and thinking? These are factors to consider when discussing thinking machines and artifical intelligence. Some AI researchers do -- and I have to admire them for it.
However, what I've noticed in the years since I studied AI in college is that AI is being used as a catch-all term for "fuzzy logic" and pattern recognition -- great for creating games that challenge us -- but leaving me with the same questions today as I had over a decade ago.
After reading the article, two themes emerge: copyright of intellectual property and free use thereof. These two concepts can be interpreted as follows (my interpretation, based on limited understanding): Copyright is a law created with the intention of protecting creators control distribution of their creations for a limited duration -- after which they have the opportunity to renew their control or allow it to pass into the public domain. Free use is a concept by which those who purchase intellectual propery are allowed to use it in any way they wish as long as they do not re-distribute it.
So, theoretically, those that hold copyright on music/movies/etc. should have the final say on how to distribute it. The problem is that it isn't just the artists that hold the copyright -- it's also the publisher of the creation -- i.e., the movie distributor, the recording label, etc. What they want is for somebody to buy the music/movies/books they distribute. In most cases, they could probably care less what we do with them once we purchase them.
However, a large number of people have made it very public that consumers don't simply purchase them and keep them in their own house -- they copy them and give them to friends, or, in the case of the internet, complete strangers. And they do it for free.
What's interesting is that it's not typically the artist who will suffer from this -- especially in the case of music or books, where the artist literally gets pennies to the dollar in royalties -- it's the distribution/publishing companies. And since they own copyright on the materials, they have a legal case.
The problem is then this: what if I, who own XXX cd and YYY DVD, want to make one or two archival copies so that I don't ruin my original by playing it too much? What if I want a copy of XXX cd to play in the car, an mp3 copy of it to play on my computer at work, and my cd to keep at home in my CD player? Well, because the recording industry feels that we as consumers only want to copy materials in order to re-distribute them, they want to curtail our ability to do these things -- especially since digital media is so portable and easily distributed.
Who's right? The recording industry has legal precedence (copyright laws) -- but so do consumers (audio and VHS recording technologies exist, after all, under the umbrella of "fair use"). Who will win? The people who scream loudest in the ears of the lawmakers.
While all of this -- creating your own GNUstep desktop from your existing distribution -- makes sense to experienced Linux users, what about the Linux newbie? Most distributions out there default to either KDE or GNOME -- and the newbie may not realize that s/he has a choice in the matter. And one reason a Mac user may not choose Linux is because the graphical interfaces they typically see too closely resemble Windows -- which many Mac users see as anathema. WindowMaker and GNUstep offer a different choice for the newcomer to Linux.
I think that this new offering is a step in the right direction. Isn't one of the wonderful things about Linux the freedom of choice? And don't all choices deserve representation?
Should we be in college, or a directed "tech" school/career program/trade school?
The idea of the university as a job-training ground is relatively recent. The original idea was to promote academic and scholastic learning. You went to university to learn about a subject -- and possibly contribute to the body of knowledge on the subject.
Today, the popular notion is that you can't get a decent job -- or be qualified for a decent job -- unless you go to college. This notion is popularized by both the press, businesses, and the universities themselves. But should this be true?
In four years at a typical institution, a student will take 10 or so classes in their chosen major, and an equal or greater number in a group of "core" requirements the university has selected as necessary for a college-educated individual to function in the outside world. With the relatively small number of classes necessary to graduate in a given major, and the fact that little time is spent in actual applications, is it any wonder that students feel unprepared for their jobs once they graduate?
I know a large number of people who believe that the bachelor's degree is but the first step -- real training then occurs in graduate school.
But now take a step back and look to Europe. While the following is certainly not 100% true, it's fairly accurate: if a person wants to go into an academic-based career or simply take the time to edify themselves, they go to college; otherwise, they go to a trade school. The idea then is that in the latter case, they get intensive and thorough training in the career of their choice.
Myself? I went to college at first with the idea of getting a career at the end. After a little more than a year, I shifted track and decided I wanted to learn about things I wouldn't get a chance to otherwise -- and ended up with a religion degree. Today, I have trained myself -- and been trained by my employers -- to program. My college experience and training taught me how to learn more efficiently -- but was not necessary for my career or livelihood.
I've got both Mandrake 8 and slackware 8 loaded on my machine, and I've used slackware exclusively for about 2 months now.
Mandrake is great for the end user or the linux user who doesn't want to delve to far into the configuration -- or learn about the standards. (This is not meant to be a disparaging comment -- this has been primarily how I've operated on linux) However, I wanted to learn a little more, and I discovered that HOWTOs and tutorials that detailed changes in initialization and configuration scripts failed me when I tried to apply them to my Mandrake box. With Slackware, however, they work perfectly. I was able to get sendmail, fetchmail, and procmail working in a matter of minutes, and printing was more consistent and easier to configure.
In addition, I have tried, and tried, and tried to compile many a program on my Mandrake box in the past year, and only about 25% of the time do I have success. With Slackware, I've had better than 75% success (with the massive exception of KDE). And compiling new kernels is much easier -- as well as adding new hardware (I had my new Olympus digital camera downloading images via USB within minutes). (My slackware kernel and init scripts take a matter of 60 seconds to boot -- compared to 2-3 minutes on my Mandrake box -- and that's even after recompiling the kernel to disable support and using DrakConf to eliminate unnecessary init scripts!)
The trade-off, of course, is that you have to take a little more time to understand what it is you're doing and why -- but once you've learned a few basics, you'll find many tasks much simpler and easier to implement.
Installing Slackware these days is fairly easy -- the menu-based installation took me a bit more time to go through the options than Mandrake's point-and-click interface, but everything I wanted -- and no more -- was installed successfully the first time. My only beef is that on first boot you have to go into the/etc/rc.d/rc.modules file to uncomment the modules for hardware/services you need, and that the xf96config script is simply horrendous -- I had to grab settings from my Mandrake partition to get it to properly configure.
All-in-all, I would recommend Mandrake for those who want to simply use their Linux computer (and what use is a computer if you're not using it?) and Slackware for those who want to optimize their computer and minimize resource use -- or learn SysV init scripts and standards-compliant Unix.
Slashdot Mirror
Caveat: I'm a Sofware Architect with Zend Framework.
You're characterizing ZF incorrectly. It is _both_ a library of uncoupled components _and_ a full-stack framework. It's quite clear that you've never used it and are in fact letting the blogosphere do your thinking for you. Additionally, while CakePHP and Symfony are both full-stack frameworks, Symfony is moving towards a more loosely coupled architecture now. Also, Symfony uses Yaml for configuration, not XML.
I personally never recommend one framework or language over another. You should always evaluate your application and business needs, and determine what tools will solve those best. Recommending a tool to somebody without telling them _why_ they might want to use it does nobody any good (for instance, why use CakePHP? Answer: convention over configuration, leading to RAD; PHP 4 compatibility; etc.). Answer the questions you do know, please.
Actually, those are arguments for using linux, not Windows. Email and web browsing are things that are truly cross-platform; reading mail in linux is as easy or easier than in Windows (contrary to popular belief, there are GUI email clients in linux, such as Thunderbird and Evolution), and linux users can choose from a plethora of web browsing clients, including the cross-platform Firefox.
The only place I've seen Windows as necessary is for some business applications (Project comes to mind, as well as some Windows-only proprietary thick clients for things such as mail order management platforms). Most general purpose tasks -- email, web browsing, word processing, spreadsheets, etc. -- have good equivalents in the free and open source world.I used to be a rabid blackbox user, and helped contribute a patch or two (both to blackbox and to ROX-Filer so it would play well with blackbox). The big selling point for me was its small memory footprint -- this was especially important on my aging 366MHz machine.
However, a couple years ago, it felt like development towards 0.70 had stalled... and this after being on 0.65 for a year or two. I started investigating other window managers, just to see what was out there.
I discovered that xfwm4 had a similar footprint, but was already emwh compliant and offered some great eye candy as well. Not long after, I started trying OroboROX (visit the ROX website's software index for links to it). OroboROX offers similar functionality to xfwm4 with an even smaller footprint.
When I saw 0.70 had come out a few weeks ago, I wanted to see how things had progressed. It's certainly a nice window manager, and the emwh compliance is very well done. However, I did some benchmarking against OroboROX... and discovered that OroboROX actually used a smaller memory footprint than the new blackbox! And still has more eye candy!
So, kudos to blackbox, for finally getting to the 0.70 release... but I won't be using it.
But you're missing two key differences: Firefox is not tied to the OS like IE is, and extensions are written in XUL, which isn't binary. In addition, on multi-user systems, you have to be an administrator (Windows) or root (*nix) in order to install an extension globally. What all this means is that if you download and install malware:
Finally, if exploits are found in Mozilla's code, there's an army of developers out there ready to patch the code to eliminate it. All in all, I'd say the Firefox approach to extensions is head-and-shoulders beyond IE.
I've seen it in Win98SE and W2K, in both cases with Symantec Enterprise (for grouping various Norton utilities, like AV, Ghost, etc.). First I saw it was last fall, however.
I'm typically a Linux user, though I use neither GNOME nor KDE, and didn't start using a system tray until this past fall with xfwm4 and the xfce taskbar -- and none of the apps I've used need any grouping.
The patent application dates to 2001; it may possible be valid.
I started playing with linux on a laptop over four years ago. At first, it was simply to play with, see what it had to offer.
Later that year, my workstation died. I'd had a number of proprietary programs installed from a job I had only recently quit, so I no longer had access to them. Linux on my workstation was a no-brainer -- I could put on the GIMP, StarOffice (OpenOffice wasn't yet released), and Mozilla, and have just about everything I'd had before, without needing to shell out the money.
I stuck with linux for a variety of reasons. At first, cost was an issue. Later, I was running on underpowered hardware (200MHz, 64MB machine) on which Windows was sluggish, but linux with a minimal window manager flew; performance became the issue.
Now, years later, I'm working in a primarily Windows shop -- all our users use Windows, but our servers are linux. When I first started here, I tried to perform my job with Windows. But I discovered quickly that I simply couldn't get Windows to adapt to my work habits. I've grown accustomed to multiple workspaces, highlighting automatically going to the clipboard, shading windows, and, of all things, a command line. In addition, I'm accustomed to administering services at the CLI level, and the point-and-click interface of windows really feels unintuitive -- no handy man pages or a --help switch to give me command options.
So, in the end, I wiped my windows partition and went to linux -- and this time it was a usability issue. I'm simply more comfortable in an X and CLI environment than Win32.
I've been anti-microsoft in the past, and I still disagree with many of their decisions, business strategies, and technical decisions, but in the end, these are not my primary reasons for sticking with an OSS operating system; usability is.
Obviously you didn't follow the entire series of articles -- this was the 5th of 5 reviews of commercial Debian distros the author reviewed. In the first page of this particular one, he even notes that it will be long as he'll be comparing Xandros 2.0 features to those of the other distros he'd reviewed. Admittedly, I think it would have been better to do a shorter review of Xandros, and then a sixth article summing up, but he did make his intentions clear in the intro.
I've read a number of comments over the months saying that users can utilize P2P as a backup mechanism, as well as for making backup copies available remotely.
The problem with this is that if you are putting copyrighted content up on a P2P network, you're making it available to everyone -- not just you, the "end user" or consumer. Sure, some of the files you've got there may be legitimately copylefted, but how many P2P users who are swapping music and/or video are actually doing that as their primary use? Come on, be honest!
If you want a backup or to be able to remotely access the files, put them up on a server somewhere that requires authentication -- webserver, ftp server, ssh, whatever. There are any number of companies that will give you 150MB of space for 9.95/month US. Or, if you're on broadband, utilize some dynamic dns service and operate the servers yourself (put them on non-standard ports if your contract with the ISP doesn't allow you to run services).
But don't go crying foul when the RIAA legitimately claims that you are posting copyrighted material in a public forum for distribution.
It's an epic tale, with characters who engaged my interest far beyond my completion of the novel - I even named the computers on my network after them (I'm such a geek).
You don't need to be interested in comics to enjoy the story (I've recommended it to several people, including my wife, who have all enjoyed it). You've got youth, mystery, sex (of all sorts), death, middle age, innocence, corruption, politics, and more; there's something in it for just about anybody.
My only complaint is that it's so well written, you don't want to put it down, but the length of the book precludes reading it one sitting.
You're forgetting that the purchaser is choosing a card that offers the lowest charge -- the lowest interest rate, that is.
Credit card companies are making money on both ends of the transaction: transaction charges from the merchant, interest from the purchaser. As you said, we need to work around the problem of the credit card company transaction fees -- they need to adapt to a market that utilizes credit transactions for any amount of purchase, not just large purchases. Probably the best solution is to charge the lesser of 3% or $0.25 per transaction.
One comment that popped up in each review I read was how "slow-paced" FOTR was, and how the Two Towers kept a good pace throughout. Personally, I was shocked by the pace of FOTR -- I didn't remember the books being so action-oriented and violent. (My wife and I were gripping each other throughout the film, and wondering who the morons were who brought their 7-year-old kids to the flick.)
I re-read the books after seeing the film, and my impression remains: chapters of relative calm between brief episodes of intense adventure.
If FOTR was slow-paced, I'm leery of seeing the Two Towers... though I know I'll be going.
Pixar may have made the movie, but Disney distributes it and has at least partial ownership on the trademarks related to it. Kind of like the recording industry... artists make the music, but the companies pay to distribute.
Most OSS programs provide some sort of detail regarding who maintains the program -- usually in an AUTHORS file or a README file. And, usually, these files explain where the project's website is. Going there, you'll, again, usually, find a lot of resources for you, the user: mailing lists, forums, IRC channels, and more. (I personally prefer mailing lists.) Use those resources to dig around a little -- see if the bug has been addressed already and a fix is in CVS or a new version. If, and only if, you find that the "bug" you've found has not been addressed and is specific to this application, should you go to the bug tracking system for that project -- and on the BTS maintained by your distribution or package maintainer (this way they will release a new version). If the bug has been addressed, and you're seeing it because you have an outdated version from your distribution's packaging system, then file a bug on the packaging system's BTS asking them to upgrade to the newer version in order to fix the bug.
If you can't wait for your disto's new package to be released, consider rolling your own with by compiling the program and using such utilities as 'checkinstall'.
I can't comment on BSD, but I can comment on Slack vs. Debian.
I've used Mandrake, Slack, and Debian for my server. Mandrake almost maxed out my 2GB harddrive (/home was a separate 3GB harddrive, and was used for all data), Slack had it at approximately 53% disk usage, Debian currently has it at 37% usage. In addition, I noticed significantly better performance immediately under Debian, and much better stability (I had something like 5 kernel panics over the course of 6 months under Slack, none so far in 8 months under Debian). Security updates are also much easier to perform on Debian (a crontab entry to do updates from security.debian.org can do them unassisted in most cases). I liked Slack... but maintaining it was too non-trivial to justify my time.
I think the point of the article is two-fold:
1) They got broadband internet into a rural area (DSL)
2) (1) was achieved by creating a co-op
Contrary to the popular belief of some slashdot folks, broadband does not exist everywhere. From reading the page, it appears that they were unable to get broadband, wanted it, and found a solution (co-opting the Qwest lines and establishing their own CO for the DSL lines). They can't share a connection that doesn't exist, so they created a connection in the best way they could.
I work in IT, with no certifications other than a BA in Comparative Religion. My computer skills are entirely self-taught, and I have been able to work in areas of increasing responsibility and complexity.
;) ).
Typically, I've switched jobs or applied for new ones based on who I know at the new job, or what I know about them. The biggest thing you can do for yourself is to identify _where_ you want to work -- and then do your research. Do you know anybody who works there -- or have friends of friends who work there -- who can tell you more about the place, including what positions are open, what skills they need? I identified an employer I wanted to work for based on their reputation in the community, and then started asking questions. When I discovered they needed people with PHP experience, I taught myself PHP and applied -- and got the job.
In another instance, with a freelance job, I knew somebody tangentially related to a department that needed some webwork done on contract -- and she put in a word for me. It was my communication skills, in the end, that got me the job.
While your resume may shine, and you've got it plastered all over town, people still like to go with known variables -- so you'll need to circulate, and get to know people (in case you don't already
Go to Toastmasters, and participate. Or find somebody who can coach you through some interviews -- chances are there's a job service in your area with whom you can sign up that could help you.
Don't expect to get a job on your skills and talent alone. A workplace isn't just a computer -- it's people, and they need to know that they can communicate with you, and vice versa, before they hire you. Programmers do not work in isolated environments anymore.
You're then claiming that the person is guilty until proven innocent?
Have you ever worked in a medium-to-large sized corporation and tried to keep track of licenses? It's difficult even in small businesses. Unless a system is designed and put into practice from the first day a computer is bought, it's incredibly difficult to ensure that an IT officer knows from one day to the next what software the company owns, which computers that software may be on, and the serial numbers of all hardware and software components for each particular computer. Add to that the fact that many users install software of their own (in spite of company policies) and that the particular software and OS choices the department needed to make to support the software needed may not prevent the users from doing so... well, you can see the conundrum.
When an organization as large as a university needs to conduct an audit, it will never end up being 100% accurate, if nothing else because the time involved in performing it is bound to allow people to go back and make changes to their system after the auditors have passed through.
Basically, what I'm saying is that proving your innocence in the matter is going to be difficult, if not impossible, because of the large number of machines and users involved. Proving that you at least try to comply can be easier, especially if there are documented policies about hardware and software installation and usage.
The BSA, and those who utilize the BSA, are asking end users for an absolute compliance which is unrealistic in most real-world situations -- and thus criminalize even those that make a sincere effort to comply.
This OS -- and its Darwin offspring -- extensively use what are called "daemons" (which is how Pagans write "demon" -- they are notoriously poor spellers: magick, vampyre, etc.)... hmmm, evidently these people, hoaxers or otherwise, overlooked the fact that daemon, a word used in the bible, means "helper"...
Did you read the post? He said "I'm involved in a project that's planning to create open source toys for educating people around complicated policy questions (e.g., policy on prescription drugs)," and that the cost of Flash is "more than some of the community group folks we want to involve can afford". It sounds to me like he's working for a non-profit and that there will be volunteer developers assisting in the project. And THAT would be a perfect use for free (as in beer) software coded by open source developers. Get off your high horse and stop trolling.
I studied AI briefly in college... and ended up studying comparative religion. What it came down to was this: computer scientists are trying to determine how to make a "thinking" machine, and artificial "intelligence". We would talk a little bit about ethics -- "would it be ethical to pull the plug on an artificial intelligence?" -- and about non-binary thought, but all this left me with more questions than answers.
But what is thinking? what is intelligence? Can human intelligence truly be separated from our bodies? how do we account for desires, fears, joys? how do we account for emotions? Do not all of these contribute to intelligence and thinking? These are factors to consider when discussing thinking machines and artifical intelligence. Some AI researchers do -- and I have to admire them for it.
However, what I've noticed in the years since I studied AI in college is that AI is being used as a catch-all term for "fuzzy logic" and pattern recognition -- great for creating games that challenge us -- but leaving me with the same questions today as I had over a decade ago.
After reading the article, two themes emerge: copyright of intellectual property and free use thereof. These two concepts can be interpreted as follows (my interpretation, based on limited understanding): Copyright is a law created with the intention of protecting creators control distribution of their creations for a limited duration -- after which they have the opportunity to renew their control or allow it to pass into the public domain. Free use is a concept by which those who purchase intellectual propery are allowed to use it in any way they wish as long as they do not re-distribute it.
So, theoretically, those that hold copyright on music/movies/etc. should have the final say on how to distribute it. The problem is that it isn't just the artists that hold the copyright -- it's also the publisher of the creation -- i.e., the movie distributor, the recording label, etc. What they want is for somebody to buy the music/movies/books they distribute. In most cases, they could probably care less what we do with them once we purchase them.
However, a large number of people have made it very public that consumers don't simply purchase them and keep them in their own house -- they copy them and give them to friends, or, in the case of the internet, complete strangers. And they do it for free.
What's interesting is that it's not typically the artist who will suffer from this -- especially in the case of music or books, where the artist literally gets pennies to the dollar in royalties -- it's the distribution/publishing companies. And since they own copyright on the materials, they have a legal case.
The problem is then this: what if I, who own XXX cd and YYY DVD, want to make one or two archival copies so that I don't ruin my original by playing it too much? What if I want a copy of XXX cd to play in the car, an mp3 copy of it to play on my computer at work, and my cd to keep at home in my CD player? Well, because the recording industry feels that we as consumers only want to copy materials in order to re-distribute them, they want to curtail our ability to do these things -- especially since digital media is so portable and easily distributed.
Who's right? The recording industry has legal precedence (copyright laws) -- but so do consumers (audio and VHS recording technologies exist, after all, under the umbrella of "fair use"). Who will win? The people who scream loudest in the ears of the lawmakers.
While all of this -- creating your own GNUstep desktop from your existing distribution -- makes sense to experienced Linux users, what about the Linux newbie? Most distributions out there default to either KDE or GNOME -- and the newbie may not realize that s/he has a choice in the matter. And one reason a Mac user may not choose Linux is because the graphical interfaces they typically see too closely resemble Windows -- which many Mac users see as anathema. WindowMaker and GNUstep offer a different choice for the newcomer to Linux.
I think that this new offering is a step in the right direction. Isn't one of the wonderful things about Linux the freedom of choice? And don't all choices deserve representation?
just my 2 cents.
mwop
Are we going to college for the right reasons?
Should we be in college, or a directed "tech" school/career program/trade school?
The idea of the university as a job-training ground is relatively recent. The original idea was to promote academic and scholastic learning. You went to university to learn about a subject -- and possibly contribute to the body of knowledge on the subject.
Today, the popular notion is that you can't get a decent job -- or be qualified for a decent job -- unless you go to college. This notion is popularized by both the press, businesses, and the universities themselves. But should this be true?
In four years at a typical institution, a student will take 10 or so classes in their chosen major, and an equal or greater number in a group of "core" requirements the university has selected as necessary for a college-educated individual to function in the outside world. With the relatively small number of classes necessary to graduate in a given major, and the fact that little time is spent in actual applications, is it any wonder that students feel unprepared for their jobs once they graduate?
I know a large number of people who believe that the bachelor's degree is but the first step -- real training then occurs in graduate school.
But now take a step back and look to Europe. While the following is certainly not 100% true, it's fairly accurate: if a person wants to go into an academic-based career or simply take the time to edify themselves, they go to college; otherwise, they go to a trade school. The idea then is that in the latter case, they get intensive and thorough training in the career of their choice.
Myself? I went to college at first with the idea of getting a career at the end. After a little more than a year, I shifted track and decided I wanted to learn about things I wouldn't get a chance to otherwise -- and ended up with a religion degree. Today, I have trained myself -- and been trained by my employers -- to program. My college experience and training taught me how to learn more efficiently -- but was not necessary for my career or livelihood.
What about you?
I've got both Mandrake 8 and slackware 8 loaded on my machine, and I've used slackware exclusively for about 2 months now.
/etc/rc.d/rc.modules file to uncomment the modules for hardware/services you need, and that the xf96config script is simply horrendous -- I had to grab settings from my Mandrake partition to get it to properly configure.
Mandrake is great for the end user or the linux user who doesn't want to delve to far into the configuration -- or learn about the standards. (This is not meant to be a disparaging comment -- this has been primarily how I've operated on linux) However, I wanted to learn a little more, and I discovered that HOWTOs and tutorials that detailed changes in initialization and configuration scripts failed me when I tried to apply them to my Mandrake box. With Slackware, however, they work perfectly. I was able to get sendmail, fetchmail, and procmail working in a matter of minutes, and printing was more consistent and easier to configure.
In addition, I have tried, and tried, and tried to compile many a program on my Mandrake box in the past year, and only about 25% of the time do I have success. With Slackware, I've had better than 75% success (with the massive exception of KDE). And compiling new kernels is much easier -- as well as adding new hardware (I had my new Olympus digital camera downloading images via USB within minutes). (My slackware kernel and init scripts take a matter of 60 seconds to boot -- compared to 2-3 minutes on my Mandrake box -- and that's even after recompiling the kernel to disable support and using DrakConf to eliminate unnecessary init scripts!)
The trade-off, of course, is that you have to take a little more time to understand what it is you're doing and why -- but once you've learned a few basics, you'll find many tasks much simpler and easier to implement.
Installing Slackware these days is fairly easy -- the menu-based installation took me a bit more time to go through the options than Mandrake's point-and-click interface, but everything I wanted -- and no more -- was installed successfully the first time. My only beef is that on first boot you have to go into the
All-in-all, I would recommend Mandrake for those who want to simply use their Linux computer (and what use is a computer if you're not using it?) and Slackware for those who want to optimize their computer and minimize resource use -- or learn SysV init scripts and standards-compliant Unix.