One must never discount those wild Ice-Age parties, where beer-goggling can lead to more than just a little shame. ("Dude, you slept outside your own species!? WTF were you thinking?! I TOLD you not to eat the worm! Didn't I? Didn't I? But NooooOOOOooo... you just had to!")
After all, condoms hadn't even been invented yet, y'know?
I have naught but Linux, FBSD and Mac OSX @ home, and I use Comcast as well. I have been with 'em for just over two years now, across three apartments and a house, in both Utah and Oregon.
All I needed to do to get it going was to simply plug in the Mac and (oftentimes) show the tech how to check and reset DHCP on the Mac's Network control window in System Preferences.
In the four times I had it installed (most recently last month), I simply fired up the Mac, set it to DHCP, and it connected once the tech had the CO turn it on for me. Once the tech was satisfied and left, I recorded the DNS info that the Mac caught, then disconnected it and plugged in my router, using the new DNS info, allowing it to get the rest of what it needed via DHCP.
I had only one problem with an install, in February, which was traced to a bad cable connection at one of the apartment's cable outlet plates - it was causing a major slowdown. The tech that came out to fix it was totally okay with my having no Windows machinery in the house, and never even once thought of blaming 'em, preferring instead to check the cabling first.
I think I had one tech ask that I get/use IE to set it up initially in 2005, but I instead showed him how to t-shoot it on the Mac, and use Safari to hit the Comcast site (which worked/works just fine, BTW, as does Firefox).
It isn't the practicality (or even the usefulness) of the key in question, it was the shitstorm of fallout that MSFT had to eat because of its discovery.
Hell, if I were MSFT, I'd stay the hell away from such subjects too after that one.
Somebody writes a worm for OSX that works across a specific test network (of which we have no clue as to settings, layout, patch levels, etc etc), and it's really, really, really big news. Media orgs around the planet sound the klaxon, and (nearly) everyone gets all hyper-ventilated. Claims of "OSX is just as vulnerable!!!1111!!" will fly off the pages.
Meanwhile, the next near-periodic iteration of MSFT-specific malware in-the-wild will get not so much as a grunt outside of security circles (such as SANS ISC and F-Secure's blog as ferinstances). It will likely subvert 40x as many victims in its first hour, and the media won't say so much as 'boo' about it.
Perspective (at least outside of security and some geek circles)? Never heard of it.
"or in this particular case, your new CIO is a former Microsoftie who can't seem to think of using anything that didn't come from his former employer"
You have anything to back up that claim? It's easy to say that the guy that made the decision is corrupt; it's a lot harder to actually demonstrate it. And no, just having been formerly involved with MS is not enough.
It's sort of been splattered all over the article replies; Everything else is mere trolling on your part (e.g. read my posts - I never once called it a direct "kickback", just said that it reeks of one, as explained in patient detail) - so no cookie for you.
If you complain ab't the price, and they lower it, okay...
If you complain ab't the price (or in this particular case, your new CIO is a former Microsoftie who can't seem to think of using anything that didn;t come from his former employer), then in response they allow you to literally break the EULA?
It may not be a classical kickback, but it certainly stinks.
My employer pays something like $40/hr (I think..I'm salary). So if I spent even 10 hours getting as good with Gimp as I already am with Photoshop, then the closed-source product is cheaper.
It would be... until CS4 comes out.
Both Photoshop and GIMP's next respective iterations will likely cost just as much as the current ones. In P-Shop's case, it may be more.
That's not just a whiff (notice the summary which mentions that MS lets the users take the license home with 'em?)
That said, I find it kind of funny that a roadmap is suddenly invoked. Not that it isn't a valid point, but since when has there ever been a roadmap w/ MS Office - or rather, one that didn't include lots of potholes (e.g. incompatibilities w/ earlier versions of the same product, a HUGE spike-strip between the MS Office and MS Works lanes, etc).
Given the context, that part sounded far, far too weak to me.
IMHO: I think what happened is that the CIO/IT dep't wound up screwing the pooch w/ migrations (either by poor planning or poor execution), and cried "Uncle Microsoft to the rescue!" to save his butt from getting sacked outright.
Why do they need to change the shape of the mirror? Why can't they just correct the problem using DSP after the fact? Presumably if you know how the atmosphere distorts while taking the image, you can apply the inverse kernel later on...
Might be for resolution reasons... from an engineering standpoint, it appears to be more feasible to make minute modifications on a big honkin' mirror, than to try and make changes based on what a much smaller CCD picks up off of it.
That and I suspect that it would allow them to use non-digital gear (okay, film) to record with the exact same result of data intake, or to swap out visible CCD's with infrared (w/o the additional expense and duplication, or in calibrating between the two different sensors, etc).
I wonder if they'll be able to use this to find William Shatner's career?
They already found that, but it required that they use the Big Ear, and listen for the source of a faint but recognizable "Khaaaaan!" that's been reverberating about the galaxy for awhile now.
They kinda forgot about the whole optical vs. radio thing, didn't they?
OTOH, does interferometry(?) count when you're announcing the world's largest optical telescope (as in, singular instrument, which I believe is assumed here)?
From the article, this MPX thing seems to consist of nothing more than a modified X server, running "normal" (i.e., designed for a single cursor) applications. Therefore, it is not nearly as impressive as the MS Surface.
Forget "impressive" - let's talk "practical". (warning: impending car analogy...)
One of these two I might or might not see in the indeterminate future; sort of like looking at a "concept car". The other I can likely put to use right now, with only the matter of getting my mitts on the right parts to do it; sort of like looking at a "custom car".
One of these two uses parts that haven't been invented yet, and may or may not even work. The other uses common parts that anyone can put to use.
Storage? How often do you store things on the surface where you use your computer?
Easily... I can jam paper items that need attention under the monitor (e.g. bills), the bucket o' caffeine (say, a 20 oz. bottle of soda or cup of coffee) sits somewhere next to the keyboard, blank CDs/DVDs, geek sticks, etc etc etc... clutter items all, but in the current setup, none of it blocks my view of the screen, or hinders my typing on the keyboard.
This technology will be soon implemented in such unheard of places as conference rooms, executive boardrooms, public kiosks and convention displays.
Kiosks I could see - an interactive "you are here" sorta map/info center... the expense might limit how many get used, though I like the idea...
Board/conference rooms? Good idea. We're still at a place where everyone brings their own PDA's or laptops to show off the latest Powerpoint-built labor-of-love, so that'll have to be factored in. I suppose that some sort of driver could be plugged into to translate not only outbound video, but mouse inputs (then again, don't they have similar rigs already, at least to some extent?)
Typing can be easily implemented with a HUD keyboard as found on many PDA and touchscreen laptops.
It's kind of neat and all, but aside from the Star Trek TNG factor, what practical uses could anyone really put this to? If it's on a flat horizontal surface, it's sort of wasted space (after all, I can store stuff on a tabletop!) If it's on a vertical surface, then typing becomes a raging PITA (unless typing will become obsolete/replace with something else to express thoughts and work?)
Maybe it's just me, but I'm not seeing any widespread practical use for this critter outside of some extreme niches (e.g. kiosk or limited industrial or medical machine interfaces).
If you don't believe that proprietary software is immoral (and Linus doesn't) then you don't follow RMS. Why use his license?
...because some believe that proprietary software is impractical to progress. That doesn't necessarily translate into morality, especially when seen from a purely objective standpoint.
Also, back when Torvalds was fussing over what license to use, the options were slim... and the GPL probably fulfilled his desire to keep Linux open and to have the ability for all improvements to it to be rolled back in and shared.
As a parallel thought, moral sets don't have to necessarily match up, else you get dogma. Not everyone goes to, say, a given church because they believe with 100% certainty that the scriptural interpretations and admonitions made by him (or the membership) can never be wrong or misused. Religion (also a morality-based organizational unit) can never work like that on a practical or even a civilized level w/o imploding or splintering off (see also "Protestants"), so why should software licensing be expected to?
Well, the legal issues (e.g. the ATT/SysV v. BSD lawsuits) sure... but there was also the little matter of dealing with a rather large cloud of interpersonal troubles that made things ugly, with most of it centered squarely over UC Berkeley. That, and (as MSFT later proved head-on w/ their TCP/IP implementations), the classic BSD license really doesn't protect against theft and proprietary lock-down of improvements. Like most folks, if I want to contribute stuff freely, I'd really like to see any improvements to be incorporated and shared. BSD relies on only honor and a mandatory attribution for that).
Not flaming, trolling, or otherwise... but a sense of perspective is kinda needed as to why BSD didn't catch on as fast or as big.
(OTOH, the BSD license made it easy to incorporate a LOT of stuff from it into Linux, and the results converted to GPL licensing...)
Is GPL 3 that unreasonable given the behavior of the RIAA and MPAA of recent?
Good question, but one other pops up in response to it:
Is exigency a good enough rationale for permanent change?
In something more closely approaching English, I guess what comes to mind is this... If they're just doing it to defeat a present problem, then what of the future?
Between road-to-hell pavement and the endless measure/countermeasure/measure games that companies (and malware writers) play, there is a danger of two things: First, that the GPL becomes a convoluted mess over large values of time in an attempt to patch every little hole that springs forth; that would make the thing impractical for programming use. Second, that something really awful gets discovered by a creative but perfectly legal interpretation of the changes.
In all seriousness, I doubt that either would happen w/ GPLv3, but IMHO, we really shouldn't get into the habit of this...
I grok the moral underpinnings, and appreciate the intentions, but there's still a nagging feeling at the back of my head that says if any more massive changes are made, then we'll be dancing right on the line that separates practicality from dogma. I believe Torvalds thinks that GPLv3 has already crossed it. Others prolly think that the line is still miles away (in either direction, if we count MSFT bigwigs).
Perhaps someone needs to define that point where codifying philosophy will only bring diminishing returns? Like I said, IMHO I don't think we're quite there yet, but that the next iteration may well take us right past it.
Say what you will about Torvalds or his stance on GPLv3, but one thing is unequivocal... the man doesn't hide behind corporatespeak. He just comes out and says it like he believes it is.
If only CEO types would start doing that (w/o hiding behind an alias, that is)...
...but it costs money to build the SAN and network infrastructure.
Well, NFS / automount and an array works quite nicely if you don't want to shell out the dough for a full-on SAN. With Linux users it's a total breeze to maintain once you get it set up (especially so w/ NIS or LDAP to bind it all together). Tie the/home server into Samba for the Windows users (then instruct 'em to drop their backups to a mapped drive on their desktop PC), and as long as you can keep the network halfway tuned (and keep an eye on it for bandwidth reasons, just like you would for a SAN), then it's not too much of an expense or headache.
I agree perfectly that the article completely overlooks the abuse potentials (wot!? You're leaving us for XYZ phone company? Well, we're sorry, but your data stays here!)
Crackberries already have facilities to sync email and contact/calendar/etc info wirelessly... wouldn't take much to extrapolate the concept to other non-RIM situations, would it? At least that way the corp keeps control of the original data (like they would w/ all the data passing through their Exchange box, for instance).
Slashdot Mirror
After all, condoms hadn't even been invented yet, y'know?
All I needed to do to get it going was to simply plug in the Mac and (oftentimes) show the tech how to check and reset DHCP on the Mac's Network control window in System Preferences.
In the four times I had it installed (most recently last month), I simply fired up the Mac, set it to DHCP, and it connected once the tech had the CO turn it on for me. Once the tech was satisfied and left, I recorded the DNS info that the Mac caught, then disconnected it and plugged in my router, using the new DNS info, allowing it to get the rest of what it needed via DHCP.
I had only one problem with an install, in February, which was traced to a bad cable connection at one of the apartment's cable outlet plates - it was causing a major slowdown. The tech that came out to fix it was totally okay with my having no Windows machinery in the house, and never even once thought of blaming 'em, preferring instead to check the cabling first.
I think I had one tech ask that I get/use IE to set it up initially in 2005, but I instead showed him how to t-shoot it on the Mac, and use Safari to hit the Comcast site (which worked/works just fine, BTW, as does Firefox).
Hell, if I were MSFT, I'd stay the hell away from such subjects too after that one.
Somebody writes a worm for OSX that works across a specific test network (of which we have no clue as to settings, layout, patch levels, etc etc), and it's really, really, really big news. Media orgs around the planet sound the klaxon, and (nearly) everyone gets all hyper-ventilated. Claims of "OSX is just as vulnerable!!!1111!!" will fly off the pages.
Meanwhile, the next near-periodic iteration of MSFT-specific malware in-the-wild will get not so much as a grunt outside of security circles (such as SANS ISC and F-Secure's blog as ferinstances). It will likely subvert 40x as many victims in its first hour, and the media won't say so much as 'boo' about it.
Perspective (at least outside of security and some geek circles)? Never heard of it.
It's sort of been splattered all over the article replies; Everything else is mere trolling on your part (e.g. read my posts - I never once called it a direct "kickback", just said that it reeks of one, as explained in patient detail) - so no cookie for you.
If you complain ab't the price, and they lower it, okay...
If you complain ab't the price (or in this particular case, your new CIO is a former Microsoftie who can't seem to think of using anything that didn;t come from his former employer), then in response they allow you to literally break the EULA?
It may not be a classical kickback, but it certainly stinks.
...just stick with Wordpad. It came with Windows.He could... if WordPad, err, wasn't so incompatible with reading default MS Office - generated .doc files...
It would be... until CS4 comes out.
Both Photoshop and GIMP's next respective iterations will likely cost just as much as the current ones. In P-Shop's case, it may be more.
That said, I find it kind of funny that a roadmap is suddenly invoked. Not that it isn't a valid point, but since when has there ever been a roadmap w/ MS Office - or rather, one that didn't include lots of potholes (e.g. incompatibilities w/ earlier versions of the same product, a HUGE spike-strip between the MS Office and MS Works lanes, etc).
Given the context, that part sounded far, far too weak to me.
IMHO: I think what happened is that the CIO/IT dep't wound up screwing the pooch w/ migrations (either by poor planning or poor execution), and cried "Uncle Microsoft to the rescue!" to save his butt from getting sacked outright.
Might be for resolution reasons... from an engineering standpoint, it appears to be more feasible to make minute modifications on a big honkin' mirror, than to try and make changes based on what a much smaller CCD picks up off of it.
That and I suspect that it would allow them to use non-digital gear (okay, film) to record with the exact same result of data intake, or to swap out visible CCD's with infrared (w/o the additional expense and duplication, or in calibrating between the two different sensors, etc).
Just some offhand guesses though.
They already found that, but it required that they use the Big Ear, and listen for the source of a faint but recognizable "Khaaaaan!" that's been reverberating about the galaxy for awhile now.
OTOH, does interferometry(?) count when you're announcing the world's largest optical telescope (as in, singular instrument, which I believe is assumed here)?
From the article, this MPX thing seems to consist of nothing more than a modified X server, running "normal" (i.e., designed for a single cursor) applications. Therefore, it is not nearly as impressive as the MS Surface.
Forget "impressive" - let's talk "practical". (warning: impending car analogy...)
One of these two I might or might not see in the indeterminate future; sort of like looking at a "concept car". The other I can likely put to use right now, with only the matter of getting my mitts on the right parts to do it; sort of like looking at a "custom car".
One of these two uses parts that haven't been invented yet, and may or may not even work. The other uses common parts that anyone can put to use.
Easily... I can jam paper items that need attention under the monitor (e.g. bills), the bucket o' caffeine (say, a 20 oz. bottle of soda or cup of coffee) sits somewhere next to the keyboard, blank CDs/DVDs, geek sticks, etc etc etc... clutter items all, but in the current setup, none of it blocks my view of the screen, or hinders my typing on the keyboard.
Stuff like that.
Kiosks I could see - an interactive "you are here" sorta map/info center... the expense might limit how many get used, though I like the idea...
Board/conference rooms? Good idea. We're still at a place where everyone brings their own PDA's or laptops to show off the latest Powerpoint-built labor-of-love, so that'll have to be factored in. I suppose that some sort of driver could be plugged into to translate not only outbound video, but mouse inputs (then again, don't they have similar rigs already, at least to some extent?)
Typing can be easily implemented with a HUD keyboard as found on many PDA and touchscreen laptops.It would almost have to.
Maybe it's just me, but I'm not seeing any widespread practical use for this critter outside of some extreme niches (e.g. kiosk or limited industrial or medical machine interfaces).
The delivery mechanism is Ad Hominem... I believe that he's referring to the impetus behind it as "fanaticism"
People can put what they want into GPLv3 - if it becomes popular then it will have "worked in the real actual world".(/me looks around at all the Windows installs in the world...)
Cripes, man... don't SAY that!
(IOW, "Hobson's Choice" isn't really a good reason for popularity, y'know?)
Also, back when Torvalds was fussing over what license to use, the options were slim... and the GPL probably fulfilled his desire to keep Linux open and to have the ability for all improvements to it to be rolled back in and shared.
As a parallel thought, moral sets don't have to necessarily match up, else you get dogma. Not everyone goes to, say, a given church because they believe with 100% certainty that the scriptural interpretations and admonitions made by him (or the membership) can never be wrong or misused. Religion (also a morality-based organizational unit) can never work like that on a practical or even a civilized level w/o imploding or splintering off (see also "Protestants"), so why should software licensing be expected to?
Not flaming, trolling, or otherwise... but a sense of perspective is kinda needed as to why BSD didn't catch on as fast or as big.
(OTOH, the BSD license made it easy to incorporate a LOT of stuff from it into Linux, and the results converted to GPL licensing...)
Good question, but one other pops up in response to it:
Is exigency a good enough rationale for permanent change?
In something more closely approaching English, I guess what comes to mind is this... If they're just doing it to defeat a present problem, then what of the future?
Between road-to-hell pavement and the endless measure/countermeasure/measure games that companies (and malware writers) play, there is a danger of two things: First, that the GPL becomes a convoluted mess over large values of time in an attempt to patch every little hole that springs forth; that would make the thing impractical for programming use. Second, that something really awful gets discovered by a creative but perfectly legal interpretation of the changes.
In all seriousness, I doubt that either would happen w/ GPLv3, but IMHO, we really shouldn't get into the habit of this...
I grok the moral underpinnings, and appreciate the intentions, but there's still a nagging feeling at the back of my head that says if any more massive changes are made, then we'll be dancing right on the line that separates practicality from dogma. I believe Torvalds thinks that GPLv3 has already crossed it. Others prolly think that the line is still miles away (in either direction, if we count MSFT bigwigs).
Perhaps someone needs to define that point where codifying philosophy will only bring diminishing returns? Like I said, IMHO I don't think we're quite there yet, but that the next iteration may well take us right past it.
If only CEO types would start doing that (w/o hiding behind an alias, that is)...
...but it costs money to build the SAN and network infrastructure.Well, NFS / automount and an array works quite nicely if you don't want to shell out the dough for a full-on SAN. With Linux users it's a total breeze to maintain once you get it set up (especially so w/ NIS or LDAP to bind it all together). Tie the /home server into Samba for the Windows users (then instruct 'em to drop their backups to a mapped drive on their desktop PC), and as long as you can keep the network halfway tuned (and keep an eye on it for bandwidth reasons, just like you would for a SAN), then it's not too much of an expense or headache.
I agree perfectly that the article completely overlooks the abuse potentials (wot!? You're leaving us for XYZ phone company? Well, we're sorry, but your data stays here!)
Crackberries already have facilities to sync email and contact/calendar/etc info wirelessly... wouldn't take much to extrapolate the concept to other non-RIM situations, would it? At least that way the corp keeps control of the original data (like they would w/ all the data passing through their Exchange box, for instance).