Finding old PCs that stay alive that long with a real UART etc. gets harder and harder, but here's to hoping that virtualization saves the day.
How is virtualization going to be much help when the issue is specific hardware requirements?
Because in a VM, the serial ports always appear to have the same UART "hardware", regardless of what it ultimately connects to on the host. Software running in the VM will always work so long as the virtual serial port and all of its functionality are properly mapped to a host device.
From http://www.virtualbox.org/manual/ch03.html#id2519998: "If a virtual serial port is enabled, the guest operating system sees it a standard 16450-type serial port. Both receiving and transmitting data is supported. How this virtual serial port is then connected to the host is configurable, and details depend on your host operating system."
You make several good points, but I must say, your emphatic delivery does not do you any favors. It makes you sound bitter, angry, and insecure. You can calmly put forward your arguments and people won't disrespect you. In fact they will more likely listen to you. Maybe they will disagree, but the tone of the conversation will remain civil. Give people some credit.
If ever a post needed a "You must be new here" reply, this is it, despite your UID... so, without more ado:
Then there's the matter of making a cable for X-on/X-off... and the plucky archivist can proceed
Wow, that brings back memories... since X-on/X-off is software flow control over serial communications, making a cable was a simple matter: Tie together the hardware flow control transmit/request signal lines together and loop them back to the receive lines on the same connector and so ensure that they'd always be high on each side... and then let the software handle it from there...
I still have a soldering iron and solder in my service toolkit, which is in the trunk of my car - but I haven't used them in more than 15 years at this point. Hell, I can't remember the last time I used anything from my toolkit except for screwdrivers and needlenose pliers, but I still keep it around, just in case... I still have a serial breakout box, too *grin*
I did service for a customer that had an Altos system, and after they remodeled their offices, had to add some terminals in the reception area. They insisted that it be neat, and so, I ran the cable into the walls, mounted old work boxes to the sheetrock (measuring everything so that they lined up with the electical outlets, of course), and then soldered DB-25 female connectors onto the cable, mounting them to stainless steel wallplates that had DB-25 cutouts... labeled the wallplates, and the cables on the far end, then made "patch cables" to go from the wallplates to the terminals. Neat, clean - and I had a blast doing it.
And from that point on, I always tried to make any cabling I installed not only work properly, but be as neat as possible and documented as well.
Well where I work, we did in fact throw a number of resumes out the window specifically because of hotmail and AOL email addresses.
That's pretty stupid, in my opinion. I suppose you immediately set up interviews for those that had Google email addresses, and just automatically hired those that host their own email? (That's sarcasm, BTW, but I've no doubt that you did something similar)
But then again, I work in IT, those people SHOULD know better.
Maybe they're using it as an employer filtering mechanism: I know I wouldn't want to work with people that discard resumes simply because someone's personal email address isn't in accordance with their prejudices.
Spoken like someone with a lot of practice, and many years of wisdom behind them...
Yeah, lots of practice, though I'm not quite willing to call it "wisdom": Hell, I still haven't figured out what I want to be when I "grow up" *grin*
would love you to be part of my team any time of the week!!!
Well, thanks! However, I'm happily employed ATM. Should that change, I'll be sure to look you up:)
ps-I tend to agree about most except, that sometimes helping others too much becomes itself a chore that is not part of your work week and might get you some demerit points with the boss..
Yes, and that's why I said "Should that fail", etc. - the point was (and is): Help as best you can, first, and only involve your boss *after* you see that it isn't working. Where/when that is, and when you draw the line on such is highly circumstantial, and unfortunately something that everyone has to decide for themselves.
However, being willing to throw someone under the bus just because they're not as "good" as I am, without doing more than just telling them they're messing up and not trying to help them? Sorry, I can't do that, and I'd not want to have to work with someone that can (nor have anything else to do with them, for that matter - life can be tough enough on its own without such).
This is kinda vicious but my strategy is if someone else's coding isn't good enough or they make massive mistakes, I don't just let it fly. You don't have to be their boss, you only have to be working on the same project as them because you're the one putting up with missing object methods and bad documentation and poorly written code. Tell em to rewrite it before you can use it and correct them and generally let them know that it has to be acceptable or they get to fix it. If anyone asks about project delays, don't hesitate to throw them under the bus and accurately report that they were the reason for the delay because their code didn't work.
Based upon this comment, I think that you're an asshole (though I think it's correctable), and here's why:
If you're not the boss/manager/project lead, it's not your place to tell them to rewrite it, nor your place to "throw them under bus", should a project encounter delays because of them. I've always preferred to offer to help, first, when I saw a problem with someone else's performance, before involving our boss, and it's proven to be beneficial to me in the long term (though that wasn't the reason I did it at the time [1]): I've gotten jobs after having done so, sometimes YEARS afterwards, and, in addition, "word of mouth" is a POWERFUL thing - the last thing you want is to earn a reputation as someone that will "diss" others, first, before analyzing and criticizing your own performance (I note, with no rancor, that you admit to no shortcomings whatsoever in your post with regards to your abilities).
But, should that fail: Your responsibility then is to communicate the problems that you see to your boss as you see them - and preferably tactfully. This may come as a surprise to you, but, your boss probably already knows, if he/she has a clue - your approaching them, and doing with tact and respect, only reinforces that knowledge... but doing it by being a jerk may well backfire: Not only did you confirm what they already knew, but you also showed them that you're a problem, too.
However, by approaching a peer directly, and basically telling them to "get their shit together", you're assuming a role that is not yours, without any authority to enforce your demands, and in addition, almost certainly alienating the person you approach as well, which has future ramifications for the project.
If anyone asks about project delays
The first rule, on any project, when you're not the person responsible for delivery dates is this: If ANYONE outside of the team approaches you and asks about such, you refer them to your boss. It's almost certain that you're not fully informed, and doing otherwise is a disservice to your entire team. Tell 'em to go to your boss - that's what he/she is for, after all (among other things [2]): They are responsible for the project, overall, and (even better, from my perspective), referring such to them will save you time.
When you offer your view to anyone that asks, you're affecting everyone on your team, and, especially since you've already admitted that you have no problem throwing others under the bus, you're doing so from a prejudiced viewpoint, because, someone that has no problems sacrificing others has only their best interests at heart, by definition.
My advice to you - grow up. I doubt you're the best programmer that ever walked the face of the planet, regardless of your opinion of yourself. When you're part of a team - BE part of it, and work to ensure that it succeeds as a whole. Help those that need it, and, accept help from those that offer it, should there come a time when you are struggling (Yeah, yeah, I know - it'll *never* happen).
If you cannot, well, you can always go it on your own: If you're as good as you seem to think that you are, then riches and accolades await!
You need to add a new word to your vocabulary, I think. Here, I'll help you out - it's called "perspective". Nowhere in your linked article does it state that Nokia itself is actively engaging in, nor encouraging, such activities.
Now, to forestall the "They should be more responsible" protests, you should consider something.
Let's assume, for a moment, that Nokia, taking your Slashdot post to heart, decides that it will no longer sell any of its products to the Iranian government. There's nothing to stop the Iranian government from purchasing them from third parties: Would you then call upon every third-party distributor, reseller, etc., everywhere in the world to stop selling Nokia's products to them?
Let's extend this example to the ridiculous and assume that you do, and everyone agrees.
So, they go elsewhere, and let's further assume that nobody, anywhere, will sell them what they want... so, they go to Open Source, perhaps. Certainly, the raw tools are there, no? It'd take time, and money, but they're a government, after all, and they've as much of the latter as needed to accomplish the same task.
Now, learning this, you gnash your teeth in frustration: OMG teh evil Iranian gummint is using Open Source to oppress people! What are you going to do then? Call upon the whole world to stop creating Open Source programs?
Yeah, I see *that* happening.
So, to wrap this up: Don't blame the tools, nor the companies that sell them, blame the people that misuse them in whatever role or capacity.
Finally, to bring this back on-topic somewhat: The N900 appears to be exactly what I've been waiting for in a "convergence device": Sufficient computing power and features, open enough to play with and do neat things with, AND made by a company with enough world-wide presence to actually make it fly, if they do it properly.
While my employer provides me with a Blackberry with unlimited voice and data, it is crippled by Verizon and has no WiFi capabilities, and so I can't use it, for example, as a SIP phone to connect to my Cisco 871W at home and make voice calls leveraging our internal VOIP network to other employees (or outbound calls from it), nor access my corporate voicemail that way, nor can I use the 871W for data/corporate network/email/Internet access while at home: 54 Mbps would be quite a lot faster than EVDO-A and my broadband connection much faster as well, and, since it'd be via the VPN tunnel from my home to the office when I'm home, it'd be far more secure. A smart/converged phone with such capabilities would allow me to stop carrying my Cisco 7921G (one cradle at home, one at the office I go to most), and use just one device for voice, and add things such as remote server access as well either via WiFi/tunneled at home or at our offices, or EVDO-A/VPN when elsewhere, with a much better screen and in as convenient a form factor as my Blackberry, with a better keyboard, to boot. Hell, I might even be able stop lugging my work laptop with its Verizon mobile broadband card around with me everywhere I go, too.
My adopting a device such as the N900 would represent a loss of income to Verizon: I'd drop one unlimited data plan from them, and would probably be able to switch from an unlimited cellular voice plan to something less expensive as well. and THAT is why the cellular carriers in the US don't want fully open, powerful, "converged" devices, I think: The potential loss of income from business subscribers is enormous. Our corporate phone system is already VOIP over our WAN: Being able to extend that to mobile devices, seamlessly, represents a huge potential loss of income to them.
The U.S. government has no money. In the entire history of the world, it is the entity most deeply in debt.
The problem with statements such as this is that they betray a fundamental lack of understanding of what "money" is. So, let's start at the beginning, in the hope that we can clearly understand what the true problem is.
We start from first principles. Let's assume for a moment that you are a farmer and I am a hunter. I want some of the bread that you make from the grain that you grow and you, in turn, want some of the meat that I have. We agree to a mutually-acceptable exchange: In return for your bread, I will give you meat, at an agreed-upon ratio.
This works for we two, and we're both happy with the arrangement, deeming it fair and equitable.
The problem, of course, is that such a system doesn't scale well. As the population increases, and other goods and services enter into the equation, simple barter becomes awkward and cumbersome. If I have the pelts from the animals that I kill, but no meat to spare, and you don't want them, lacking the skill, means or desire to turn them into clothing, for example, I cannot use them to obtain bread from you as they are not of value to you for such an exchange.
So enters into the equation the idea of using a common medium of exchange, which we'll call "money". In the beginning, it's something of universal value - coins, perhaps, made from metals that are sufficiently difficult to obtain in their own right so as to forestall just anyone from doing so, and thereby insuring that they will retain their value as such for awhile. Everyone agrees (for the most part), that this is a superior solution to barter, all things being equal (which they seldom are, but, we're just spinning a tale here, so it doesn't matter if our view of this fictional world is through rose-tinted glasses).
Now, instead of seeking to exchange my pelts for your bread, I've coins to do so: I sold my pelts to a tailor in exchange for them and so can obtain the bread that I want from you at a mutually-agreed upon rate.
You, in turn, take those coins and use them to purchase what the tailor has fashioned from them, a warm coat and some boots, perhaps.
Fast forward a bit: Time passes, the population grows more and more, and supply of goods and services outstrips the availability of money with which to exchange such. Trade suffers, people can't buy what they want, nor sell what they have, nor provide services: Money is scarce (By lack of the source materials, or perhaps by hoarding and manipulation - greed raises its ugly head).
Someone realizes that one way to correct this, is to change from using relatively rare metals for coins, to something that is easily created, script money - or, paper that, while having no inherent value unto itself, can nonetheless be used in place of them, so long as everyone agrees to it.
So, by the power of law, everyone does, and things get better, prosperity ensues. Until, of course, a few people get greedy. They realize that the key to riches isn't in the goods and services, but rather in the medium of exchange for such. Since everyone has agreed to use money to exchange them, and since there's next to no cost to create it now, why, all they have to do is get complete control over it.
That's where the Federal Reserve in the US, and other such institutions around the world enter into the equation, and also where ideas such as "fractional reserve banking" come into play: It's all about control over money now, because money is power.
And over time, money became not a simple medium for the exchange of goods/property and services, but something of value in its own right, while having no equivalent cost. That's also where things such as stock exchanges come from - just another fiction that everyone agrees to, which are useful, but another venue that the greedy can manipulate.
So, over time, there's a reversal - the economy is no longer fundamentally
I mean sure, I could read his essay with every atom of my being, but wouldn't it violate some mathematical and physical principles for me to read it with the submitter's being?
Not to mention the laws that would be broken attempting to do so: "Honest to God, Officer - He *implored* me to rend him asunder, I swear! It was on Slashdot! Wait, don't handcuff me, I'll show you! Is there an open WiFi access point around?"
I prefer Privoxy. There are versions for Linux of various flavors, Windows and OS X and it works with every Web browser that supports proxies.
While I can't speak for OS X, it's action files are plain text under Windows and Linux, and so copying modifications from the user action file on one OS to the other is trivial.
For me, it's more flexible than a hosts file-based approach, since the hosts file is global. Under Windows on my work laptop, I have to use IE to enter my service time, and so I leave its proxying disabled (it's the only thing that I use IE for on my work computer except for some SSL VPNs to which I have to connect from time to time), while enabling it under Firefox and Opera. If I run into a problem with a site with either of those, the first troubleshooting step I take is to disable the proxying - if that works, then I can create custom actions for that site as needed, and once working know that they will work everywhere.
At home all I have to do is copy the user action file to the directory on my NAS where I save shared configuration files, and then replicate it to the other computers (I keep meaning to automate all of this sometime...).
Neat, clean, flexible and easy to maintain - what's not to like?:)
You are looking for a technical solution to a non-technical problem.
However, since it took less than three days for my local school district to misplace my daughter, I have decided that something needs to be done.
I agree with you, something *should* be done: You should call the school, and ask for an appointment with the principal and express your concerns to him or her in person, and ask what they are doing to ensure that it doesn't happen again. If you aren't satisfied with the response, take the matter up with the Superintendent and finally, if necessary, the School Board.
By the school district's own admission it is a recurring problem of placing children on the wrong buses
Which is why it's all the more important to address the source of the problem. Your proposed solution works only for your daughter, and then only when she becomes lost. A much more desirable outcome is that this not happen at all, and fixing the cause of the problem resolves the situation not only for you and your child, but for other parents and their children as well.
I'm all for cutting costs using an open source OS, but the problem with increasingly cheaper hardware is staying power.
I think you're missing the point, which I take to be this: We've reached the point with regards to hardware, that we *already* have "staying power", except in all but the highest-end applications.
Even now, what you'd most likely deem "cheap" hardware is more than capable of running the most common applications well, and the OS' themselves are sufficiently reliable that one of the compelling reasons to upgrade, better reliability from a new OS (as Microsoft has always promised, but failed to deliver [1]), has passed.
Yeah it might be all you need, but how long is it going to be around for.
Well, if it's all you need, then by definition it will around until that is no longer the case. IMHO, *that* is as it should be: Use it until it 1) fails or 2) No longer does what you need/wish it to do [2]. And that's the point, I think, and one of the reasons why Netbooks are so popular now: They do what they do, regardless of hardware and OS, well enough for those that use them, at an affordable price.
Of course the trade off is, is it cheaper to get short term cheap computers, or long term expensive computers.
But, that's no longer really the case, you see. To coin a phrase: We've reached the age of "utility computing", where a computer's usefulness is no longer measured so much by it's raw specs and OS revision, but rather, how suited it is to the task(s) for which its user needs it.
This isn't a bad thing, in my estimation, and in the long run, addresses your final point:
And, to top it all off, if we do switch to a disposable computing model will we having recycling programs in place to make sure we reuse the rare and valuable parts, and keep the really toxic parts out of landfills?
While computers may well be "disposable", in some sense, they are also longer-lived in general now, which offsets that to a large degree [3], and recycling programs are already in place for them once they are no longer useful to their owners: There's sometimes a family member that can use it, or charities to which one can donate such, and other recycling programs at local and national levels (at least here in the US: After not being able to find a home for the various old computers, monitors and peripherals I've accumulated over the years, I save them and take them to my county's local drop-off point - they advertise such at least once per year now).
In addition, all of the companies for which I've done service this past decade or so also have recycling programs in place now. Old hardware is replaced on a planned basis: They amortize it from an accounting perspective, then replace it once it is out of warranty - typically 3 years. After that, some systems become "beater"/test platforms for their hardware/software engineers (which saves them the money to have to purchase such, and also allows them to test on older hardware), or is donated to local charities (giving them a tax write-off), or is taken away by a recycling company (which gives them PR value as being environmentally conscious). And, this isn't stated cynically, mind you.
I, for one, welcome such, and hope that it will (re)create an era of software efficiency and reliability: Computers are/should be tools, after all - maybe "slowing down" ever-increasing hardware and software upgrades will bring that back into focus.
Regards,
dj
Notes: [1] And, certainly, Microsoft is by no means alone in this. Apple has been known to release OS upgrades from time to time that make older Apple hardware "obsolete", and let's face it, the most popular of current Linux distributions also increasingly fall into this category as well. Certainly, one can say that this is "the price of progress" - but let's at least be honest about it, and what it enta
I too have to keep old DOS based systems running at work on the host PCs on our mail extractors
Were I in your situation I'd pick a VM solution and virtualize the application on modern hardware. You can do it and test it while the current hardware is still in service, and, once proven, you won't have to worry about replacement hardware: Any hardware that can run the VM software will suffice without having to twiddle around with the DOS VM once you have it running properly.
Of course, I'm making quite a few assumptions about your environment: You don't mention how the current systems interface to the mail extractors, for example - that could be a problem. Also, there's the potential issue of network connectivity. The fact that you mention backing up to floppies implies that you don't have any other means to do so... but, with a modern system running the DOS application in a VM, you'd have the option of backing up the DOS VM to external USB hard drives, or perhaps using PCI WiFi cards to get network connectivity and do it that way.
Anyway, all of the major VM applications suitable for such a test are free, it'd certainly be worth a try, if only to see if it were feasible.
Isn't one of the points of using DLLs to reduce the size of programs on the machine. If an application is using 3rd party libraries, it often just makes sense to install those libraries into the windows directory because.... THATS WHERE THEY BELONG!
Yes, but not at the potential expense of overall system reliability. If you're using third-party libraries, and coding to specific functions provided by that version that are/may not be not available in different versions (whether newer or older), it's your job as a programmer to test for those conditions and deal with them when your program is installed if you plan on using the system-provided ones.
However, given the potential havoc that might be wreaked upon other installed applications, the only sane way of handling it is to not do it at all. Install the required libraries within your program's own installation directory and explicitly reference them from there, even at the expense of some small additional consumption of hard disk storage.
Is that an ideal solution? Certainly not, as the whole point of shared libraries is to provide a common resource that can be reused, as you point out.
However, programming in the real world is full of compromises of this sort whose origins don't really matter for purposes of your program: You want it to work as intended, and to not break other applications in the process.
And I say this as a former programmer who now works mostly in IT/support and has seen firsthand the results of doing it any other way.
Hard disk capacity is so great and inexpensive now so as to be an almost insignificant consideration and one that is secondary to system stability and potential support issues.
Time is expensive: Your time, the users' and that of the support people cost far more than the price of storage (except in some very specific niches).
Sorry to reply to my own post, but I misremembered: Start Word, right click on the menubar, select Customize, Options tab, Always show full menus checkbox.
"Thanks, but I still can't find "Always show full menus" in Word, Excel, or Access."
Assuming that it's Office 2003 Professional (and I'm doing this from memory since I use OpenOffice here at home, and don't have remote access to my PC at the office right now to check: Start Word, right click on the menubar - you should get a menu that has the "Always show full menus" option on it - by default it will be unchecked, but the suboption beneath it: "Show full menus after a short delay" will be selected, as I recall - just check the parent option and you should be set.
In the images that we deploy, it appears to be global once set - starting Excel, after setting it in Word, and checking the setting, shows it enabled, for example... and it carries over to Visio 2003 Pro and Project 2003 Pro as well, when they are installed, so far as I've seen.
I always enable it as the default when building/rebuilding a computer from our standard image, then show the user how to change it if they prefer it otherwise (some actually prefer it that way, but it seems to be the case that those that do set it themselves anyway), since the default setting is annoying to me: I don't use Office enough to know where the menu options that it hides due to unuse are located, but with full menus always enabled can generally find what I'm looking for fairly quickly, and I figure the same is pretty much true for the average user, and at the very least, they'll see everything and can look around if they are so inclined before calling the help desk.
That's with Office 2003 Professional, SP3, BTW - I don't have access to previous versions to check, I'm afraid.
But, I'd imagine it'd be the same, or similar, in Office XP as well.
Of course, if you don't have a memtest tool on you, you shouldn't really be calling yourself a diagnostic tech.
Beg to differ: Sure, you should carry one with you. But, are you really going to be able to justify the time needed to run one? If the problem's intermittent, a quick test probably won't catch it (and, if you're relying those results, well, that's foolish, too)... and if you suspect a memory error despite the results of a quick test, I doubt the customer would be willing to pay for the onsite time to run extensive tests. Better to bring the computer back to the shop and do it right.
Ideally, you have a real memory tester in-house: That's the best way to test memory - in isolation.
"I think that it is time to reclaim our ownership of it, decouple the infrastructure from the services by making infrastructure maintenance the province of non-profit organizations"
"Yes, and before you give him the copy, it's also impossible to know if he would ever have bought it."
Sure, but the point is moot afterward.
"The numbers they quote are based on the assumption that every single download corresponds to a lost sale"
But, they are correct: Every single illegal download corresponds directly to lost revenue for the copyright holder, whoever that may be - whether or not the person that did so *would* have purchased it beforehand doesn't matter any longer, since they now have the benefit of it after having done so without having paid the copyright holder for it, thus depriving the copyright holder of the remuneration to which they are entitled.
The fact that the person might never have bought it anyway doesn't enter into it at all, so far as I can see, not after the fact.
Now, lest I get modbombed into the nether regions for having said all of the previous, let me state my personal stance on this:
I don't believe in copyright infringement for my own personal gain/entertainment: If I want something, I buy it under the terms offered. If I can't afford it, then I wait until I can, or, if I don't think that it is worth it, I give up on it, and look elsewhere for something else - there's no shortage of "stuff" by which to be entertained, after all.
Now, *why* I do this: I'm a competent computer technician, more or less:) I fix computers, networks, etc., for people, and I get paid fairly well to do so.
However, I have next to *no* artistic talent, in general. I enjoy music, movies, books, etc., and appreciate and admire the skill, knowledge, talent, intelligence and effort that must go into their creation, all the more because I cannot do so myself.
If I were to obtain that illegally, I'd be cheating those that can, and I equate it to someone refusing to pay me for a service call on their computer, after I fixed it, when they themselves could not do so: It's unfair, and wrong.
But, that's just me:)
The 'net has made many things possible which were not before. With regards to copyrighted works, it has created much conflict, and that conflict is all about money, as most things are when dealing with things of value, because money is the way (for better or worse), that such is measured.
I'd say that it will all work out in time, and it *will*, only I understand something that hampers that, being someone that "grew up" (as much as I ever did so) with the growth of the Internet, and the technology that it encompasses: Time is different on the Internet. Internet time is fast-paced, almost frenetic, while "real life" passes at almost glacial speeds by comparison, especially to those that have grown up with access to it, and are used to its pace.
Those that are not, for whatever reason, resist it: It's a natural reaction, I think, though it frustrates and angers those that don't understand it.
I was going to go on and finish this, tie up the loose ends, etc., but, I don't have the time *grin* - I want to go, play my favorite MMORPG for awhile, as *my* time is what matters most to me, always, both here and in the real world:)
"A default Ubuntu install doesn't expose any open ports" True, but misleading: A default Ubuntu install doesn't offer any server-type services, so far as I know, so it doesn't have to open any ports.
"Windows is designed to expose hundreds of ports" Care to list them all?
"none of which can safely be closed because that would break random bits of software that Windows depends on" Care to list all of those?
The truth is, as best I recall, a default Windows XP install has 4 or 5 open ports, all related to SMB and Windows Networking - and anyone with a clue wouldn't ever allow those to be exposed to the Internet - that's what hardware NAT/firewalls/routers are for.
And, from a home perspective - every ISP I've ever dealt with filters those at their routers. I know that Time-Warner still does, on their Roadrunner network, and as far as I know, so does Verizon.
I'd be willing to bet that just about every ISP does as well - they'd be foolish not to.
"Current copyright law, by vesting legal rights in the copyright holder and nullifying the rights of the authors and inventors, facilitates the profiteering system that the founding fathers were trying to do away with. We have become Great Britain of 1776"
So, what if the author or inventor, being the original copyright holder, decides, of his or her own free will, to sell their copyright, to another, under terms to which both parties agree?
You would agree, that such should be permitted, yes?
Let's create a test case, shall we?
Let's start by supposing that I am a fan of early American music, and particularly admire Stephen Foster (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Foster).
Now, all of his works are in the public domain. I am free to record any of them, and, I can then copyright all such as I create - the original works from which I create them remain in the public domain, however - as is the intent of copyright.
But, MY interpretation of those, are copyrighted by myself: I alone, can determine their disposition, for so long as they remain in affect.
Should you wish, YOU may record your OWN renderings of the original public domain works, and do with the results as you wish.
But, let's say, for purposes of this discussion, that a major record label hears my rendition of "Oh! Susanna" - and thinks that it could be a hit. They approach me, offer me a deal in which I assign my copyright to them, in return for a flat sum, plus a small percentage of future earnings.
I choose to accept, and so, this major record label now holds the copyright.
What, exactly, is wrong with that?
I think I'm missing something in your post, but I cannot for the life of me determine what it is.
"If you're actually paying the programmers, musicians, and directors then, yes, you probably are pretty close to alone."
Well, count me in on that:) Some of the best software utilities that I've purchased over the years (and whose licenses I've maintained - I have one for which I've had a license for well over 15 years now, which I'm happy to keep current as it just keeps getting better and better) come from small companies that have only a few programmers, sometimes only one person.
I tend to buy music directly from the artist now, whenever possible, though I admit that, given a choice between paying $14.98 from Amazon.com and getting two day shipping for free because I'm an Amazon Prime customer, and paying $15.00 plus shipping and handling, I tend to go with Amazon.com. And, certainly, I'm not criticizing them for making as much money directly as they can, but, if they chose to make a deal where the CD that I want to buy is available for less via Amazon.com and I can get it without additional shipping then I'm not ashamed to buy it there rather than directly from them. That's capitalism at its best, right? One of the best things about the Internet is that such price comparisons are simple now.
Sometimes, a CD will be available on Amazon.com, on CDBaby.com and the artist's own web site... and even their record label's site. I pick the one that is least expensive to me, overall. Sorry, but, I'm not rich, and, at least I'm PAYING for it, rather than cheating the artist out of any money at all by downloading it for free from somewhere, right?
Hell, if I were like many here, I'd say "Those bastards are charging more for their CD on their own site than I can buy it for from Amazon.com! Therefore, I'm entitled to get it for free, because they are greedy and trying to cheat me! After all, information wants to be free! And, it's only 1's and 0's anyway! And, they can make money from their performances!"
Did I miss anything? I'm not hep to the current anti-copyright rhetoric here on Slashdot *grin*
I do admit, however, to never having purchased anything from a director (well, not anything that I'd actually admit to in a public forum:) - That's a joke, too, BTW)
"Current copyright law does nothing to prevent original authors and inventors from profit seeking businessmen."
That's a GREAT red herring! So, I'm mildly curious: How would you protect the original authors and inventors from profit seeking businessmen? Pass a law? Care to phrase it here?
Slashdot Mirror
Because in a VM, the serial ports always appear to have the same UART "hardware", regardless of what it ultimately connects to on the host. Software running in the VM will always work so long as the virtual serial port and all of its functionality are properly mapped to a host device.
From http://www.virtualbox.org/manual/ch03.html#id2519998: "If a virtual serial port is enabled, the guest operating system sees it a standard 16450-type serial port. Both receiving and transmitting data is supported. How this virtual serial port is then connected to the host is configurable, and details depend on your host operating system."
Regards,
dj
If ever a post needed a "You must be new here" reply, this is it, despite your UID... so, without more ado:
:)
You must be new here.
*grin*
Laugh, it's a joke.
Honest
Regards,
dj
I checked Post Anonymously by mistake. The parent post is mine, I'm to blame for it :)
Wow, that brings back memories... since X-on/X-off is software flow control over serial communications, making a cable was a simple matter: Tie together the hardware flow control transmit/request signal lines together and loop them back to the receive lines on the same connector and so ensure that they'd always be high on each side... and then let the software handle it from there...
I still have a soldering iron and solder in my service toolkit, which is in the trunk of my car - but I haven't used them in more than 15 years at this point. Hell, I can't remember the last time I used anything from my toolkit except for screwdrivers and needlenose pliers, but I still keep it around, just in case... I still have a serial breakout box, too *grin*
I did service for a customer that had an Altos system, and after they remodeled their offices, had to add some terminals in the reception area. They insisted that it be neat, and so, I ran the cable into the walls, mounted old work boxes to the sheetrock (measuring everything so that they lined up with the electical outlets, of course), and then soldered DB-25 female connectors onto the cable, mounting them to stainless steel wallplates that had DB-25 cutouts... labeled the wallplates, and the cables on the far end, then made "patch cables" to go from the wallplates to the terminals. Neat, clean - and I had a blast doing it.
And from that point on, I always tried to make any cabling I installed not only work properly, but be as neat as possible and documented as well.
Regards,
dj
That's pretty stupid, in my opinion. I suppose you immediately set up interviews for those that had Google email addresses, and just automatically hired those that host their own email? (That's sarcasm, BTW, but I've no doubt that you did something similar)
Maybe they're using it as an employer filtering mechanism: I know I wouldn't want to work with people that discard resumes simply because someone's personal email address isn't in accordance with their prejudices.
Yeah, lots of practice, though I'm not quite willing to call it "wisdom": Hell, I still haven't figured out what I want to be when I "grow up" *grin*
Well, thanks! However, I'm happily employed ATM. Should that change, I'll be sure to look you up :)
Yes, and that's why I said "Should that fail", etc. - the point was (and is): Help as best you can, first, and only involve your boss *after* you see that it isn't working. Where/when that is, and when you draw the line on such is highly circumstantial, and unfortunately something that everyone has to decide for themselves.
However, being willing to throw someone under the bus just because they're not as "good" as I am, without doing more than just telling them they're messing up and not trying to help them? Sorry, I can't do that, and I'd not want to have to work with someone that can (nor have anything else to do with them, for that matter - life can be tough enough on its own without such).
Regards,
dj
Based upon this comment, I think that you're an asshole (though I think it's correctable), and here's why:
If you're not the boss/manager/project lead, it's not your place to tell them to rewrite it, nor your place to "throw them under bus", should a project encounter delays because of them. I've always preferred to offer to help, first, when I saw a problem with someone else's performance, before involving our boss, and it's proven to be beneficial to me in the long term (though that wasn't the reason I did it at the time [1]): I've gotten jobs after having done so, sometimes YEARS afterwards, and, in addition, "word of mouth" is a POWERFUL thing - the last thing you want is to earn a reputation as someone that will "diss" others, first, before analyzing and criticizing your own performance (I note, with no rancor, that you admit to no shortcomings whatsoever in your post with regards to your abilities).
But, should that fail: Your responsibility then is to communicate the problems that you see to your boss as you see them - and preferably tactfully. This may come as a surprise to you, but, your boss probably already knows, if he/she has a clue - your approaching them, and doing with tact and respect, only reinforces that knowledge... but doing it by being a jerk may well backfire: Not only did you confirm what they already knew, but you also showed them that you're a problem, too.
However, by approaching a peer directly, and basically telling them to "get their shit together", you're assuming a role that is not yours, without any authority to enforce your demands, and in addition, almost certainly alienating the person you approach as well, which has future ramifications for the project.
The first rule, on any project, when you're not the person responsible for delivery dates is this: If ANYONE outside of the team approaches you and asks about such, you refer them to your boss. It's almost certain that you're not fully informed, and doing otherwise is a disservice to your entire team. Tell 'em to go to your boss - that's what he/she is for, after all (among other things [2]): They are responsible for the project, overall, and (even better, from my perspective), referring such to them will save you time.
When you offer your view to anyone that asks, you're affecting everyone on your team, and, especially since you've already admitted that you have no problem throwing others under the bus, you're doing so from a prejudiced viewpoint, because, someone that has no problems sacrificing others has only their best interests at heart, by definition.
My advice to you - grow up. I doubt you're the best programmer that ever walked the face of the planet, regardless of your opinion of yourself. When you're part of a team - BE part of it, and work to ensure that it succeeds as a whole. Help those that need it, and, accept help from those that offer it, should there come a time when you are struggling (Yeah, yeah, I know - it'll *never* happen).
If you cannot, well, you can always go it on your own: If you're as good as you seem to think that you are, then riches and accolades await!
I wish you well in your future endeavors.
Regards,
dj
Notes:
[1] Call it "noblesse oblige", I su
You need to add a new word to your vocabulary, I think. Here, I'll help you out - it's called "perspective". Nowhere in your linked article does it state that Nokia itself is actively engaging in, nor encouraging, such activities.
Now, to forestall the "They should be more responsible" protests, you should consider something.
Let's assume, for a moment, that Nokia, taking your Slashdot post to heart, decides that it will no longer sell any of its products to the Iranian government. There's nothing to stop the Iranian government from purchasing them from third parties: Would you then call upon every third-party distributor, reseller, etc., everywhere in the world to stop selling Nokia's products to them?
Let's extend this example to the ridiculous and assume that you do, and everyone agrees.
So, they go elsewhere, and let's further assume that nobody, anywhere, will sell them what they want... so, they go to Open Source, perhaps. Certainly, the raw tools are there, no? It'd take time, and money, but they're a government, after all, and they've as much of the latter as needed to accomplish the same task.
Now, learning this, you gnash your teeth in frustration: OMG teh evil Iranian gummint is using Open Source to oppress people! What are you going to do then? Call upon the whole world to stop creating Open Source programs?
Yeah, I see *that* happening.
So, to wrap this up: Don't blame the tools, nor the companies that sell them, blame the people that misuse them in whatever role or capacity.
Finally, to bring this back on-topic somewhat: The N900 appears to be exactly what I've been waiting for in a "convergence device": Sufficient computing power and features, open enough to play with and do neat things with, AND made by a company with enough world-wide presence to actually make it fly, if they do it properly.
While my employer provides me with a Blackberry with unlimited voice and data, it is crippled by Verizon and has no WiFi capabilities, and so I can't use it, for example, as a SIP phone to connect to my Cisco 871W at home and make voice calls leveraging our internal VOIP network to other employees (or outbound calls from it), nor access my corporate voicemail that way, nor can I use the 871W for data/corporate network/email/Internet access while at home: 54 Mbps would be quite a lot faster than EVDO-A and my broadband connection much faster as well, and, since it'd be via the VPN tunnel from my home to the office when I'm home, it'd be far more secure. A smart/converged phone with such capabilities would allow me to stop carrying my Cisco 7921G (one cradle at home, one at the office I go to most), and use just one device for voice, and add things such as remote server access as well either via WiFi/tunneled at home or at our offices, or EVDO-A/VPN when elsewhere, with a much better screen and in as convenient a form factor as my Blackberry, with a better keyboard, to boot. Hell, I might even be able stop lugging my work laptop with its Verizon mobile broadband card around with me everywhere I go, too.
My adopting a device such as the N900 would represent a loss of income to Verizon: I'd drop one unlimited data plan from them, and would probably be able to switch from an unlimited cellular voice plan to something less expensive as well. and THAT is why the cellular carriers in the US don't want fully open, powerful, "converged" devices, I think: The potential loss of income from business subscribers is enormous. Our corporate phone system is already VOIP over our WAN: Being able to extend that to mobile devices, seamlessly, represents a huge potential loss of income to them.
Regards,
dj
The problem with statements such as this is that they betray a fundamental lack of understanding of what "money" is. So, let's start at the beginning, in the hope that we can clearly understand what the true problem is.
We start from first principles. Let's assume for a moment that you are a farmer and I am a hunter. I want some of the bread that you make from the grain that you grow and you, in turn, want some of the meat that I have. We agree to a mutually-acceptable exchange: In return for your bread, I will give you meat, at an agreed-upon ratio.
This works for we two, and we're both happy with the arrangement, deeming it fair and equitable.
The problem, of course, is that such a system doesn't scale well. As the population increases, and other goods and services enter into the equation, simple barter becomes awkward and cumbersome. If I have the pelts from the animals that I kill, but no meat to spare, and you don't want them, lacking the skill, means or desire to turn them into clothing, for example, I cannot use them to obtain bread from you as they are not of value to you for such an exchange.
So enters into the equation the idea of using a common medium of exchange, which we'll call "money". In the beginning, it's something of universal value - coins, perhaps, made from metals that are sufficiently difficult to obtain in their own right so as to forestall just anyone from doing so, and thereby insuring that they will retain their value as such for awhile. Everyone agrees (for the most part), that this is a superior solution to barter, all things being equal (which they seldom are, but, we're just spinning a tale here, so it doesn't matter if our view of this fictional world is through rose-tinted glasses).
Now, instead of seeking to exchange my pelts for your bread, I've coins to do so: I sold my pelts to a tailor in exchange for them and so can obtain the bread that I want from you at a mutually-agreed upon rate.
You, in turn, take those coins and use them to purchase what the tailor has fashioned from them, a warm coat and some boots, perhaps.
Fast forward a bit: Time passes, the population grows more and more, and supply of goods and services outstrips the availability of money with which to exchange such. Trade suffers, people can't buy what they want, nor sell what they have, nor provide services: Money is scarce (By lack of the source materials, or perhaps by hoarding and manipulation - greed raises its ugly head).
Someone realizes that one way to correct this, is to change from using relatively rare metals for coins, to something that is easily created, script money - or, paper that, while having no inherent value unto itself, can nonetheless be used in place of them, so long as everyone agrees to it.
So, by the power of law, everyone does, and things get better, prosperity ensues. Until, of course, a few people get greedy. They realize that the key to riches isn't in the goods and services, but rather in the medium of exchange for such. Since everyone has agreed to use money to exchange them, and since there's next to no cost to create it now, why, all they have to do is get complete control over it.
That's where the Federal Reserve in the US, and other such institutions around the world enter into the equation, and also where ideas such as "fractional reserve banking" come into play: It's all about control over money now, because money is power.
And over time, money became not a simple medium for the exchange of goods/property and services, but something of value in its own right, while having no equivalent cost. That's also where things such as stock exchanges come from - just another fiction that everyone agrees to, which are useful, but another venue that the greedy can manipulate.
So, over time, there's a reversal - the economy is no longer fundamentally
Not to mention the laws that would be broken attempting to do so: "Honest to God, Officer - He *implored* me to rend him asunder, I swear! It was on Slashdot! Wait, don't handcuff me, I'll show you! Is there an open WiFi access point around?"
And of course, that should read "While I can't speak for OS X, its action files", etc.
I prefer Privoxy. There are versions for Linux of various flavors, Windows and OS X and it works with every Web browser that supports proxies.
:)
While I can't speak for OS X, it's action files are plain text under Windows and Linux, and so copying modifications from the user action file on one OS to the other is trivial.
For me, it's more flexible than a hosts file-based approach, since the hosts file is global. Under Windows on my work laptop, I have to use IE to enter my service time, and so I leave its proxying disabled (it's the only thing that I use IE for on my work computer except for some SSL VPNs to which I have to connect from time to time), while enabling it under Firefox and Opera. If I run into a problem with a site with either of those, the first troubleshooting step I take is to disable the proxying - if that works, then I can create custom actions for that site as needed, and once working know that they will work everywhere.
At home all I have to do is copy the user action file to the directory on my NAS where I save shared configuration files, and then replicate it to the other computers (I keep meaning to automate all of this sometime...).
Neat, clean, flexible and easy to maintain - what's not to like?
Regards,
dj
I agree with you, something *should* be done: You should call the school, and ask for an appointment with the principal and express your concerns to him or her in person, and ask what they are doing to ensure that it doesn't happen again. If you aren't satisfied with the response, take the matter up with the Superintendent and finally, if necessary, the School Board.
Which is why it's all the more important to address the source of the problem. Your proposed solution works only for your daughter, and then only when she becomes lost. A much more desirable outcome is that this not happen at all, and fixing the cause of the problem resolves the situation not only for you and your child, but for other parents and their children as well.
Regards,
dj
I think you're missing the point, which I take to be this: We've reached the point with regards to hardware, that we *already* have "staying power", except in all but the highest-end applications.
Even now, what you'd most likely deem "cheap" hardware is more than capable of running the most common applications well, and the OS' themselves are sufficiently reliable that one of the compelling reasons to upgrade, better reliability from a new OS (as Microsoft has always promised, but failed to deliver [1]), has passed.
Well, if it's all you need, then by definition it will around until that is no longer the case. IMHO, *that* is as it should be: Use it until it 1) fails or 2) No longer does what you need/wish it to do [2]. And that's the point, I think, and one of the reasons why Netbooks are so popular now: They do what they do, regardless of hardware and OS, well enough for those that use them, at an affordable price.
But, that's no longer really the case, you see. To coin a phrase: We've reached the age of "utility computing", where a computer's usefulness is no longer measured so much by it's raw specs and OS revision, but rather, how suited it is to the task(s) for which its user needs it.
This isn't a bad thing, in my estimation, and in the long run, addresses your final point:
While computers may well be "disposable", in some sense, they are also longer-lived in general now, which offsets that to a large degree [3], and recycling programs are already in place for them once they are no longer useful to their owners: There's sometimes a family member that can use it, or charities to which one can donate such, and other recycling programs at local and national levels (at least here in the US: After not being able to find a home for the various old computers, monitors and peripherals I've accumulated over the years, I save them and take them to my county's local drop-off point - they advertise such at least once per year now).
In addition, all of the companies for which I've done service this past decade or so also have recycling programs in place now. Old hardware is replaced on a planned basis: They amortize it from an accounting perspective, then replace it once it is out of warranty - typically 3 years. After that, some systems become "beater"/test platforms for their hardware/software engineers (which saves them the money to have to purchase such, and also allows them to test on older hardware), or is donated to local charities (giving them a tax write-off), or is taken away by a recycling company (which gives them PR value as being environmentally conscious). And, this isn't stated cynically, mind you.
I, for one, welcome such, and hope that it will (re)create an era of software efficiency and reliability: Computers are/should be tools, after all - maybe "slowing down" ever-increasing hardware and software upgrades will bring that back into focus.
Regards,
dj
Notes:
[1] And, certainly, Microsoft is by no means alone in this. Apple has been known to release OS upgrades from time to time that make older Apple hardware "obsolete", and let's face it, the most popular of current Linux distributions also increasingly fall into this category as well. Certainly, one can say that this is "the price of progress" - but let's at least be honest about it, and what it enta
Were I in your situation I'd pick a VM solution and virtualize the application on modern hardware. You can do it and test it while the current hardware is still in service, and, once proven, you won't have to worry about replacement hardware: Any hardware that can run the VM software will suffice without having to twiddle around with the DOS VM once you have it running properly.
Of course, I'm making quite a few assumptions about your environment: You don't mention how the current systems interface to the mail extractors, for example - that could be a problem. Also, there's the potential issue of network connectivity. The fact that you mention backing up to floppies implies that you don't have any other means to do so... but, with a modern system running the DOS application in a VM, you'd have the option of backing up the DOS VM to external USB hard drives, or perhaps using PCI WiFi cards to get network connectivity and do it that way.
Anyway, all of the major VM applications suitable for such a test are free, it'd certainly be worth a try, if only to see if it were feasible.
Regards,
dj
Yes, but not at the potential expense of overall system reliability. If you're using third-party libraries, and coding to specific functions provided by that version that are/may not be not available in different versions (whether newer or older), it's your job as a programmer to test for those conditions and deal with them when your program is installed if you plan on using the system-provided ones.
However, given the potential havoc that might be wreaked upon other installed applications, the only sane way of handling it is to not do it at all. Install the required libraries within your program's own installation directory and explicitly reference them from there, even at the expense of some small additional consumption of hard disk storage.
Is that an ideal solution? Certainly not, as the whole point of shared libraries is to provide a common resource that can be reused, as you point out.
However, programming in the real world is full of compromises of this sort whose origins don't really matter for purposes of your program: You want it to work as intended, and to not break other applications in the process.
And I say this as a former programmer who now works mostly in IT/support and has seen firsthand the results of doing it any other way.
Hard disk capacity is so great and inexpensive now so as to be an almost insignificant consideration and one that is secondary to system stability and potential support issues.
Time is expensive: Your time, the users' and that of the support people cost far more than the price of storage (except in some very specific niches).
Regards,
dj
Sorry to reply to my own post, but I misremembered: Start Word, right click on the menubar, select Customize, Options tab, Always show full menus checkbox.
Regards,
dj
"Thanks, but I still can't find "Always show full menus" in Word, Excel, or Access."
Assuming that it's Office 2003 Professional (and I'm doing this from memory since I use OpenOffice here at home, and don't have remote access to my PC at the office right now to check: Start Word, right click on the menubar - you should get a menu that has the "Always show full menus" option on it - by default it will be unchecked, but the suboption beneath it: "Show full menus after a short delay" will be selected, as I recall - just check the parent option and you should be set.
In the images that we deploy, it appears to be global once set - starting Excel, after setting it in Word, and checking the setting, shows it enabled, for example... and it carries over to Visio 2003 Pro and Project 2003 Pro as well, when they are installed, so far as I've seen.
I always enable it as the default when building/rebuilding a computer from our standard image, then show the user how to change it if they prefer it otherwise (some actually prefer it that way, but it seems to be the case that those that do set it themselves anyway), since the default setting is annoying to me: I don't use Office enough to know where the menu options that it hides due to unuse are located, but with full menus always enabled can generally find what I'm looking for fairly quickly, and I figure the same is pretty much true for the average user, and at the very least, they'll see everything and can look around if they are so inclined before calling the help desk.
That's with Office 2003 Professional, SP3, BTW - I don't have access to previous versions to check, I'm afraid.
But, I'd imagine it'd be the same, or similar, in Office XP as well.
Hope that helps!
Regards,
dj
Beg to differ: Sure, you should carry one with you. But, are you really going to be able to justify the time needed to run one? If the problem's intermittent, a quick test probably won't catch it (and, if you're relying those results, well, that's foolish, too)... and if you suspect a memory error despite the results of a quick test, I doubt the customer would be willing to pay for the onsite time to run extensive tests. Better to bring the computer back to the shop and do it right.
Ideally, you have a real memory tester in-house: That's the best way to test memory - in isolation.
Gosh, I suggested this almost 5 years ago:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=42934&cid=4504316
"I think that it is time to reclaim our ownership of it, decouple the infrastructure from the services by making infrastructure maintenance the province of non-profit organizations"
Funny how things haven't really changed...
"Yes, and before you give him the copy, it's also impossible to know if he would ever have bought it."
:) I fix computers, networks, etc., for people, and I get paid fairly well to do so.
:)
:)
:)
Sure, but the point is moot afterward.
"The numbers they quote are based on the assumption that every single download corresponds to a lost sale"
But, they are correct: Every single illegal download corresponds directly to lost revenue for the copyright holder, whoever that may be - whether or not the person that did so *would* have purchased it beforehand doesn't matter any longer, since they now have the benefit of it after having done so without having paid the copyright holder for it, thus depriving the copyright holder of the remuneration to which they are entitled.
The fact that the person might never have bought it anyway doesn't enter into it at all, so far as I can see, not after the fact.
Now, lest I get modbombed into the nether regions for having said all of the previous, let me state my personal stance on this:
I don't believe in copyright infringement for my own personal gain/entertainment: If I want something, I buy it under the terms offered. If I can't afford it, then I wait until I can, or, if I don't think that it is worth it, I give up on it, and look elsewhere for something else - there's no shortage of "stuff" by which to be entertained, after all.
Now, *why* I do this: I'm a competent computer technician, more or less
However, I have next to *no* artistic talent, in general. I enjoy music, movies, books, etc., and appreciate and admire the skill, knowledge, talent, intelligence and effort that must go into their creation, all the more because I cannot do so myself.
If I were to obtain that illegally, I'd be cheating those that can, and I equate it to someone refusing to pay me for a service call on their computer, after I fixed it, when they themselves could not do so: It's unfair, and wrong.
But, that's just me
The 'net has made many things possible which were not before. With regards to copyrighted works, it has created much conflict, and that conflict is all about money, as most things are when dealing with things of value, because money is the way (for better or worse), that such is measured.
I'd say that it will all work out in time, and it *will*, only I understand something that hampers that, being someone that "grew up" (as much as I ever did so) with the growth of the Internet, and the technology that it encompasses: Time is different on the Internet. Internet time is fast-paced, almost frenetic, while "real life" passes at almost glacial speeds by comparison, especially to those that have grown up with access to it, and are used to its pace.
Those that are not, for whatever reason, resist it: It's a natural reaction, I think, though it frustrates and angers those that don't understand it.
I was going to go on and finish this, tie up the loose ends, etc., but, I don't have the time *grin* - I want to go, play my favorite MMORPG for awhile, as *my* time is what matters most to me, always, both here and in the real world
Maybe later
Regards,
dj
... then I don't want to RTFA - I don't think my life expectancy is that high :)
OK, you are wrong, and here's why:
s word-in-ubuntu
"A default Ubuntu install doesn't expose any open ports"
True, but misleading: A default Ubuntu install doesn't offer any server-type services, so far as I know, so it doesn't have to open any ports.
Also, is it still true that a default Ubuntu install doesn't have a password around the root account? http://www.ubuntux.org/how-to-change-the-root-pas
"Windows is designed to expose hundreds of ports"
Care to list them all?
"none of which can safely be closed because that would break random bits of software that Windows depends on"
Care to list all of those?
The truth is, as best I recall, a default Windows XP install has 4 or 5 open ports, all related to SMB and Windows Networking - and anyone with a clue wouldn't ever allow those to be exposed to the Internet - that's what hardware NAT/firewalls/routers are for.
And, from a home perspective - every ISP I've ever dealt with filters those at their routers. I know that Time-Warner still does, on their Roadrunner network, and as far as I know, so does Verizon.
I'd be willing to bet that just about every ISP does as well - they'd be foolish not to.
"Current copyright law, by vesting legal rights in the copyright holder and nullifying the rights of the authors and inventors, facilitates the profiteering system that the founding fathers were trying to do away with. We have become Great Britain of 1776"
So, what if the author or inventor, being the original copyright holder, decides, of his or her own free will, to sell their copyright, to another, under terms to which both parties agree?
You would agree, that such should be permitted, yes?
Let's create a test case, shall we?
Let's start by supposing that I am a fan of early American music, and particularly admire Stephen Foster (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Foster).
Now, all of his works are in the public domain. I am free to record any of them, and, I can then copyright all such as I create - the original works from which I create them remain in the public domain, however - as is the intent of copyright.
But, MY interpretation of those, are copyrighted by myself: I alone, can determine their disposition, for so long as they remain in affect.
Should you wish, YOU may record your OWN renderings of the original public domain works, and do with the results as you wish.
But, let's say, for purposes of this discussion, that a major record label hears my rendition of "Oh! Susanna" - and thinks that it could be a hit. They approach me, offer me a deal in which I assign my copyright to them, in return for a flat sum, plus a small percentage of future earnings.
I choose to accept, and so, this major record label now holds the copyright.
What, exactly, is wrong with that?
I think I'm missing something in your post, but I cannot for the life of me determine what it is.
Regards,
dj
"If you're actually paying the programmers, musicians, and directors then, yes, you probably are pretty close to alone."
:) Some of the best software utilities that I've purchased over the years (and whose licenses I've maintained - I have one for which I've had a license for well over 15 years now, which I'm happy to keep current as it just keeps getting better and better) come from small companies that have only a few programmers, sometimes only one person.
:) - That's a joke, too, BTW)
Well, count me in on that
I tend to buy music directly from the artist now, whenever possible, though I admit that, given a choice between paying $14.98 from Amazon.com and getting two day shipping for free because I'm an Amazon Prime customer, and paying $15.00 plus shipping and handling, I tend to go with Amazon.com. And, certainly, I'm not criticizing them for making as much money directly as they can, but, if they chose to make a deal where the CD that I want to buy is available for less via Amazon.com and I can get it without additional shipping then I'm not ashamed to buy it there rather than directly from them. That's capitalism at its best, right? One of the best things about the Internet is that such price comparisons are simple now.
Sometimes, a CD will be available on Amazon.com, on CDBaby.com and the artist's own web site... and even their record label's site. I pick the one that is least expensive to me, overall. Sorry, but, I'm not rich, and, at least I'm PAYING for it, rather than cheating the artist out of any money at all by downloading it for free from somewhere, right?
Hell, if I were like many here, I'd say "Those bastards are charging more for their CD on their own site than I can buy it for from Amazon.com! Therefore, I'm entitled to get it for free, because they are greedy and trying to cheat me! After all, information wants to be free! And, it's only 1's and 0's anyway! And, they can make money from their performances!"
Did I miss anything? I'm not hep to the current anti-copyright rhetoric here on Slashdot *grin*
I do admit, however, to never having purchased anything from a director (well, not anything that I'd actually admit to in a public forum
"Current copyright law does nothing to prevent original authors and inventors from profit seeking businessmen."
That's a GREAT red herring! So, I'm mildly curious: How would you protect the original authors and inventors from profit seeking businessmen? Pass a law? Care to phrase it here?
Regards,
dj