In my example, the source of the problem was the phone company, not the ISP. In the case of most large ISPs, the ISP has a contract with the phone company wherein the ISP orders the DSL service from the phone company, and the end user doesn't talk to the phone company. In this situation, an end user cannot even talk to the phone company about DSL problems. You can complain to your local Public Utilities Commission, and I would highly encourage you to do so.
Should a customer just grab their ankles and say "please sir, may I have another".
In the United States of America, with Republicans running the government? Yes. Congress is currently trying to pass legislation to make the situation even worse.
In other situations, where the problem does lie at the ISP, the best place to go is straight to the top. Try to get in touch with the president of the company, or somebody else in upper management. They have the power to make it happen. Do not try to work your way up the chain (don't try to go any higher than the direct supervisor of the tech who answered the phone; that will get you nowhere); you have to go to the executive level.
Poor ISP. They get money to do a job and they can't. So some pissant customer support moron complains about the customer.
In my example, no competing ISP can do the job any better, except possibly the ISP that is owned by the phone company, and they do the rest of the job so poorly it's not worth it. In the case of problems at the ISP, understand that the company's management may not even be aware that there is a problem, and tech support often can't fix it. Complain to management, let them know there's a problem. If that doesn't resolve the issue, take your money elsewhere. That's capitalism at work.
Poor you. You have a job that you can't do, so its the customer's fault. Boo hoo hoo. I see a long career at McDonalds for a slacker like you.
I never said anything was the customer's fault, nor did I say I can't do my job. Sometimes telling customers "no" is my job; I'm not slacking when I do it, and it's not the customer's fault I have to.
Tech support people are lazy, however, in some cases, and may just opt to cancel you.
Au contraire. Tech support people are tired of listening to customers whine about problems that tech support people cannot fix. If customers have unreasonable expectations, and refuse to listen to us, it's far better for the company if they just cancel service and go elsewhere (becoming somebody else's problem).
Also, non-chalance about canceling service is sometimes the best way to make customers understand that we really are doing our best to help them, and we're not just blowing them off. Sounds weird, but here's an example:
Customer has a problem with their DSL service. We've identified that the problem lies with the phone company. Phone company has given us a commit date of Tuesday by end of business day for repair to be complete. For whatever reason, the customer feels like they've been dragged around, and their service isn't getting fixed. Customer says if they're not up and running by 9:00am Monday morning, they're cancelling service.
Customer expects us to bend over backwards to get them up and running by 9:00am Monday morning. We can't. There is absolutely nothing we can do. It's out of our hands. Customer needs to understand this. Customer will have the same problem at any competing DSL ISP, but we're the ones who have identified the problem and are getting it fixed.
We respond by repeating to the customer that we have been given a commit time of Tuesday by end of business day, but that we cannot guarantee that the issue will be resolved by then. We then offer to the customer that if this is unacceptible and they'd prefer to cancel service, although we'd hate to lose them as a customer, we'd be more than happy to transfer them to someone who can take care of that.
This has the effect of making it clear to the customer that we really mean what we say. Usually, they shut up, keep their account, and let us do our jobs. Often, they'll ask to be transferred to get the account cancelled, then hang up during the transfer.
The alternative is to offer the customer incentives to try to convince them to stay with us, such as offering a free month of service, or a credit on their account. This costs us money, and gains nothing - if the customer has the expectation that we're willing to give him free service, he'll try to take advantage of it in the future. Far too many ISPs have failed for this very reason.
At the last few ISPs I've worked for, nearly all my coworkers have been genuinely interested in helping the customer, and we've been fortunate to have management that allows us to do so. I understand that at some companies this is not the case; those are obviously the ones to avoid.
Sorry for ranting. Getting back on track: ultimatums like "if you don't fix this problem, I'll cancel my service" sometimes are a good idea. That will tell you whether or not you can get the issue resolved. Be prepared to actually cancel, because if they can't resolve the issue, that's what will happen. If they can but just don't want to, threatening to cancel may just be the incentive they need to get it done.
(As others suggested, if host resolution is your issue, you could run a local proxy on your 127.0.0.1 interface that converts host names into addresses.)
Not sure what you're trying to suggest here, could you elaborate? How would this local proxy fetch pages, through the ISP's proxy? If not, then why run a local proxy at all? Keep in mind that translating names into IPs before a request is made won't work for servers using name-based virtual hosts. What did you mean?
If they know of a site that has child porn on it, why in the hell are they not going after the site instead of just blocking it?
Sure, if the site is in the US. Try to start shutting down Web sites that may be perfectly legal in other countries but that those of us in the United States find offensive, and you're opening an ugly can of worms.
You think that stuff is ugly? Take a look at this. That's a list of all the registered nameservers that match 216.227.56.20, which is supposed to be ns1.telocity.net. In particular, note the last entry, which has no IP address, but the name is 216.227.56.20! Yes, that's right, that's "216.227.56.20." in a zone file (note the trailing dot), with "20" as the top-level domain!
I can understand a lame-ass registrar with poorly-written software not catching this, but the NSI Registry (aka Verisign GRS) should know better, and should have rejected it.
All of the user interface research that has been done over the years must have been thrown away or forgotten.
With QuickTime 4, Apple threw their own Human Interface Guildelines out the window and made something that looked cool, which Microsoft promptly copied. Users complained, so QuickTime 5 fixed some of the UI problems a bit (using a slider bar for volume instead of a stupid wheel). The brushed metal look is also used by the "i" apps (iMovie, iTunes, iDVD, iPhoto) which I also find to be frequently counterintuitive. Maybe QuickTime 6 will be better?
Note that QTSS is NOT a project started by random open-source developers who wanted to play around; it's a project built and funded entirely by Apple, which chose to release it as open source after it was already running (it was previously called Darwin Streaming Server and was released before Mac OS X 1.0 shipped).
You don't need QuickTime Pro. However, QuickTime will bug you constantly about upgrading, which basically amounts to paying Apple $30 for a serial number to make it quit bugging you and un-cripple the QuickTime Player. I suggest finding a pirated serial number, try the extra features, see if it's worth your $30, then register - that's what I did.
Of course, this being Slashdot, you probably think it should be free (beer and speech, but mostly beer). Bleh.
On the other hand, I'm really not happy with the nagging. Oh well. *shrug*
When will we all finally be so fed up at the consistent invasions of our privacy by media moguls like Real networks, AOL, Netscape (yeah one and the ame..)? We neeed to contact our legislators and demand these practices stop. Maybe if anonymous data was gathered, but to tie it with an IP address really goes beyond any justifiable data collection.
The DOJ doesn't want to punish Microsoft for their behavior, so they reached a settlement that really doesn't, and ignored public comments completely. The judge isn't convinved this is a good idea, so now the DOJ is in the awkward position of arguing in Microsoft's favor in court, while trying not to sound like they've been paid off.
Bush just signed a restructuring that puts approval of mergers between media, entertainment, software and telecommunications companies under the jurisdiction of that same DOJ, instead of the FTC.
The FCC has had a hands-off approach for some time, and now has decided that phone companies shouldn't be required to allow competiting companies to function.
Bush just imposed a tarrif on steel imports, so that US steel companies can charge higher prices but still remain competitive with foreign steel companies.
Bush thinks it's a good idea to drill up Alaska, to get a 6-month supply of oil. I'm sure his buddies in the oil industry stand to make a killing from the project.
And you think this government is going to legislate against large corporations that want to invade your privacy?
Since they were hired by the Recording industry who holds all the copyrights in question, wouldn't they be stealing from themselves (on an organizational level)?
The RIAA doesn't hold the copyrights. The RIAA is, as its name implies, an association of different companies. Unless he was explicitly (in writing) granted by the copyright holders the authority to do this, or the authority to do this sort of thing is automatically granted by the wording of whatever membership agreement the copyright holder signs when they join the RIAA, then yes, he has broken the law.
IANAL, but I'd imagine the copyright holders would have to prosecute the individuals who actually downloaded the music, since it was their copyrights that were violated - however, the act of paying somebody to do something illegal could be prosecuted by the government without the involvement of the copyright holders.
The GPL is based on Copyleft, which is just an construct on top of copyright law. When the copyright on GPL'd software expires, does the software fall into the public domain?
If copyrights are to be shortened to, say, 7 years, does GPL'd code then become public domain after those seven years?
Copyleft is a made-up word, not a legal concept. GPL'd software is copyrighted, with a license that grants permission to use the code in certain ways (which you normally wouldn't be able to with a copyrighted work). If the copyright expires, the software falls into the public domain, and you can now do those things with the software without using the GPL to do it, and thus not being restricted by the terms of the GPL.
However, since a GPL'd app can be copyrighted by many people (each contributor is a copyright holder), you'd need to wait until all the copyrights expired, or all the copyrights that pertain to the section you want to use. If copyrights have been assigned to the FSF or some other group, that would simplify things.
I just read in the paper this morning that Prez W. just signed something so that now, approval for mergers between media, software, telecom and entertainment companies are under the jurisdiction of the USDOJ antitrust group, not the FTC. This is the same USDOJ that's currently arguing in favor of Microsoft. Somebody's getting paid off, big time.
2) Fair Use Act says you're allowed to copy copyrighted material for backup purposes. From what I understand, you are also allowed to copy the material to be used in another format. i.e. copy CD to MP3 (?), DVD to VHS (?), etc.
Right, or at least we hope so - RIAA and MPAA members generally disagree.
3) If it's legal to copy something from one format to another, and the company providing the original content prevents you from exercising your rights under Fair Use, shouldnt there be a large contingent of class action suits against the content providers for actively and intentionally limiting your legal rights?
WRONG. Fair use means it is legal for me to copy a DVD to another format for my own use, but the company that produced the DVD is under no obligation to facilitate my doing so - they just can't have me prosecuted for copyright violation.
From what I understand, under the DMCA it is still legal for me to duplicate a copyrighted movie, but if the movie is encrypted, it's illegal for me to break the encryption, or tell anyone else how to break the encryption, or produce a tool to allow someone to break the encryption. Of course, without breaking the encryption, I can't duplicate it, but that's the law.
Two options: get Congress to change the law, or get the Supreme Court to overturn it. The latter sounds cheaper to me, but YMMV.
Apple is only licensing CUPS from the copyright holder (Easy Software Products) to get around the GNU restrictions, so a proprietary version can be distributed without source.
It's a good thing because of the standards Apple will be using, not because of the license they distribute their software under. Apple has adopted XML as the file format for all kinds of things; does it matter if they read and write those XML files with proprietary closed-source software? The point is that Free software can also be used because XML is standard. I don't know much about CUPS, but it seems to me that I'll eventually be able to use CUPS on Linux to print across the network to my Epson printer connected to my iMac, and that's a good thing.
Also, would Apple's use of CUPS make it easier to get printer drivers from Mac OS X ported to Linux? Would they even need to be ported, or can CUPS drivers be used cross-platform? This could mean much better printer support in Linux, since hardware vendors who refuse to acknowledge Linux will obviously be supporting Mac OS X...
Personally, I'd love to see as many tourists up there as we can get with an orbiting Hilton to house them all.
I believe Hilton Hotels has officially stated they intend to be the first hotel in space, although I don't know how serious they were when they said that. Anyone have a link?
The song - the lyrics, the melody, etc. - are copywrited by the writer, but the recording is copywrited by the performers, who must license the song from the writer. When you hear a disturbing elevator-music instrumental version of "Staying Alive", like I heard the other day while waiting on hold at work, whoever put that together only had to license the song everyone knows, not the recording everyone knows, and just record it themselves. Much cheaper that way.
Something you're forgetting is that OSDN, last I checked, is a FOR-PROFIT company. That's a far cry from Slackware, which is an Open Source project, with no for-profit funding or motives. Regardless of what anyone thinks, that's just not a fair comparision.
Slackware Linux, Inc. is a for-profit company, just not a very big one.
yup... they tend to keep running when you don't use them.
It's a server. It handles over 6,000 pieces of mail per month, hosts a couple web sites, it's a file server on my LAN, it has three VPN connections to friends' networks, and it does NAT. Sure, if I startx and launch Mozilla and StarOffice, there's gonna be some load, but why would I do that when my iMac makes a much nicer desktop?
Slashdot Mirror
Where should a customer call to complain then?
In my example, the source of the problem was the phone company, not the ISP. In the case of most large ISPs, the ISP has a contract with the phone company wherein the ISP orders the DSL service from the phone company, and the end user doesn't talk to the phone company. In this situation, an end user cannot even talk to the phone company about DSL problems. You can complain to your local Public Utilities Commission, and I would highly encourage you to do so.
Should a customer just grab their ankles and say "please sir, may I have another".
In the United States of America, with Republicans running the government? Yes. Congress is currently trying to pass legislation to make the situation even worse.
In other situations, where the problem does lie at the ISP, the best place to go is straight to the top. Try to get in touch with the president of the company, or somebody else in upper management. They have the power to make it happen. Do not try to work your way up the chain (don't try to go any higher than the direct supervisor of the tech who answered the phone; that will get you nowhere); you have to go to the executive level.
Poor ISP. They get money to do a job and they can't. So some pissant customer support moron complains about the customer.
In my example, no competing ISP can do the job any better, except possibly the ISP that is owned by the phone company, and they do the rest of the job so poorly it's not worth it. In the case of problems at the ISP, understand that the company's management may not even be aware that there is a problem, and tech support often can't fix it. Complain to management, let them know there's a problem. If that doesn't resolve the issue, take your money elsewhere. That's capitalism at work.
Poor you. You have a job that you can't do, so its the customer's fault. Boo hoo hoo. I see a long career at McDonalds for a slacker like you.
I never said anything was the customer's fault, nor did I say I can't do my job. Sometimes telling customers "no" is my job; I'm not slacking when I do it, and it's not the customer's fault I have to.
Tech support people are lazy, however, in some cases, and may just opt to cancel you.
Au contraire. Tech support people are tired of listening to customers whine about problems that tech support people cannot fix. If customers have unreasonable expectations, and refuse to listen to us, it's far better for the company if they just cancel service and go elsewhere (becoming somebody else's problem).
Also, non-chalance about canceling service is sometimes the best way to make customers understand that we really are doing our best to help them, and we're not just blowing them off. Sounds weird, but here's an example:
Customer has a problem with their DSL service. We've identified that the problem lies with the phone company. Phone company has given us a commit date of Tuesday by end of business day for repair to be complete. For whatever reason, the customer feels like they've been dragged around, and their service isn't getting fixed. Customer says if they're not up and running by 9:00am Monday morning, they're cancelling service.
Customer expects us to bend over backwards to get them up and running by 9:00am Monday morning. We can't. There is absolutely nothing we can do. It's out of our hands. Customer needs to understand this. Customer will have the same problem at any competing DSL ISP, but we're the ones who have identified the problem and are getting it fixed.
We respond by repeating to the customer that we have been given a commit time of Tuesday by end of business day, but that we cannot guarantee that the issue will be resolved by then. We then offer to the customer that if this is unacceptible and they'd prefer to cancel service, although we'd hate to lose them as a customer, we'd be more than happy to transfer them to someone who can take care of that.
This has the effect of making it clear to the customer that we really mean what we say. Usually, they shut up, keep their account, and let us do our jobs. Often, they'll ask to be transferred to get the account cancelled, then hang up during the transfer.
The alternative is to offer the customer incentives to try to convince them to stay with us, such as offering a free month of service, or a credit on their account. This costs us money, and gains nothing - if the customer has the expectation that we're willing to give him free service, he'll try to take advantage of it in the future. Far too many ISPs have failed for this very reason.
At the last few ISPs I've worked for, nearly all my coworkers have been genuinely interested in helping the customer, and we've been fortunate to have management that allows us to do so. I understand that at some companies this is not the case; those are obviously the ones to avoid.
Sorry for ranting. Getting back on track: ultimatums like "if you don't fix this problem, I'll cancel my service" sometimes are a good idea. That will tell you whether or not you can get the issue resolved. Be prepared to actually cancel, because if they can't resolve the issue, that's what will happen. If they can but just don't want to, threatening to cancel may just be the incentive they need to get it done.
(As others suggested, if host resolution is your issue, you could run a local proxy on your 127.0.0.1 interface that converts host names into addresses.)
Not sure what you're trying to suggest here, could you elaborate? How would this local proxy fetch pages, through the ISP's proxy? If not, then why run a local proxy at all? Keep in mind that translating names into IPs before a request is made won't work for servers using name-based virtual hosts. What did you mean?
If they know of a site that has child porn on it, why in the hell are they not going after the site instead of just blocking it?
Sure, if the site is in the US. Try to start shutting down Web sites that may be perfectly legal in other countries but that those of us in the United States find offensive, and you're opening an ugly can of worms.
You think that stuff is ugly? Take a look at this. That's a list of all the registered nameservers that match 216.227.56.20, which is supposed to be ns1.telocity.net. In particular, note the last entry, which has no IP address, but the name is 216.227.56.20! Yes, that's right, that's "216.227.56.20." in a zone file (note the trailing dot), with "20" as the top-level domain!
I can understand a lame-ass registrar with poorly-written software not catching this, but the NSI Registry (aka Verisign GRS) should know better, and should have rejected it.
All of the user interface research that has been done over the years must have been thrown away or forgotten.
With QuickTime 4, Apple threw their own Human Interface Guildelines out the window and made something that looked cool, which Microsoft promptly copied. Users complained, so QuickTime 5 fixed some of the UI problems a bit (using a slider bar for volume instead of a stupid wheel). The brushed metal look is also used by the "i" apps (iMovie, iTunes, iDVD, iPhoto) which I also find to be frequently counterintuitive. Maybe QuickTime 6 will be better?
Does Daewin Streaming Server do it all?
From what I understand, yes. It can broadcast a Shoutcast stream.
Not bad for something open source and free.
Note that QTSS is NOT a project started by random open-source developers who wanted to play around; it's a project built and funded entirely by Apple, which chose to release it as open source after it was already running (it was previously called Darwin Streaming Server and was released before Mac OS X 1.0 shipped).
Clearly you'll want to go buy a big screen TV to watch this.
I know how OSDN is strapped for cash these days. What if companies paid them to add some relevant links to Slashdot editor comments?
Clearly you'll want to go buy a Sony big screen TV to watch this.
Is Slashdot above product placement? Tell me you weren't thinking about it when you read the article!
(I would have used Philips in my example, but their site is broken in Mozilla.)
You don't need QuickTime Pro. However, QuickTime will bug you constantly about upgrading, which basically amounts to paying Apple $30 for a serial number to make it quit bugging you and un-cripple the QuickTime Player. I suggest finding a pirated serial number, try the extra features, see if it's worth your $30, then register - that's what I did.
Of course, this being Slashdot, you probably think it should be free (beer and speech, but mostly beer). Bleh.
On the other hand, I'm really not happy with the nagging. Oh well. *shrug*
When will we all finally be so fed up at the consistent invasions of our privacy by media moguls like Real networks, AOL, Netscape (yeah one and the ame..)? We neeed to contact our legislators and demand these practices stop. Maybe if anonymous data was gathered, but to tie it with an IP address really goes beyond any justifiable data collection.
The DOJ doesn't want to punish Microsoft for their behavior, so they reached a settlement that really doesn't, and ignored public comments completely. The judge isn't convinved this is a good idea, so now the DOJ is in the awkward position of arguing in Microsoft's favor in court, while trying not to sound like they've been paid off.
Bush just signed a restructuring that puts approval of mergers between media, entertainment, software and telecommunications companies under the jurisdiction of that same DOJ, instead of the FTC.
The FCC has had a hands-off approach for some time, and now has decided that phone companies shouldn't be required to allow competiting companies to function.
Bush just imposed a tarrif on steel imports, so that US steel companies can charge higher prices but still remain competitive with foreign steel companies.
Bush thinks it's a good idea to drill up Alaska, to get a 6-month supply of oil. I'm sure his buddies in the oil industry stand to make a killing from the project.
And you think this government is going to legislate against large corporations that want to invade your privacy?
Since they were hired by the Recording industry who holds all the copyrights in question, wouldn't they be stealing from themselves (on an organizational level)?
The RIAA doesn't hold the copyrights. The RIAA is, as its name implies, an association of different companies. Unless he was explicitly (in writing) granted by the copyright holders the authority to do this, or the authority to do this sort of thing is automatically granted by the wording of whatever membership agreement the copyright holder signs when they join the RIAA, then yes, he has broken the law.
IANAL, but I'd imagine the copyright holders would have to prosecute the individuals who actually downloaded the music, since it was their copyrights that were violated - however, the act of paying somebody to do something illegal could be prosecuted by the government without the involvement of the copyright holders.
The GPL is based on Copyleft, which is just an construct on top of copyright law. When the copyright on GPL'd software expires, does the software fall into the public domain?
If copyrights are to be shortened to, say, 7 years, does GPL'd code then become public domain after those seven years?
Copyleft is a made-up word, not a legal concept. GPL'd software is copyrighted, with a license that grants permission to use the code in certain ways (which you normally wouldn't be able to with a copyrighted work). If the copyright expires, the software falls into the public domain, and you can now do those things with the software without using the GPL to do it, and thus not being restricted by the terms of the GPL.
However, since a GPL'd app can be copyrighted by many people (each contributor is a copyright holder), you'd need to wait until all the copyrights expired, or all the copyrights that pertain to the section you want to use. If copyrights have been assigned to the FSF or some other group, that would simplify things.
I just read in the paper this morning that Prez W. just signed something so that now, approval for mergers between media, software, telecom and entertainment companies are under the jurisdiction of the USDOJ antitrust group, not the FTC. This is the same USDOJ that's currently arguing in favor of Microsoft. Somebody's getting paid off, big time.
2) Fair Use Act says you're allowed to copy copyrighted material for backup purposes. From what I understand, you are also allowed to copy the material to be used in another format. i.e. copy CD to MP3 (?), DVD to VHS (?), etc.
Right, or at least we hope so - RIAA and MPAA members generally disagree.
3) If it's legal to copy something from one format to another, and the company providing the original content prevents you from exercising your rights under Fair Use, shouldnt there be a large contingent of class action suits against the content providers for actively and intentionally limiting your legal rights?
WRONG. Fair use means it is legal for me to copy a DVD to another format for my own use, but the company that produced the DVD is under no obligation to facilitate my doing so - they just can't have me prosecuted for copyright violation.
From what I understand, under the DMCA it is still legal for me to duplicate a copyrighted movie, but if the movie is encrypted, it's illegal for me to break the encryption, or tell anyone else how to break the encryption, or produce a tool to allow someone to break the encryption. Of course, without breaking the encryption, I can't duplicate it, but that's the law.
Two options: get Congress to change the law, or get the Supreme Court to overturn it. The latter sounds cheaper to me, but YMMV.
how does one pronounce that? Is it C-pound? C-number? C-two sets of lines at near-right angles?
C-sharp. Or the enharmonic equivalent, D-flat.
Did you tell him that Microsoft will soon be out of business because they hire salesmen that insult their customers?
;-)
The salesman in question did no such thing - he insulted someone who is not a Microsoft customer.
Apple is only licensing CUPS from the copyright holder (Easy Software Products) to get around the GNU restrictions, so a proprietary version can be distributed without source.
It's a good thing because of the standards Apple will be using, not because of the license they distribute their software under. Apple has adopted XML as the file format for all kinds of things; does it matter if they read and write those XML files with proprietary closed-source software? The point is that Free software can also be used because XML is standard. I don't know much about CUPS, but it seems to me that I'll eventually be able to use CUPS on Linux to print across the network to my Epson printer connected to my iMac, and that's a good thing.
Also, would Apple's use of CUPS make it easier to get printer drivers from Mac OS X ported to Linux? Would they even need to be ported, or can CUPS drivers be used cross-platform? This could mean much better printer support in Linux, since hardware vendors who refuse to acknowledge Linux will obviously be supporting Mac OS X...
Don't you wish that you had the resources to play games with the courts when you got parking and speeding tickets?
I do not specifically remember driving that day, but I have no reason to believe I was not.
I do not understand what you mean by "car".
hey, I only do it for the money.
Read chapter 24 of The Restaurant at the End of the Universe by the late Douglas Adams for a far better idea.
Personally, I'd love to see as many tourists up there as we can get with an orbiting Hilton to house them all.
I believe Hilton Hotels has officially stated they intend to be the first hotel in space, although I don't know how serious they were when they said that. Anyone have a link?
The song - the lyrics, the melody, etc. - are copywrited by the writer, but the recording is copywrited by the performers, who must license the song from the writer. When you hear a disturbing elevator-music instrumental version of "Staying Alive", like I heard the other day while waiting on hold at work, whoever put that together only had to license the song everyone knows, not the recording everyone knows, and just record it themselves. Much cheaper that way.
Something you're forgetting is that OSDN, last I checked, is a FOR-PROFIT company. That's a far cry from Slackware, which is an Open Source project, with no for-profit funding or motives. Regardless of what anyone thinks, that's just not a fair comparision.
Slackware Linux, Inc. is a for-profit company, just not a very big one.
yup... they tend to keep running when you don't use them.
It's a server. It handles over 6,000 pieces of mail per month, hosts a couple web sites, it's a file server on my LAN, it has three VPN connections to friends' networks, and it does NAT. Sure, if I startx and launch Mozilla and StarOffice, there's gonna be some load, but why would I do that when my iMac makes a much nicer desktop?