I've thought about this a lot. And, I'll admit, you almost have a valid complaint. The thing is, there is one thing you can do with Linux that is difficult/impossible to do with Windows95/98: lock them out of it. If you're giving them a machine, hell, even if you're building them a machine, tell them it will do 1) web browsing, 2) word processing, and 3) CD playing. Disable everything else.
Sadly, and even not-so-sadly, Linux is perfect for use as the single-function device that all CS professors dread. The good news is that if Linux catches on in this market, Windows won't have the chance to embed their OS with all it's DRM and licensing glory into every hardware device made.
BTW, I have a friend who "supports" his girlfriend's XP box, and believe me, it's "kicking (his) ass".
Damn, people, get it straight: If you're going to make up new words, make up new words. If you're going to use trendy-sounding old words, GET THEM RIGHT.
Anecdotal evidence would seem to indicate that sandstone explodes when placed in fire. He obviously wouldn't want to tell kids to do anything dangerous.:)
by observing, you made the photon that left the start billions of light years away either be a particle or a wave
This is what really peeves me about particle physicists. This makes absolutely no sense, and WILL NEVER MAKE SENSE if people continue to think about it in such an asinine way.
What the hell is the variable here? Is it me? Because if I damn well don't "observe" the particle then we have no fucking way of knowing whether it fits into our pre-conceived notions of how a "particle" or a "wave" should act.
If we agree that the "observer" plays no part in the experiment, and, furthermore, if he does, it's not a properly constructed experiment, then we shouldn't immediately assume (without any evidence, mind you) that the metaphysical act of "observing" plays any part in the "existence" of the photon, especially when the "observation" occurs AFTER the photon was created.
This is the most half-baked theory in all of physics, and people go around repeating it as though it were bible-fucking-truth. Just admit it: Einstein was right, God doesn't play dice.
I don't know, but to get signal "into" buildings, they also have to get signal "out of" buildings. If, according to them, this "technique" works with existing 802.11 equipment, they must have just put access points everywhere. It's masked by all sorts of marketspeek, but I don't think there's any real innovation here.
Same as if someone wrote a DVD player for the mac hardware
I know the answer to this from a programming perspective, but think about it: from a legal perspective, how is this different from "patching" software? If a patch merely adds functionality to a pre-existing software program, and an OS is definately a pre-existing software program, don't we "patch" an OS every time we install new software?
Wow. With all the +5's being thrown around to quash this argument, you'd think I wouldn't make it, but heregoes:
What's so different between this and hacking the X-Box? In this instance: Apple gives away software, hoping you will buy the hardware. In the other, M$ "gives away" hardware, hoping you will buy the software. Nothing entitles either of them to their *hopes*.
This just goes to show that companies with proprietary products shouldn't give stuff away and hope that someone won't hack it to work with a competitor's product. (don't get me wrong, Apple is well within their rights to cut-off their distributors who do things like this, Apple being a non-monopoly and all, but it doesn't seem to pass the smell-test)
The RoamAD network utilizes proprietary propagation algorithms and multipoint-to-multipoint network architecture.
RoamAD has succeeded in extending and enhancing the utility and performance of 802.11b, while maintaining its integrity and compatibility with the 802.11b standard being built into millions of mobile devices around the world.
Uhh, there's nothing "proprietary" about any of this. It works with all the little WiFi devices we already have. These geniuses just built a backbone to connect all their "multipoint" WiFi access points together. Whoopee.
But since underneath all that, there is a networking layer where you have broadcast media that everyone can talk over theoratically its possible to have the pplication layer P2P right on top of this.
Thank-you for putting this in terms other than "I am too lazy to setup IP addresses". What you describe could have interesting consequences for something like FreeNet running on a community wireless network.
I just picked Lutheran out of a hat as an example. Don't read more into it than that.
Sorry, but i have to. There is a small group of nitwits in the US who believes that the "establishment" clause merely prevents recognition of one particular Christian sect over another. They go to great lengths to cite the religious convictions of the founding fathers, and posit that such men would obviously not wish to prevent government recognition of the virtues of Christianity, or of religion in general. These people want to frame the "separation of church and state" debate in solely Christian terms, not religious ones.
I see these same idiots posting things here like "Jedi is not a religion". Well, I have news: Lutheranism is not a religion either, but merely a sect of Christianity. The Constitution not only prohibits establishment of an official "church", but also prohibits an official "religion" as well.
when there isn't actually a Linux client for their messaging system
I think this used to be true. I thought this, too, until I started looking around yesterday.
Apparently, it is possible to open Exchange up to third-party e-mail clients; and, as others noted, Ximian has a connector. I'm trying to get Pine to use an Exchange server and it looks pretty easy.
There is even a product for using Outlook clients with Linux servers.
I think this is a perfect example of why the Open Source model is the correct one. It is far easier, from a sysadmin's standpoint, to start with a system that does *more* than is required and distill it down to be idiot-proof than to try to do it the other way around. Trying to get proprietary software to do something it is not (but should have been) designed to do is nigh impossible. Telling your *mom* to use Mandrake or some other idiot-proof distro is simple. You can (and should) take issue with whether or not such distributions are idiot-proof enough yet, but this has nothing to do with "developers" putting more features in a program than are needed. It has to do with sysadmins and other middle-men not doing their jobs.
Re:Mandatory spelling / grammar flame
on
Haiku vs Spam
·
· Score: 1
leaving a car with the keys in it in a parking lot for thieves to steal
This isn't entrapment, but it also isn't stealing either. I'm sure you've heard the expression "possession is 9/10ths of the law". If you "find" something just lying on the street without any form of protection, you have no reason to believe it is "owned" by anyone. The presumption is that things are not "property" unless a reasonable effort is made on the part of the owner to keep them. Leaving your keys in your car in a public parking lot is not making "reasonable effort" to keep anything.
Yeah, but unfortunately you can't search for IBMs or SUNs or LRPs or TUXs or FBIs or USBs or RedHat 7.3 or QT or XML or PHP or PDA or GTK or SQL or IRC or GNU or ICQ or AOL or RFS or API or X11 or anything else for that matter. I know someone's going to reply with something about Google...
That's a great idea. Posting at 0 wouldn't be such a problem if I didn't have to go in and change my browsing settings to -1 every time I got mod points. Slashdot should have a setting that says "if I have mod points, I want to browse at -1, otherwise 2".
software distributed for free would still be required under UCITA to carry a warranty if there's a charge for installation services or an accompanying maintenance contract.
What the hell does this mean? I distribute free software. I also install free software. I don't "require" my free software to be installed by me, and like Fat Casper said, I "guarantee" that software I install is installed correctly, because I'm charging for that part. The question is this: If I distribute free software I have made, and I install said software, am I liable for some obscure bug in the free software since I installed it, but didn't charge the client for writing the software, hence it was "free"?
Slashdot Mirror
um, he's a Liber-tarian. he's as much against that as you are. try reading this and getting back to us.
Sadly, and even not-so-sadly, Linux is perfect for use as the single-function device that all CS professors dread. The good news is that if Linux catches on in this market, Windows won't have the chance to embed their OS with all it's DRM and licensing glory into every hardware device made.
BTW, I have a friend who "supports" his girlfriend's XP box, and believe me, it's "kicking (his) ass".
Damn, people, get it straight: If you're going to make up new words, make up new words. If you're going to use trendy-sounding old words, GET THEM RIGHT.
It's quoth, by the way.
Anecdotal evidence would seem to indicate that sandstone explodes when placed in fire. :)
He obviously wouldn't want to tell kids to do anything dangerous.
This is what really peeves me about particle physicists. This makes absolutely no sense, and WILL NEVER MAKE SENSE if people continue to think about it in such an asinine way.
What the hell is the variable here? Is it me? Because if I damn well don't "observe" the particle then we have no fucking way of knowing whether it fits into our pre-conceived notions of how a "particle" or a "wave" should act.
If we agree that the "observer" plays no part in the experiment, and, furthermore, if he does, it's not a properly constructed experiment, then we shouldn't immediately assume (without any evidence, mind you) that the metaphysical act of "observing" plays any part in the "existence" of the photon, especially when the "observation" occurs AFTER the photon was created.
This is the most half-baked theory in all of physics, and people go around repeating it as though it were bible-fucking-truth. Just admit it: Einstein was right, God doesn't play dice.
Can't beat CNN for a detailed scientific description of new technologies. Has anyone found a paper or press release or anything?
I don't know, but to get signal "into" buildings, they also have to get signal "out of" buildings. If, according to them, this "technique" works with existing 802.11 equipment, they must have just put access points everywhere. It's masked by all sorts of marketspeek, but I don't think there's any real innovation here.
I know the answer to this from a programming perspective, but think about it: from a legal perspective, how is this different from "patching" software? If a patch merely adds functionality to a pre-existing software program, and an OS is definately a pre-existing software program, don't we "patch" an OS every time we install new software?
What's so different between this and hacking the X-Box? In this instance: Apple gives away software, hoping you will buy the hardware. In the other, M$ "gives away" hardware, hoping you will buy the software. Nothing entitles either of them to their *hopes*.
This just goes to show that companies with proprietary products shouldn't give stuff away and hope that someone won't hack it to work with a competitor's product. (don't get me wrong, Apple is well within their rights to cut-off their distributors who do things like this, Apple being a non-monopoly and all, but it doesn't seem to pass the smell-test)
RoamAD has succeeded in extending and enhancing the utility and performance of 802.11b, while maintaining its integrity and compatibility with the 802.11b standard being built into millions of mobile devices around the world.
Uhh, there's nothing "proprietary" about any of this. It works with all the little WiFi devices we already have. These geniuses just built a backbone to connect all their "multipoint" WiFi access points together. Whoopee.
where you have broadcast media that everyone can talk over
theoratically its possible to have the pplication layer P2P
right on top of this.
Thank-you for putting this in terms other than "I am too lazy to setup IP addresses". What you describe could have interesting consequences for something like FreeNet running on a community wireless network.
Sony has reluctantly decided to cease production of its MiniDisc format.
Sorry, but i have to. There is a small group of nitwits in the US who believes that the "establishment" clause merely prevents recognition of one particular Christian sect over another. They go to great lengths to cite the religious convictions of the founding fathers, and posit that such men would obviously not wish to prevent government recognition of the virtues of Christianity, or of religion in general. These people want to frame the "separation of church and state" debate in solely Christian terms, not religious ones.
I see these same idiots posting things here like "Jedi is not a religion". Well, I have news: Lutheranism is not a religion either, but merely a sect of Christianity. The Constitution not only prohibits establishment of an official "church", but also prohibits an official "religion" as well.
I think this used to be true. I thought this, too, until I started looking around yesterday.
Apparently, it is possible to open Exchange up to third-party e-mail clients; and, as others noted, Ximian has a connector. I'm trying to get Pine to use an Exchange server and it looks pretty easy.
There is even a product for using Outlook clients with Linux servers.
I think this is a perfect example of why the Open Source model is the correct one. It is far easier, from a sysadmin's standpoint, to start with a system that does *more* than is required and distill it down to be idiot-proof than to try to do it the other way around. Trying to get proprietary software to do something it is not (but should have been) designed to do is nigh impossible. Telling your *mom* to use Mandrake or some other idiot-proof distro is simple. You can (and should) take issue with whether or not such distributions are idiot-proof enough yet, but this has nothing to do with "developers" putting more features in a program than are needed. It has to do with sysadmins and other middle-men not doing their jobs.
found better website
to justify my grammar.
learn from it you should.
noun modifying
noun is okay 'cause based on
german, english is.
trust scheme not novel;
method to enforce it is.
now we can sue them.
ah, poor slashdotter
you tried to correct spelling,
made grammar mistake
This isn't entrapment, but it also isn't stealing either. I'm sure you've heard the expression "possession is 9/10ths of the law". If you "find" something just lying on the street without any form of protection, you have no reason to believe it is "owned" by anyone. The presumption is that things are not "property" unless a reasonable effort is made on the part of the owner to keep them. Leaving your keys in your car in a public parking lot is not making "reasonable effort" to keep anything.
B) "Trade laws" don't apply to non-profit groups such as Mozilla.org
C) There is not such a thing as "trademark dilution".
that is all...
Here's a cool site where you can take on the role of Maxwell's Demon and use your intellect to create entropy.
Yeah, but unfortunately you can't search for IBMs or SUNs or LRPs or TUXs or FBIs or USBs or RedHat 7.3 or QT or XML or PHP or PDA or GTK or SQL or IRC or GNU or ICQ or AOL or RFS or API or X11 or anything else for that matter. I know someone's going to reply with something about Google...
That's a great idea. Posting at 0 wouldn't be such a problem if I didn't have to go in and change my browsing settings to -1 every time I got mod points. Slashdot should have a setting that says "if I have mod points, I want to browse at -1, otherwise 2".
What the hell does this mean? I distribute free software. I also install free software. I don't "require" my free software to be installed by me, and like Fat Casper said, I "guarantee" that software I install is installed correctly, because I'm charging for that part. The question is this: If I distribute free software I have made, and I install said software, am I liable for some obscure bug in the free software since I installed it, but didn't charge the client for writing the software, hence it was "free"?