I've got an old German bier stein that holds (measured) 65+ oz's. Now THAT is a lot of fun. You NEVER misplace it, and when full, you need to tuck the bottom into the crook of your other arm to properly support it.
The painting has lots of color and obviously was not rushed. It's probably not an antique though... 65oz is very close to 2 litres, which implies post-WWII (when did Germany move over to metric system anyways??)
Demonstrating a lack of civility is no way to gain respect for yourself, or your ideas.
> If you own something go do not have the right to do anything you wish with it even on your own property. Try dumping toxic chemicals in your backyard.
Another way to look at it is: you have a RIGHT to swing your fist, but that right ENDS when it touches MY nose, and does not overrule my right to be free from harm.
One could attempt to argue that they had a "right" to pollute land they own, but *I* certainly would not make this arguement! Your right to modify your land ends at your neighbor's right to a clean water table, and air. Furthermore, land is universally considered to be a fundamentally different kind of property than automobiles, Playstations, etc. Like it or not, your land is TERRITORY of the nation you are subject to, and so there are many who might to object -- even if you do not -- to your deliberately poisoning the soil.
If you were trying to make some "greater" point, that point was lost. Distortion is hardly going to convince anyone besides yourself.
>>selling mod chips shouldn't be illegal?!?! >Do you also have a hacked cable box? It is theft of service.
You miss the point so badly:
If you OWN something, it's YOURS. Not only do you NOT have the right to take away people's freedom, but you also have no right to even KNOW what people do with their property.
I'll give you a quick lesson in right & wrong:
RIGHT: You decide to paint your car YOU OWN, a color other than what it was manufactured.
WRONG: You LEASE (or steal) a car, and repaint it without the owner's permission.
Yeah, sorry about that FireBook... There was no need for me to clutter up the messageboard by slamming him.
I don't like people like ceejayoz, who has to elevate his ego with a completely unprovoked attack on nathanh's post. I should be more tolerant... ceejayoz is in all likelyhood, just an angry kid.;-)
>Out of all the apps I have installed, only two - TWO - failed to work under WinXP. One is Adaptec's CD burning software, the second is the game Ground Control. All others work fine. They all worked fine under Win98 and Win2000.
You obviously have not used one long enough to experience this mythical "incompatability" the NT kernel has with many games. Congratulations on your first computer, noob.:-)
As a side note, unnecessarily being an snippy little smart ass -- as you were to your parent post -- just makes you look like an asshole.
Perhaps someday you'd like to install a "classic" game called Warcraft, which does not run under Windows 2000. When you're done, try Terminus (not that old either), Carmageddon, Return To Zork, SeaWolf, and Descent. This is all I can think of at the moment but there are MANY more examples. Of course, you can AGAIN purchase Warcraft (BNE edition) and it will run under Win2k, but that just supports the posters assertion that you have to re-buy a product under Windows.
>It's called quality assurance, dolt.
Afraid the only 'dolt' here is you. I hear all of your co-workers hate you because you're a know-it-all-prick. Oh and BTW your woman is cheating on you.
complex documents are where these things fall apart. People mistakenly use.doc as an INTERCHANGE format, and if an Office clone renders things differently (even if "more correctly"), then it's a bug.
People design documents according to vision, not standards, and expect the document to appear the same when sent to vendors, customers, etc. The PDF thing is just too big of a pain for most folks (and on Windows, it's generally not free to create PDF's with GUI tools).
>I'm quite certain that after the onslaught of the BSA, your smug winky IT guy would turn into a twitchy IT guy that doesn't know up from down.
You ever work in a startup? You make yourself the "loudest complainer", even over something as important as licensing, and you NEVER rat out on anyone. Sorry. Besides, the company I spoke of is no longer around.:-(
There's a REASON Microsoft is not pushing XP-style licensing on corporations... it would make management seriously consider alternatives. This would be the BEST promotional tool for open office-style tools...
Microsoft recognizes human nature and the market, in that they only use the blow=torch and pliars on home users.
A lot of people run Linux. A lot MORE have "tried" it, and then say to themselves "then what"?
Linux just doesn't have any good, free software, and that's what's needed to run a desktop.
At my last company, when I complained about Office attachments on the email and intraweb (against agreed-upon policy), the IT guy just gives me an Office CD and winks. When I state I run Linux at home, I get the "it's not my fault is it" (with the look of "you know, if it hurts when you slam the door on your head don't do it" look).
Linux will not even BEGIN to be appealing until people can "take their work home" (Office warez CD). As cool as CodeWeavers Crossover is - I've used it - it isn't "free" with the OS.
That's not a slam - I encourage commercial software on Linux, but the office-worker-at-home and the AOL user -- the majority of Windows users -- just want everything for free. They don't believe in Free Software or the GPL, and they don't believe installing MS Project on every computer is really stealing.
Eleet coder wanna-bees is another group -- slightly more technical than Mom -- that Linux won't win over. These people download the ISO's as soon as their released, burn em, but only try every 3rd release and then on a spare computer. Since Linux won't run his pirated games (or at least not full speed), Linux sucks. Besides, you can't run MS Visual Basic on Linux, which is an industry standard. Everyone knows you gotta program Linux in Assembly, or sometimes C.;-)
For Linux to become more appealing to the masses, it doesn't need a lot of polish -- it's "good enough" right now. What's needed is for Microsoft needs to get tougher on licensing, which they won't do UNTIL they are SURE they have locked out the threats (by extending the Internet, apparently)
>I still don't see where people get the idea that x is slower on the same hardware then windows is.
Friend, you are completely wrong.
The *best case* under X is you have a driver that is *vendor supported*, or has *completely* stable and optomized drivers for XFree -- unlikely given than the Windows drivers are closed source, so we can't even compare the code..
How common is the above? Not very. Assume then you have this uncommon, best case. Do not dismiss the latency due to the loopback device... it's very real.
Sure, you can excuse the fact that some X is slow by questioning the "configuration", the vendor support, or the stability of the drivers. BUT THAT'S NOT THE POINT.
The point is there *is* this performance problem under X, and in some cases it's not-so-bad (GeForce & Matrox cards), and in other cases it's *really* bad performance (ATI, etc). The end result is all that matters... that Windows is running the same config faster, even if you eliminate the biggest performance excuses like driver completeness, we still have a loopback device.
And I'm only talking about 2D. Lots video boards that have "acceptable" 3D performance under Windows, have horrible 3D performance under XFree. Yes, I know it's because of driver support, but reasons tend to be confused with "excuses" when the end user encounters this.
This doen't mean I think XFree is junk or is a slug. I think it does remarkably well given what it does. On a modern configuration like I have (AMD 1900XP + GeForce4 4600), performance is pretty good but I still notice X11 redrawing more often than Windows. It's not enough difference at my speed to complain, but that's because it's buried in hardware.
All I need to do to benchmark XFree vs. Windows is fire up Return To Castle Wolfenstein @ 1600x1280, or play some full-screen oversized video from disk (using several video players not just one). If you can see a difference, there is one.
There was a discussion on the Cygwin mailing list a while back. I don't recall the details, but with older Cygwin builds you could run under WINE very nicely. Then something changed in Cygwin (serial support, I think) and this altered the behavior of Cygwin + WINE.
Bottom line of the discussion was, I believe, that Cygwin + WINE is an unsupported configuration (at least on the Cygwin list). If you're curious, check the archives -- I could be mistaken.
BTW - It's no surprise that Cygwin might be faster on WINE (I heard it could be)... Cygwin tries to do threads and processes the same was as on UNIX, which is expensive on WIN32 (especially on Win9x but still true on NT as well). It would be faster to map all that stuff back to native UNIX, than emulate it in Win32 land...
of Payola. I won't even karma whore and drop links here... it's on Slashdot now, and salon.com.
Also, the fact that Clear Channel has an oversized monopoly and the playlists are CENTRALLY maintained, means US radio gets all the creative heart and soul of, say, Stalinist Russia.
People aren't just trading MP3's to get something for free... they're also resisting the "generic, sanitized one-ness" that US radio has become.
If monopoly relaxations of the 1996 act didn't exist, we'd have more independant radio (and smaller corporations instead of one 800lb gorilla).
Every major US city has at least 1 "trendy corporate rock station", that played the 80's Hair Bands to death, then felt stupid when the independents one-upped them with punk, grunge, and other "alternative" music.
In Boston Mass, we have THREE radio stations that sound the same, where before they had their own personal twist. No point mentioning their call signs, they are all the same.
I *do* buy CD's I've heard and know I'll enjoy listening to (end to end, not for some stupid single).
Moby's "Play" was one of those must-buy CD's... it had a nice groove start to end, while "18" has *one* good track.
Now, perhaps "18" will bring Moby some new fans. Or maybe he just wanted to experiment (good for him)... but I just don't like the new album. It's far too melow and slow.
PS -- It's *completely* unfair to label "techies" as CD copy fiends. It seems the last time I checked, the #1 CD on cddb.com was Eminem... that's *hardly* music for the "techie crowd" (I'll resist the opening to label the Eminem crowd;-).
The few people who tried flourescent bulbs correctly noted that they can be harsh light. This doesn't have to be the case.
Economics works against flourescent bulbs... generally you have a choice in sizes, but there aren't any choices in "mood" (soft, tinted, etc).
The answer of course is reflected light, or otherwise hiding the bulb. Lampshades and light bounced off the ceiling works great. Not to mention, these things *greatly* reduce the air conditioner strain during the summer (I used to live without AC, but New England summers are rather hot now.).
It's sad that standard incandescent lightbulbs are not efficency-regulated out of existence. You pay LESS for efficent lighting, if you factor in all the increased energy taxes which come about due to pollution.
All CD Audio disks have a "Copyright" bit. It's a "flag", really, not anti-circumvention device, since no ripper listens to it.
Getting legal on this guy is like taping a license agreement to a wad of money, putting it on the sidewalk, and arresting anyone who doesn't sign the agreement. It's too big of a stretch.
I just signed up with Netflix. I'm happy with the 3 movies for $20, HOWEVER I will probably downgrade to the "TWO FOR $13" option (check your prefs as this is not widely promoted onsite).
All of my return envelopes have Worcester, MASS on them (40 miles from here). The label is a sticker over a CA address, so I figure based on this and the comments here, the distribution center is new. It takes 2-3 days to get the movies returned. It takes 2-3 days to get the next movie.
Customer service has been VERY quick for me, although the only problems I've registered are mistakes in their database, etc. They need to automate that correcting-movie-details bit, like imdb.com has since it's a different group that actually fixes the db content.
They also need to automate requests for new movies (not go through CS). We should just be able to "vote", and see how many others have also voted on same title.
They seem to be trying, as people note they change according to requests. They just need to invest in their internal programming dept., so they can react faster to our requests (and do so with a lower head count in Customer Service).
Also, by focusing their new customers on the "3 movie plan", they lose people. The webpage with the "alternate" subscription plans REALLY needs to be more visible. A coworker of mine cancelled, but told me he would have stayed on had he known about the 2-movie option.
Anyways, if you DO sign up.. do so by going through an AFFILIATE, because those people get money or credits (at no cost to you). I signed up through a link on LINUXISO.ORG. I think they get $7 for referring me, which is great because I appreciate linuxiso.org's mirroring service.
If you fail to meet NASA's moral standards...
on
Space Tourist Standards
·
· Score: 2, Funny
.. you can always experience the rush of an piloting a US nuclear submarine during an emergency surfacing...
>looks like if you have a history of drinking, lying and cheating you won't be going into space anytime soon, no matter how much money you have.
Sounds like a slap in the face of George W. Bush. I *knew* NASA was full of liberals and hippies!
I don't disagree with any of your statements above, except for one:
>wouldn't it be nice if we'd have a _legal_ linux DVD player
Oh, you mean a closed-source DVD player with built-in anti-fair-use controls? THAT, I think, is what many FEAR MOST as a result of an AOL move on Red Hat.
The above should not be construed as an anti-closed-source statement (I say use what's best for you), but I get *really* annoyed when a DVD track actually has the power to ignore the fast-forward button (for commercials and FBI Warnings). Not to mention that the highest laws in the land allow for "fair use" of copyrighted content, and this is something that is under attack.
>Red Hat is (AFAIK) the only distribution with absolutely no closed source-software.
Really? I had no idea Real Audio and XGalaga were open sourced now... (they're not)
You have Red Hat mixed up with Debian. It's Debian that is based on free software... AND... Debian is the ONLY distro with a development process is transparent and democratic.
For example: If the Techies at Debian declare that it's a bad idea to include early gcc versions, then it does not happen. At Red Hat, the techies are forced into battling other parts of the company that think it's a good feature (even though those people might not use Linux at all). You can have open sourced products delivered using closed-source development techniques... for some projects it works great, for others it means too much guessing at what the customer REALLY wants.
Your statement could have been interesting if it were accurate.
>Why, then, would AOL buying RHAT be a good thing? Well, for one, money. Money is good, and more money to Linux means public awareness to OSS and Linux, it means support from more commercial hardware & software companies, it means more users and more software (open-source and commercial). And that's all good. And there's also the breaking-the-MS-monopoly thingie.
Ah yes... lets distort my post and turn it into a Strawman arguement. If you put on your thinking cap for a second, you might have been able to address the point.
The way Linux companies are run now is they *understand* the Community and how to give-and-take with it (except Caldera;-). AOL shown no evidence they UNDERSTAND how this works. This is key.
If I may be so presumptious to summarize my understanding of "The Community", ONE of the goals is simply to produce the best software there is, with an open and free license. The fact that Linux *might* unseat Microsoft's is a side-effect.
That last point is important, because we're not looking for a new King to replace Microsoft. However AOL would take that new-monopoly chance in a *heartbeat*.
AOL/RH would still be limited by the GPL of course, but Red Hat employs a LOT of free software programmers, who could be put to other or slightly different tasks. We don't *need* Red Hat from the sense of GPL licensing and the freedom that gives us, but RH for better or worse is what (most) people think of when you mention Linux.
I think the Linux desktop is getting where we need it just fine (GNOME *or* KDE). If AOL wants to hurt Microsoft, then they can do it by providing AOL for Linux, SUPPORT IT, add in some *intelligent* auto-configuration, fund some winmodem driver support, and stay the hell out of our way!
>Nullsoft lost control of WinAmp when they sold it.
You're reading my (and probably other's) posts through the tainted glasses of your own defensiveness:
I don't think anyone is disputing AOL's right to do with Nullsoft as they wish. They can drive them into the ground, remove their autonomy, and make Nullsoft as bland as the current Netscape... I don't dispute their right to do so.
I sincerely doubt that the intent of AOL buying these outside companies, is to crush their spirit. I'm sure the smart lawyers at AOL knew they were buying out some smart-assed but CREATIVE kids, and if they want to keep their investment they probably worded in that autonomy into the contract.
What AOL is facing -- not just with Nullsoft -- is a *massive* culture clash, and they are spread TOO THIN to absorb anything else.
AOL has the right to be conservative, and the talent has the right to walk. Compromises are necessary. If you don't understand that, I hope for the sake of my AOL stock, you NEVER join AOL management... you'll boss the talent right out the door and make a Netscape out of them.
Why do people talk out their asses in regard to AOL's handling of subsidaries?
1) AOL was "embarrassed" when Nullsoft produced Gnutella, and forced them to stop. http://www.ecommercetimes.com/perl/story/2752.html
2) Nullsoft was interviewed somewhere (sorry no URL), and they complained that they WANTED to compete against Napster, and add download plugins to winamp, but AOL forbade it.
Sorry, that sounds like stifling innovation. AOL wants to be Microsoft, but office politics and infighting will just slow these companies down. Microsoft on the other hand has a clear cut mission... to become a world power.
I don't believe these rumors one bit. It's a lame rumor, and Red Hat is not in trouble (unlike Netscape).
It would make MUCH more sense for AOL to purchase Linux-Mandrake, or the Corel 2.0 assets (which I never used, but Corel 1.0 was seriously ahead of its time). Red Hat is a server OS, and their desktop marketshare is just a side-effect of their server success. Most Red Hat users have never TRIED another distro, and so could not tell you how RH is better or worse than another distro (they're not all the same!).
Slashdot Mirror
40oz?? Pul-leeze... what a bunch of wussies.
I've got an old German bier stein that holds (measured) 65+ oz's. Now THAT is a lot of fun. You NEVER misplace it, and when full, you need to tuck the bottom into the crook of your other arm to properly support it.
The painting has lots of color and obviously was not rushed. It's probably not an antique though... 65oz is very close to 2 litres, which implies post-WWII (when did Germany move over to metric system anyways??)
> Don't Be Absurd
Demonstrating a lack of civility is no way to gain respect for yourself, or your ideas.
> If you own something go do not have the right to do anything you wish with it even on your own property. Try dumping toxic chemicals in your backyard.
Another way to look at it is: you have a RIGHT to swing your fist, but that right ENDS when it touches MY nose, and does not overrule my right to be free from harm.
One could attempt to argue that they had a "right" to pollute land they own, but *I* certainly would not make this arguement! Your right to modify your land ends at your neighbor's right to a clean water table, and air. Furthermore, land is universally considered to be a fundamentally different kind of property than automobiles, Playstations, etc. Like it or not, your land is TERRITORY of the nation you are subject to, and so there are many who might to object -- even if you do not -- to your deliberately poisoning the soil.
If you were trying to make some "greater" point, that point was lost. Distortion is hardly going to convince anyone besides yourself.
>>selling mod chips shouldn't be illegal?!?!
>Do you also have a hacked cable box? It is theft of service.
You miss the point so badly:
If you OWN something, it's YOURS. Not only do you NOT have the right to take away people's freedom, but you also have no right to even KNOW what people do with their property.
I'll give you a quick lesson in right & wrong:
RIGHT: You decide to paint your car YOU OWN, a color other than what it was manufactured.
WRONG: You LEASE (or steal) a car, and repaint it without the owner's permission.
Yeah, sorry about that FireBook... There was no need for me to clutter up the messageboard by slamming him.
;-)
I don't like people like ceejayoz, who has to elevate his ego with a completely unprovoked attack on nathanh's post. I should be more tolerant... ceejayoz is in all likelyhood, just an angry kid.
>Out of all the apps I have installed, only two - TWO - failed to work under WinXP. One is Adaptec's CD burning software, the second is the game Ground Control. All others work fine. They all worked fine under Win98 and Win2000.
:-)
You obviously have not used one long enough to experience this mythical "incompatability" the NT kernel has with many games. Congratulations on your first computer, noob.
As a side note, unnecessarily being an snippy little smart ass -- as you were to your parent post -- just makes you look like an asshole.
Perhaps someday you'd like to install a "classic" game called Warcraft, which does not run under Windows 2000. When you're done, try Terminus (not that old either), Carmageddon, Return To Zork, SeaWolf, and Descent. This is all I can think of at the moment but there are MANY more examples. Of course, you can AGAIN purchase Warcraft (BNE edition) and it will run under Win2k, but that just supports the posters assertion that you have to re-buy a product under Windows.
>It's called quality assurance, dolt.
Afraid the only 'dolt' here is you. I hear all of your co-workers hate you because you're a know-it-all-prick. Oh and BTW your woman is cheating on you.
I looked all over the Kylix website, and failed to locate any screenshots for their product. What gives?
:-/
Yes, I know I can download a Trial, if I go through the registration process... but I just wanted to look at it.
I've never heard of a product page without product images. Wierd.
Anyone have a link?
complex documents are where these things fall apart. People mistakenly use .doc as an INTERCHANGE format, and if an Office clone renders things differently (even if "more correctly"), then it's a bug.
People design documents according to vision, not standards, and expect the document to appear the same when sent to vendors, customers, etc. The PDF thing is just too big of a pain for most folks (and on Windows, it's generally not free to create PDF's with GUI tools).
>I'm quite certain that after the onslaught of the BSA, your smug winky IT guy would turn into a twitchy IT guy that doesn't know up from down.
:-(
You ever work in a startup? You make yourself the "loudest complainer", even over something as important as licensing, and you NEVER rat out on anyone. Sorry. Besides, the company I spoke of is no longer around.
There's a REASON Microsoft is not pushing XP-style licensing on corporations... it would make management seriously consider alternatives. This would be the BEST promotional tool for open office-style tools...
Microsoft recognizes human nature and the market, in that they only use the blow=torch and pliars on home users.
A lot of people run Linux. A lot MORE have "tried" it, and then say to themselves "then what"?
;-)
Linux just doesn't have any good, free software, and that's what's needed to run a desktop.
At my last company, when I complained about Office attachments on the email and intraweb (against agreed-upon policy), the IT guy just gives me an Office CD and winks. When I state I run Linux at home, I get the "it's not my fault is it" (with the look of "you know, if it hurts when you slam the door on your head don't do it" look).
Linux will not even BEGIN to be appealing until people can "take their work home" (Office warez CD). As cool as CodeWeavers Crossover is - I've used it - it isn't "free" with the OS.
That's not a slam - I encourage commercial software on Linux, but the office-worker-at-home and the AOL user -- the majority of Windows users -- just want everything for free. They don't believe in Free Software or the GPL, and they don't believe installing MS Project on every computer is really stealing.
Eleet coder wanna-bees is another group -- slightly more technical than Mom -- that Linux won't win over. These people download the ISO's as soon as their released, burn em, but only try every 3rd release and then on a spare computer. Since Linux won't run his pirated games (or at least not full speed), Linux sucks. Besides, you can't run MS Visual Basic on Linux, which is an industry standard. Everyone knows you gotta program Linux in Assembly, or sometimes C.
For Linux to become more appealing to the masses, it doesn't need a lot of polish -- it's "good enough" right now. What's needed is for Microsoft needs to get tougher on licensing, which they won't do UNTIL they are SURE they have locked out the threats (by extending the Internet, apparently)
>I still don't see where people get the idea that x is slower on the same hardware then windows is.
Friend, you are completely wrong.
The *best case* under X is you have a driver that is *vendor supported*, or has *completely* stable and optomized drivers for XFree -- unlikely given than the Windows drivers are closed source, so we can't even compare the code..
How common is the above? Not very. Assume then you have this uncommon, best case. Do not dismiss the latency due to the loopback device... it's very real.
Sure, you can excuse the fact that some X is slow by questioning the "configuration", the vendor support, or the stability of the drivers. BUT THAT'S NOT THE POINT.
The point is there *is* this performance problem under X, and in some cases it's not-so-bad (GeForce & Matrox cards), and in other cases it's *really* bad performance (ATI, etc). The end result is all that matters... that Windows is running the same config faster, even if you eliminate the biggest performance excuses like driver completeness, we still have a loopback device.
And I'm only talking about 2D. Lots video boards that have "acceptable" 3D performance under Windows, have horrible 3D performance under XFree. Yes, I know it's because of driver support, but reasons tend to be confused with "excuses" when the end user encounters this.
This doen't mean I think XFree is junk or is a slug. I think it does remarkably well given what it does. On a modern configuration like I have (AMD 1900XP + GeForce4 4600), performance is pretty good but I still notice X11 redrawing more often than Windows. It's not enough difference at my speed to complain, but that's because it's buried in hardware.
All I need to do to benchmark XFree vs. Windows is fire up Return To Castle Wolfenstein @ 1600x1280, or play some full-screen oversized video from disk (using several video players not just one). If you can see a difference, there is one.
There was a discussion on the Cygwin mailing list a while back. I don't recall the details, but with older Cygwin builds you could run under WINE very nicely. Then something changed in Cygwin (serial support, I think) and this altered the behavior of Cygwin + WINE.
Bottom line of the discussion was, I believe, that Cygwin + WINE is an unsupported configuration (at least on the Cygwin list). If you're curious, check the archives -- I could be mistaken.
BTW - It's no surprise that Cygwin might be faster on WINE (I heard it could be)... Cygwin tries to do threads and processes the same was as on UNIX, which is expensive on WIN32 (especially on Win9x but still true on NT as well). It would be faster to map all that stuff back to native UNIX, than emulate it in Win32 land...
of Payola. I won't even karma whore and drop links here... it's on Slashdot now, and salon.com.
Also, the fact that Clear Channel has an oversized monopoly and the playlists are CENTRALLY maintained, means US radio gets all the creative heart and soul of, say, Stalinist Russia.
People aren't just trading MP3's to get something for free... they're also resisting the "generic, sanitized one-ness" that US radio has become.
If monopoly relaxations of the 1996 act didn't exist, we'd have more independant radio (and smaller corporations instead of one 800lb gorilla).
Every major US city has at least 1 "trendy corporate rock station", that played the 80's Hair Bands to death, then felt stupid when the independents one-upped them with punk, grunge, and other "alternative" music.
In Boston Mass, we have THREE radio stations that sound the same, where before they had their own personal twist. No point mentioning their call signs, they are all the same.
>I've told all of my friends not to buy it.
;-).
Same here.
I *do* buy CD's I've heard and know I'll enjoy listening to (end to end, not for some stupid single).
Moby's "Play" was one of those must-buy CD's... it had a nice groove start to end, while "18" has *one* good track.
Now, perhaps "18" will bring Moby some new fans. Or maybe he just wanted to experiment (good for him)... but I just don't like the new album. It's far too melow and slow.
PS -- It's *completely* unfair to label "techies" as CD copy fiends. It seems the last time I checked, the #1 CD on cddb.com was Eminem... that's *hardly* music for the "techie crowd" (I'll resist the opening to label the Eminem crowd
A number of folks here are claiming DVD-R blanks are $5 each.
I've been buying them from esbuy.com, for about $1.20 each.
If you search pricewatch.com, you can find the DVR-104 (OEM version of DVR-A04) Pioneer drive for $260.
The burn speeds are decent (beats DVD-RAM!), and it's compatible with (nearly all) DVD Video players that are less than a year old.
Buy an Accura, and find out how much your car is worth -- disassembled -- to the 'leet-rice-boy Honda crowd.
The few people who tried flourescent bulbs correctly noted that they can be harsh light. This doesn't have to be the case.
Economics works against flourescent bulbs... generally you have a choice in sizes, but there aren't any choices in "mood" (soft, tinted, etc).
The answer of course is reflected light, or otherwise hiding the bulb. Lampshades and light bounced off the ceiling works great. Not to mention, these things *greatly* reduce the air conditioner strain during the summer (I used to live without AC, but New England summers are rather hot now.).
It's sad that standard incandescent lightbulbs are not efficency-regulated out of existence. You pay LESS for efficent lighting, if you factor in all the increased energy taxes which come about due to pollution.
All CD Audio disks have a "Copyright" bit. It's a "flag", really, not anti-circumvention device, since no ripper listens to it.
Getting legal on this guy is like taping a license agreement to a wad of money, putting it on the sidewalk, and arresting anyone who doesn't sign the agreement. It's too big of a stretch.
You're just jealous he's the president.
;-)
I just signed up with Netflix. I'm happy with the 3 movies for $20, HOWEVER I will probably downgrade to the "TWO FOR $13" option (check your prefs as this is not widely promoted onsite).
All of my return envelopes have Worcester, MASS on them (40 miles from here). The label is a sticker over a CA address, so I figure based on this and the comments here, the distribution center is new. It takes 2-3 days to get the movies returned. It takes 2-3 days to get the next movie.
Customer service has been VERY quick for me, although the only problems I've registered are mistakes in their database, etc. They need to automate that correcting-movie-details bit, like imdb.com has since it's a different group that actually fixes the db content.
They also need to automate requests for new movies (not go through CS). We should just be able to "vote", and see how many others have also voted on same title.
They seem to be trying, as people note they change according to requests. They just need to invest in their internal programming dept., so they can react faster to our requests (and do so with a lower head count in Customer Service).
Also, by focusing their new customers on the "3 movie plan", they lose people. The webpage with the "alternate" subscription plans REALLY needs to be more visible. A coworker of mine cancelled, but told me he would have stayed on had he known about the 2-movie option.
Anyways, if you DO sign up.. do so by going through an AFFILIATE, because those people get money or credits (at no cost to you). I signed up through a link on LINUXISO.ORG. I think they get $7 for referring me, which is great because I appreciate linuxiso.org's mirroring service.
.. you can always experience the rush of an piloting a US nuclear submarine during an emergency surfacing...
>looks like if you have a history of drinking, lying and cheating you won't be going into space anytime soon, no matter how much money you have.
Sounds like a slap in the face of George W. Bush. I *knew* NASA was full of liberals and hippies!
I don't disagree with any of your statements above, except for one:
>wouldn't it be nice if we'd have a _legal_ linux DVD player
Oh, you mean a closed-source DVD player with built-in anti-fair-use controls? THAT, I think, is what many FEAR MOST as a result of an AOL move on Red Hat.
The above should not be construed as an anti-closed-source statement (I say use what's best for you), but I get *really* annoyed when a DVD track actually has the power to ignore the fast-forward button (for commercials and FBI Warnings). Not to mention that the highest laws in the land allow for "fair use" of copyrighted content, and this is something that is under attack.
>Red Hat is (AFAIK) the only distribution with absolutely no closed source-software.
Really? I had no idea Real Audio and XGalaga were open sourced now... (they're not)
You have Red Hat mixed up with Debian. It's Debian that is based on free software... AND... Debian is the ONLY distro with a development process is transparent and democratic.
For example: If the Techies at Debian declare that it's a bad idea to include early gcc versions, then it does not happen. At Red Hat, the techies are forced into battling other parts of the company that think it's a good feature (even though those people might not use Linux at all). You can have open sourced products delivered using closed-source development techniques... for some projects it works great, for others it means too much guessing at what the customer REALLY wants.
Your statement could have been interesting if it were accurate.
>Why, then, would AOL buying RHAT be a good thing? Well, for one, money. Money is good, and more money to Linux means public awareness to OSS and Linux, it means support from more commercial hardware & software companies, it means more users and more software (open-source and commercial). And that's all good. And there's also the breaking-the-MS-monopoly thingie.
;-). AOL shown no evidence they UNDERSTAND how this works. This is key.
Ah yes... lets distort my post and turn it into a Strawman arguement. If you put on your thinking cap for a second, you might have been able to address the point.
The way Linux companies are run now is they *understand* the Community and how to give-and-take with it (except Caldera
If I may be so presumptious to summarize my understanding of "The Community", ONE of the goals is simply to produce the best software there is, with an open and free license. The fact that Linux *might* unseat Microsoft's is a side-effect.
That last point is important, because we're not looking for a new King to replace Microsoft. However AOL would take that new-monopoly chance in a *heartbeat*.
AOL/RH would still be limited by the GPL of course, but Red Hat employs a LOT of free software programmers, who could be put to other or slightly different tasks. We don't *need* Red Hat from the sense of GPL licensing and the freedom that gives us, but RH for better or worse is what (most) people think of when you mention Linux.
I think the Linux desktop is getting where we need it just fine (GNOME *or* KDE). If AOL wants to hurt Microsoft, then they can do it by providing AOL for Linux, SUPPORT IT, add in some *intelligent* auto-configuration, fund some winmodem driver support, and stay the hell out of our way!
>Nullsoft lost control of WinAmp when they sold it.
You're reading my (and probably other's) posts through the tainted glasses of your own defensiveness:
I don't think anyone is disputing AOL's right to do with Nullsoft as they wish. They can drive them into the ground, remove their autonomy, and make Nullsoft as bland as the current Netscape... I don't dispute their right to do so.
I sincerely doubt that the intent of AOL buying these outside companies, is to crush their spirit. I'm sure the smart lawyers at AOL knew they were buying out some smart-assed but CREATIVE kids, and if they want to keep their investment they probably worded in that autonomy into the contract.
What AOL is facing -- not just with Nullsoft -- is a *massive* culture clash, and they are spread TOO THIN to absorb anything else.
AOL has the right to be conservative, and the talent has the right to walk. Compromises are necessary. If you don't understand that, I hope for the sake of my AOL stock, you NEVER join AOL management... you'll boss the talent right out the door and make a Netscape out of them.
Why do people talk out their asses in regard to AOL's handling of subsidaries?
l
1) AOL was "embarrassed" when Nullsoft produced Gnutella, and forced them to stop. http://www.ecommercetimes.com/perl/story/2752.htm
2) Nullsoft was interviewed somewhere (sorry no URL), and they complained that they WANTED to compete against Napster, and add download plugins to winamp, but AOL forbade it.
Sorry, that sounds like stifling innovation. AOL wants to be Microsoft, but office politics and infighting will just slow these companies down. Microsoft on the other hand has a clear cut mission... to become a world power.
I don't believe these rumors one bit. It's a lame rumor, and Red Hat is not in trouble (unlike Netscape).
It would make MUCH more sense for AOL to purchase Linux-Mandrake, or the Corel 2.0 assets (which I never used, but Corel 1.0 was seriously ahead of its time). Red Hat is a server OS, and their desktop marketshare is just a side-effect of their server success. Most Red Hat users have never TRIED another distro, and so could not tell you how RH is better or worse than another distro (they're not all the same!).