While your fondness for penguins and Tux and Linux and open-source software in general is nice, I think you're making a mistake in co-opting Tux and "Lin" for your software. Your FAQ talks about the open-source software this package uses, which is cool. But Apache is not Linux. BIND is not Linux. ISC DCHP is not Linux. Squid is not Linux. The kernel developed by Linus Torvalds and others (and any OS built around that) is Linux. But your software has nothing to do with that. Using "Lin" and the Tux logo imply that it does, and that's not promoting open-source software, it's =confusing= people about what's what in open-source software. Larry Ewing probably won't sue you over mis-applying his Tux logo, and Linus Torvalds probably won't sue you over the first syllable of his name. They're not the kind of control freaks who'd do that. But what you're doing here is exactly the kind of "confusion in the marketplace" that trademark laws were set up to prevent.
The point is that this doesn't give the user any practical familiarity with unix. They may not even learn the name "Apache" from this experience. The opportunity is there, but I don't see any students (except those with a predisposition to hacking) learning anything particularly unixy from using Macs.
Spybot is part of the IT techs' standard toolkit at the college where I work. I've recovered countless employee workstations from unusability (not to mention "hostile work environment" liability, due to porn pop-ups) with it. Don't anyone be put off by the fact that an MS drone also recommended it; it works. Once nice feature is that not only does it get rid of installed spyware, but it can prevent known spyware from being installed in the first place.
The "my" part was apparently intended to match the hard-to-refer-to-over-the-phone label "My Computer" ("OK, now double-click on your 'My Computer'...") The "network places" part can only be explained by an attempt to stick to phonetically-spelled words, no matter how odd a phrase that required.
Anyone who has used Microsoft products in the last ten years has used the SMB protocol (now known as CIFS)
Except for the people whose Windows boxes weren't hooked up to a network, or who instead used Netware for file/print sharing, or whose only loaded network components were TCP/IP and the adapter device. And even though it's installed by default, that doesn't mean everybody who failed to deinstall it actually used it.
I think it's interesting that the Wall Street Urinal is questioning Microsoft's pricing, since they are generally philosophically aligned with the Capitalism Can Do No Wrong school that excuses most of Microsoft's excesses.
This sounds a lot like my Atari 400, just with snazzier upgraded tech. No "operating system" to load, you just turned it on, and you could do stuff with it, like loading a game or a word processor off tape or a disk. (It confused the heck out of me when I heard about having to put a disk in one of those CP/M boxes just to start it up.)
Actually I'm sure it has more to do with board games sucking when compared to video games.
That's an analysis which has more to do with your standards for judging games, than on their respective quality. For example, complaining that the board version takes longer to finish seems a particularly... dubious criticism of something that's supposed to provide entertainment. ("I hate the extended version of LotR; it takes longer to watch!")
I don't have access to sales figures, but I'll bet that sales of traditional Monopoly board sets still outweigh sales of the electronic version. That's because a game like Monopoly benefits substantially from not only the ability to shuffle your stack of bills, tap-tap-tap your faux-pewter pieces around the board, and misuse the Free Parking space by putting a kitty in the middle from Community Chest fines; but also because of the non-linear aspect of play, with deals being cut while other players are rolling the dice, and so on, which I can't see working too well unless the software is multitasking and multiuser, with multiple control sets. The communal aspect of sitting around a board facing your fellow players is valuable too.
I wouldn't be to sure about that. The text of a recipe (what you call the "procedure") is the creative expression of an idea in a fixed form, which - like a piece of computer code - is covered by copyright.
Half the time I get home, look through cupboards and fridge and say "Crap! What the heck can I make out of this?".
Why do you need a cookbook to answer this? Just start putting ingredients together and see what it turns into! Most of the foods I prepare for myself have no name and no real recipe. They start out with a panful of pasta or lump of ground round, I add some of this jarred sauce or that canned soup, I cut up a veggie or two and stir it in, etc.
I'm no cook, believe me. (More often than not, my starting point is a box of mac and cheese or Hamburger Helper, and quite often it ends there.) But if you can hack together a working computer out of spare parts, hacking together dinner out of spare ingredients should be even easier.
Neither of which should have any relevance to the case, of course. Nut case or not, good writer or not, he should have the same rights - no more, no less - as anyone else. Likewise, AOL should have the same rights as any other ISP.
Which is why spammers already distribute the process via trojans, open proxies, etc.
Regardless, the criticism I made still stands: it's a regressive fee, placing a higher burden on the have-littles than on the have-lots. (Whether the have-lots can afford to effectively spam through it is a separate question; there's more to this than just spam-busting.)
where to begin?
on
Gates on Spam
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Requiring people to let the sender or some third party execute instructions on the sending machine is so fraught with problems, it's hard to know where to start. Unless this software is Free, you simply can't expect everyone to install on their systems; of course MS wants them to, but hey let's be realistic here: they won't. If it's only available in binary, it would lock out anyone using an unsupported OS (or version thereof). It'd be a new security hole in the sender's machine just begging (with a big neon sign) to be exploited, and would complicate the use of firewalls, especially those using NAT. It'd have a regressive fee structure, because those with expensive, high-powered machines could afford to "spend" more CPU cycles (heck, build a beowulf cluster of discarded 486's to buy more spamming rights), while some poor sod using a Pentium/150 can hardly afford to give up any.
Of course that was also near the end of being able to retaliate by sending people copies of your generic OS kernel in the mail.
Heh. I used to mail spammers copies of my Quattro Pro Q.VRM file (which contained all the executable code that wouldn't fit in conventional DOS memory). OK, so it was only a MB or two, but it was the biggest single file I had handy.
Come on... that Canter & Siegel green-card-lottery spam-scam wasn't the first spam by a long-shot... maybe the first spam to get written up the print media. Usenet was already littered with off-topic commercial posts and crossposted garbage by then, and unsolicited e-mailings (on a much smaller scale than today) were hardly unheard-of.
just another form of television - passive and purely image-driven
One of the strengths of Flash (under-used so far, especially in ads) is its capacity for interactivity, not passivity. Macromedia has been beefing up its data-handling capabilities as well.
Why they didn't go for Dreamweaver I can't imagine.
Perhaps because there are already good HTML development tools available on Linux. (None as good as DW, but they exist.) There's a greater demand for Flash for Linux.
From a guy who chose to use right-handed navigation for reasons relevant to the site in question. (It's a wrapper for sites that use a variety of other navigation methods and I didn't want it to conflict with them.) No rule should ever be considered absolute; what makes a good graphic designer (and note: I never claimed to be a great one, and this personal site is one of my lamer ones, overdue for an overhaul) is knowing when it's OK to break the rules.
While I support the idealism of wanting to "make the (software) world free" it's not at the top of my own priority list. I'd like to see a (software) world in which each person has the option of spending as little or as much money on software as they need/can. That means both free OSes (Linux, BSD) and commercial ones at various price levels (OS X, Windows, Solaris). Free office suits (OOo, KOffice, GNOME Office) and various commercial ones (MS, WP, AppleWorks). Free graphics software (GIMP) and various commercial (Photoshop, Paint Shop). Free vector animation tools (um...) and commercial (Flash).
I don't like anything that's not open to be called 'cross-platform.'
"Open" and "cross-platform" mean two different things, and one is not a subset of the other. You're welcome not to like that, but it doesn't mean that everyone's wrong to use them that way.
Slashdot Mirror
While your fondness for penguins and Tux and Linux and open-source software in general is nice, I think you're making a mistake in co-opting Tux and "Lin" for your software. Your FAQ talks about the open-source software this package uses, which is cool. But Apache is not Linux. BIND is not Linux. ISC DCHP is not Linux. Squid is not Linux. The kernel developed by Linus Torvalds and others (and any OS built around that) is Linux. But your software has nothing to do with that. Using "Lin" and the Tux logo imply that it does, and that's not promoting open-source software, it's =confusing= people about what's what in open-source software. Larry Ewing probably won't sue you over mis-applying his Tux logo, and Linus Torvalds probably won't sue you over the first syllable of his name. They're not the kind of control freaks who'd do that. But what you're doing here is exactly the kind of "confusion in the marketplace" that trademark laws were set up to prevent.
Um, much of OS X is open-source (it's called Darwin)... especially the most security-vulnerable parts: those exposed to the network.
The point is that this doesn't give the user any practical familiarity with unix. They may not even learn the name "Apache" from this experience. The opportunity is there, but I don't see any students (except those with a predisposition to hacking) learning anything particularly unixy from using Macs.
Spybot is part of the IT techs' standard toolkit at the college where I work. I've recovered countless employee workstations from unusability (not to mention "hostile work environment" liability, due to porn pop-ups) with it. Don't anyone be put off by the fact that an MS drone also recommended it; it works. Once nice feature is that not only does it get rid of installed spyware, but it can prevent known spyware from being installed in the first place.
The "my" part was apparently intended to match the hard-to-refer-to-over-the-phone label "My Computer" ("OK, now double-click on your 'My Computer'...") The "network places" part can only be explained by an attempt to stick to phonetically-spelled words, no matter how odd a phrase that required.
Except for the people whose Windows boxes weren't hooked up to a network, or who instead used Netware for file/print sharing, or whose only loaded network components were TCP/IP and the adapter device. And even though it's installed by default, that doesn't mean everybody who failed to deinstall it actually used it.
I think it's interesting that the Wall Street Urinal is questioning Microsoft's pricing, since they are generally philosophically aligned with the Capitalism Can Do No Wrong school that excuses most of Microsoft's excesses.
This sounds a lot like my Atari 400, just with snazzier upgraded tech. No "operating system" to load, you just turned it on, and you could do stuff with it, like loading a game or a word processor off tape or a disk. (It confused the heck out of me when I heard about having to put a disk in one of those CP/M boxes just to start it up.)
Famous scientists to determine what exactly are parents who don't have children. :=P
It may surprise you to learn that there are parents whose offspring are now adults. Film at 11.
I bet a lot of parents of children would pay money for something like that.
That's an analysis which has more to do with your standards for judging games, than on their respective quality. For example, complaining that the board version takes longer to finish seems a particularly... dubious criticism of something that's supposed to provide entertainment. ("I hate the extended version of LotR; it takes longer to watch!")
I don't have access to sales figures, but I'll bet that sales of traditional Monopoly board sets still outweigh sales of the electronic version. That's because a game like Monopoly benefits substantially from not only the ability to shuffle your stack of bills, tap-tap-tap your faux-pewter pieces around the board, and misuse the Free Parking space by putting a kitty in the middle from Community Chest fines; but also because of the non-linear aspect of play, with deals being cut while other players are rolling the dice, and so on, which I can't see working too well unless the software is multitasking and multiuser, with multiple control sets. The communal aspect of sitting around a board facing your fellow players is valuable too.
I wouldn't be to sure about that. The text of a recipe (what you call the "procedure") is the creative expression of an idea in a fixed form, which - like a piece of computer code - is covered by copyright.
Why do you need a cookbook to answer this? Just start putting ingredients together and see what it turns into! Most of the foods I prepare for myself have no name and no real recipe. They start out with a panful of pasta or lump of ground round, I add some of this jarred sauce or that canned soup, I cut up a veggie or two and stir it in, etc.
I'm no cook, believe me. (More often than not, my starting point is a box of mac and cheese or Hamburger Helper, and quite often it ends there.) But if you can hack together a working computer out of spare parts, hacking together dinner out of spare ingredients should be even easier.
Neither of which should have any relevance to the case, of course. Nut case or not, good writer or not, he should have the same rights - no more, no less - as anyone else. Likewise, AOL should have the same rights as any other ISP.
(She - apparently by mistake - skipped page 16, which you can access by modifying the URL manually.)
P.S. If you used better counter-arguments than "Nope", you might not have to post as AC.
Regardless, the criticism I made still stands: it's a regressive fee, placing a higher burden on the have-littles than on the have-lots. (Whether the have-lots can afford to effectively spam through it is a separate question; there's more to this than just spam-busting.)
Requiring people to let the sender or some third party execute instructions on the sending machine is so fraught with problems, it's hard to know where to start. Unless this software is Free, you simply can't expect everyone to install on their systems; of course MS wants them to, but hey let's be realistic here: they won't. If it's only available in binary, it would lock out anyone using an unsupported OS (or version thereof). It'd be a new security hole in the sender's machine just begging (with a big neon sign) to be exploited, and would complicate the use of firewalls, especially those using NAT. It'd have a regressive fee structure, because those with expensive, high-powered machines could afford to "spend" more CPU cycles (heck, build a beowulf cluster of discarded 486's to buy more spamming rights), while some poor sod using a Pentium/150 can hardly afford to give up any.
Heh. I used to mail spammers copies of my Quattro Pro Q.VRM file (which contained all the executable code that wouldn't fit in conventional DOS memory). OK, so it was only a MB or two, but it was the biggest single file I had handy.
Whether he was justified or not (I haven't RTFA), playing hardball with the local sheriff just isn't a wise move.
Come on... that Canter & Siegel green-card-lottery spam-scam wasn't the first spam by a long-shot... maybe the first spam to get written up the print media. Usenet was already littered with off-topic commercial posts and crossposted garbage by then, and unsolicited e-mailings (on a much smaller scale than today) were hardly unheard-of.
One of the strengths of Flash (under-used so far, especially in ads) is its capacity for interactivity, not passivity. Macromedia has been beefing up its data-handling capabilities as well.
Why they didn't go for Dreamweaver I can't imagine.
Perhaps because there are already good HTML development tools available on Linux. (None as good as DW, but they exist.) There's a greater demand for Flash for Linux.
From a guy who chose to use right-handed navigation for reasons relevant to the site in question. (It's a wrapper for sites that use a variety of other navigation methods and I didn't want it to conflict with them.) No rule should ever be considered absolute; what makes a good graphic designer (and note: I never claimed to be a great one, and this personal site is one of my lamer ones, overdue for an overhaul) is knowing when it's OK to break the rules.
While I support the idealism of wanting to "make the (software) world free" it's not at the top of my own priority list. I'd like to see a (software) world in which each person has the option of spending as little or as much money on software as they need/can. That means both free OSes (Linux, BSD) and commercial ones at various price levels (OS X, Windows, Solaris). Free office suits (OOo, KOffice, GNOME Office) and various commercial ones (MS, WP, AppleWorks). Free graphics software (GIMP) and various commercial (Photoshop, Paint Shop). Free vector animation tools (um...) and commercial (Flash).
"Open" and "cross-platform" mean two different things, and one is not a subset of the other. You're welcome not to like that, but it doesn't mean that everyone's wrong to use them that way.