Where in the article does it say anything about requiring a specialized tool to get under the hood?
Even if this is true (which I doubt), it is possible to obtain special tools for cars--it's just more difficult to justify. Even if I had a car like this (see below), I seriously doubt this would get in the way of anything I wanted to do any more than CSS got in Jon Johansen's way (I'm a very resourceful shadetree mechanic;-)
Anyone worried about this may want to keep in mind that it's not in the manufacturer's interest to make their cars difficult to work on--especially when it reduces maintainability or increases maintenance costs for the owner, because it makes the car less attractive.
It's interesting to hear people complain about technological changes in the automotive world (a big one is carburettors vs. fuel injection). Things change. If you want to continue playing around with your car, you have to accept that things are more complex and change with them. Not nearly as many people complain about the increasing complexity of software (you have to admit--even Windows 3.1 is an improvement over DOS).
Of course, I can honestly say I've never considered a car that was designed for women anyway.
Yet another well-formed opinion from those who would save us from ourselves, our own prosperity and our own happiness as a society.
It just amazes me that there are still people who listen to these self-important, avaricious cry-babies who have somehow gotten it into their minds that profits from their current business models (without regard for their viability) are an inalienable right.
After a long, arduous (and failed) attempt to get ADSL, I just signed up with Comcast. I was setting up Exim, and tried sending an e-mail to my web account (gmx.net). It bounced because I didn't have a domain name assigned to the address. I assigned a domain name to my dynamically assigned address and now GMX's server is happy.
Apparently, AOL makes no distinction here, because I just tried to send a message to my friend's AOL account and got the same message everyone else is.
Oh well. I only know 3 people on AOL anyway. Perhaps in the future I will once again be able to justify SDSL and stop being treated like a criminal (yeah, I know this is wrong, but you gotta choose your battles).
I have to wonder if they have thought about the biological risks of this sort of thing. What if a manufacturing process goes awry, spreading toxic bacteria?
At the risk of sounding like an alarmist, accidents in this area could be the next generation of pollution (analogous to today's oil spills, nuclear meltdowns, etc.).
I have to agree. There is a lot of fear of Linux which, frankly, is unfounded.
A case in point is my mother who is easily intimidated by electronic devices in general. I set up a laptop running Linux (the CD drive was broken and I couldn't insert the included Windows CD). She had very little trouble with IceWM and Mozilla (other than the awful performance--this was a couple of years ago on a P120).
Another example is my roommate, a primary school educator used to MacOS. She has been using my Linux box (Mozilla, OpenOffice, KDE) for about five months with no hand-holding.
The last time I travelled to India, I borrowed a cell phone and tried to send e-mail to Hotmail users in the US, only to find that they were never received. However, I've never had trouble sending messages from my own phone.
I eventually realized that this is because I have a username registered with my phone, so when I send a message, it's from "username@provider.net", whereas the default is "phone_number@provider.net".
Apparently, Hotmail's spam filter, by default, rejects messages from addresses with numerical usernames.
I can't imagine there will be any suits brought by individuals. If there are any suits, they will be either class-action suits or suits by their larger clients (AT&T?).
And what's next, going after everyone who dares bookmarks their exalted website? The horror, the horror!
Re:Maybe this is reverse psychology...
on
Blogspace vs. NPR
·
· Score: 1
Just in case, I sent the following to this ombudsman person. Enjoy!
"Let me guess, you have this diabolical plan to increase traffic to your website by posting this toothless policy prohibiting others from linking to your website. This then causes others to do just that, purely out of spite.
Ingenious! I only wish I had thought of that. In fact, please let me know how it goes.
But seriously, please don't piss me off--I'm running out of stuff to listen to in the car."
Maybe this is reverse psychology...
on
Blogspace vs. NPR
·
· Score: 1
OK, they must be trying to garner publicity by creating an outrage in hopes that people will start linking to them out of spite. I should have thought of this!
Either that, or they're just trying to confuse us to death.
I wouldn't be too disheartened. If this were an isolated incident, that would be another story. However, this is a trend--look at Germany and (until recently, I admit) Mexico.
Is to convince OEMs to bundle this software with each machine.
They could start with local screwdriver shops. Think of the competitive edge they would have if they can add value without incurring licensing fees!
It's been quite some time since I bought a machine with any bundled software, but the Toshiba laptop I bought 3.5 years ago came with relatively little software. Are there still vendors who do this?
Two of Mr. Gates's arguments make my ears perk up:
Mr. Gates argues that M$ is responsible for unifying computer users by supplying a ubiquitous platform.
He also argues that if they are not allowed to maintain their monopoly position, this interoperability goes away.
While there is an element of truth in the first argument, the second is, quite simply, a load of bollocks. The advent of the web has brought us a long way. We now have commodity protocols (e.g., HTTP), document formats (HTML and, to a certain extent, PDF and PS).
Basically, we have transcended the need for a unifying platform, because these commodities now allow us to share information.
M$ talks about increasing interoperability, but all their efforts are aimed at controlling it (and stamping it out when it doesn't serve their cause--a good example of which is that every service pack breaks Samba in at least one way).
If M$ were to lose its monopoly position, and consequently, the influence it currently enjoys, not only is there plenty of stuff (e.g., OpenOffice) out there to fill the void, but there would be sufficient incentive to create more such stuff.
I got excited about this until I read somewhere that access to this system is completely governed by XM (i.e., if you want to set up a channel, you have to go through them).
If the channels go to the highest bidder, I don't hold a lot of hope for the quality of programming.
Slashdot Mirror
Where in the article does it say anything about requiring a specialized tool to get under the hood?
;-)
Even if this is true (which I doubt), it is possible to obtain special tools for cars--it's just more difficult to justify. Even if I had a car like this (see below), I seriously doubt this would get in the way of anything I wanted to do any more than CSS got in Jon Johansen's way (I'm a very resourceful shadetree mechanic
Anyone worried about this may want to keep in mind that it's not in the manufacturer's interest to make their cars difficult to work on--especially when it reduces maintainability or increases maintenance costs for the owner, because it makes the car less attractive.
It's interesting to hear people complain about technological changes in the automotive world (a big one is carburettors vs. fuel injection). Things change. If you want to continue playing around with your car, you have to accept that things are more complex and change with them. Not nearly as many people complain about the increasing complexity of software (you have to admit--even Windows 3.1 is an improvement over DOS).
Of course, I can honestly say I've never considered a car that was designed for women anyway.
whatchootalkinbout Willis?
Yet another well-formed opinion from those who would save us from ourselves, our own prosperity and our own happiness as a society.
It just amazes me that there are still people who listen to these self-important, avaricious cry-babies who have somehow gotten it into their minds that profits from their current business models (without regard for their viability) are an inalienable right.
That certainly makes sense. Similarly, your mistakes do a lot less damage when you promptly admit to them, rather than trying to cover them up.
There may be repercussions in admitting you screwed up, but covering them up only makes those catastrophic.
This brings to mind this quote: "Most of our faults are more pardonable than the means we use to conceal them." - Francois de La Rochefoucauld
You're gonna buy my chicken!!!
After a long, arduous (and failed) attempt to get ADSL, I just signed up with Comcast. I was setting up Exim, and tried sending an e-mail to my web account (gmx.net). It bounced because I didn't have a domain name assigned to the address. I assigned a domain name to my dynamically assigned address and now GMX's server is happy.
Apparently, AOL makes no distinction here, because I just tried to send a message to my friend's AOL account and got the same message everyone else is.
Oh well. I only know 3 people on AOL anyway. Perhaps in the future I will once again be able to justify SDSL and stop being treated like a criminal (yeah, I know this is wrong, but you gotta choose your battles).
I hope it is!
I have to wonder if they have thought about the biological risks of this sort of thing. What if a manufacturing process goes awry, spreading toxic bacteria?
At the risk of sounding like an alarmist, accidents in this area could be the next generation of pollution (analogous to today's oil spills, nuclear meltdowns, etc.).
I have to agree. There is a lot of fear of Linux which, frankly, is unfounded.
A case in point is my mother who is easily intimidated by electronic devices in general. I set up a laptop running Linux (the CD drive was broken and I couldn't insert the included Windows CD). She had very little trouble with IceWM and Mozilla (other than the awful performance--this was a couple of years ago on a P120).
Another example is my roommate, a primary school educator used to MacOS. She has been using my Linux box (Mozilla, OpenOffice, KDE) for about five months with no hand-holding.
The last time I travelled to India, I borrowed a cell phone and tried to send e-mail to Hotmail users in the US, only to find that they were never received. However, I've never had trouble sending messages from my own phone.
I eventually realized that this is because I have a username registered with my phone, so when I send a message, it's from "username@provider.net", whereas the default is "phone_number@provider.net".
Apparently, Hotmail's spam filter, by default, rejects messages from addresses with numerical usernames.
Arrrrr...ya call that an anchor?!
I can't imagine there will be any suits brought by individuals. If there are any suits, they will be either class-action suits or suits by their larger clients (AT&T?).
And what's next, going after everyone who dares bookmarks their exalted website? The horror, the horror!
Just in case, I sent the following to this ombudsman person. Enjoy!
"Let me guess, you have this diabolical plan to increase traffic to your
website by posting this toothless policy prohibiting others from linking
to your website. This then causes others to do just that, purely out of
spite.
Ingenious! I only wish I had thought of that. In fact, please let me
know how it goes.
But seriously, please don't piss me off--I'm running out of stuff to
listen to in the car."
OK, they must be trying to garner publicity by creating an outrage in hopes that people will start linking to them out of spite. I should have thought of this!
Either that, or they're just trying to confuse us to death.
Can NT 4.0 be made to run on diskless workstations?
I wouldn't be too disheartened. If this were an isolated incident, that would be another story. However, this is a trend--look at Germany and (until recently, I admit) Mexico.
Is to convince OEMs to bundle this software with each machine.
They could start with local screwdriver shops. Think of the competitive edge they would have if they can add value without incurring licensing fees!
It's been quite some time since I bought a machine with any bundled software, but the Toshiba laptop I bought 3.5 years ago came with relatively little software. Are there still vendors who do this?
Actually, you can just go to the appropriate website.
. cf m
House:
http://www.house.gov/writerep/
Senate:
http://www.senate.gov/senators/senator_by_state
Two of Mr. Gates's arguments make my ears perk up:
While there is an element of truth in the first argument, the second is, quite simply, a load of bollocks. The advent of the web has brought us a long way. We now have commodity protocols (e.g., HTTP), document formats (HTML and, to a certain extent, PDF and PS).
Basically, we have transcended the need for a unifying platform, because these commodities now allow us to share information.
M$ talks about increasing interoperability, but all their efforts are aimed at controlling it (and stamping it out when it doesn't serve their cause--a good example of which is that every service pack breaks Samba in at least one way).
If M$ were to lose its monopoly position, and consequently, the influence it currently enjoys, not only is there plenty of stuff (e.g., OpenOffice) out there to fill the void, but there would be sufficient incentive to create more such stuff.
Who says surfing the web isn't fun anymore?
Your music is all good and well, but now is the time for all good men to, well, come up with some zany, off-the-wall content. Save us! Save us!
I got excited about this until I read somewhere that access to this system is completely governed by XM (i.e., if you want to set up a channel, you have to go through them).
If the channels go to the highest bidder, I don't hold a lot of hope for the quality of programming.
It is encouraging to see this kind of outrage over a mistake like this. It tells me that OSS still has higher standards than closed-source software.
Let's never become complacent!
This would be more appropriate as a Constitutional amendment, rather than a law.