And yes, there's a definite possibility that other countries would enforce the same laws, should USA do so. If USA can trial persons outside their country, why can't everybody else?
They can. But (apart from the case of very large companies) what's the point? If I was found guilty in the USA of breaking USA law, all they could do is send me a letter telling me off. I don't have any assets in the USA, nor does my company. The only inconvenience for me personally would be that I wouldn't be able to travel to the USA whilst the convinction stood, which wouldn't be a big deal for the personally.
As a resident of the USA, would you really be that bothered if a court in Japan (for instance) found you guilty of breaking a Japanese law?
If the district court decision stands, online publishers could be sued for defamation in any state or country that an online article is read.
I don't understand this. Surely this just applies to the USA, not any country? Do they mean that, if, for instance, a UK publisher published something that was libellous under, say, Japanese law, then they could sue them in the USA? That would be most odd. Or do they mean that if something is libellous in any state of the USA, any pulisher in the world could be sued under USA law, even if they are not resident in that country? That would also seem strange. Or is this just an arrogant assumption that US laws apply everywhere else in the world?
Could you use this to make a graphics render farm? A rack of 25 X-Boxes all running Linux - let me see that would cost just $5,000 for the X-Boxes - the same as a high-end graphics PC. That would be sweet - you'd have your own powerful personal render farm and the warm feeling inside from knowing that you've cost Microsoft over a couple of thousand bucks.
Re:Something interesting about Moz on Windows XP
on
Mozilla RC3 Released
·
· Score: 2
And without the speed of IE too. Honestly, Mozilla (and Netscape 6 for that matter), really redefine the concept of slow and bloated.
Are you using an old 486? It's works fine for me. The rendering is just as quick as IE, if not quicker.
The Zend people and the MySQL AB people have got an increadible level of global recognition - and they really haven't had to spend much money to get it. I'm sure you really don't believe that they have the recognition they have because they have spent millions on marketing them. They have the level of recognition they have because:
1) their products are great. 2) the internet.
Yes, if I download something from one of their web sites, it costs them a few cents in bandwidth fees. But that's it. A few cents. And it's a fantastic way for them to promote their products.
I think I do see the big picture, and the big picture is that it is no longer justifiable to charge $20 for a few music tracks. The internet is changing things. That was the point I was making.
"Attention", as everybody on the Internet knows, costs money.
Now I'm so confused!
I wanted php on my web site, so I went to www.php.net and downloaded it, for free! And then I did the same for MySQL! I then I found some people had written some create scripts for dynamic web sites, and I downloaded them for free too!
Those people got my attention, which you say costs them money, and I didn't pay them anything. Now I feel bad! They must have spent millions of dollars on marketing, because virtually all web developers know about them. I must be robbing them. Although they didn't ask me for money, which is odd...
Or perhaps something else is happening here? Perhaps in the age of the internet, if you've got something really good, it practically promotes itself, at no cost? Of course this would make the record companies redunant. I guess they don't like that idea.
This brings to mind the (rather bad) movie called something like "The Thirteenth Floor", in which scientists who developed a portal to a 'virtual reality' eventually discovered that they were themselves 'virtual'.
I remember reading once that Philip K Dick (Sp?) the author of Blade Runner, drove himself mad thinking about this kind of thing.
I don't disagree with any of your points, but I do disagree with your terminology.
I do not think you should use the words 'aid' or 'humanitarian programmes' when you are talking about military action. This confuses the issues because most people have a different understand of what these words mean.
I have looked at the site you suggest, and I still think that the main issue is the USA's interventions in the Middle East. Most of the articles refer to Israel and the Palestines, or other ways the USA is intervening in middle eastern issues. Now, the people involved may say things about the nature of the USA, but that's just a symptom, not the cause of the current hatred these people feel towards the USA.
You know the US gets involved in lots of humanitarian programs overseas. This pisses a lot of people off and makes us enemies.
Hmmm. I may be wrong but I don't think it is the humanitarian programmes overseas that make the USA unpopular. I don't see terrorists targeting the headquarters Red Cross and Oxfam. I think the interferring in local politics and dropping bombs and stuff tend to make more enemies.
And to address one of your points, I do actually "help the starving people in Ethiopia" by working (for free) to raise funds for an aid programme there.
I think probably a lot of people, perhaps most, think like me:
1) I think it is a wonderful when one nation goes to help another in a war for humanitarian reasons. That is truely noble thing and the world is a better place for it.
2) I personally am not going to die for the potential freedom of someone I've never met. That would be stupid. Only a truly dumb person would do that.
You think most people don't think the same way as me? It's easy to believe (1) above, but not to believe it so much that you'd die for it!
but is a point of view which you can only stick to if you carefully ignore what the people attacking us are actually saying. They don't say that they don't like our foreign policy. They don't say that we should be isolationist (as you suggest). They say that what we are and what we stand for must be destroyed, and they say that any degree of brutality against our civilians is acceptable to achieve that goal.
Err. No. They don't say that. Perhaps you've been reading different newspapers to me, but I understand that one of the central issues is the USA's intevention in issues in the Middle East.
Freedom? Liberty?? People in other countries don't deserve any of that right? Not according to your world view.
Did I say that? Did I say that people in other countries don't deserve freedom and liberty? No, I didn't. What I said was But when there's a conflict very far away, between people you don't know and of whom you know very little, and you risk your life because some politician has decided it is in the economic or political interests of the country, then you're a fool
My life is not worth losing for a politician's idea of what might be in the political or ecomonic interests of my country.
Many people, myself included, believe that recent terrorist attacks are as a direct result of the USA overseas policy. I think it is clear that if the USA wasn't so quick to take sides in conflicts overseas, then we wouldn't have the current terrorism problem.
I still stand by my central argument, that you can't be very intelligent if you are willing to risk your own life in conflicts that do not have direct relationship with your immediate friends, family and countrymen and have political and/or economic motivations rather than moral or humanitarian ones.
Unfortunately, if that was what people did we'd be completely unprepared when the conflict did come up.
That's true, but I don't see that it contradicts what I've said. It's a good thing that there are unintelligent people who want to sign up to the army during peacetime. I can be pleased that these people exist, and be grateful for what they do, but it doesn't mean I have to respect them. I think they're stupid. On the scale of things "avoiding getting killed" has to be one of the most basic tests of intelligence.
Damn straight. Whether you're talking US troops, Australian troops or troops from *any* country.
They deserve respect, not ridiclue.
Now, I know what I'm about to say is really going to upset some people, but I don't think that should stop me saying it.
When your friends, family and your fellow countrymen are directly threatened by a foreign force, then putting your life at risk to protect them is a brave and noble thing that demands respect.
But when there's a conflict very far away, between people you don't know and of whom you know very little, and you risk your life because some politician has decided it is in the economic or political interests of the country, then you're a fool, and I'm afraid you'll get no respect from me. I may be glad that you do it, but that doesn't stop me thinking you must be pretty unintelligent. And I have to say that most of the USA's military actions overseas fall into the latter category, not the former.
1) Running around and around for hours. 2) Getting bored playing cards. 3) Spending hours cleaning your kit. 4) Getting shouted at and humiliated by someone you hate. 5) Sitting on your bunk, waiting. 6) Cleaning your kit again. 7) Going in to town on Saturday night and getting completely drunk and throwing up 8) Letching at women and the desperate machismo of oversexed young men who don't know how to communicate with the opposite sex. 9) Institionalized racism and sexism. 10) Cleaning your kit again. 12) Unquestioningly following dumb orders. 13) Being a guiniepig for experimental drugs with horrible side effects.
<sarcasm>
Or is it going to be all fast action shooting and strategic planning, just like real life in the army?
They don't realize that gaming isn't the only thing MS has planned for the XBox. MS, and many other companies, have always wanted an integrated home media box that does everything from check your email, to help you plan a grocery list, to play video games.
The XBox is just the first part of the plan. Live is the second. Next, media boxes with interactive television.
Then Microsoft will learn what many domestic electronics manufacturers learned years ago. That Joe Public does not want domestic electronics products that combine a number of different functions. That's why you don't find many combined TV/DVDs or TV/music systems or whatever. You can bet that, for instance, Sony doesn't think that the fact that the Playstation 2 can play DVDs is much of a threat to its DVD players - most people who want to watch DVDs will buy a player.
I expect that Sony will have the good sense to concentrate on keeping the Playstation III a great games machine, and watch Microsoft experiment and screw up trying to add lots of other types of functionality to the Xbox II.
I'm just off to make a cup of tea and some toast with my combined kettle-toaster...
You seem to be missing a very obvious point: if it takes $100k to make a free OS comparable to a $10k OS you've wasted $90k by going with the "Free" OS.
I've consulted on embedded linux projects and in every case the extra hassle and design constraints were just not worth it.
So, basically you've been employed as an external consultant on projects where it's cost your client an arm and a leg to come to the conclusion that embedded linux isn't worth it.
So, your client didn't have the in-house skills to use embedded Linux, did they? They didn't even have the knowledge to know whether or not it was a good idea to attempt, did they?
One of my clients has ten Linux specialists in-house, and various programmers. This means they can configure the Linux embedded in their system to do whatever they want. That means that they have a $0 licence fee to pay per unit they ship, and because they ship a lot of them, that makes a big difference. But more importantly, they don't have to rely on a third party to implement the changes they want, and they can do stuff that their competitors can't because their competitors rely on third party software.
So, as I said in my original email...
If I create a product and need an embedded OS, and I have the capabilities in-house to do whatever configuration and programming is necessary, then embedded Linux can cost $0.00 per unit
"Software isn't free, and companies are beginning to realize that."
Jeeze, if I read this kind of thing one more time I think I'll go nuts. GPL software is free! It's fucking free, ok! As in, you don't have to pay for it! Gratis! No payment necessary!
If I create a product and need an embedded OS, and I have the capabilities in-house to do whatever configuration and programming is necessary, then embedded Linux can cost $0.00 per unit (hey kids - that's means it's free!), compaired to $x for a commercial OS.
So can we cut this "it's not free" bullshit? It is free. If you don't have capabilities in-house to do what needs to be done then of course that's going to cost you, whether you use embedded Linux or another OS. That's a given. But it doesn't mean the OS itself is not free.
I believe someone from Microsoft recently said "there's very little value in free." What?? Are they fucking nuts? Go ahead and reply to this with your "what about support? what about training? what about TCO?" posts. Nobody ever said that stuff was free. But that doesn't mean that free software doesn't exist. It does. And it's gratis! Great, isn't it?! (Unless you're a software vendor of course)
Not to mention that by having console developers make games for a PC-like windows platform, it encourages them to make the leap to PC games, which in turn will sell more copies of Windows XP (once Microsoft stops upgrading DirectX on 98).
I think actually the reverse is probably true. Hardcore gamers used to buy PCs, for which MS would get $100 per unit, more or less. If they buy an X-Box, why should they buy a PC? And MS loses maybe $100 per X-Box...
I just know this will get modded down to minus 1000, but I can't resist:
For over a year or so I'm thinking of moving from Linux to windows. Why? Because of the stability and usability. Windows 2000 and XP appear to be very stable and no one can deny that they are lightyears ahead of anything on linux when it comes to desktop comfort.
For the last couple of months I've noticed an increasing amount of posts on Slashdot from people subtly promoting Microsoft and putting down Linux. They say just the right things to make sure their posts don't get modded down, but essentially try to persuade people to think the types of things Microsoft wants them to think.
Here's a very interesting article from the UK Guardian about corporations using fake people on newsgroups and email forums to rubbish their opponents. They use companies who promise to be very discrete and do it in such a way that it is very difficult to link the individuals back to the company concerned. The article cites the case of this type of tactics being used by Monsanto. Is it really so difficult to believe that Microsoft might pay one of these companies to post anti-Linux comments on sites like Slashdot? Read the article.
Slashdot Mirror
And yes, there's a definite possibility that other countries would enforce the same laws, should USA do so. If USA can trial persons outside their country, why can't everybody else?
They can. But (apart from the case of very large companies) what's the point? If I was found guilty in the USA of breaking USA law, all they could do is send me a letter telling me off. I don't have any assets in the USA, nor does my company. The only inconvenience for me personally would be that I wouldn't be able to travel to the USA whilst the convinction stood, which wouldn't be a big deal for the personally.
As a resident of the USA, would you really be that bothered if a court in Japan (for instance) found you guilty of breaking a Japanese law?
If the district court decision stands, online publishers could be sued for defamation in any state or country that an online article is read.
I don't understand this. Surely this just applies to the USA, not any country? Do they mean that, if, for instance, a UK publisher published something that was libellous under, say, Japanese law, then they could sue them in the USA? That would be most odd. Or do they mean that if something is libellous in any state of the USA, any pulisher in the world could be sued under USA law, even if they are not resident in that country? That would also seem strange. Or is this just an arrogant assumption that US laws apply everywhere else in the world?
Could you use this to make a graphics render farm? A rack of 25 X-Boxes all running Linux - let me see that would cost just $5,000 for the X-Boxes - the same as a high-end graphics PC. That would be sweet - you'd have your own powerful personal render farm and the warm feeling inside from knowing that you've cost Microsoft over a couple of thousand bucks.
And without the speed of IE too. Honestly, Mozilla (and Netscape 6 for that matter), really redefine the concept of slow and bloated.
Are you using an old 486? It's works fine for me. The rendering is just as quick as IE, if not quicker.
Hey, get off your high horse...
I was making a point, using sarcasm.
The Zend people and the MySQL AB people have got an increadible level of global recognition - and they really haven't had to spend much money to get it. I'm sure you really don't believe that they have the recognition they have because they have spent millions on marketing them. They have the level of recognition they have because:
1) their products are great.
2) the internet.
Yes, if I download something from one of their web sites, it costs them a few cents in bandwidth fees. But that's it. A few cents. And it's a fantastic way for them to promote their products.
I think I do see the big picture, and the big picture is that it is no longer justifiable to charge $20 for a few music tracks. The internet is changing things. That was the point I was making.
"Attention", as everybody on the Internet knows, costs money.
Now I'm so confused!
I wanted php on my web site, so I went to www.php.net and downloaded it, for free! And then I did the same for MySQL! I then I found some people had written some create scripts for dynamic web sites, and I downloaded them for free too!
Those people got my attention, which you say costs them money, and I didn't pay them anything. Now I feel bad! They must have spent millions of dollars on marketing, because virtually all web developers know about them. I must be robbing them. Although they didn't ask me for money, which is odd...
Or perhaps something else is happening here? Perhaps in the age of the internet, if you've got something really good, it practically promotes itself, at no cost? Of course this would make the record companies redunant. I guess they don't like that idea.
This brings to mind the (rather bad) movie called something like "The Thirteenth Floor", in which scientists who developed a portal to a 'virtual reality' eventually discovered that they were themselves 'virtual'.
;-)
I remember reading once that Philip K Dick (Sp?) the author of Blade Runner, drove himself mad thinking about this kind of thing.
Best not to think about it...
I don't disagree with any of your points, but I do disagree with your terminology.
I do not think you should use the words 'aid' or 'humanitarian programmes' when you are talking about military action. This confuses the issues because most people have a different understand of what these words mean.
I have looked at the site you suggest, and I still think that the main issue is the USA's interventions in the Middle East. Most of the articles refer to Israel and the Palestines, or other ways the USA is intervening in middle eastern issues. Now, the people involved may say things about the nature of the USA, but that's just a symptom, not the cause of the current hatred these people feel towards the USA.
You know the US gets involved in lots of humanitarian programs overseas. This pisses a lot of people off and makes us enemies.
Hmmm. I may be wrong but I don't think it is the humanitarian programmes overseas that make the USA unpopular. I don't see terrorists targeting the headquarters Red Cross and Oxfam. I think the interferring in local politics and dropping bombs and stuff tend to make more enemies.
And to address one of your points, I do actually "help the starving people in Ethiopia" by working (for free) to raise funds for an aid programme there.
I'm thankful most people don't think like you.
I think probably a lot of people, perhaps most, think like me:
1) I think it is a wonderful when one nation goes to help another in a war for humanitarian reasons. That is truely noble thing and the world is a better place for it.
2) I personally am not going to die for the potential freedom of someone I've never met. That would be stupid. Only a truly dumb person would do that.
You think most people don't think the same way as me? It's easy to believe (1) above, but not to believe it so much that you'd die for it!
but is a point of view which you can only stick to if you carefully ignore what the people attacking us are actually saying. They don't say that they don't like our foreign policy. They don't say that we should be isolationist (as you suggest). They say that what we are and what we stand for must be destroyed, and they say that any degree of brutality against our civilians is acceptable to achieve that goal.
Err. No. They don't say that. Perhaps you've been reading different newspapers to me, but I understand that one of the central issues is the USA's intevention in issues in the Middle East.
Freedom? Liberty?? People in other countries don't deserve any of that right? Not according to your world view.
Did I say that? Did I say that people in other countries don't deserve freedom and liberty? No, I didn't. What I said was But when there's a conflict very far away, between people you don't know and of whom you know very little, and you risk your life because some politician has decided it is in the economic or political interests of the country, then you're a fool
My life is not worth losing for a politician's idea of what might be in the political or ecomonic interests of my country.
Many people, myself included, believe that recent terrorist attacks are as a direct result of the USA overseas policy. I think it is clear that if the USA wasn't so quick to take sides in conflicts overseas, then we wouldn't have the current terrorism problem.
I still stand by my central argument, that you can't be very intelligent if you are willing to risk your own life in conflicts that do not have direct relationship with your immediate friends, family and countrymen and have political and/or economic motivations rather than moral or humanitarian ones.
Unfortunately, if that was what people did we'd be completely unprepared when the conflict did come up.
That's true, but I don't see that it contradicts what I've said. It's a good thing that there are unintelligent people who want to sign up to the army during peacetime. I can be pleased that these people exist, and be grateful for what they do, but it doesn't mean I have to respect them. I think they're stupid. On the scale of things "avoiding getting killed" has to be one of the most basic tests of intelligence.
Damn straight. Whether you're talking US troops, Australian troops or troops from *any* country.
They deserve respect, not ridiclue.
Now, I know what I'm about to say is really going to upset some people, but I don't think that should stop me saying it.
When your friends, family and your fellow countrymen are directly threatened by a foreign force, then putting your life at risk to protect them is a brave and noble thing that demands respect.
But when there's a conflict very far away, between people you don't know and of whom you know very little, and you risk your life because some politician has decided it is in the economic or political interests of the country, then you're a fool, and I'm afraid you'll get no respect from me. I may be glad that you do it, but that doesn't stop me thinking you must be pretty unintelligent. And I have to say that most of the USA's military actions overseas fall into the latter category, not the former.
camping is a requirement and only the stupid players do anything other than camping (stupid players=dead players)
Camping? Simulated camping? Gosh! Sounds great fun! I'll have to get that game!
1) Running around and around for hours.
2) Getting bored playing cards.
3) Spending hours cleaning your kit.
4) Getting shouted at and humiliated by someone you hate.
5) Sitting on your bunk, waiting.
6) Cleaning your kit again.
7) Going in to town on Saturday night and getting completely drunk and throwing up
8) Letching at women and the desperate machismo of oversexed young men who don't know how to communicate with the opposite sex.
9) Institionalized racism and sexism.
10) Cleaning your kit again.
12) Unquestioningly following dumb orders.
13) Being a guiniepig for experimental drugs with horrible side effects.Or is it going to be all fast action shooting and strategic planning, just like real life in the army?
[... Huge KDE Myths rant ...]
Hey, looks like you feel really strongly about this. Can I give you a little advice?
Try to go out more. Talk to people. Try to talk about something other than computers. Listen to what other people have to say.
Play some sport. Take up a hobby that's not related to computers. Try taking an interest in girls.
Relax. Have fun. Don't worry.
Forget about KDE and Gnome. They're not as important as you think.
They don't realize that gaming isn't the only thing MS has planned for the XBox. MS, and many other companies, have always wanted an integrated home media box that does everything from check your email, to help you plan a grocery list, to play video games.
The XBox is just the first part of the plan. Live is the second. Next, media boxes with interactive television.
Then Microsoft will learn what many domestic electronics manufacturers learned years ago. That Joe Public does not want domestic electronics products that combine a number of different functions. That's why you don't find many combined TV/DVDs or TV/music systems or whatever. You can bet that, for instance, Sony doesn't think that the fact that the Playstation 2 can play DVDs is much of a threat to its DVD players - most people who want to watch DVDs will buy a player.
I expect that Sony will have the good sense to concentrate on keeping the Playstation III a great games machine, and watch Microsoft experiment and screw up trying to add lots of other types of functionality to the Xbox II.
I'm just off to make a cup of tea and some toast with my combined kettle-toaster...
You seem to be missing a very obvious point: if it takes $100k to make a free OS comparable to a $10k OS you've wasted $90k by going with the "Free" OS.
Err. No. As you say, that is an obvious point.
I've consulted on embedded linux projects and in every case the extra hassle and design constraints were just not worth it.
So, basically you've been employed as an external consultant on projects where it's cost your client an arm and a leg to come to the conclusion that embedded linux isn't worth it.
So, your client didn't have the in-house skills to use embedded Linux, did they? They didn't even have the knowledge to know whether or not it was a good idea to attempt, did they?
One of my clients has ten Linux specialists in-house, and various programmers. This means they can configure the Linux embedded in their system to do whatever they want. That means that they have a $0 licence fee to pay per unit they ship, and because they ship a lot of them, that makes a big difference. But more importantly, they don't have to rely on a third party to implement the changes they want, and they can do stuff that their competitors can't because their competitors rely on third party software.
So, as I said in my original email...
If I create a product and need an embedded OS, and I have the capabilities in-house to do whatever configuration and programming is necessary, then embedded Linux can cost $0.00 per unit
"Software isn't free, and companies are beginning to realize that."
Jeeze, if I read this kind of thing one more time I think I'll go nuts. GPL software is free! It's fucking free, ok! As in, you don't have to pay for it! Gratis! No payment necessary!
If I create a product and need an embedded OS, and I have the capabilities in-house to do whatever configuration and programming is necessary, then embedded Linux can cost $0.00 per unit (hey kids - that's means it's free!), compaired to $x for a commercial OS.
So can we cut this "it's not free" bullshit? It is free. If you don't have capabilities in-house to do what needs to be done then of course that's going to cost you, whether you use embedded Linux or another OS. That's a given. But it doesn't mean the OS itself is not free.
I believe someone from Microsoft recently said "there's very little value in free." What?? Are they fucking nuts? Go ahead and reply to this with your "what about support? what about training? what about TCO?" posts. Nobody ever said that stuff was free. But that doesn't mean that free software doesn't exist. It does. And it's gratis! Great, isn't it?! (Unless you're a software vendor of course)
Not to mention that by having console developers make games for a PC-like windows platform, it encourages them to make the leap to PC games, which in turn will sell more copies of Windows XP (once Microsoft stops upgrading DirectX on 98).
I think actually the reverse is probably true. Hardcore gamers used to buy PCs, for which MS would get $100 per unit, more or less. If they buy an X-Box, why should they buy a PC? And MS loses maybe $100 per X-Box...
I just know this will get modded down to minus 1000, but I can't resist:
For over a year or so I'm thinking of moving from Linux to windows. Why? Because of the stability and usability. Windows 2000 and XP appear to be very stable and no one can deny that they are lightyears ahead of anything on linux when it comes to desktop comfort.
For the last couple of months I've noticed an increasing amount of posts on Slashdot from people subtly promoting Microsoft and putting down Linux. They say just the right things to make sure their posts don't get modded down, but essentially try to persuade people to think the types of things Microsoft wants them to think.
Here's a very interesting article from the UK Guardian about corporations using fake people on newsgroups and email forums to rubbish their opponents. They use companies who promise to be very discrete and do it in such a way that it is very difficult to link the individuals back to the company concerned. The article cites the case of this type of tactics being used by Monsanto. Is it really so difficult to believe that Microsoft might pay one of these companies to post anti-Linux comments on sites like Slashdot? Read the article.