But the good news is that those who thought they were doing the fucking are now about to get majorly fucked themselves.
They put into motion a series of events that have conspired to emaciate the economy, and with it, any hopes of their further aggregating power.
Their big worry now is, "Holy Fuck! What happens when the pendulum slams back to the left!" Sure, they can flee the country and take their money with them, but what do they do if a reactionary leftist comes into power and gets to command the world's nastiest military force? Their wealth exists only at the pleasure of military force, and now, suddenly, they no longer control the preeminent military force.
Ergo, the Diebold solution. A preemptive strike against democracy. Why worry about how the masses will vote when you can hack into Access instead? And who's going to tell? ABC News?
In which case, I can only observe that everything burns.
But open source generally involves your granting certain rights to the code to others, and this license appears to prohibit that. If you can't transfer your rights to the code, how can you open source it in any meaningful way?
Here's the part of the patent license I don't think I understand completely:
By including the above notice in a Licensed Implementation, you will be deemed to have accepted the terms and conditions of this license. You are not licensed to distribute a Licensed Implementation under license terms and conditions that prohibit the terms and conditions of this license.
You are not licensed to sublicense or transfer your rights.
IANAL, but I think this says no open source implementation is possible, doesn't it?
McBride is what is known in the poker world as a fish.
Which is to SCO's great misfortune because penguins literally eat fish for breakfast.
And Torvalds is the biggest, baddest penguin out there. One might even call him The Omega Penguin. The king of all penguins, indeed, of all penguin-kind. Their lord. The single template from which all other penguins were wrought.
I'm just sorry they're not selling tickets for this one.
/. covered gyro-stablized helicopters not too long ago. Once you have that part done, getting it to automatically fly to a specific set of coordinates should be easy.
Yeah, but it's a faster Windows. With more games. And it's got an office app, that is free and does more or less everything the $500 Office does.
Yeah, they probably don't reformat their C: drive right away, but the seed of an idea is planted in their sub-conscious.
And when next they head off to Circuit City/Sears/Walmart shopping for that next PC for grandma/the kids/porn and they look at the prices for the box that runs Lindows vs. Windows (or whatever) their previous experience with Linux from that Live CD might amount to a bit of hand-holding that lets them steer clear of Windows.
Is it just a disk space issue for fitting things on a live CD?
Yeah, I think so.
I've never put together a Live CD, so I can't address this from experience, but I would imagine that it's a different beast than, say, the kind of hack installers do when they create a ramdisk and decompress stuff off the disk into the ramdisk and boot from that. I mean, the CD holds ~700MB, which probably exceeds the amount of RAM most people have, so aggressively compressing everything may not make sense.
So... yeah... I think it's a disk space issue. If you're doing KDE or Gnome and you're including the kind of stuff that newbies will get into like games and OpenOffice and what have you, then I think gcc becomes ballast.
The goal isn't to have them install Gentoo or LFS or recompile their kernel. The goal is to have them bragging to their friends about how they got Linux running on their machine and how easy it was and how fast everything is. And so on.
You're right. Somebody who's running XP probably won't be eager to switch.
I'm guessing of course, but most novice users who are running XP are doing so because that's the OS that came with their machine.
But how many people are struggling along with their 386/486/Pentium I/II/III boxes running 95/98/98SE/ME or even NT/2K? And hating it? Because it's slow as shit?
Anybody who's even put Linux on their box that they just replaced knows exactly what I'm talking about. A lot of times it seems like Linux on the old box is outperforming Windows on the new one.
And don't forget, a lot of these people aren't running fancy shit like Office or AutoCAD or whatever. For many, the computer is all about web and email. And solitaire/freecell/mines. The calculator. Desktop patterns and pictures. Screensavers.
Not everybody is recompiling their kernel so they can run ALSA. A lot of people just like looking at the pretty colors.
You can boot from a Live CD, play with Linux, then reboot, take the CD out, and resume your regularly scheduled programming under Windows.
This is the beautiful thing about Live CD's. If it's done right, the user is completely insulated from all the usual crap we have to do to make Linux work, and without assuming any risk whatsoever from the experience.
If they're running Debian, then that's great. But you need to put Linux into the hands of the masses if you want to take over the desktop and the best way to do that is to seed the planet with Linux Live CD's with the same fury that AOL soils the planet with their CD's.
No gcc, no including twelve different versions of AWK; just the kernel, KDE or Gnome (pick just one), OpenOffice, games, and all the rest of the shit that makes everything go.
Right now, when you say "Linux" to a layperson, they don't know what the fuck you're talking about. A Live CD is a painless way for them to find out.
First, I've been using Virtual PC now for many years under both Mac and Windows and I have yet to come across an example of where Connectix went out of their way to support Linux. That Linux runs under Virtual PC is a testiment to the quality of Linux as an operating system and Virtual PC as a x386 emulator, but as far as I can tell, no special effort has been made to support Linux under VPC.
Second, in my view it is likely that Redmond explored the possibility of hobbling Linux under VPC, but found that to do so would either a) entail a rewrite of significant portions of the code, or b) damage compatibility with Windows applications that currently run under VPC, so they decided that c) it just wasn't worth it. Why else wait this long to make this announcement?
When my current copy of Virtual PC on Windows becomes antiquated for whatever reason, I will replace it with VMWare. Hopefully, this will happen at the same time I go AMD64, and I will switch from running Windows as my host OS to running Linux.
Virtual PC on Macintosh has already become antiquated for my purposes, and I have solved that by ceasing to use the Macintosh for everything save development.
Bezos wants to patent the gesture, and it is so ludicrous that even Steve Jobs endorses it, and yet the rest of us have to endure this idiocy for years.
I say we issue anti-patents. If the patent you are filing is found to be dim, ridiculous, or utterly moronic, not only shouldn't you get the patent, but you should be denied access to the very "technology" you sought to control.
OK, the confusion came in when you said the following:
The truth is that the PC HDTV cards available DO store the "raw" stream as it comes over the air in compressed form.
This may be true, but not for any streams I'm interested in watching.
And I'm not interested in D-VHS, at least not yet. Time-shifting is all I want to do. And the only way I can do that for HDTV without re-encoding the signal is with a unit like the DVR-921 (until of course the TiVO/DirecTV model comes out.)
Now, how do I connect my video card to this thing? I don't want to get a new television when I'm sitting in front of a perfectly good monitor that is capable of doing 1080i. But my admittedly layperson read of the various connectors both devices offer tell me that it isn't possible. Is that really right?
no high-definition recording solution decodes and then re-encodes before saving to hard drive
I think maybe we're both confused.
Right now, if I to hook up a TiVO to my digital cable system, the cable box decodes the MPEG, gives it to my TiVO, which ends up re-encoding it before saving it to the disk. This sucks.
The same happen would happen with digital satellite, with one notable exception that I'm aware of: DirecTV and TiVO jointly produce a unit which saves the MPEG stream directly to the disk.
This is how I want to see it being done for HDTV.
What you're talking about doesn't exist... where are you getting these signals from? Over the air? That doesn't interest me. I'm not going to invest the kind of cash to make this work just so I can watch CBS broadcast in HD.
What else are you going to plug your PC HDTV card into? As you point out yourself, the signals fed by cable/satellite are going to be different, and even if they weren't, they are going to be encrypted or whatever.
So while you may be correct on the technical specifics here, I think you're missing my point. To be able to actually watch something, I'm going to have to go with a solution that the satellite/cable companies offer or endorse.
And the unit I linked to earlier is far better than using the standard tuner the cable/satellite co. gives you, and then plugging that into a HD PVR.
I'd be happy if I could just figure out how to hook-up my video card to the new satellite HDTV DVR's that are coming out, like this one.
Your HDTV signal comes at you already MPEG encoded, right? It seems to me that every other solution out there decodes the signals, then re-encodes it before it hits your disk.
The nice thing about the satellite HDTV DVR's is that the MPEG stream goes right from the dish onto the disk, so there's no loss of fidelity.
I wish that some of the accounts offered by victims of prison-rape--particularly those that caused the students so much anxiety--were made public.
Maybe then we'd see less people here (and elsewhere) resorting to sick and degrading humor whenever the subject comes up.
And check out the pictogram they chose to accompany the prison-rape researcher entry in this story. It's a picture of Barney. I know they're using it as a way of depicting which of the jobs are associated with psychological torture, but, c'mon! Barney? Prison-rape? That's just soooo wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
But the good news is that those who thought they were doing the fucking are now about to get majorly fucked themselves.
They put into motion a series of events that have conspired to emaciate the economy, and with it, any hopes of their further aggregating power.
Their big worry now is, "Holy Fuck! What happens when the pendulum slams back to the left!" Sure, they can flee the country and take their money with them, but what do they do if a reactionary leftist comes into power and gets to command the world's nastiest military force? Their wealth exists only at the pleasure of military force, and now, suddenly, they no longer control the preeminent military force.
Ergo, the Diebold solution. A preemptive strike against democracy. Why worry about how the masses will vote when you can hack into Access instead? And who's going to tell? ABC News?
In which case, I can only observe that everything burns.
So burn everything.
...of an unladen SCO bodyguard is?
But open source generally involves your granting certain rights to the code to others, and this license appears to prohibit that. If you can't transfer your rights to the code, how can you open source it in any meaningful way?
IANAL, but I think this says no open source implementation is possible, doesn't it?
I don't have a link or anything, but I believe Utah was once rated as having the highest per capita porn consumption rates in the nation.
The problem has gotten so bad that they even had to go ahead and get themselves a porn czar.
So yeah, you could be right. The cap could be all about the porn, and nothing else.
They don't explicitly talk about upstream bandwidth so I'll play the cynic and assume the worst.
McBride is what is known in the poker world as a fish.
Which is to SCO's great misfortune because penguins literally eat fish for breakfast.
And Torvalds is the biggest, baddest penguin out there. One might even call him The Omega Penguin. The king of all penguins, indeed, of all penguin-kind. Their lord. The single template from which all other penguins were wrought.
I'm just sorry they're not selling tickets for this one.
...rolls eyes...
...without ending up in an endless loop?
/. covered gyro-stablized helicopters not too long ago. Once you have that part done, getting it to automatically fly to a specific set of coordinates should be easy.
Yeah, but it's a faster Windows. With more games. And it's got an office app, that is free and does more or less everything the $500 Office does.
Yeah, they probably don't reformat their C: drive right away, but the seed of an idea is planted in their sub-conscious.
And when next they head off to Circuit City/Sears/Walmart shopping for that next PC for grandma/the kids/porn and they look at the prices for the box that runs Lindows vs. Windows (or whatever) their previous experience with Linux from that Live CD might amount to a bit of hand-holding that lets them steer clear of Windows.
Is it just a disk space issue for fitting things on a live CD?
Yeah, I think so.
I've never put together a Live CD, so I can't address this from experience, but I would imagine that it's a different beast than, say, the kind of hack installers do when they create a ramdisk and decompress stuff off the disk into the ramdisk and boot from that. I mean, the CD holds ~700MB, which probably exceeds the amount of RAM most people have, so aggressively compressing everything may not make sense.
So... yeah... I think it's a disk space issue. If you're doing KDE or Gnome and you're including the kind of stuff that newbies will get into like games and OpenOffice and what have you, then I think gcc becomes ballast.
The goal isn't to have them install Gentoo or LFS or recompile their kernel. The goal is to have them bragging to their friends about how they got Linux running on their machine and how easy it was and how fast everything is. And so on.
You're right. Somebody who's running XP probably won't be eager to switch.
I'm guessing of course, but most novice users who are running XP are doing so because that's the OS that came with their machine.
But how many people are struggling along with their 386/486/Pentium I/II/III boxes running 95/98/98SE/ME or even NT/2K? And hating it? Because it's slow as shit?
Anybody who's even put Linux on their box that they just replaced knows exactly what I'm talking about. A lot of times it seems like Linux on the old box is outperforming Windows on the new one.
And don't forget, a lot of these people aren't running fancy shit like Office or AutoCAD or whatever. For many, the computer is all about web and email. And solitaire/freecell/mines. The calculator. Desktop patterns and pictures. Screensavers.
Not everybody is recompiling their kernel so they can run ALSA. A lot of people just like looking at the pretty colors.
Nobody is asking her to install Linux.
Just to run it.
You can boot from a Live CD, play with Linux, then reboot, take the CD out, and resume your regularly scheduled programming under Windows.
This is the beautiful thing about Live CD's. If it's done right, the user is completely insulated from all the usual crap we have to do to make Linux work, and without assuming any risk whatsoever from the experience.
If they're running Debian, then that's great. But you need to put Linux into the hands of the masses if you want to take over the desktop and the best way to do that is to seed the planet with Linux Live CD's with the same fury that AOL soils the planet with their CD's.
No gcc, no including twelve different versions of AWK; just the kernel, KDE or Gnome (pick just one), OpenOffice, games, and all the rest of the shit that makes everything go.
Right now, when you say "Linux" to a layperson, they don't know what the fuck you're talking about. A Live CD is a painless way for them to find out.
We can rebuild him. We have the technology.
Two things...
First, I've been using Virtual PC now for many years under both Mac and Windows and I have yet to come across an example of where Connectix went out of their way to support Linux. That Linux runs under Virtual PC is a testiment to the quality of Linux as an operating system and Virtual PC as a x386 emulator, but as far as I can tell, no special effort has been made to support Linux under VPC.
Second, in my view it is likely that Redmond explored the possibility of hobbling Linux under VPC, but found that to do so would either a) entail a rewrite of significant portions of the code, or b) damage compatibility with Windows applications that currently run under VPC, so they decided that c) it just wasn't worth it. Why else wait this long to make this announcement?
When my current copy of Virtual PC on Windows becomes antiquated for whatever reason, I will replace it with VMWare. Hopefully, this will happen at the same time I go AMD64, and I will switch from running Windows as my host OS to running Linux.
Virtual PC on Macintosh has already become antiquated for my purposes, and I have solved that by ceasing to use the Macintosh for everything save development.
Bezos wants to patent the gesture, and it is so ludicrous that even Steve Jobs endorses it, and yet the rest of us have to endure this idiocy for years.
I say we issue anti-patents. If the patent you are filing is found to be dim, ridiculous, or utterly moronic, not only shouldn't you get the patent, but you should be denied access to the very "technology" you sought to control.
It's bad enough having nuts sending spam, must we have them messing around with everything to block it as well?
I fear he will break the Internet with his "superfast satellite connections".
OK, the confusion came in when you said the following:
The truth is that the PC HDTV cards available DO store the "raw" stream as it comes over the air in compressed form.
This may be true, but not for any streams I'm interested in watching.
And I'm not interested in D-VHS, at least not yet. Time-shifting is all I want to do. And the only way I can do that for HDTV without re-encoding the signal is with a unit like the DVR-921 (until of course the TiVO/DirecTV model comes out.)
Now, how do I connect my video card to this thing? I don't want to get a new television when I'm sitting in front of a perfectly good monitor that is capable of doing 1080i. But my admittedly layperson read of the various connectors both devices offer tell me that it isn't possible. Is that really right?
no high-definition recording solution decodes and then re-encodes before saving to hard drive
I think maybe we're both confused.
Right now, if I to hook up a TiVO to my digital cable system, the cable box decodes the MPEG, gives it to my TiVO, which ends up re-encoding it before saving it to the disk. This sucks.
The same happen would happen with digital satellite, with one notable exception that I'm aware of: DirecTV and TiVO jointly produce a unit which saves the MPEG stream directly to the disk.
This is how I want to see it being done for HDTV.
What you're talking about doesn't exist... where are you getting these signals from? Over the air? That doesn't interest me. I'm not going to invest the kind of cash to make this work just so I can watch CBS broadcast in HD.
What else are you going to plug your PC HDTV card into? As you point out yourself, the signals fed by cable/satellite are going to be different, and even if they weren't, they are going to be encrypted or whatever.
So while you may be correct on the technical specifics here, I think you're missing my point. To be able to actually watch something, I'm going to have to go with a solution that the satellite/cable companies offer or endorse.
And the unit I linked to earlier is far better than using the standard tuner the cable/satellite co. gives you, and then plugging that into a HD PVR.
Because the signal gets encoded twice.
Right?
The model name of the unit I linked to starts with DVR...
I'd be happy if I could just figure out how to hook-up my video card to the new satellite HDTV DVR's that are coming out, like this one.
Your HDTV signal comes at you already MPEG encoded, right? It seems to me that every other solution out there decodes the signals, then re-encodes it before it hits your disk.
The nice thing about the satellite HDTV DVR's is that the MPEG stream goes right from the dish onto the disk, so there's no loss of fidelity.
Or am I totally confused here?
I wish that some of the accounts offered by victims of prison-rape--particularly those that caused the students so much anxiety--were made public.
Maybe then we'd see less people here (and elsewhere) resorting to sick and degrading humor whenever the subject comes up.
And check out the pictogram they chose to accompany the prison-rape researcher entry in this story. It's a picture of Barney. I know they're using it as a way of depicting which of the jobs are associated with psychological torture, but, c'mon! Barney? Prison-rape? That's just soooo wrong.
I think I will put Linux on it, then I will submit the story to /.
Before I wet myself.