I *do not* have to double-click on icons, and I am running Win2K. If want to change that setting, go to a Windows Explorer window, click on the Tools/Folder Options menu item, go the the General tab, and choose the "Single click to open an item" option.
This policy, by providing a waiver process, is actually less restrictive than the "100% Microsoft" public policies that people have been cheerleading for here on Slashdot.
This means a Windows box will be allowed in the DOI if it's really necessary. All this really does is prevent the l337 h4x0r downstairs from running a Windows box he doesn't understand and can't make secure.
The "100% Microsoft" policies would not allow anything Open Source, even if it is the best tool (gasp!), based purely on ideological (read: impractical) reasoning.
My experience is the opposite. I find it great! I put in a wireless LAN card and was immediately browsing the web. I was going on a weekend trip, so I bought a modem, and it worked without any hitches. The sync (to Win2K) works perfectly for me. I can play my.ogg files, read Project Gutenberg books, and browse the web while hanging with my kids in the living room. We can lookup words in the middle of dinner w/o having to leave the table. It basically does everything I needed in a PDA, and I can tweak it to my heart's content.
The poster may or get a brilliant reply which could not have been found on Google. There may be some "orthogonal" information that the poster did not know. Slashdotters have been known to have some insights every now and then.
Slashdot readers get to see what types of questions other readers have. I never looked at SMS to Internet gateways, nor heard of mtnsms.com. Now I know something new that is interesting to me.
I did exactly that: I was two courses away from a dual major (adding Math to a CS degree like you), so I took the courses. I have never regretted it but I sincerely doubt that it was of financial benefit. No employer or client has said that it affected their decision to hire me or pay me more. The benefit is intangible. I feel better about my math skills, and I got to stay in college for an extra beer... umm... year.
Linux will be untouched by any changes to any copywrite (sic) laws. Isn't freedom from copywrite one of GPL's main tenants? (sic)
Freedom from copyright is not a tenet of the GPL. The GPL relies on the fact that the work is copyrighted by the original authors, and that they have the right to place certain restrictions on their work. If there were no copyright laws, others could take the code which the author had written and put under GPL, incorporate it into their own code, and resell the result without letting anyone else see their work.
>> I don't know what country you're from, friend, but a fundamental tenet of American law is that the seriousness of a crime is not influenced by the nature of the victim. Jack Ruby was convicted of murder even though his victim assassinated the President of the United States. A crime is a crime, no matter who the victim is.
I don't know what *planet* you're from, but if you believe that a jury is not prejudiced^Winfluenced by the victim's circumstances, you've got some history books to read.
You are right, it *is* a central tenet, but human nature will always come first.
Look at the placement in movies, and look at the old-time radio shows. This way, you cannot edit out the advertisements--they are part of the entertainment.
2) Split-screen ads.
Notice how Oxygen puts a black bar at the bottom of the screen during the movie? It allows them to advertise at you while the show is playing. Once again, the ads are part of the broadcast.
3) Make the ads entertaining.
This is really product placement on steroids. Start with an ad and add enough content that people want to watch it. I remeber seeing an infomercial with Danny Bonaducci (sp?) that I loved watching, because he was so caustically entertaining. [Unfortunately for the advertiser, I no longer remember the product, but that's not the point.]
I would not be worried about the advertisers. They will find ways to get their product/crap/treasures in front of your eyes.
Who stands to make money from Linux being ported to the Xbox?
1) M$ would sell lots more Xboxen,
2) more people are likely to subscribe to the M$ games channel (or whatever you call it).
3) M$ could make money from the XBE developer licenses (I'm afraid I speak from ignorance here--this may not be the case.)
Since the anonymous donor seems to be so worried about the legality of the code, I seriously doubt that it is a hidden ploy by M$, thus I think that the potential downside must be more than that.
Q) Who else stands to gain money by Linux being ported to the Xbox? (Why would somebody be willing to spend $200,000 on this?)
A) Someone who is going to spend the money one way or another anyway, who is interested in some other revenue stream which will come from the Xbox.
Sony comes to mind, but not to the top of the list. They make money on their own hardware. They would really have no interest in making the Xbox a more attractive platform n any way.
A PVR or alternate service provider who want to use the platform for another purpose than gaming is a possibility, but not the top of the list again--why bother to get games going if you're just trying to sell a TV service?
What about a Linux O/S vendor? Red Hat, for example, could benefit from having a consumer platform which could run "their" software. Their recent game plan involves server software and consulting--I think they are not pursuing a mass-market approach.
A game vendor strikes me as being the likely candidate. One that already writes GNU/Linux games, and wants to broaden their reach to the Xbox, but doesn't want to be under M$'s thumb. They would have t write this code anyway, and their own IP would not be compromised. Anyone want to take a guess here? Who is the leader in this arena?
I am proud of the many slashdotters whose advice was to be nice and try to accomodate the neighbor. I assumed that most people would say "Tell 'em to ^$%* off." Thanks for restoring a bit of my faith in human nature.
> Would you install a OS when it's creators tell you it is not secure?
It is precisely *because* people are willing to accept that Linux (and no software) is totally secure, that I use it.
Would you install an OS when it's creators tell you it IS secure, but they keep releasing "critical updates"?
Slashdot Mirror
You are ignoring the rights of secondary consumers. The BSD license lets secondary authors *remove any freedom* from secondary consumers.
By your definition, it is only purely free at the primary level.
I *do not* have to double-click on icons, and I am running Win2K. If want to change that setting, go to a Windows Explorer window, click on the Tools/Folder Options menu item, go the the General tab, and choose the "Single click to open an item" option.
Let's rewrite that and see how it looks:
This policy, by providing a waiver process, is actually less restrictive than the "100% Microsoft" public policies that people have been cheerleading for here on Slashdot.
This means a Windows box will be allowed in the DOI if it's really necessary. All this really does is prevent the l337 h4x0r downstairs from running a Windows box he doesn't understand and can't make secure.
The "100% Microsoft" policies would not allow anything Open Source, even if it is the best tool (gasp!), based purely on ideological (read: impractical) reasoning.
That makes more sense to me.
Does anyone have a good reason why ICANN should be allowed to continue?
My experience is the opposite. I find it great! I put in a wireless LAN card and was immediately browsing the web. I was going on a weekend trip, so I bought a modem, and it worked without any hitches. The sync (to Win2K) works perfectly for me. I can play my .ogg files, read Project Gutenberg books, and browse the web while hanging with my kids in the living room. We can lookup words in the middle of dinner w/o having to leave the table. It basically does everything I needed in a PDA, and I can tweak it to my heart's content.
C-Net shows prices as low as $333 US.
The poster may or get a brilliant reply which could not have been found on Google. There may be some "orthogonal" information that the poster did not know. Slashdotters have been known to have some insights every now and then.
Slashdot readers get to see what types of questions other readers have. I never looked at SMS to Internet gateways, nor heard of mtnsms.com. Now I know something new that is interesting to me.
I did exactly that: I was two courses away from a dual major (adding Math to a CS degree like you), so I took the courses. I have never regretted it but I sincerely doubt that it was of financial benefit. No employer or client has said that it affected their decision to hire me or pay me more. The benefit is intangible. I feel better about my math skills, and I got to stay in college for an extra beer... umm... year.
If you are using Free Software and/or Open Source software, you get more freedom from this sort of thing happening to you.
Linux will be untouched by any changes to any copywrite (sic) laws. Isn't freedom from copywrite one of GPL's main tenants? (sic)
Freedom from copyright is not a tenet of the GPL. The GPL relies on the fact that the work is copyrighted by the original authors, and that they have the right to place certain restrictions on their work. If there were no copyright laws, others could take the code which the author had written and put under GPL, incorporate it into their own code, and resell the result without letting anyone else see their work.
>> I don't know what country you're from, friend, but a fundamental tenet of American law is that the seriousness of a crime is not influenced by the nature of the victim. Jack Ruby was convicted of murder even though his victim assassinated the President of the United States. A crime is a crime, no matter who the victim is.
I don't know what *planet* you're from, but if you believe that a jury is not prejudiced^Winfluenced by the victim's circumstances, you've got some history books to read.
You are right, it *is* a central tenet, but human nature will always come first.
1) Product placement.
Look at the placement in movies, and look at the old-time radio shows. This way, you cannot edit out the advertisements--they are part of the entertainment.
2) Split-screen ads.
Notice how Oxygen puts a black bar at the bottom of the screen during the movie? It allows them to advertise at you while the show is playing. Once again, the ads are part of the broadcast.
3) Make the ads entertaining.
This is really product placement on steroids. Start with an ad and add enough content that people want to watch it. I remeber seeing an infomercial with Danny Bonaducci (sp?) that I loved watching, because he was so caustically entertaining. [Unfortunately for the advertiser, I no longer remember the product, but that's not the point.]
I would not be worried about the advertisers. They will find ways to get their product/crap/treasures in front of your eyes.
Who stands to make money from Linux being ported to the Xbox?
1) M$ would sell lots more Xboxen,
2) more people are likely to subscribe to the M$ games channel (or whatever you call it).
3) M$ could make money from the XBE developer licenses (I'm afraid I speak from ignorance here--this may not be the case.)
Since the anonymous donor seems to be so worried about the legality of the code, I seriously doubt that it is a hidden ploy by M$, thus I think that the potential downside must be more than that.
Q) Who else stands to gain money by Linux being ported to the Xbox? (Why would somebody be willing to spend $200,000 on this?)
A) Someone who is going to spend the money one way or another anyway, who is interested in some other revenue stream which will come from the Xbox.
Sony comes to mind, but not to the top of the list. They make money on their own hardware. They would really have no interest in making the Xbox a more attractive platform n any way.
A PVR or alternate service provider who want to use the platform for another purpose than gaming is a possibility, but not the top of the list again--why bother to get games going if you're just trying to sell a TV service?
What about a Linux O/S vendor? Red Hat, for example, could benefit from having a consumer platform which could run "their" software. Their recent game plan involves server software and consulting--I think they are not pursuing a mass-market approach.
A game vendor strikes me as being the likely candidate. One that already writes GNU/Linux games, and wants to broaden their reach to the Xbox, but doesn't want to be under M$'s thumb. They would have t write this code anyway, and their own IP would not be compromised. Anyone want to take a guess here? Who is the leader in this arena?
I am proud of the many slashdotters whose advice was to be nice and try to accomodate the neighbor. I assumed that most people would say "Tell 'em to ^$%* off." Thanks for restoring a bit of my faith in human nature.
The memory can be increased. From their tech specs page:
128MB SDRAM; two 168-pin DIMM slots support up to 1GB using 128MB, 256MB, or 512MB DIMMs
> Would you install a OS when it's creators tell you it is not secure? It is precisely *because* people are willing to accept that Linux (and no software) is totally secure, that I use it. Would you install an OS when it's creators tell you it IS secure, but they keep releasing "critical updates"?
The decision is based on the morally reasonable rules followed by WIPO.
A guy named "Peter Frampton" who set up the site for himself would not have had the domain taken from him.