I notice that the USB port is disabled when using POE... which kind of got me thinking - there are more uses for a USB port than attaching printer... how about a model that allows you to connect a cable/DSL modem via USB (many of the modems given away only have USB connections).
"Many in the business community and computer related industries do know what Unix is, what SCO is, and what Linux is; just because the old lady down the street doesn't know, doesn't mean that people who this effects don't know."
Yes, people in the business community that are affected by the virus know about these things. But they (probably) didn't write the virus. Does your 'average' script kiddie know about SCO, etc.? Clearly the person that wrote this virus does know these issues, and deliberately chose these targets. The question is, what are their motives? Is it a diversion from other activities, an attempt to tar the reputation of the Linux community, or a reprisal for SCO's activities?
Like any criminal act, there had to be a motive for the act. MyDoom singled out SCO and Microsoft for attacks - it isn't a stretch to say that is more than simply random coincidence.
There are many reasons why someone would choose to attack Microsoft, but SCO? Most people haven't even heard of SCO, let alone have a reason for attacking them.
Just maybe it is random coincidence, maybe it is just because SCO has had quite a bit of coverage on sites like Slashdot recently. But surely - to most people - it looks like someone either wanting to make it look like the Linux community, or is a Linux 'sympathiser', or is within the (greater) Linux community.
Of course the vast majority of Linux users have had nothing to do with it, and are horrified by what has happened. But it only needs one bad apple.
To sort of echo other comments, it is kind of typical of the BBC at the moment - the reporting may be woefully flawed, but there is a hint of a genuine story at the core of it.
But surely for runners, what is more important is the removal of moving parts, *not* that you need something smaller than a standard iPod?
I mean, that is what I see as the reason why people still buy the solid state devices, when you can get reasonably small, not much more expensive drive based units anyway.
Just as the battery issue has been (over) hyped recently, if the iPod Mini sells significant numbers to runners, what are the chances of complaints about skips, or damaged hard drives?
And there are other issues that don't get touched on. Ergonomics for one - I haven't tried it, but I fail to see how the combined button / scroll wheel offers good ergonomics. (Note that the touch buttons of the current iPods are *far* worse than the original button configuration).
And what about the fact that it uses a different dock connector? So all the existing peripherals don't work with the iPod mini. Media reader anyone? OK, the iPod mini is a bit short on space for photos, but with the increasing importance in digital photography, even if you don't need such a device now, wouldn't you rather spend a little bit more to have that flexibility in the future? (and that's not to mention the voice recorder and other dock based addons that are currently available for the iPod).
In some ways you are right. It isn't actually going to make too much difference to the consumers in practical terms. But there are a couple of problems.
1) What if they used a P4 2.2Ghz instead of an AMD Athlon 2200+? (for example). The performance is basically the same, but there are differences. What if there was a minute bug in the 9000 that caused problems in some circumstances, but was fixed in the 9200?
2) By advertising a 9200 instead of 9000, they are gaining an advantage over their competitors, because customers will equate it as getting something better. Is that fair on the other companies, or even on the consumers who may have purchased a different make with better support or cheaper price if they had been told precisely what they were getting?
Of course this difference doesn't really affect customers, and if you explain it to them, hardly any would consider it worth the expense and time to do anything about it. But that doesn't mean they should be allowed to get away with blatant false advertising.
Because a 300hp engine has a tangible benefit over the 100hp. AGP 8X versus AGP 4X doesn't really.
It's more like saying the fuel line is X wide when it is really Y wide - in most cases it doesn't matter how quickly the engine can be flooded with fuel, because the reduced rate is still enough to get the performance from the engine demanded by the situation.
You are right that most consumers don't need Dual 2Ghz G5's. But that doesn't make the cheapest Dell PC's the right choice either - even if it has the power to fulfil their actual needs.
Because I can point to many consumers that would choose to have a small, rugged laptop (with decent battery life). Or that would choose to have a flat panel screen. That would pay a bit extra to know that they can just plug their camera in without having to install drivers. To have firewire ports for their camcorders. For whom the iApps have 'value'. Who would actually just pay a bit more to have something that looks cool.
Those $399 Dell boxes are more suited as your 'bread and butter' business box - for people that type up letters and answer emails, and for whom graphics performance, sound, etc. are irrelevant.
Great if you want to run artificial benchmarks all day, not so great if you want to do some work.
Tests using 'real' applications are generally quite favourable to the G5, although some specific applications are significantly faster on PCs.
But then performance is as much reliant on the compiler as it is on the machine. PCs have had better optimizing compilers for longer, and chances are that people are using them. Tests of IBM's compiler for the PowerPCs have shown it much faster than other Mac compilers (ie. similar sort of performance boost from using GCC, as using Intel's processor is instead of GCC on the PC).
Of course, that's rather irrelevant to the user - what matters is real app performance. But as already said, that isn't looking too bad for the G5, and as the compilers progress and get used routinely, it's likely to get better for Macs (providing the hardware development keeps pace).
Apple does have a hard time competing at the lower end, but it's not quite as clear cut as posted.
For one thing, the DELL configured has some worse components than the Apple - video controller, gigabit ethernet, etc. Matching the configurations makes things closer, but but as long as you compare low-end PC towers to low-end Mac towers, Mac still comes off worse.
But then do you even need a tower if you are looking at that level of config? Start configuring those systems against an iMac or eMac (and matching the type of display - so that means flat panel on a DVI connection to compare to iMac), and the price gets a lot closer.
The big difference is that there are more options at the low-end on PCs. If you want a cheap box, with reasonable processing power, have no real interest in the display quality, and wish to connect it to an existing monitor, you can get it.
"By your definition, murderers and rapists can never be "brought to justice"...but that doesn't mean we let them go scot-free."
Correct. Any punishment given is NOT justice. But you do the next best thing you can - remove the problem from affecting others.
"But where is the justice in punishing somebody for something that didn't happen? Our system stands by the axiom "innocent until proven guilty" but pre-emptively limiting freedoms on the assumption (or statistical likelihood) that something will happen is not justice either."
Because society as a whole benefits greater than the few cases that are suffering an 'injustice'. Innocent until proved guilty applies to whether you have committed a crime - and so is still valid, it's not an argument as to whether something should be a crime or not. By your standards, no-one could ever have endangered anyone else's life unless they actually take it (or harm it in some fashion). Speeding, drink-driving, driving without a license, driving a vehicle that is unroadworthy, etc. would all be fair game, as the only way it could be proven that an individual case was actually dangerous is indeed when some harm has been caused by it. Would your conscious withstand the huge volume of injuries and deaths that would occur as a result?
"If only more drivers would understand that dashing around in a car is akin to wearing a loaded pistol on your hip. If you're not careful, it can hurt someone. But because it might happen is not a good reason to restrict guns or take them away, not is it a good reason to restrict cars."
The analogy between a car and a gun is quite a good one - something that I believe myself. But then I guess this where the difference between the US and UK comes into play. Because I treat a gun as a lethal weapon, and so is a car. Not everyone knows how to handle lethal weapon properly. In the UK at least, drivers are continually moaning about things like speed cameras - but how many drivers know how to handle speeds other than the standard speed limits correctly? How many really know the performance limits of their cars / tyres? And the consequences of getting that wrong - even at 30-35MPH - you might as well point a gun at someone and pull the trigger. Too many drivers *think* they can handle situations that they can't to take chances.
"Funny, I thought law was to protect our freedoms. You suggest law should pre-emptively limit our actions? How odd." "Punish crimes that actually occur not ones that might (or might not) potentially occur. If someone was intentionally distracting himself when he should have been fully absorbed in guiding a half-ton of speeding metal down a roadway and he hurts somebody, throw the freakin' book at him! Until them, leave him alone!"
I hope you find that of great comfort when you are lying in a hospital bed for months unable to move because someone thought the importance of their phone call and car journey were both higher than that of your health.
I have two problems with your comment. Firstly, it's the idea of 'justice'. We are supposed to have a system of 'justice'. If you can't put right the wrong after the event, then no amount of punishment can give 'justice'.
Secondly, you fall in to the same problem of many other drivers - "if I'm the only car in sight for miles" - do you really know what is around the next bend, over the next hill, approaching the next junction? And that is just dealing with cars. Of far more concern, what about the pedestrians that may be around, or other people's livelihood that you may have a devastating impact on (for example, if you crash into a farmer's field)? I am sick of drivers that think the only thing that matters are other vehicles on the road - I've lost count of the number of times I've nearly been run over by cars that have failed to indicate that they are about to turn when there are no other cars around.
Obviously because you want to stop accidents from occurring, rather than just punish people after the event.
It makes sense that drivers are banned from doing things that affect their ability to drive the car. But does that really need all these explicit laws about phones, laptops, etc.? There is a concept of 'dangerous driving' / 'driving without due care and attention'. Surely that by definition covers using phones, etc. I guess that the law is really only passed to bring attention to the fact that you can't do it, whereas previously it may have been considered that you could - that and to clarify the penalties imposed.
But the blanket 'front seat' ban is bizarre. How is a front seat passenger using a laptop causing more of a distraction than - say - having a conversation with the driver?
That 10th entry on the AdAge site... the one about American actors... and they do very specifically state American actors.
Now, take a look at the picture chosen to illustrate the point. Mr James Bond himself, the dashingly handsome (git) Pierce Brosnan. I'm sure the last time I looked, he was Irish.
"X-Lindows could show its roots from the x-windowing system. Would that "X" in front of Lindows protect them from Microsoft?"
Possibly.
"They never should have been able to trademark "Windows" in a computing context."
As others have pointed out, they didn't. They trademarked "Microsoft Windows". But that is only part of the story. Used in a certain context, most people would take the word "Windows" to mean Microsoft Windows (ie. the OS). As in "Comes installed with Windows", or "Runs all Windows software". People also associate "Windows" in that context with Microsoft.
If you see the word "Lindows" in an advert - in the context of a piece of software / OS - does the average person know that it is a version of Linux that is pre-configured to behave similarly to Windows, which has the ability to run some Windows software through a compatability layer, and that neither the basic OS or the compatability layer have nothing to do with Microsoft. Or do they think it is a typo because after all there is only ONE letter that is different in the two names?
Ruling against the use of the name Lindows is right, although not necessarily for (all) the reasons that Microsoft would cite.
Amusingly, people are tending to associate 'X' with all things Unix-y, and not really just X-Wiindow based systems - which is rather reinforced by the term "MacOS X". By that token, could the term "Windows XP" confuse people as to the heritage of the OS, and therefore be open to the same kind of legal challenge?
Let's first of all say I am no fan of spam. In fact, I hate it. All spammers - and virus writers - should be strung up and subjected to some real virii.
However, some of these statistics are possibly obscuring reality. For example, let's take Messagelabs anti-spam service. Until recently, all emails from WorldPay - receipts, etc. - were marked as spam. All the traffic on an email discussion list that I have signed up for are marked as spam. Some commercial email notification lists that I have signed up for (ie. Maplin offers) are marked as spam.
But none of those emails *are* spam. Admittedly, some spam emails do get through without being flagged. So maybe it's a bit 'swings and roundabouts'. And regardless, the situation is pretty depressing anyway.
One thing I have been thinking about - and just wondering whether it should be entered as an Ask Slashdot item - are some of the 'cures' as bad as the problem itself?
I work on biology / medicine journals websites, and we offer a number of automatic notification and general update services. Note that these are *not* spam - they are requested by individuals by signing up on the website - and instructions are given in every email in how to remove yourself from the list. And they are a very valuable service to many people that do choose to receive them. Yet it only takes 1 person to not bother to read or follow the removal instructions, or otherwise hit some other temporary (accidental) issue that holds up their removal, and then submit it to a blacklist service to bugger things up for many other people.
So where is the regulation on the blacklist services? Where is the ability for *genuine* (provably genuine) companies to register their services in such a way that rather than getting blacklisted immediately, they have the opportunity to respond to the issue raised? Is this a small or large price to pay to partially stem the tide of actual spam?
You see, the thing with statistics, is that they can be misused in any way you choose.
What do NetCraft's stats set out to show? The servers that are used to run various domains. Is this *meant* to be a reflection of what the *business* world is doing? Not really. If that's what they wanted, they would filter out the rest.
If you wanted to infer that the business world is using a particular server based on Netcraft's stats, then the flaw is in the use, not the statistics themselves.
Now, are Port80's stats any better? They feel a reflection of the business world is to ask the 'largest' 1000 companies - ie. the ones that both have the most cash to throw around, and sizable enough orders to push down licensing costs through volume orders - what they use. What with corporate stigma for using products backed by other large corporations, and a desire for platform standardisation as well, it's hardly surprising that IIS comes out on top. Does this reflect what the rest of the business world is - or should be - doing? And do the Port80 stats highlight any trends for migrating from one platform to another?
As I said - any statistic can be misused. That doesn't mean they are flawed. But if anything, Port80 misrepresent their own stats to a greater extent.
I still don't understand why the MPAA are getting involved.
If a studio sends out a screener, and it gets copied, then it is that studio that will suffer from the piracy.
So if a studio doesn't want their screener to be pirated, then they have a simple choice to make - either put more controls on the distribution of their screener, or not distribute one at all.
The studios can make their own decisions as to what is important to them - so why does an industry body have to get involved?
IMHO, the only reason an industry body should ban screeners (or other types of promotion) is if (smaller) studios can't afford to promote their films, and so create a level playing field. Otherwise the studios are perfectly capable of making their own decisions.
A G4 tower is cheaper than the G5's... but it is still a 'full spec' tower in all but the speed of processor.
That means a highly engineered solution, space for dual processors (even if there is only one in there), lots of hard drive space, multiple PCI card slots...
For x86, you can get small barebones systems (ie. Shuttle) that have fairly decent MBs (ie. Intel, VIA or nVidia chipsets), with just enough room for a hard drive, optical drive, 1 AGP and 1 PCI card.
That's what is needed - a small G4 with limited expandability, but no built-in monitor. Such a solution would be cheaper than the current G4 towers.
Depends on what you are looking for... G5 towers aren't particularly expensive compared to quality, high-spec desktop PCs... iBooks and PowerBooks aren't particularly expensive compared to 'good' x86 laptops...
Certainly, depending on what you are compared to compromise on, you can get cheaper x86 boxes. And, unfortunately, there are no mid-spec, limited upgradable headless Mac desktops (ie. think iMac-esque, without monitor).
As a PC owner, I built my own and was forever tinkering... so it's just as cheap - if not more so - to buy a Mac and use it for two / three years without tinkering.
"Everytime the government purchases a license, they are directly supporting Microsoft."
I realise that governments buy licenses, and therefore financially support the company they purchase from. That's why I said 'directly' - to try and make a distinction between purchasing a boxed product, and paying someone to follow their specifications.
Slashdot Mirror
I notice that the USB port is disabled when using POE... which kind of got me thinking - there are more uses for a USB port than attaching printer... how about a model that allows you to connect a cable/DSL modem via USB (many of the modems given away only have USB connections).
1) Industry forcing botched copy-protection on to CDs, so they don't work on my perfectly 'normal' CD player.
2) High cost of CDs.
3) Industry trying to stamp on the global market that helps reduce the above problems.
4) Complete crap being produced by the industry.
5) Nowhere to store them.
6) Plenty of better things to spend my money on?
How many tracks (not just albums - individual tracks), did I copy in the whole year? How many did I download?
None.
Tachy ;-)
"Many in the business community and computer related industries do know what Unix is, what SCO is, and what Linux is; just because the old lady down the street doesn't know, doesn't mean that people who this effects don't know."
Yes, people in the business community that are affected by the virus know about these things. But they (probably) didn't write the virus. Does your 'average' script kiddie know about SCO, etc.? Clearly the person that wrote this virus does know these issues, and deliberately chose these targets. The question is, what are their motives? Is it a diversion from other activities, an attempt to tar the reputation of the Linux community, or a reprisal for SCO's activities?
But then Linux advocate != Linux zealot.
Like any criminal act, there had to be a motive for the act. MyDoom singled out SCO and Microsoft for attacks - it isn't a stretch to say that is more than simply random coincidence.
There are many reasons why someone would choose to attack Microsoft, but SCO? Most people haven't even heard of SCO, let alone have a reason for attacking them.
Just maybe it is random coincidence, maybe it is just because SCO has had quite a bit of coverage on sites like Slashdot recently. But surely - to most people - it looks like someone either wanting to make it look like the Linux community, or is a Linux 'sympathiser', or is within the (greater) Linux community.
Of course the vast majority of Linux users have had nothing to do with it, and are horrified by what has happened. But it only needs one bad apple.
To sort of echo other comments, it is kind of typical of the BBC at the moment - the reporting may be woefully flawed, but there is a hint of a genuine story at the core of it.
But surely for runners, what is more important is the removal of moving parts, *not* that you need something smaller than a standard iPod?
I mean, that is what I see as the reason why people still buy the solid state devices, when you can get reasonably small, not much more expensive drive based units anyway.
Just as the battery issue has been (over) hyped recently, if the iPod Mini sells significant numbers to runners, what are the chances of complaints about skips, or damaged hard drives?
And there are other issues that don't get touched on. Ergonomics for one - I haven't tried it, but I fail to see how the combined button / scroll wheel offers good ergonomics. (Note that the touch buttons of the current iPods are *far* worse than the original button configuration).
And what about the fact that it uses a different dock connector? So all the existing peripherals don't work with the iPod mini. Media reader anyone? OK, the iPod mini is a bit short on space for photos, but with the increasing importance in digital photography, even if you don't need such a device now, wouldn't you rather spend a little bit more to have that flexibility in the future? (and that's not to mention the voice recorder and other dock based addons that are currently available for the iPod).
Hmmm.... the Beagle worm... surely it can't do that much damage... it probably just crashes on entry....
I think you'll find it is a bit of humour (as much as anything else)...
Think about certain comments made in the not so distant past about Apple, HP, and the use of AAC...
In some ways you are right. It isn't actually going to make too much difference to the consumers in practical terms. But there are a couple of problems.
1) What if they used a P4 2.2Ghz instead of an AMD Athlon 2200+? (for example). The performance is basically the same, but there are differences. What if there was a minute bug in the 9000 that caused problems in some circumstances, but was fixed in the 9200?
2) By advertising a 9200 instead of 9000, they are gaining an advantage over their competitors, because customers will equate it as getting something better. Is that fair on the other companies, or even on the consumers who may have purchased a different make with better support or cheaper price if they had been told precisely what they were getting?
Of course this difference doesn't really affect customers, and if you explain it to them, hardly any would consider it worth the expense and time to do anything about it. But that doesn't mean they should be allowed to get away with blatant false advertising.
You are right, it is a bad analogy.
Because a 300hp engine has a tangible benefit over the 100hp. AGP 8X versus AGP 4X doesn't really.
It's more like saying the fuel line is X wide when it is really Y wide - in most cases it doesn't matter how quickly the engine can be flooded with fuel, because the reduced rate is still enough to get the performance from the engine demanded by the situation.
That's not quite what I was saying.
You are right that most consumers don't need Dual 2Ghz G5's. But that doesn't make the cheapest Dell PC's the right choice either - even if it has the power to fulfil their actual needs.
Because I can point to many consumers that would choose to have a small, rugged laptop (with decent battery life). Or that would choose to have a flat panel screen. That would pay a bit extra to know that they can just plug their camera in without having to install drivers. To have firewire ports for their camcorders. For whom the iApps have 'value'. Who would actually just pay a bit more to have something that looks cool.
Those $399 Dell boxes are more suited as your 'bread and butter' business box - for people that type up letters and answer emails, and for whom graphics performance, sound, etc. are irrelevant.
Great if you want to run artificial benchmarks all day, not so great if you want to do some work.
Tests using 'real' applications are generally quite favourable to the G5, although some specific applications are significantly faster on PCs.
But then performance is as much reliant on the compiler as it is on the machine. PCs have had better optimizing compilers for longer, and chances are that people are using them. Tests of IBM's compiler for the PowerPCs have shown it much faster than other Mac compilers (ie. similar sort of performance boost from using GCC, as using Intel's processor is instead of GCC on the PC).
Of course, that's rather irrelevant to the user - what matters is real app performance. But as already said, that isn't looking too bad for the G5, and as the compilers progress and get used routinely, it's likely to get better for Macs (providing the hardware development keeps pace).
Apple does have a hard time competing at the lower end, but it's not quite as clear cut as posted.
For one thing, the DELL configured has some worse components than the Apple - video controller, gigabit ethernet, etc. Matching the configurations makes things closer, but but as long as you compare low-end PC towers to low-end Mac towers, Mac still comes off worse.
But then do you even need a tower if you are looking at that level of config? Start configuring those systems against an iMac or eMac (and matching the type of display - so that means flat panel on a DVI connection to compare to iMac), and the price gets a lot closer.
The big difference is that there are more options at the low-end on PCs. If you want a cheap box, with reasonable processing power, have no real interest in the display quality, and wish to connect it to an existing monitor, you can get it.
"By your definition, murderers and rapists can never be "brought to justice"...but that doesn't mean we let them go scot-free."
Correct. Any punishment given is NOT justice. But you do the next best thing you can - remove the problem from affecting others.
"But where is the justice in punishing somebody for something that didn't happen? Our system stands by the axiom "innocent until proven guilty" but pre-emptively limiting freedoms on the assumption (or statistical likelihood) that something will happen is not justice either."
Because society as a whole benefits greater than the few cases that are suffering an 'injustice'. Innocent until proved guilty applies to whether you have committed a crime - and so is still valid, it's not an argument as to whether something should be a crime or not. By your standards, no-one could ever have endangered anyone else's life unless they actually take it (or harm it in some fashion). Speeding, drink-driving, driving without a license, driving a vehicle that is unroadworthy, etc. would all be fair game, as the only way it could be proven that an individual case was actually dangerous is indeed when some harm has been caused by it. Would your conscious withstand the huge volume of injuries and deaths that would occur as a result?
"If only more drivers would understand that dashing around in a car is akin to wearing a loaded pistol on your hip. If you're not careful, it can hurt someone. But because it might happen is not a good reason to restrict guns or take them away, not is it a good reason to restrict cars."
The analogy between a car and a gun is quite a good one - something that I believe myself. But then I guess this where the difference between the US and UK comes into play. Because I treat a gun as a lethal weapon, and so is a car. Not everyone knows how to handle lethal weapon properly. In the UK at least, drivers are continually moaning about things like speed cameras - but how many drivers know how to handle speeds other than the standard speed limits correctly? How many really know the performance limits of their cars / tyres? And the consequences of getting that wrong - even at 30-35MPH - you might as well point a gun at someone and pull the trigger. Too many drivers *think* they can handle situations that they can't to take chances.
"Funny, I thought law was to protect our freedoms. You suggest law should pre-emptively limit our actions? How odd."
"Punish crimes that actually occur not ones that might (or might not) potentially occur. If someone was intentionally distracting himself when he should have been fully absorbed in guiding a half-ton of speeding metal down a roadway and he hurts somebody, throw the freakin' book at him! Until them, leave him alone!"
I hope you find that of great comfort when you are lying in a hospital bed for months unable to move because someone thought the importance of their phone call and car journey were both higher than that of your health.
I have two problems with your comment. Firstly, it's the idea of 'justice'. We are supposed to have a system of 'justice'. If you can't put right the wrong after the event, then no amount of punishment can give 'justice'.
Secondly, you fall in to the same problem of many other drivers - "if I'm the only car in sight for miles" - do you really know what is around the next bend, over the next hill, approaching the next junction? And that is just dealing with cars. Of far more concern, what about the pedestrians that may be around, or other people's livelihood that you may have a devastating impact on (for example, if you crash into a farmer's field)? I am sick of drivers that think the only thing that matters are other vehicles on the road - I've lost count of the number of times I've nearly been run over by cars that have failed to indicate that they are about to turn when there are no other cars around.
Obviously because you want to stop accidents from occurring, rather than just punish people after the event.
It makes sense that drivers are banned from doing things that affect their ability to drive the car. But does that really need all these explicit laws about phones, laptops, etc.? There is a concept of 'dangerous driving' / 'driving without due care and attention'. Surely that by definition covers using phones, etc. I guess that the law is really only passed to bring attention to the fact that you can't do it, whereas previously it may have been considered that you could - that and to clarify the penalties imposed.
But the blanket 'front seat' ban is bizarre. How is a front seat passenger using a laptop causing more of a distraction than - say - having a conversation with the driver?
That 10th entry on the AdAge site... the one about American actors... and they do very specifically state American actors.
Now, take a look at the picture chosen to illustrate the point. Mr James Bond himself, the dashingly handsome (git) Pierce Brosnan. I'm sure the last time I looked, he was Irish.
"X-Lindows could show its roots from the x-windowing system. Would that "X" in front of Lindows protect them from Microsoft?"
Possibly.
"They never should have been able to trademark "Windows" in a computing context."
As others have pointed out, they didn't. They trademarked "Microsoft Windows". But that is only part of the story. Used in a certain context, most people would take the word "Windows" to mean Microsoft Windows (ie. the OS). As in "Comes installed with Windows", or "Runs all Windows software". People also associate "Windows" in that context with Microsoft.
If you see the word "Lindows" in an advert - in the context of a piece of software / OS - does the average person know that it is a version of Linux that is pre-configured to behave similarly to Windows, which has the ability to run some Windows software through a compatability layer, and that neither the basic OS or the compatability layer have nothing to do with Microsoft. Or do they think it is a typo because after all there is only ONE letter that is different in the two names?
Ruling against the use of the name Lindows is right, although not necessarily for (all) the reasons that Microsoft would cite.
Amusingly, people are tending to associate 'X' with all things Unix-y, and not really just X-Wiindow based systems - which is rather reinforced by the term "MacOS X". By that token, could the term "Windows XP" confuse people as to the heritage of the OS, and therefore be open to the same kind of legal challenge?
Let's first of all say I am no fan of spam. In fact, I hate it. All spammers - and virus writers - should be strung up and subjected to some real virii.
However, some of these statistics are possibly obscuring reality. For example, let's take Messagelabs anti-spam service. Until recently, all emails from WorldPay - receipts, etc. - were marked as spam. All the traffic on an email discussion list that I have signed up for are marked as spam. Some commercial email notification lists that I have signed up for (ie. Maplin offers) are marked as spam.
But none of those emails *are* spam. Admittedly, some spam emails do get through without being flagged. So maybe it's a bit 'swings and roundabouts'. And regardless, the situation is pretty depressing anyway.
One thing I have been thinking about - and just wondering whether it should be entered as an Ask Slashdot item - are some of the 'cures' as bad as the problem itself?
I work on biology / medicine journals websites, and we offer a number of automatic notification and general update services. Note that these are *not* spam - they are requested by individuals by signing up on the website - and instructions are given in every email in how to remove yourself from the list. And they are a very valuable service to many people that do choose to receive them. Yet it only takes 1 person to not bother to read or follow the removal instructions, or otherwise hit some other temporary (accidental) issue that holds up their removal, and then submit it to a blacklist service to bugger things up for many other people.
So where is the regulation on the blacklist services? Where is the ability for *genuine* (provably genuine) companies to register their services in such a way that rather than getting blacklisted immediately, they have the opportunity to respond to the issue raised? Is this a small or large price to pay to partially stem the tide of actual spam?
You see, the thing with statistics, is that they can be misused in any way you choose.
What do NetCraft's stats set out to show? The servers that are used to run various domains. Is this *meant* to be a reflection of what the *business* world is doing? Not really. If that's what they wanted, they would filter out the rest.
If you wanted to infer that the business world is using a particular server based on Netcraft's stats, then the flaw is in the use, not the statistics themselves.
Now, are Port80's stats any better? They feel a reflection of the business world is to ask the 'largest' 1000 companies - ie. the ones that both have the most cash to throw around, and sizable enough orders to push down licensing costs through volume orders - what they use. What with corporate stigma for using products backed by other large corporations, and a desire for platform standardisation as well, it's hardly surprising that IIS comes out on top. Does this reflect what the rest of the business world is - or should be - doing? And do the Port80 stats highlight any trends for migrating from one platform to another?
As I said - any statistic can be misused. That doesn't mean they are flawed. But if anything, Port80 misrepresent their own stats to a greater extent.
I still don't understand why the MPAA are getting involved.
If a studio sends out a screener, and it gets copied, then it is that studio that will suffer from the piracy.
So if a studio doesn't want their screener to be pirated, then they have a simple choice to make - either put more controls on the distribution of their screener, or not distribute one at all.
The studios can make their own decisions as to what is important to them - so why does an industry body have to get involved?
IMHO, the only reason an industry body should ban screeners (or other types of promotion) is if (smaller) studios can't afford to promote their films, and so create a level playing field. Otherwise the studios are perfectly capable of making their own decisions.
A G4 tower is cheaper than the G5's... but it is still a 'full spec' tower in all but the speed of processor.
That means a highly engineered solution, space for dual processors (even if there is only one in there), lots of hard drive space, multiple PCI card slots...
For x86, you can get small barebones systems (ie. Shuttle) that have fairly decent MBs (ie. Intel, VIA or nVidia chipsets), with just enough room for a hard drive, optical drive, 1 AGP and 1 PCI card.
That's what is needed - a small G4 with limited expandability, but no built-in monitor. Such a solution would be cheaper than the current G4 towers.
"Macs are expensive"
Depends on what you are looking for... G5 towers aren't particularly expensive compared to quality, high-spec desktop PCs... iBooks and PowerBooks aren't particularly expensive compared to 'good' x86 laptops...
Certainly, depending on what you are compared to compromise on, you can get cheaper x86 boxes. And, unfortunately, there are no mid-spec, limited upgradable headless Mac desktops (ie. think iMac-esque, without monitor).
As a PC owner, I built my own and was forever tinkering... so it's just as cheap - if not more so - to buy a Mac and use it for two / three years without tinkering.
And of course they are bound to make a sequel...
"Everytime the government purchases a license, they are directly supporting Microsoft."
I realise that governments buy licenses, and therefore financially support the company they purchase from. That's why I said 'directly' - to try and make a distinction between purchasing a boxed product, and paying someone to follow their specifications.