A justice system where money buys you more justice is bad, but it's better than the alternative of a system where who you know gets more justice
Hmm, I don't see the difference.
A system where money buys you more justice, and a system where you buy friends (*cough*IranContra*cough*Halliburton*cough**cough* ) to get you said justice (however wrong your perception of said justice may be)?
Have you ever considered a system where objective application of the laws is the primary objective of the courts? No? Why not?
Sadly, although the idea behind it is rather good, they also became victim to the propaganda about Flash being perfect for showing movies. I think it speaks against that propaganda that I get to view these movies as "3 seconds video, 3 seconds pause, 3 seconds video, 3 seconds pause". That's not streaming as I know it.
(and before you funsters tell me to get a faster internet connection, this is a 100MB which goes directly - just one hop - into this country's 2.5GB backbone, and even without that with a download I could have watched it without those pauses).
I find it mildly disgusting that people talk about copyright, when all they really want is to not give you the right to copy at all. Incidently some of those people are the ones behind such stupid words as "copyleft".
Remember, the copyright is a right for the consumer to copy what he bought from content providers (publishers, be it books, audio or video) under certain circumstances (yes, that's what is called "fair use"). Denying the consumer this right has nothing to do with the original meaning of the word and should therefore be named something else. How about "monopolised content" or something to that effect, because that is what we are going to get (and are already getting, un-cd anybody?).
Of course, if someone insists on a Windows enviroment, you probably can use something like Citrix for the exact same thing. Don't know how much Citrix demands of the client computers, though.
Well, it's not what the Citrix client demands, it's more what Microsoft demands. Regardless of the operating system running on that client, Microsoft demands a full Windows 2000 license on each terminal server client. And since Citrix is just additional technology on top of Windows Terminal Server, this applies to Citrix as well.
This is (in my eyes) one of the big three reasons why Citrix hasn't got the market penetration that it may deserve. The others are Windows as an inherently singleuser operating system tweaked to do multiuser stuff, and the exorbitant hardware requirements on the server side (at least if you compare it to Unix. Any Unix).
When you shut the alternatives people have no choice but to buy music from RIAA members.
BZZT, wrong. Funny enough that are the same mistakes(!) the RIAA makes.
1. Not all music sold is controlled by the RIAA. To (US) americans it might seem like it, but there are actually big countries, even continents outside the United States. Yes, I know this will probably get this post stamped as flamebait, but it's the simple truth, live with it.
2. There is always the alternative to simply not buy. I find it increasingly funny that this case is always forgotten by so-called economists.
What I'd like to see is for more musicians to realize that this whole P2P business is a win-win situation for them - they can give the fans what they want for little to no cost, and they get non-fans to buy their records (what other businesses call try-before-you-buy). The only losing part here is the record company (and even that can be argued), and that is why the RIAA tries to shut down everybody else.
I think (or rather I like to think) that the "winning format" will be decided by something else entirely, namely how it will be controlled. I'm not one of those who stopped buying CDs just because I now have a truckload of MP3s and an ipod (hehe, just kidding), I just buy different CDs, and I check that they are real CDs before I buy them (Liam Lynch comes to mind. Nice music, chose to release them on an un-CD which is unplayable on everything I play my CDs on, so I didn't buy it).
So, as long as DVDs are "protected" by easily avoidable encryption they have any right-to-live they want. If the encryption gets tightened so people have to buy DVD players from the same company that releases those DVDs, they are doomed. Likewise broadband video, as long as they come as more or less clean MPEG streams it'll have a chance. Add DRM, or even just the need for a certain OS (no, not only Microsoft makes these mistakes), it'll die before even reaching momentum.
By the way. having just had to use some real videoconferencing equipment (which is very nice and dandy) over a lossy network (read ISDN through a noname-piece-of-crap-PABX) I can tell you the days of uninterrupted media streaming are not here yet by far. Now don't tell me your ADSL (or whatever) service is any better, because it isn't. So ask me again in five years or so:)
Oh, and can't forget piracy. Piracy is a) not an argument, since piracy will exist anyway, and b) not only unavoidable but in certain cases even wanted by the corporations who make the products being pirated. You hopefully don't really believe Microsoft got where they are today by way of making superior products:)
This is one reason I do not trust postfix. Bugs just don't happen. Bad programmers just happen.
Strangely, the same kind of people who post stuff like this (anonymously nonetheless) are saying djbdns is bugfree. DJB is a better programmer than Wietse Venema exactly how and why?
In his (Wietse's) own words: "I consider myself to be a very cautious programmer, so I guess my code hasn't more than about one bug per 10000 lines." (he said that when he spoke at SANE98, presenting postfix (then still called vmail) and probably numerous other times). I think this is quite good because humans are after all just that, human. Even DJB, as much as he wants to show the world he's a machine.
On the other hand, has DJB fixed the numerous bugs in qmail that violate RFC821 and RFC822 (hey, these are only 22 years old by now)? For example something as trivial as the timezone bug? If not, I think DJB is a Bad Programmer (tm) and nothing you can say can get me from that.
Regarding djbdns, it might be a good package, but since I am not allowed to change it, it's as useful to me as, say, Microsoft Word would be for the same purpose. I think it has to do with his ego, because who knows, somebody might take his code and make it both readable AND functional:)
"BARELY LEGAL" you write... you must be from the land of the free, home of the brave, where spamming is a way of life.
In other parts of the world, spam is a crime, and you might even have to go to jail for spamming.
No wonder more than 80% of the spam is coming from the United States.
Now wouldn't that be great, IBM counter-sues SCO for breach of the GPL:)
Seriously though, I doubt anything like this will happen. As has been pointed out in other places, SCO is the sacrificial lamb on another company's PR altar. That other company is in breach of a court agreement when they fund SCO's suicidal behaviour, but what the heck, they can't be accused of the same crime twice. Or can they?
Well, for me it would be nice if they chose a solution that works for a change. I've seen it happen again and again (and the last time it really hurt, because it was the infrastructure I built that was replaced): good, working, practical and well-performing systems are replaced with that moloch called Exchange, which some hype-believers want to throw money at. Never mind the hardware cost - so what if the working solution is running on four year old hardware, we need that multi-gigahertz monster with over a gig of RAM. Never mind the "old" solution outperforming the new, shiny Exchange server by a factor of four, even if it is running in a fifth of the memory required for Exchange. Never mind that people are not grasping the way they have to book meetings now, while the PHP-based open source solution (MRBS) didn't even have to be explained.
Sorry. I'm ranting again. But it still hurts.
BTW. in addition to what it did when it was our main mail server, the old box is now our web cache (running squid) and the dynamic DNS server needed for Active Directory. And it still hosts the mailinglists and switches every non-internal mail, while the Exchange box throws a fit everytime we try to do a mailbox-level backup. So, in the end open source wins again.
a) combining everything into one button sucks. And it is usually only done to save money.
b) their website clearly demonstrates the problem all car producers have with computers - they just don't understand them. What's so difficult about creating a website that I can view? I'm even using a graphical browser for goodness sake... (Opera, if you must know).
As long as they don't understand that, they can stuff their iDrive^W^W^Wjust forget it. But hey, what did you expect from a car manufacturer that combines the reliability of italian cars with the prices of german cars (and the look of japanese cars).
Slashdot Mirror
Must have been that pesky Charlie Root, doing something he calls "running cron jobs". Yeah, right, as if anybody would run anything at night :)
A justice system where money buys you more justice is bad, but it's better than the alternative of a system where who you know gets more justice
* ) to get you said justice (however wrong your perception of said justice may be)?
Hmm, I don't see the difference.
A system where money buys you more justice, and a system where you buy friends (*cough*IranContra*cough*Halliburton*cough**cough
Have you ever considered a system where objective application of the laws is the primary objective of the courts? No? Why not?
>In a world where they're cloning dinosaurs, I think it's perfectly acceptible for them to also have unrealistic technology.
Especially their version of Unix.
Uhm, you mean like Irix running on a Sun? (* shuffles swiftly back into his hole *)
Sadly, although the idea behind it is rather good, they also became victim to the propaganda about Flash being perfect for showing movies. I think it speaks against that propaganda that I get to view these movies as "3 seconds video, 3 seconds pause, 3 seconds video, 3 seconds pause". That's not streaming as I know it. (and before you funsters tell me to get a faster internet connection, this is a 100MB which goes directly - just one hop - into this country's 2.5GB backbone, and even without that with a download I could have watched it without those pauses).
I find it mildly disgusting that people talk about copyright, when all they really want is to not give you the right to copy at all. Incidently some of those people are the ones behind such stupid words as "copyleft".
Remember, the copyright is a right for the consumer to copy what he bought from content providers (publishers, be it books, audio or video) under certain circumstances (yes, that's what is called "fair use"). Denying the consumer this right has nothing to do with the original meaning of the word and should therefore be named something else. How about "monopolised content" or something to that effect, because that is what we are going to get (and are already getting, un-cd anybody?).
This is (in my eyes) one of the big three reasons why Citrix hasn't got the market penetration that it may deserve. The others are Windows as an inherently singleuser operating system tweaked to do multiuser stuff, and the exorbitant hardware requirements on the server side (at least if you compare it to Unix. Any Unix).
When you shut the alternatives people have no choice but to buy music from RIAA members.
BZZT, wrong. Funny enough that are the same mistakes(!) the RIAA makes.
1. Not all music sold is controlled by the RIAA. To (US) americans it might seem like it, but there are actually big countries, even continents outside the United States. Yes, I know this will probably get this post stamped as flamebait, but it's the simple truth, live with it.
2. There is always the alternative to simply not buy. I find it increasingly funny that this case is always forgotten by so-called economists.
What I'd like to see is for more musicians to realize that this whole P2P business is a win-win situation for them - they can give the fans what they want for little to no cost, and they get non-fans to buy their records (what other businesses call try-before-you-buy). The only losing part here is the record company (and even that can be argued), and that is why the RIAA tries to shut down everybody else.
Oh, and of course the old "because we can".
I think (or rather I like to think) that the "winning format" will be decided by something else entirely, namely how it will be controlled. I'm not one of those who stopped buying CDs just because I now have a truckload of MP3s and an ipod (hehe, just kidding), I just buy different CDs, and I check that they are real CDs before I buy them (Liam Lynch comes to mind. Nice music, chose to release them on an un-CD which is unplayable on everything I play my CDs on, so I didn't buy it).
So, as long as DVDs are "protected" by easily avoidable encryption they have any right-to-live they want. If the encryption gets tightened so people have to buy DVD players from the same company that releases those DVDs, they are doomed. Likewise broadband video, as long as they come as more or less clean MPEG streams it'll have a chance. Add DRM, or even just the need for a certain OS (no, not only Microsoft makes these mistakes), it'll die before even reaching momentum.
By the way. having just had to use some real videoconferencing equipment (which is very nice and dandy) over a lossy network (read ISDN through a noname-piece-of-crap-PABX) I can tell you the days of uninterrupted media streaming are not here yet by far. Now don't tell me your ADSL (or whatever) service is any better, because it isn't. So ask me again in five years or so :)
Oh, and can't forget piracy. Piracy is a) not an argument, since piracy will exist anyway, and b) not only unavoidable but in certain cases even wanted by the corporations who make the products being pirated. You hopefully don't really believe Microsoft got where they are today by way of making superior products :)
This is one reason I do not trust postfix. Bugs just don't happen. Bad programmers just happen. :)
Strangely, the same kind of people who post stuff like this (anonymously nonetheless) are saying djbdns is bugfree. DJB is a better programmer than Wietse Venema exactly how and why?
In his (Wietse's) own words: "I consider myself to be a very cautious programmer, so I guess my code hasn't more than about one bug per 10000 lines." (he said that when he spoke at SANE98, presenting postfix (then still called vmail) and probably numerous other times). I think this is quite good because humans are after all just that, human. Even DJB, as much as he wants to show the world he's a machine.
On the other hand, has DJB fixed the numerous bugs in qmail that violate RFC821 and RFC822 (hey, these are only 22 years old by now)? For example something as trivial as the timezone bug? If not, I think DJB is a Bad Programmer (tm) and nothing you can say can get me from that.
Regarding djbdns, it might be a good package, but since I am not allowed to change it, it's as useful to me as, say, Microsoft Word would be for the same purpose. I think it has to do with his ego, because who knows, somebody might take his code and make it both readable AND functional
"BARELY LEGAL" you write... you must be from the land of the free, home of the brave, where spamming is a way of life. In other parts of the world, spam is a crime, and you might even have to go to jail for spamming. No wonder more than 80% of the spam is coming from the United States.
Now wouldn't that be great, IBM counter-sues SCO for breach of the GPL :)
Seriously though, I doubt anything like this will happen. As has been pointed out in other places, SCO is the sacrificial lamb on another company's PR altar. That other company is in breach of a court agreement when they fund SCO's suicidal behaviour, but what the heck, they can't be accused of the same crime twice. Or can they?
Well, for me it would be nice if they chose a solution that works for a change. I've seen it happen again and again (and the last time it really hurt, because it was the infrastructure I built that was replaced): good, working, practical and well-performing systems are replaced with that moloch called Exchange, which some hype-believers want to throw money at. Never mind the hardware cost - so what if the working solution is running on four year old hardware, we need that multi-gigahertz monster with over a gig of RAM. Never mind the "old" solution outperforming the new, shiny Exchange server by a factor of four, even if it is running in a fifth of the memory required for Exchange. Never mind that people are not grasping the way they have to book meetings now, while the PHP-based open source solution (MRBS) didn't even have to be explained.
Sorry. I'm ranting again. But it still hurts.
BTW. in addition to what it did when it was our main mail server, the old box is now our web cache (running squid) and the dynamic DNS server needed for Active Directory. And it still hosts the mailinglists and switches every non-internal mail, while the Exchange box throws a fit everytime we try to do a mailbox-level backup. So, in the end open source wins again.
a) combining everything into one button sucks. And it is usually only done to save money.
b) their website clearly demonstrates the problem all car producers have with computers - they just don't understand them. What's so difficult about creating a website that I can view? I'm even using a graphical browser for goodness sake... (Opera, if you must know).
As long as they don't understand that, they can stuff their iDrive^W^W^Wjust forget it. But hey, what did you expect from a car manufacturer that combines the reliability of italian cars with the prices of german cars (and the look of japanese cars).