The real problem (for me) isn't when installation takes a few steps, but when there's no driver at all. Go to the store and buy a new scanner, and it's extremely unlikely to be supported by linux.
It was unprecedented to have a large flare on an off year. It was unprecedented to have a second one. And now it's unprecedented to have a whole flurry of them within a week.
Well, it certainly puts to shame those naysayers who continue to insist that this is all just a natural phenomenon of some sort; that man is not to blame. You know the type, driving their SUVs to work at the coal factory. How many more "coincidences" will it take to convince them?!
There's never been a napster of books, so the analogy between books and music must be flawed.
What is the flaw? My guess is it's because you can't publish a book on a home computer. A real, bound book is quite different from a big stack of copy paper, and from reading onscreen. Music, on the other hand, comes from speakers regardless of whether it's read from a disc, or disk, or network, it's all the same.
Can anyone realy imagine a future 50 years down the road where anyone is interested in buying a piece of plastic with music on it?
Electronic transmission of text has been easilly available for several decades now, yet people still buy stacks of paper with words printed on them.
Is that a good example? 100 years ago newspaper WAS the media - the papers were to be feared. The movie "Citizen Kane" is about a newspaper baron. Today there is hardly such thing as a "newspaper baron," the business is hardly hip or profitable. This not where the music industry wants to go!
Anyways, just look how the napster craze hit music... not books, or music, or anything else. Even if we can't agree on an explanation for that, music is obviously in a uniquely vulnerable position.
Bluetooth spamming seems only of limited use; you have to get close enough to be able to send the message....
What might be more interesting is bluetooth viruses.
Sounds nice, but unless somebody invents VBScript attachments for cellphones we're probably safe - it's just text messaging. (Microsoft, if you're listening, please stay out of cellphones).
Maybe I don't understand. I thought bluetooth could only go like 15 feet, in which case spamming bluetooth would be less effective than just yelling "Cheap Viagra for sale! Get it while it's hot!"
I want a Hummer H-2 for free too, but can I whine and bitch and get one? I mean if I get one for free, I can make a lot of money leasing it out to people who want to use it for just going to the store on Fridays or to show off at the golf course on Wednesday.
I'm making money using free software, how DARE Redhat screw up my business model by actually expecting to get paid for their work! I want them to do something I am incapable of doing and give me the fruit of their labors for free, so I can make an unholy profit and retire in a year or two....
YOU have a faulty business model and now it is Redhat's fault? I fail to see the logic. There is NO free lunch, it is time to pay the piper, either in money, or by doing all that "work" of compiling the source yourself.
I am not flaming you because you make a fair point, but here is the irony: Redhat's business is selling Linux, and RedHat did not write linux! I know RedHat is a good contributor to linux, nevertheless RedHat did *not* write 95% of the programs RedHat sells! Without 'profiting from the fruit of others' labors for free,' RedHat wouldn't even be BeOS.
If Free RedHat == Fedora, why are they shaking things up with the name change? RedHat (not Fedora) is the most widespread Linux distro out there, discontinuing it looks bad. Apparently RedHat enjoyed a higher level of support from RedHat inc., which Fedora will not, so they're not the same.
It costs a lot of money to backport security/bug fixes to old releases for years on end. RedHat can't afford to be doing that for products that people download for free.
How can they avoid that? If they bugfix any GPL code (the linux kernel, gcc, etc...) they have to release it. And the Enterprise product must surely have a *longer* lifespan than the consumer version.
Why do you think the screen is unreadable, have you seen one? Or just because they didn't use fake "simulated" screenshots on their advertisement like most companies do? (and now I know why).
I know my old Palm V and now m515 are bigger than I'd like. And this new thing has has 3 times as many pixels as they do, and gets far better battery life than my m515 (I've decided the bigger battery and shorter battery life for a color screen on a PDA aren't worth it.)
Yeah, incompetence. I'm surprised not one person yet has pointed out the incompetence of Adobe for making a program that *appears* to remove information, while actually not doing so. It's deceptive, and a feature like that makes this sort of event almost unavoidable. (Of course in this case that's a GOOD thing, but still...)
I guess the credits didn't include the claim "no animals were harmed during the making of this movie"...:-(
But that disclaimer allways makes me wonder if the filmakers forcibly made the entire earth vegans for the duration of filming, AND prevented all accidental deaths such as roadkill...
I agree with your point. In fact preventing harm to animals is much harder than that, since almost all animals are harmed by... other hungry animals. That and starvation (life at carrying capacity ain't easy).
In the least, you would expect Google to expand more into other markets, with a portal like Yahoo, more appliances, or even web hosting (host on Google, get a bump in your search rating?).
This is the problem... a private company making a nice profit in a certain sized market goes public. Suddenly they have tons of money to spend on growing the business - somehow or other - even if they didn't really need the investment money in the first place. So they go off a spend a lot of money on a "Portal" or some other useless money waster that nobody wants (remember @home?) and pretty soon their bloated company can't be supported by their real business anymore. So they do desparate crap that ruins their core business and end up being bought out.
The example I was shown was that the registry was mapped to a drive, and you could navigate it like any other drive, with the results being returned from the commandlet as.NET objects!
I'm not sure what it means to return a.NET object to the shell, but I don't think MS deserves any credit for addressing a problem they created in the first place.
The "registry" should never have been anything but a directory heirarchy! Then it wouldn't have to be maniuplated with special tools. Why, why, why create a whole separate abstraction, add more junk to the win32 api, and special tools (regedit) just to do exactly what a filesystem already does? And now adding complication to complication with this shell extension, just to get back to how it should have been in the first place. Argh!
Fair enough, but I did specify the OS division for a certain period, not the entire company for a different period. Microsoft's cash cows feed the money-losing divisions: XBox, MSN, Windows CE, and business services. (They might as well spend it; with something like $40 Billion in the bank already, they can't justify witholding dividends from investors any more.) Funny how they have such trouble turning a buck on products when people have other choices.
EPIC scales better than RISC architectures. It does more work with a lower clock and fewer transistors. That means that it will ultimately result in a cooler, cheaper, smaller, faster CPU than anything else.
Doing more per clock isn't necessarily good if it pushes your clock speed too low. Itanium2 is only availble up to about 1.3 Ghz. As the article says, it's ironic that Intel should now lose the Mhz race.
Using fewer transistors is good for reducing heat and manufacturing costs, but the Itanium is neither cheap nor cool (130W!). In the performance arena, Moore's law is useless unless chip designers figure out how to use MORE transistors to compute more quickly. Otherwise there's nothing to do with all those transistors except... more cache?
Don't you know what "profit margin" means? The cost of advertising, developing software, etc. is why MS's 2002 OS profit margin was "only" 86%, instead of 100%. The profit is what's left over after you pay expenses.
Know why Ford doesn't offer 70% discounts to people considering a Chevy? Because they CAN'T. Their profit margin isn't that inflated in the first place. The main problem with monopolies is that they can charge whatever they want and people have to pay. No competitive business has 70% profit margins, like MS does.
Would you say anarchy promotes more freedom than any form of government?
As a part time anarcho-capitalist, I would. That you would think otherwise leads me to believe that you have misdefined the word. Perhaps you were thinking of "equality", "security", or "convenience" instead.
Nope, I was definitely thinking of "freedom." The ONLY way to posess complete freedom is to be a dictator. Otherwise you lose freedoms, like the freedom to kill people, or enslave them, or rape them. Anarchy preserves all these freedoms, but only for the strong, and the dictator is simply the strongest man in an anarchy.
Unfortunately some freedoms contradict each other. It's sad but true. Good laws take away less important freedoms from some to preserve more important freedoms for others - the law against slavery is a good example of this.
Would you say anarchy promotes more freedom than any form of government? I wouldn't. Stallman would say that the only freedom taken away by the GPL is the "freedom" to restrict others, kind of like the law against slavery. Does that law create more freedom, or less?
BSD-style freedom resulted in a bunch of incompatible proprietary variants, and the winner was... nobody, they all went down together.
People seem to like widescreen monitors. I can't figure out why. A 4:3 screen has 12.3% more surface area than a 16:9 screen with the same diagonal measurement, so perhaps "widescreen" should be called "shortscreen" instead. Is 12.3% alot? Maybe not, but then the difference between a 20" and 21" diagonal 4:3 screens is only 10.25% extra surface area, and people pay extra for that.
Also, the widescreen asymmetry means each pixel is on average further from the center of the screen. That means more eye and head movements are needed. Again, not a huge factor, but a disadvantage nonetheless... and what are the redeeming benefits? (Unless you're using the screen mainly for watching DVDs).
Slashdot Mirror
The real problem (for me) isn't when installation takes a few steps, but when there's no driver at all. Go to the store and buy a new scanner, and it's extremely unlikely to be supported by linux.
What is the flaw? My guess is it's because you can't publish a book on a home computer. A real, bound book is quite different from a big stack of copy paper, and from reading onscreen. Music, on the other hand, comes from speakers regardless of whether it's read from a disc, or disk, or network, it's all the same.
Anyways, just look how the napster craze hit music... not books, or music, or anything else. Even if we can't agree on an explanation for that, music is obviously in a uniquely vulnerable position.
Maybe I don't understand. I thought bluetooth could only go like 15 feet, in which case spamming bluetooth would be less effective than just yelling "Cheap Viagra for sale! Get it while it's hot!"
We've still got RMS :)
Why do you think the screen is unreadable, have you seen one? Or just because they didn't use fake "simulated" screenshots on their advertisement like most companies do? (and now I know why).
I would like to try one!
yup, it's Jason vs Freddie all over again... whoopie!
Yeah, incompetence. I'm surprised not one person yet has pointed out the incompetence of Adobe for making a program that *appears* to remove information, while actually not doing so. It's deceptive, and a feature like that makes this sort of event almost unavoidable. (Of course in this case that's a GOOD thing, but still...)
Maybe they're gamers. Those people tend to care a lot more about frame rate than loading time.
The "registry" should never have been anything but a directory heirarchy! Then it wouldn't have to be maniuplated with special tools. Why, why, why create a whole separate abstraction, add more junk to the win32 api, and special tools (regedit) just to do exactly what a filesystem already does? And now adding complication to complication with this shell extension, just to get back to how it should have been in the first place. Argh!
Fair enough, but I did specify the OS division for a certain period, not the entire company for a different period. Microsoft's cash cows feed the money-losing divisions: XBox, MSN, Windows CE, and business services. (They might as well spend it; with something like $40 Billion in the bank already, they can't justify witholding dividends from investors any more.) Funny how they have such trouble turning a buck on products when people have other choices.
Using fewer transistors is good for reducing heat and manufacturing costs, but the Itanium is neither cheap nor cool (130W!). In the performance arena, Moore's law is useless unless chip designers figure out how to use MORE transistors to compute more quickly. Otherwise there's nothing to do with all those transistors except... more cache?
Don't you know what "profit margin" means? The cost of advertising, developing software, etc. is why MS's 2002 OS profit margin was "only" 86%, instead of 100%. The profit is what's left over after you pay expenses.
Know why Ford doesn't offer 70% discounts to people considering a Chevy? Because they CAN'T. Their profit margin isn't that inflated in the first place. The main problem with monopolies is that they can charge whatever they want and people have to pay. No competitive business has 70% profit margins, like MS does.
Unfortunately some freedoms contradict each other. It's sad but true. Good laws take away less important freedoms from some to preserve more important freedoms for others - the law against slavery is a good example of this.
BSD-style freedom resulted in a bunch of incompatible proprietary variants, and the winner was... nobody, they all went down together.
Also, the widescreen asymmetry means each pixel is on average further from the center of the screen. That means more eye and head movements are needed. Again, not a huge factor, but a disadvantage nonetheless... and what are the redeeming benefits? (Unless you're using the screen mainly for watching DVDs).