Obviously the slashdotters are not going to embrace some new DRM-based format. But how about the general public? Anyone feel like they've got a handle on the prevailing opinion? I do recall Circuit City's foray into DIVX DVD's (not the codec) which was not well received at all and ultimately failed. One hopes this initiative is for an unencumbered format (yeah, right) and dies the same way.
No kidding. Everyone knows that you should have cheese curds and gravy on fries, as God intended.
Mmmm... You from Canada? I went up there many years ago for a ski trip, got some of those (I forget what they called them -- it was french -- something fromage...) and promptly fell in love with the dish.
Back in the states, I would make attempts to procure them in places that seemed cooperative and had the right ingredients. Boy, talk about some funny looks...
Of course with all the gravy and melted cheese, they are very hot at first, and there you have a chip cooling problem. I'm on topic now, HAH!!;)
When CAD came along, did the architects get paid less? Nope. They just do more with better technology...
The point isn't at all to get paid less. It's to get paid roughly the same rate and be more productive. There is plenty of work to be done programming computers, and I'd like to get to some of it instead of wasting my time with licensing issues and who owns what.
Doing an Office2000 install... MS now uses a 25 character license key. Good god folks, what next, 50 chars? 100? Will we soon hafta punch our entire genetic code into the damn license key box?? If only outfits like MS would spend a little more time working on their OS'es and apps, maybe they wouldn't hafta worry so much about protecting their revenues. (grumble grumble...)
If that's the most idiotic thing you've read on slashdot, you must not visit often.;-)
And quite frankly the older versions of SCO do indeed suck rocks bigtime IMO, but such a colorful statement requires some explanation and context to be worth anything.
Firstly, I cut my teeth in ATT's "dual universe" SVR4 and I'm quite spoiled by 5 years of building/using Linux and GNU software. By comparison, the newest versions of SCO I've agonized through (Openserver 5?) are most unfriendly, buggy, and a general pain in the ass as compared to even the oldest official Slackware distributions of Linux/GNU, or for that matter, even compared to ATT SVR4. SCO is a fscking antique -- a dinosaur by comparison. (Did I mention "pain in the ass?";-)
Using their poor excuse for a compiler was the least of my problems. I think their licensing structure stinks, not just with things like the C developers package, but as in "send a check off to SCO when you plug another CPU into the board."
Having said that, two things I can say good about them, or at least maybe mitigate my disparagement a little. First, they were the first on the scene with an i386 version of something UNIX-like -- hence the large installed base and devout following. Gotta give 'em credit for that. Secondly, I can understand that if someone has used a SCO OS alot, "grew up on it" or whatever, then it's not so bad. You're used to it. Fine. Much of my troubles could be chalked up to a lack of experience with it.
But keep in mind I'm not just speaking from a lack of experience with SCO, but from many years experience with Linux and "real" UNIX. From that context, SCO is (or at least _was_) a rather painful smack in the face that I will not soon forget.
Does that make sense to anyone? And what about the latest SCO offerings -- Have they gotten better?
Right... And if you were running equivalents on the same hardware under a *NIX OS, it would be overpowered.;-) Seriously, whether or not an equivalent *NIX box would perform as well, it would most certainly not crash merely by having "too many" server apps running on it. This is a perfect example of the NT apologist mindset. That, and "you must be incompetent if your NT box is crashing!" C'mon guys, these are pitiful excuses. That and the assertion that if you had only installed SP5 (you buffoon), your box would suddenly become well-behaved. Even if true, aren't we glossing over NT's previous state of broken-ness waaay far back in SP4 times? Gee, how long ago was that?
You folks claiming to keep NT boxes up for eons are either lying, very forgetful, or possessing some great secret that I'm sure many others here would like you to share. Which is it?
And concerning the distribution of incompetents in the IT business... If so many are having trouble keeping their NT boxes from crashing and so few have such problems under a *NIX OS, doesn't that mean that NT is the preferred OS of morons? ;-) That still doesn't explain away the crashing however, as I though IT morons was exactly the target market for NT. And heck, if you hafta be an expert at it, why not run an OS that's friendly to experts instead of morons?
Ok, a few low-blows there I grant you. And one more:
Red Hat Linux release 4.0 (Colgate) Kernel 2.0.30 on an i486 login: cwilkins Password: Last login: Fri Aug 20 17:01:27 from xxx.xxx.185.107 [cwilkins@wabbit ~]$ uname -a Linux wabbit.is.xxx.xxx 2.0.30 #1 Mon Jun 9 10:38:03 EDT 1997 i486 [cwilkins@wabbit ~]$ uptime 5:11pm up 400 days, 1:12, 7 users, load average: 0.05, 0.01, 0.00 [cwilkins@wabbit ~]$
400 days. That's an old 486/66 box with RedHat4.0 (Service Pack 0;) Anyone out there "competent" enough to beat that number on _any_ NT box?
Well, yes actually. That _is_ the way it (radio) works and the "public domain" approach makes sense for a broadcast medium. The problem is that the law in question is not in accordance with the way it works, or what makes sense.
The law *says* it's illegal to listen. However it's technically a piece of cake for anyone with half a radio clue (and too much free time) to do so.
(Gee, I hope nobody notices I feel strongly about this!;)
Yeah, what he said! Radio waves know no boundaries (excepting maybe RFI shielding...) They propagate according to the laws of physics, not Congress, or any other legal body.
That means when you talk on your cell or cordless phone, you are BROADCASTING. Making it illegal to listen to signals that are all around us violates basic common sense, is technically inept and a horrible legal precedent.
Can anyone present a good reason why the responsibility and legal burden of radio privacy should fall on the *listener*? Especially in this day and age when encryption is relatively cheap.
Bottom line is, it wasn't cheap *enough* for the cell phone companies, so they have permanently scarred our legal landscape with stupid laws that try to ensure their customers' privacy by mandating that you and I plug our ears. This of course allows those same companies to now tell their customers that their conversations are safe and private. The Internet equivalent to this silliness would be decreeing it illegal to read a special hierarchy of Usenet newsgroups containing private messages in cleartext, and then mandating that all newsreaders be rendered incapable of reading those sacred groups.
Meanwhile... Last time I checked, it was illegal to curse on a cell phone, by order of the FCC. Would that perhaps be because they understood that radio is inherently a broadcast medium and that anyone might just tune in? How does that fit with a law that prohibits one from listening to an unscrambled analog broadcast?
It used to be quite easy too. Anyone with an old TV that goes up to UHF channel 84 can tune cell bands. Many older scanners receive cell or can be readily modified to do so. Now it's getting difficult to buy even high-end RF test equipment that doesn't have the cell band blocked out. stupidstupidstupid! Although, "unblocked" radios are readily available from distributors in Canada, where apparently the cell phone companies have been unsuccessful in purveying such collossal legal stupidies.
What really frosts my shorts is that at some point, analog cellular will be long gone, but this #$@#! law will live on, leaving a f$#$ing crater in radio reception capabilites for years to come.
Why do I care? Well, it's certainly not because I get my jollies listening to people talk on the phone. Most of what you would hear on a scanner is about as exciting as watch paint peel and it's been a few years since I bothered with it in any meaningful way. As an occasional scanner listener and ham (N3HAZ), it's a matter of principle and "technical purity" for me to expect that laws covering technical matters have at least some tenuous basis in rational thought.
Slashdot Mirror
Designated troll for today, are we? Ever hear of "fair use?" You are entitled by law to make back up copies of software, music, etc.
I oughta turn a couple of 3 year olds loose on your DVD collection, idiot.
-cw-
Obviously the slashdotters are not going to embrace some new DRM-based format. But how about the general public? Anyone feel like they've got a handle on the prevailing opinion? I do recall Circuit City's foray into DIVX DVD's (not the codec) which was not well received at all and ultimately failed. One hopes this initiative is for an unencumbered format (yeah, right) and dies the same way.
-cw-
More Tubes!
Coal Fired & Steam Powered!
Comes in 330lb "Floor Standing Console" case, with beautiful oak finish and mother-of-perl inlay!
Options:
5 inch Round-Screen B&W Monitor (shipping weight: 190lbs)
Latest High-Tech "Keypunch" style keyboard (your neighbors will hear you type)
Mouse
Mouse Food
Preorder yours today!
And remember: Real Computers Glow in the Dark! (apologies to fellow hams)
-
No kidding. Everyone knows that you should have cheese curds and gravy on fries, as God intended.
;)
Mmmm... You from Canada? I went up there many years ago for a ski trip, got some of those (I forget what they called them -- it was french -- something fromage...) and promptly fell in love with the dish.
Back in the states, I would make attempts to procure them in places that seemed cooperative and had the right ingredients. Boy, talk about some funny looks...
Of course with all the gravy and melted cheese, they are very hot at first, and there you have a chip cooling problem. I'm on topic now, HAH!!
It was NT3.51, on very specific hardware (A Compaq somethingorother), and C2 orangebook only.
MS has of course used this to imply that NT has been C2 certified -- worded carefully so as not to be an outright lie.
Regarding getting paid less as a programmer...
When CAD came along, did the architects get paid less? Nope. They just do more with better technology...
The point isn't at all to get paid less. It's to get paid roughly the same rate and be more productive. There is plenty of work to be done programming computers, and I'd like to get to some of it instead of wasting my time with licensing issues and who owns what.
Doing an Office2000 install... MS now uses a 25 character license key. Good god folks, what next, 50 chars? 100? Will we soon hafta punch our entire genetic code into the damn license key box?? If only outfits like MS would spend a little more time working on their OS'es and apps, maybe they wouldn't hafta worry so much about protecting their revenues. (grumble grumble...)
If that's the most idiotic thing you've read on slashdot, you must not visit often. ;-)
;-)
And quite frankly the older versions of SCO do indeed suck rocks bigtime IMO, but such a colorful statement requires some explanation and context to be worth anything.
Firstly, I cut my teeth in ATT's "dual universe" SVR4 and I'm quite spoiled by 5 years of building/using Linux and GNU software. By comparison, the newest versions of SCO I've agonized through (Openserver 5?) are most unfriendly, buggy, and a general pain in the ass as compared to even the oldest official Slackware distributions of Linux/GNU, or for that matter, even compared to ATT SVR4. SCO is a fscking antique -- a dinosaur by comparison. (Did I mention "pain in the ass?"
Using their poor excuse for a compiler was the least of my problems. I think their licensing structure stinks, not just with things like the C developers package, but as in "send a check off to SCO when you plug another CPU into the board."
Having said that, two things I can say good about them, or at least maybe mitigate my disparagement a little. First, they were the first on the scene with an i386 version of something UNIX-like -- hence the large installed base and devout following. Gotta give 'em credit for that. Secondly, I can understand that if someone has used a SCO OS alot, "grew up on it" or whatever, then it's not so bad. You're used to it. Fine. Much of my troubles could be chalked up to a lack of experience with it.
But keep in mind I'm not just speaking from a lack of experience with SCO, but from many years experience with Linux and "real" UNIX. From that context, SCO is (or at least _was_) a rather painful smack in the face that I will not soon forget.
Does that make sense to anyone? And what about the latest SCO offerings -- Have they gotten better?
Right... And if you were running equivalents on ;-) Seriously, whether or not an
;) Anyone out there "competent"
the same hardware under a *NIX OS, it would be
overpowered.
equivalent *NIX box would perform as well, it
would most certainly not crash merely by having
"too many" server apps running on it. This is
a perfect example of the NT apologist mindset.
That, and "you must be incompetent if your NT
box is crashing!" C'mon guys, these are pitiful
excuses. That and the assertion that if you had
only installed SP5 (you buffoon), your box would
suddenly become well-behaved. Even if true,
aren't we glossing over NT's previous state of
broken-ness waaay far back in SP4 times? Gee, how
long ago was that?
You folks claiming to keep NT boxes up for eons
are either lying, very forgetful, or possessing
some great secret that I'm sure many others here
would like you to share. Which is it?
And concerning the distribution of incompetents
in the IT business... If so many are having
trouble keeping their NT boxes from crashing and
so few have such problems under a *NIX OS, doesn't
that mean that NT is the preferred OS of morons?
;-) That still doesn't explain away the crashing
however, as I though IT morons was exactly the
target market for NT. And heck, if you hafta be
an expert at it, why not run an OS that's
friendly to experts instead of morons?
Ok, a few low-blows there I grant you. And one
more:
Red Hat Linux release 4.0 (Colgate)
Kernel 2.0.30 on an i486
login: cwilkins
Password:
Last login: Fri Aug 20 17:01:27 from xxx.xxx.185.107
[cwilkins@wabbit ~]$ uname -a
Linux wabbit.is.xxx.xxx 2.0.30 #1 Mon Jun 9 10:38:03 EDT 1997 i486
[cwilkins@wabbit ~]$ uptime
5:11pm up 400 days, 1:12, 7 users, load average: 0.05, 0.01, 0.00
[cwilkins@wabbit ~]$
400 days. That's an old 486/66 box with RedHat4.0
(Service Pack 0
enough to beat that number on _any_ NT box?
Well, yes actually. That _is_ the way it (radio) works and the "public domain" approach makes sense for a broadcast medium. The problem is that the law in question is not in accordance with the way it works, or what makes sense.
;)
The law *says* it's illegal to listen. However it's technically a piece of cake for anyone with half a radio clue (and too much free time) to do so.
(Gee, I hope nobody notices I feel strongly about this!
-cw-
Yeah, what he said! Radio waves know no boundaries (excepting maybe RFI shielding...) They propagate according to the laws of physics, not Congress, or any other legal body.
That means when you talk on your cell or cordless phone, you are BROADCASTING. Making it illegal to listen to signals that are all around us violates basic common sense, is technically inept and a horrible legal precedent.
Can anyone present a good reason why the responsibility and legal burden of radio privacy should fall on the *listener*? Especially in this day and age when encryption is relatively cheap.
Bottom line is, it wasn't cheap *enough* for the cell phone companies, so they have permanently scarred our legal landscape with stupid laws that try to ensure their customers' privacy by mandating that you and I plug our ears. This of course allows those same companies to now tell their customers that their conversations are safe and private. The Internet equivalent to this silliness would be decreeing it illegal to read a special hierarchy of Usenet newsgroups containing private messages in cleartext, and then mandating that all newsreaders be rendered incapable of reading those sacred groups.
Meanwhile... Last time I checked, it was illegal to curse on a cell phone, by order of the FCC. Would that perhaps be because they understood that radio is inherently a broadcast medium and that anyone might just tune in? How does that fit with a law that prohibits one from listening to an unscrambled analog broadcast?
It used to be quite easy too. Anyone with an old TV that goes up to UHF channel 84 can tune cell bands. Many older scanners receive cell or can be readily modified to do so. Now it's getting difficult to buy even high-end RF test equipment that doesn't have the cell band blocked out. stupidstupidstupid! Although, "unblocked" radios are readily available from distributors in Canada, where apparently the cell phone companies have been unsuccessful in purveying such collossal legal stupidies.
What really frosts my shorts is that at some point, analog cellular will be long gone, but this #$@#! law will live on, leaving a f$#$ing crater in radio reception capabilites for years to come.
Why do I care? Well, it's certainly not because I get my jollies listening to people talk on the phone. Most of what you would hear on a scanner is about as exciting as watch paint peel and it's been a few years since I bothered with it in any meaningful way. As an occasional scanner listener and ham (N3HAZ), it's a matter of principle and "technical purity" for me to expect that laws covering technical matters have at least some tenuous basis in rational thought.
Harumph!
-cw-