As much as you can have meetings about meetings, that is not a solution a calendar program (whether it includes project and time management) can deal with. That is a corporate management problem... software that nobody is trained on and knows how to use is not going to help that, no matter how programmable and slick you can integrate it.
I have used expensive all-in-one packages for lawyers like this one and this one, and frankly, they are bloatware with 50 or 60 features you don't need and don't work very well, 5 or 10 features you need and don't work very well, and 5 or 10 features you need and they don't have at all.
I have used WebEx's Web Office, which worked well with Outlook, except it wouldn't automatically sync and you have to pay 60, 70, 80 bucks a month for the service.
I currently run a two person office. We use Mac OS X and Google calendar. Google calendar works well, but it lacks features such as I can't sync my "shared" calendar with my Treo 650, you have to edit the calendar using the web, not iCal (which is really iCal's fault, not Google calendar's), and I can't import my Mac Address Book into Google's contacts. Of course, Address book has its own problems since I can share my address book using.Mac, but my assistant can't change it.
I am excited about the features of Leopard, but I have given up on a total package solution that works well and integrates with other software easily, even in OS X where iSync "should" let software sync easily. You just have to be happy with a decent calendar program, and right now, for me, that is Google Calendar.
Frankly, I know old-time lawyers who have been using a paper system incorporating two day planners, one they take with them and one they leave in the office. The come back from a meeting or court, and they drop the DayPlanner on their secretary's desk, the secretary syncs the books, and gives it back to them. These guys get more done in a day than most people do in three days, because they don't futz around trying to get software to work... or spend time posting on Slashdot either!:)
These commercials would be more amusing if I wasn't on my third hour of trying to get Novell's very own Groupwise to run on my Ubuntu Linux system. With my MacBook, it was drag, drop and run. With Linux, it has been:
1) install Java from Sun's website (b/c the one with Groupwise is "flakey")
2) install alien so I can convert an RPM to Deb package
3) symlink the groupwise JRE folder to the Sun JRE
4) run Groupwise, read the errors for missing librarys
5) run Synaptic
6) find the missing libraries (or the package you might think the libraries are in)
7) repeat #6 and see if you have fixed it or there are new errors
So the pick of a girl to represent Linux is entirely appropriate. My install of Groupwise has hit all of the stereotypes: "shopping" around the internet trying to find the perfect dress (i.e., version of JRE), "moving" JRE all over the filesystem (like hanging a picture or moving the sofa around the house), trying to "read" into how Linux is feeling by going into Terminal and looking at error logs, "guess" at which flowers (packages) are the rights ones to make it feel better!
This is not the first time I have posted about making Linux more user-friendly to the average user and gotten this response.
I get the sense that Linux developers want Linux to be competitive vis-a-vis Windows as long as they don't have to cater to the masses and they can keep it an OS for tinkerers. If you suggest that people who don't want to "struggle" with getting Linux installed and configured just go and use Windows, then I don't think it is fair to complain about the following:
(1) Complain when Sober brings the Internet to a crawl because of all of the bot-infected Windows machines in homes and on corporate networks - all of those AU's can't get the X window environment to work to even install Linux - which would eliminate the problem.
(2) Complain when your mom's anti-virus and spyware software slows the computer to a crawl and she asks you to fix it - she is just using Windows b/c she can't install and maintain Linux.
(3) Complain that Apple's DRM sucks b/c you can't play an iTunes download in Linux - average users can't install Linux to broaden the base so Apple may release iTunes for Linux.
(4) Complain when your bank gets hacked into because MS was willing to provide real support to their crappy server software - From the bank's perspective, it was easier to hire an MCSE guy to deal with the problems of Windows then to be constantly told to RTFM, an attitude pervasive in the open-source community and contrary to notions of customer service in a closed source environment.
You have missed my point if you think I am advocating that Linux becomes Windows. I suggested that if Linux wants to become more mainstream and convert average users that it might want to make that transition more seamless than what it currently is by making its initial interface with the user (i.e., the Desktop) more standard and familiar (call it Windows-like if you wish). It is what 90% of the world is familiar with on some level. Not attempting to attract that customer base is like opening a coffee shop and only serving $4 lattes when everybody wants a regular old cup o' Joe!
As much as the no-choice option of Windows gives you poor security and poor performance, the opposite occurs when you can't get Linux to set standards for what the desktop experience will be like, but it leaves it to distros and unregulated projects. That's fine if you want Linux to continue to be a minority OS for server-room grease monkeys, but the guerrilla war against the Borg known as Microsoft is and has been at a stalemate for a number of years. In my opinion, that is because Linux, not Ubuntu, Debian, Slackware, Fedora Core or [insert distro name here], is not willing to set some standards for universal adoption of a desktop experience.
... the Average User ("AU") will start adopting it. This really should be the goal of Linux now that it is well into its teens. Time to stop being a geek-only, tinkerer OS and streamline the process. Now, admittedly, this is a beta... but I have dealt with these problems in all kinds of final Linux distros over the years. With that in mind, I am not so inspired by this review. Consider the following from the article:
By manually entering the vertical and horizontal sync in the xorg.conf file it fixed the problem for my 1440x900 screen and I was able to load the LiveCD and finally install Feisty on the hard drive.
Fortunately, I have not had to do this since about Slackware 8 or 9 (and that was on an old 486 Dell). Even then, it was NOT fun. You will not get a mom to edit xorg.conf. You will not get your typical manager/supervisor to edit xorg.conf. You will get them, however, to call the MCSE tech to fix a driver issue in Windows or a problem with Exchange.
...the bootloader should be installed it could use some friendlier "names" rather than just (hd0,0)...
The AU doesn't know hd0,0 from eth1 from lpt. Why even have these as default names if you want the AU to know what it is? It is intimidating for an AU to decipher tech names for hardware. They just want to see "Wireless" and know that is what they configure to hook up at the local coffee shop.
I would personally go with AIXGL and Beryl instead of the slower-evolving Compiz (after re-writing Beryl's pref panels of course to be more humane/sane)
What is a resistance to a consistent interface and making things look at least somewhat like Windows by default in the Linux community? It always seemed to me that consistency and a default Windows look and feel would encourage AU adoption. Looking at the desktop of a Linux distro for the first time is like getting into a car with the break/accelerator pedals reversed and the radio and other interior controls located on the door. Let's get some consistency and start it up looking like Windows so the AU can find everything. Then let them move everything around!
I manually installed libdvdcss Yeesh! Never happen with an AU... and an AU would never adopt an OS they couldn't just watch a DVD (or rip an MP3 or whatever) from first boot.
I had to blacklist the BCM43xx driver before I could successfully install ndiswrapper and finally get WiFi support. Again, see "manual installation" issue above.
There were very few the times that I had to pop to the terminal to carry out an important action.
This should be a "never" for AU adoption. Geeks want to run everything from the terminal, moms, wives and bosses do not.
I am 33 years old and I just don't have the same energy as I used to to deal with stupid issues that they should not be there, or with removal or non-development of conveniences for no good reason.
Isn't this what ALL computer users want!?!
I am 35 and I write this on a T23 with Ubuntu Edgy Eft installed. Five or six years ago I would have spent hours getting Linux installed on a machine b/c I liked the challenge. Now, I have enough to do without fighting over all the stuff mentioned in this article (and hey for Edgy Eft on the T23, wireless was the only real difficult thing)! AUs of all ages are the same way with maybe the younger ones have slightly more intestinal fortitude to configure Linux under the hood.
My hope is that they clean this up in beta and Feisty installs as (more or less) easily as Edgy did for me, but this is not an article that inspires me to believe the Feisty is a transformative release for purposes of Average User adoption.
I get non-Mac related computer hardware from an outfit in Texas called Directron. I have order from them probably two dozen times over the past five years for everything from OEM copies of WinXP to cables to all the necessary hardware to build my own PC. Their customer service, and the overall shopping experience for me in fact, has always been excellent and they have a nice selection of products (especially I note when it comes to video cards)
Another place I buy from is Provantage, though I'll admit I mostly bought "complete" products like bluetooth headsets, printers and the like. I have only ordered parts (i.e., video cards, motherboards, cpus, etc.) once or twice. Again, though the overall shopping experience was excellent.
I have found both of these companeis to be competitive on price, and, if I have found a product slightly cheaper through buy.com, froogle or the like, I have tended to still order from these vendors because my customer service experience with them has been excellent.
I have never figured out why it took Apple so long to integrate a decent shared and managed calendar in OS X (a la Outlook and Exchange)... or at least that is what I am hoping that CalDAV will turn out to be in Leopard. I mean, c'mon, it has been essentially 7 years since OS X was introduced, and we are just now getting a calendar where you can have multiple users share and manage it!?!
I switched my two person office to Macs 6 months ago after getting sick and tired of dealing with daily tech and security issues with WinXP machines. The integration of iPhoto, Pages and Keynote has been great, but to have a calendar that my assistant can't change and has to e-mail me appointments so I can schedule them in myself is ridiculous!
At least from a small business perspective, simple calendar, contact and mail features that are available in a $600 OEM copy of Windows 2003 Small Business Server are way more useful to me than Quicktime Streaming Server, "Collaboration Services" and iChat server!
If you would seriously ignore the advice to go to SCORE for free counseling because of the negative posts to this one, you are crazy.
SCORE is comprised of many retired executives, but if you ask them when you set up an appointment, they will try to put you with at least one counselor who worked in your field of interest (and since computers have been mainstream since the advent of the PC, that is really not that hard to find at SCORE). Now, you may not get a.NET expert, but that is not why you go to SCORE. SCORE helps you with all of the stuff you don't know about running a business like, corporate formation, employees, taxes, start-up money, and yes, business plans.
Our SCORE chapter (so yeah, I'm a (young) member plugging SCORE) offers a six session business start-up seminar which includes writing a business plan for something like 50 bucks. You can then have SCORE members review your plan before pitching it to venture capitalists or the bank. The SCORE members who review business plans in our chapter are all ex-bankers, accountants or lawyers who have dealt with business plans regularly. They will be far more helpful BECAUSE they don't care what your business is. They only care about making you look as good as possible to your investors. Your job is to pitch the techy stuff.
Like everything else in life, people have obviously left a SCORE counseling session disappointed. But that's hardly a reason to not at least make an hour appointment for FREE advice. Or, you can always call a lawyer and an accountant and pay them hourly to review your plan with you (IAAL, but I counsel for free at SCORE).
Not to be a nay-sayer, but is this really a positive review for Linux?
Here is a guy who clearly has above average computer knowledge and skills and look at all of the issues he has with integrating a Linux desktop distro with a Windows environment.
Unfortunately, what this tells me is that a guy like me, with enough computer/linux skills to get himself into trouble (and who happens to be the chief, cook and bottle-washer (as well as the computer tech) for my business) could never consider installing Linux on even one desktop in order to save me some money and licensing fees from M$.
I love Linux, but this is not a review that will say to the average user "Hmm... I'm going to switch to Linux." I just don't have the kind of time this guy had to make Linux work on my business' network and still have time to make money during the day. My guess is that neither do most other people.
Hate to break it to everyone, but Microsoft does own the Windows trademark on a number of computer related products and services, any one of which, may have been enough to blast this guy into oblivion.
Check out Reg Nos. 2212784, 2463526, 2463526 and 2463510 (among others) on the Trademark search system (sorry, no direct link available).
This is the internet age of the "Have you been injured in an accident" commercials. He created his "law firm" (which trust me, regardless of the "and Associates" consists of himself) to prosecute this genius idea of crossing copyrightable material into the realm of patents. Except that this is a brand-new (graduated 2005) lawyer practicing solo who is getting FREE advertising with a ludricrous claim. You know nothing about being a lawyers in your first year of practice, let alone the ethical rules regarding advertising and taking cases in which you have little or no experience.
Unfortunately, this is the type of behavior that gives us lawyers a bad name. I'm sure quite a few people will come running to this guy to protect their "idea" only to find out a year from now and a couple of thousand dollars later that they have nothing, except of course, that they have bankrolled the start-up costs of his law firm.
I wish the website wasn't blown off the net by being slashdotted.
In PA, where I practice, a GAL is appointed to be an "interested adult" in instances where a child doesn't have a parent or guardian, where the parent may have an adverse interest to the child, or where the Court determines that a GAL is necessary (such as when two parents are fighting over custody).
GAL stands for Guardian ad litem, which basically means, "guardian for the particular matter at hand". So a GAL appointed for custody can't represent a child for a civil action.
In some cases, such as when a child is dependent (i.e., without proper parental care or control) a lawyer is appointed as both the attorney for the child and the GAL. In other matters, such as juvenile deliquency (i.e. minors charged with criminal offenses), a GAL may be appointed as an "interested adult" while the Public Defender or another attorney represents the minor.
In all cases, however, the GAL is there to look out for the minor, not help them get sued by an abusive organization.
It sounds more like an article to incite a flameware.
Death for what essentially amounts to property damage goes against the concepts of a punishment that fits the crime in American justice. It may even be an 8th Amendment violation ("cruel and unusual punishment"), but I'm not sure about that. I'd certainly make that argument.
"Death" for hacking does not at all address the concept of rehabilitation either. Murderers are not automatically put to death in many states in the US... it certainly shouldn't even be on the table for a hacker.
My take is that, in America anyway, we will see penalties such as those seen for white collar crime (a la Martha Stewart). Prison sentences, should at least be on the table for hacking, especially in relation to the amount of damage done.
Do I think a guy should go to prison just because he broke in to prove a system isn't secure? Probably not the first time, but if it is a second, third or fourth offense, it should be a felony with at least some time in the county slammer.
I appreciate that people want "geek advice" from the Slashdot crowd, but honestly, I can't understand why these "Help Me" stories are posted in a site dedicated to Geek NEWS.
Half the responses are the obligatory "Use Linux!" or "Use BSD" which are obviously not a possibility for this guy since he doesn't make the purchasing decision. And, don't y'all think he WANTS to use Linux or BSD... he is posting to Slashdot afterall!!!
The other half are smart alecs posting a Google search which the guy should just go and do himself anyway.
In light of the RTFM and "figure it out yourself" attitude of most Slashdotters, why does/. post these stories? Aren't these questions better left to some relevant newsgroup or forum (where he'll probably get the same response anyway)?
While the suit may have some merit, it is odd for them to wait until now to try and halt such a heralded product.
You wait to get the Defendant to settle. "Reverse Confusion" cases involve small, senior user Plaintiffs suing big, junior user Defendants who usually have what lawyers love: DEEP POCKETS!
Tiger Direct doesn't care about Apple's "heralded" product. This is a potential windfall for a small computer retailer.
The reason why the court reinstated the ACPA claim is because there is no language in the cybersquatting act that protects non-commercial use.
For trademark (not copyright as the article mistaken called it) infringement, the law requires that the use be commercial. It is a pretty big difference because commercial speech gets far less protection under the First Amendment than non-commercial specch.
In this case, the Plaintiff went through great lengths to try to show that the use was commercial, going so far as to argue that because the Bosley cybersquatting site links to a message board that has advertising sponsors, the Bosley site was in fact commercial use. That just doesn't fly! The First Amendment can and should protect non-commercial uses for trademarks, especially for comment, criticism and analysis.
So, if it had to, Merck could spend 23.19 billion to fight eminent domain takings and still turn a profit. It would be rough, but my guess is that the Board of Director would do what it took not to set a precedent like this. How much did the tobacco industry spend fighting such a precedent setting lawsuit like this?
A state like Wisconsin could put how much of its budget towards this before other necessary services suffer? Before the state politicians start backpeddling because constituents are calling and complaining because "their" money to build a local community center, a library or hire 3 more police officer is going to fight the eminent domain taking? It seems to me Merck is still way ahead... and we haven't even talked about other drug companies.
The article states that the Supreme Court has said that it is acceptable for states to do this, which is kinda of surprising to me (IAAL). Article I, Sec. 8, Clause 8 of the U.S Constitution specifically states that regulating Patents and Copyrights is a power of the Federal government. Since the Feds are a government of limited power, when the Constitution says its theirs, it is generally theirs.
Even so, eminient domain requires "just compensation" by the state at the time of the taking. With a monopoly on the drug for the duration of the patent, "just compensation" is going to be nothing any rich states can afford, let alone a poor mid-west or southern state. So it seems to me, the states attempting this will spend a lot of tax dollars only to find out they are really not getting any kind of "deal" from the drug companies. Drug companies like Merck, Smith Kline, etc. have as much money, if not more, than the budgets of most states. They can afford to drag this out, even to the point when the patent expires.
I agree that this is a complex case. I practice trademark law and I do not understand who advised Mr. Foley to file a trademark application for MAME.
While missappropriation and unfair competition can be enforced via the Trademark Act, filing a trademark application (in my opinion) for a mark that you do not lawfully own does nothing. It would in effect force the hand of the open source developers of MAME so that they would have to oppose the application. Trademark rights are acquired by use of the mark in commerce. The open source project known as MAME has likely been using the mark for way longer than Mr. Foley and his company. This doesn't even take into account the legal requirement in trademark law to pick a mark that you know or reasonably should know is not in use by another.
The issue really is with the third party vendors instructing buyers on where to obtain illegal ROMs. It is not with the MAME trademark itself. Now, could there by vicarious infringement issues? Maybe, but that involves the copyrights on the game code, NOT with the MAME trademark.
A lot of times, clients ask their general business counsel for legal advice on trademarks and frankly, a lot of lawyers are too arrogant to say they don't know. I don't know if that is what happened here, but unless I have misread something, there is NO basis for Mr. Foley's company filing a trademark application for MAME. That is just bad legal advice. His company is not the lawful owner and he knows that there is already a company (i.e. open source project) using the mark in commerce.
The public seems to think that journalists get some extra First Amendment protection above and beyond everybody else. Actually, they do not. Journalists must use the same means as everyone else in obtaining their information. They do not get a "journalist" exception to breaking the law to get the information or publishing it.
It is easy for people (including the EFF) to jump behind the banner of "free speech" especially when the Plaintiff is a big corporation. But free speech is not an absolute right. It does not permit the public (including journalists) from inciting violence, publishing defamatory material or committing fraud to obtain and publish private information.
And let's note: this is really about stealing private information. If ThinkSecret, etc. had gotten this information through legal means, even a slip of the tongue by an Apple employee, that is something that can and should be protected by journalist privilege. But to induce, bribe or perform other illegal acts to obtain the information, especially information that is well-known in the industry to be considered "trade secrets", is criminal. I just don't think that there should be an exception for that behavior simply because your a journalist.
My wife is a psychology professor. One of her class exercises in Abnormal psychology is to have students "diagnose" a charcater from a movie. She says it helps students get interested in the topic to be able to write about a movie in which they are interested. Sure, she gets the standards: Norman Bates from "Psycho", Jack Nicholson's character in "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" and Glen Close from "Fatal Attraction". But she has recently gotten Jake Gyllenhall's character from Donnie Darko. I don't think she has gotten a paper on Gollum yet.
BTW, since the site has been blasted by Slashdotters, I can't get read it, but her guess is that Gollum has dissociative identity disorder. I'll be interested to see what the article says.
But, like many pro-gun activists, you seem to indicate that the Second Amendment is an absolute right. Clearly, it is not, nor should it be. That is why felons cannot own firearms. That is why you cannot just go to the local gun store and buy a howitzer or a fully automatic firearm. That is why you cannot carry a gun whenever and wherever you want. That is why some states require you to complete a gun safety course before you get a permit. And that is why some states don't let you carry guns at all.
Do I believe that some of these "abridgements" of our freedom are unnecessary and have nothing to do with "fighting crime" or "public safety"? Yes, I do. But I also believe that with the freedom (and power) of owning a gun comes the responsibility of knowing what you are doing. We do not have some unfettered right to own a gun in the U.S., no more than we have some unfettered right to say whatever we want (even though the First Amendment starts out with "Congress shall make no law".)
To actually be on topic, however, a remote-control firearm is really not about "guns" or the "Second Amendment", contrary to what a lot of posts are trying to say about it. This guy owns private property. You are free to do whatever you want on your property providing you are breaking no laws or causing no harm. Freedom is the essence of the U.S. Constitution, not whether one Amendment is more important than another. The law already has methods to handle this internet hunting idea. Both criminal and personal injury law apply if the operator is negligent, reckless or shows a callous disregard. And they also apply to the owner if sets-up this contraption to be able to aim it 45 degrees in the air and fire (though even at 45 degrees, not a whole lot of firearms will make it past 300 acres). What I find offensive is that the Texas Bureau of Parks is trying to find a way to stop him from doing it completely, simply because they just don't like it.
Freedom is about being able to live your life the way you want. Others may not like it. They may "anguish" over it. But that is different from being "injured" by it. If this guy wants to operate a remote-controlled rifle/hunting range, I support that notion providing it is done safely. Do I agree with it? No, I think it is pretty stupid and intuitively, contrary to what hunting is all about. But I agree that if he can find a way to set it up responsibly and have it be used safely, then he should be free to do it.
You have to have an expectation or privacy to have privacy issues. It is pretty-well settled rule that you have no privacy rights in public places. To travel on public roads, you have already given up a certain degree of privacy (e.g., requiring a breathalyzer test or loss of license for refusal, DUI checkpoints, camera monitoring for "traffic" purposes, etc).
Black boxes cut a very fine line on privacy. The issue not being whether you have any expectation of privacy about when, where and how you travel on public roads, but what kind of information is an invasion of privacy that a black box installed inside your car can provide?
Just some of the questions that will need to be answered regarding black boxes in our vehicles are:
(1) What information will the black box be able to provide Big Brother? (Obviously!)
(2) How will Big Brother be able to access that information? (i.e., will they need a warrant or will being in an accident be enough that a police office can pull out a PDA, plug into the black box in your car, and download the information he needs regarding your speed, G forces, when you applied the brakes, etc.).
(3) What civil liability or criminal charges can occur for an individual who disables a black box?
Slashdot Mirror
As much as you can have meetings about meetings, that is not a solution a calendar program (whether it includes project and time management) can deal with. That is a corporate management problem... software that nobody is trained on and knows how to use is not going to help that, no matter how programmable and slick you can integrate it.
I have used expensive all-in-one packages for lawyers like this one and this one, and frankly, they are bloatware with 50 or 60 features you don't need and don't work very well, 5 or 10 features you need and don't work very well, and 5 or 10 features you need and they don't have at all.
I have used WebEx's Web Office, which worked well with Outlook, except it wouldn't automatically sync and you have to pay 60, 70, 80 bucks a month for the service.
I currently run a two person office. We use Mac OS X and Google calendar. Google calendar works well, but it lacks features such as I can't sync my "shared" calendar with my Treo 650, you have to edit the calendar using the web, not iCal (which is really iCal's fault, not Google calendar's), and I can't import my Mac Address Book into Google's contacts. Of course, Address book has its own problems since I can share my address book using .Mac, but my assistant can't change it.
I am excited about the features of Leopard, but I have given up on a total package solution that works well and integrates with other software easily, even in OS X where iSync "should" let software sync easily. You just have to be happy with a decent calendar program, and right now, for me, that is Google Calendar.
Frankly, I know old-time lawyers who have been using a paper system incorporating two day planners, one they take with them and one they leave in the office. The come back from a meeting or court, and they drop the DayPlanner on their secretary's desk, the secretary syncs the books, and gives it back to them. These guys get more done in a day than most people do in three days, because they don't futz around trying to get software to work... or spend time posting on Slashdot either! :)
Would you like fries with that?
1) install Java from Sun's website (b/c the one with Groupwise is "flakey")
2) install alien so I can convert an RPM to Deb package
3) symlink the groupwise JRE folder to the Sun JRE
4) run Groupwise, read the errors for missing librarys
5) run Synaptic
6) find the missing libraries (or the package you might think the libraries are in)
7) repeat #6 and see if you have fixed it or there are new errors
So the pick of a girl to represent Linux is entirely appropriate. My install of Groupwise has hit all of the stereotypes: "shopping" around the internet trying to find the perfect dress (i.e., version of JRE), "moving" JRE all over the filesystem (like hanging a picture or moving the sofa around the house), trying to "read" into how Linux is feeling by going into Terminal and looking at error logs, "guess" at which flowers (packages) are the rights ones to make it feel better!
This is not the first time I have posted about making Linux more user-friendly to the average user and gotten this response.
I get the sense that Linux developers want Linux to be competitive vis-a-vis Windows as long as they don't have to cater to the masses and they can keep it an OS for tinkerers. If you suggest that people who don't want to "struggle" with getting Linux installed and configured just go and use Windows, then I don't think it is fair to complain about the following:
(1) Complain when Sober brings the Internet to a crawl because of all of the bot-infected Windows machines in homes and on corporate networks - all of those AU's can't get the X window environment to work to even install Linux - which would eliminate the problem.
(2) Complain when your mom's anti-virus and spyware software slows the computer to a crawl and she asks you to fix it - she is just using Windows b/c she can't install and maintain Linux.
(3) Complain that Apple's DRM sucks b/c you can't play an iTunes download in Linux - average users can't install Linux to broaden the base so Apple may release iTunes for Linux.
(4) Complain when your bank gets hacked into because MS was willing to provide real support to their crappy server software - From the bank's perspective, it was easier to hire an MCSE guy to deal with the problems of Windows then to be constantly told to RTFM, an attitude pervasive in the open-source community and contrary to notions of customer service in a closed source environment.
You have missed my point if you think I am advocating that Linux becomes Windows. I suggested that if Linux wants to become more mainstream and convert average users that it might want to make that transition more seamless than what it currently is by making its initial interface with the user (i.e., the Desktop) more standard and familiar (call it Windows-like if you wish). It is what 90% of the world is familiar with on some level. Not attempting to attract that customer base is like opening a coffee shop and only serving $4 lattes when everybody wants a regular old cup o' Joe!
As much as the no-choice option of Windows gives you poor security and poor performance, the opposite occurs when you can't get Linux to set standards for what the desktop experience will be like, but it leaves it to distros and unregulated projects. That's fine if you want Linux to continue to be a minority OS for server-room grease monkeys, but the guerrilla war against the Borg known as Microsoft is and has been at a stalemate for a number of years. In my opinion, that is because Linux, not Ubuntu, Debian, Slackware, Fedora Core or [insert distro name here], is not willing to set some standards for universal adoption of a desktop experience.
... the Average User ("AU") will start adopting it. This really should be the goal of Linux now that it is well into its teens. Time to stop being a geek-only, tinkerer OS and streamline the process. Now, admittedly, this is a beta... but I have dealt with these problems in all kinds of final Linux distros over the years. With that in mind, I am not so inspired by this review. Consider the following from the article:
By manually entering the vertical and horizontal sync in the xorg.conf file it fixed the problem for my 1440x900 screen and I was able to load the LiveCD and finally install Feisty on the hard drive.Fortunately, I have not had to do this since about Slackware 8 or 9 (and that was on an old 486 Dell). Even then, it was NOT fun. You will not get a mom to edit xorg.conf. You will not get your typical manager/supervisor to edit xorg.conf. You will get them, however, to call the MCSE tech to fix a driver issue in Windows or a problem with Exchange.
...the bootloader should be installed it could use some friendlier "names" rather than just (hd0,0)...The AU doesn't know hd0,0 from eth1 from lpt. Why even have these as default names if you want the AU to know what it is? It is intimidating for an AU to decipher tech names for hardware. They just want to see "Wireless" and know that is what they configure to hook up at the local coffee shop.
I would personally go with AIXGL and Beryl instead of the slower-evolving Compiz (after re-writing Beryl's pref panels of course to be more humane/sane)What is a resistance to a consistent interface and making things look at least somewhat like Windows by default in the Linux community? It always seemed to me that consistency and a default Windows look and feel would encourage AU adoption. Looking at the desktop of a Linux distro for the first time is like getting into a car with the break/accelerator pedals reversed and the radio and other interior controls located on the door. Let's get some consistency and start it up looking like Windows so the AU can find everything. Then let them move everything around!
I manually installed libdvdcss Yeesh! Never happen with an AU... and an AU would never adopt an OS they couldn't just watch a DVD (or rip an MP3 or whatever) from first boot. I had to blacklist the BCM43xx driver before I could successfully install ndiswrapper and finally get WiFi support. Again, see "manual installation" issue above. There were very few the times that I had to pop to the terminal to carry out an important action.This should be a "never" for AU adoption. Geeks want to run everything from the terminal, moms, wives and bosses do not.
I am 33 years old and I just don't have the same energy as I used to to deal with stupid issues that they should not be there, or with removal or non-development of conveniences for no good reason.Isn't this what ALL computer users want!?!
I am 35 and I write this on a T23 with Ubuntu Edgy Eft installed. Five or six years ago I would have spent hours getting Linux installed on a machine b/c I liked the challenge. Now, I have enough to do without fighting over all the stuff mentioned in this article (and hey for Edgy Eft on the T23, wireless was the only real difficult thing)! AUs of all ages are the same way with maybe the younger ones have slightly more intestinal fortitude to configure Linux under the hood.
My hope is that they clean this up in beta and Feisty installs as (more or less) easily as Edgy did for me, but this is not an article that inspires me to believe the Feisty is a transformative release for purposes of Average User adoption.
I get non-Mac related computer hardware from an outfit in Texas called Directron. I have order from them probably two dozen times over the past five years for everything from OEM copies of WinXP to cables to all the necessary hardware to build my own PC. Their customer service, and the overall shopping experience for me in fact, has always been excellent and they have a nice selection of products (especially I note when it comes to video cards)
Another place I buy from is Provantage, though I'll admit I mostly bought "complete" products like bluetooth headsets, printers and the like. I have only ordered parts (i.e., video cards, motherboards, cpus, etc.) once or twice. Again, though the overall shopping experience was excellent.
I have found both of these companeis to be competitive on price, and, if I have found a product slightly cheaper through buy.com, froogle or the like, I have tended to still order from these vendors because my customer service experience with them has been excellent.
I have never figured out why it took Apple so long to integrate a decent shared and managed calendar in OS X (a la Outlook and Exchange)... or at least that is what I am hoping that CalDAV will turn out to be in Leopard. I mean, c'mon, it has been essentially 7 years since OS X was introduced, and we are just now getting a calendar where you can have multiple users share and manage it!?!
I switched my two person office to Macs 6 months ago after getting sick and tired of dealing with daily tech and security issues with WinXP machines. The integration of iPhoto, Pages and Keynote has been great, but to have a calendar that my assistant can't change and has to e-mail me appointments so I can schedule them in myself is ridiculous!
At least from a small business perspective, simple calendar, contact and mail features that are available in a $600 OEM copy of Windows 2003 Small Business Server are way more useful to me than Quicktime Streaming Server, "Collaboration Services" and iChat server!
If you would seriously ignore the advice to go to SCORE for free counseling because of the negative posts to this one, you are crazy.
.NET expert, but that is not why you go to SCORE. SCORE helps you with all of the stuff you don't know about running a business like, corporate formation, employees, taxes, start-up money, and yes, business plans.
SCORE is comprised of many retired executives, but if you ask them when you set up an appointment, they will try to put you with at least one counselor who worked in your field of interest (and since computers have been mainstream since the advent of the PC, that is really not that hard to find at SCORE). Now, you may not get a
Our SCORE chapter (so yeah, I'm a (young) member plugging SCORE) offers a six session business start-up seminar which includes writing a business plan for something like 50 bucks. You can then have SCORE members review your plan before pitching it to venture capitalists or the bank. The SCORE members who review business plans in our chapter are all ex-bankers, accountants or lawyers who have dealt with business plans regularly. They will be far more helpful BECAUSE they don't care what your business is. They only care about making you look as good as possible to your investors. Your job is to pitch the techy stuff.
Like everything else in life, people have obviously left a SCORE counseling session disappointed. But that's hardly a reason to not at least make an hour appointment for FREE advice. Or, you can always call a lawyer and an accountant and pay them hourly to review your plan with you (IAAL, but I counsel for free at SCORE).
Not to be a nay-sayer, but is this really a positive review for Linux?
Here is a guy who clearly has above average computer knowledge and skills and look at all of the issues he has with integrating a Linux desktop distro with a Windows environment.
Unfortunately, what this tells me is that a guy like me, with enough computer/linux skills to get himself into trouble (and who happens to be the chief, cook and bottle-washer (as well as the computer tech) for my business) could never consider installing Linux on even one desktop in order to save me some money and licensing fees from M$.
I love Linux, but this is not a review that will say to the average user "Hmm... I'm going to switch to Linux." I just don't have the kind of time this guy had to make Linux work on my business' network and still have time to make money during the day. My guess is that neither do most other people.
Hate to break it to everyone, but Microsoft does own the Windows trademark on a number of computer related products and services, any one of which, may have been enough to blast this guy into oblivion.
Check out Reg Nos. 2212784, 2463526, 2463526 and 2463510 (among others) on the Trademark search system (sorry, no direct link available).
-A
This is the internet age of the "Have you been injured in an accident" commercials. He created his "law firm" (which trust me, regardless of the "and Associates" consists of himself) to prosecute this genius idea of crossing copyrightable material into the realm of patents. Except that this is a brand-new (graduated 2005) lawyer practicing solo who is getting FREE advertising with a ludricrous claim. You know nothing about being a lawyers in your first year of practice, let alone the ethical rules regarding advertising and taking cases in which you have little or no experience.
Unfortunately, this is the type of behavior that gives us lawyers a bad name. I'm sure quite a few people will come running to this guy to protect their "idea" only to find out a year from now and a couple of thousand dollars later that they have nothing, except of course, that they have bankrolled the start-up costs of his law firm.
I wish the website wasn't blown off the net by being slashdotted.
In PA, where I practice, a GAL is appointed to be an "interested adult" in instances where a child doesn't have a parent or guardian, where the parent may have an adverse interest to the child, or where the Court determines that a GAL is necessary (such as when two parents are fighting over custody).
GAL stands for Guardian ad litem, which basically means, "guardian for the particular matter at hand". So a GAL appointed for custody can't represent a child for a civil action.
In some cases, such as when a child is dependent (i.e., without proper parental care or control) a lawyer is appointed as both the attorney for the child and the GAL. In other matters, such as juvenile deliquency (i.e. minors charged with criminal offenses), a GAL may be appointed as an "interested adult" while the Public Defender or another attorney represents the minor.
In all cases, however, the GAL is there to look out for the minor, not help them get sued by an abusive organization.
It sounds more like an article to incite a flameware.
Death for what essentially amounts to property damage goes against the concepts of a punishment that fits the crime in American justice. It may even be an 8th Amendment violation ("cruel and unusual punishment"), but I'm not sure about that. I'd certainly make that argument.
"Death" for hacking does not at all address the concept of rehabilitation either. Murderers are not automatically put to death in many states in the US... it certainly shouldn't even be on the table for a hacker.
My take is that, in America anyway, we will see penalties such as those seen for white collar crime (a la Martha Stewart). Prison sentences, should at least be on the table for hacking, especially in relation to the amount of damage done.
Do I think a guy should go to prison just because he broke in to prove a system isn't secure? Probably not the first time, but if it is a second, third or fourth offense, it should be a felony with at least some time in the county slammer.
I appreciate that people want "geek advice" from the Slashdot crowd, but honestly, I can't understand why these "Help Me" stories are posted in a site dedicated to Geek NEWS.
/. post these stories? Aren't these questions better left to some relevant newsgroup or forum (where he'll probably get the same response anyway)?
Half the responses are the obligatory "Use Linux!" or "Use BSD" which are obviously not a possibility for this guy since he doesn't make the purchasing decision. And, don't y'all think he WANTS to use Linux or BSD... he is posting to Slashdot afterall!!!
The other half are smart alecs posting a Google search which the guy should just go and do himself anyway.
In light of the RTFM and "figure it out yourself" attitude of most Slashdotters, why does
Yeah, but are they as good as my neigbor's 12 year old?
While the suit may have some merit, it is odd for them to wait until now to try and halt such a heralded product.
You wait to get the Defendant to settle. "Reverse Confusion" cases involve small, senior user Plaintiffs suing big, junior user Defendants who usually have what lawyers love: DEEP POCKETS!
Tiger Direct doesn't care about Apple's "heralded" product. This is a potential windfall for a small computer retailer.
The reason why the court reinstated the ACPA claim is because there is no language in the cybersquatting act that protects non-commercial use.
For trademark (not copyright as the article mistaken called it) infringement, the law requires that the use be commercial. It is a pretty big difference because commercial speech gets far less protection under the First Amendment than non-commercial specch.
In this case, the Plaintiff went through great lengths to try to show that the use was commercial, going so far as to argue that because the Bosley cybersquatting site links to a message board that has advertising sponsors, the Bosley site was in fact commercial use. That just doesn't fly! The First Amendment can and should protect non-commercial uses for trademarks, especially for comment, criticism and analysis.
Hmm... getting a spoiled rich girl who has everything she wants sounds like a better Microsoft spokesperson.
Perhaps she and Bill can do a photo spread in Teen Beat (or Teen People or whatever the kids read now a days)?
So, if it had to, Merck could spend 23.19 billion to fight eminent domain takings and still turn a profit. It would be rough, but my guess is that the Board of Director would do what it took not to set a precedent like this. How much did the tobacco industry spend fighting such a precedent setting lawsuit like this?
A state like Wisconsin could put how much of its budget towards this before other necessary services suffer? Before the state politicians start backpeddling because constituents are calling and complaining because "their" money to build a local community center, a library or hire 3 more police officer is going to fight the eminent domain taking? It seems to me Merck is still way ahead... and we haven't even talked about other drug companies.
The article states that the Supreme Court has said that it is acceptable for states to do this, which is kinda of surprising to me (IAAL). Article I, Sec. 8, Clause 8 of the U.S Constitution specifically states that regulating Patents and Copyrights is a power of the Federal government. Since the Feds are a government of limited power, when the Constitution says its theirs, it is generally theirs.
Even so, eminient domain requires "just compensation" by the state at the time of the taking. With a monopoly on the drug for the duration of the patent, "just compensation" is going to be nothing any rich states can afford, let alone a poor mid-west or southern state. So it seems to me, the states attempting this will spend a lot of tax dollars only to find out they are really not getting any kind of "deal" from the drug companies. Drug companies like Merck, Smith Kline, etc. have as much money, if not more, than the budgets of most states. They can afford to drag this out, even to the point when the patent expires.
I agree that this is a complex case. I practice trademark law and I do not understand who advised Mr. Foley to file a trademark application for MAME.
While missappropriation and unfair competition can be enforced via the Trademark Act, filing a trademark application (in my opinion) for a mark that you do not lawfully own does nothing. It would in effect force the hand of the open source developers of MAME so that they would have to oppose the application. Trademark rights are acquired by use of the mark in commerce. The open source project known as MAME has likely been using the mark for way longer than Mr. Foley and his company. This doesn't even take into account the legal requirement in trademark law to pick a mark that you know or reasonably should know is not in use by another.
The issue really is with the third party vendors instructing buyers on where to obtain illegal ROMs. It is not with the MAME trademark itself. Now, could there by vicarious infringement issues? Maybe, but that involves the copyrights on the game code, NOT with the MAME trademark.
A lot of times, clients ask their general business counsel for legal advice on trademarks and frankly, a lot of lawyers are too arrogant to say they don't know. I don't know if that is what happened here, but unless I have misread something, there is NO basis for Mr. Foley's company filing a trademark application for MAME. That is just bad legal advice. His company is not the lawful owner and he knows that there is already a company (i.e. open source project) using the mark in commerce.
The public seems to think that journalists get some extra First Amendment protection above and beyond everybody else. Actually, they do not. Journalists must use the same means as everyone else in obtaining their information. They do not get a "journalist" exception to breaking the law to get the information or publishing it.
It is easy for people (including the EFF) to jump behind the banner of "free speech" especially when the Plaintiff is a big corporation. But free speech is not an absolute right. It does not permit the public (including journalists) from inciting violence, publishing defamatory material or committing fraud to obtain and publish private information.
And let's note: this is really about stealing private information. If ThinkSecret, etc. had gotten this information through legal means, even a slip of the tongue by an Apple employee, that is something that can and should be protected by journalist privilege. But to induce, bribe or perform other illegal acts to obtain the information, especially information that is well-known in the industry to be considered "trade secrets", is criminal. I just don't think that there should be an exception for that behavior simply because your a journalist.
My wife is a psychology professor. One of her class exercises in Abnormal psychology is to have students "diagnose" a charcater from a movie. She says it helps students get interested in the topic to be able to write about a movie in which they are interested. Sure, she gets the standards: Norman Bates from "Psycho", Jack Nicholson's character in "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" and Glen Close from "Fatal Attraction". But she has recently gotten Jake Gyllenhall's character from Donnie Darko. I don't think she has gotten a paper on Gollum yet.
BTW, since the site has been blasted by Slashdotters, I can't get read it, but her guess is that Gollum has dissociative identity disorder. I'll be interested to see what the article says.
But, like many pro-gun activists, you seem to indicate that the Second Amendment is an absolute right. Clearly, it is not, nor should it be. That is why felons cannot own firearms. That is why you cannot just go to the local gun store and buy a howitzer or a fully automatic firearm. That is why you cannot carry a gun whenever and wherever you want. That is why some states require you to complete a gun safety course before you get a permit. And that is why some states don't let you carry guns at all.
Do I believe that some of these "abridgements" of our freedom are unnecessary and have nothing to do with "fighting crime" or "public safety"? Yes, I do. But I also believe that with the freedom (and power) of owning a gun comes the responsibility of knowing what you are doing. We do not have some unfettered right to own a gun in the U.S., no more than we have some unfettered right to say whatever we want (even though the First Amendment starts out with "Congress shall make no law".)
To actually be on topic, however, a remote-control firearm is really not about "guns" or the "Second Amendment", contrary to what a lot of posts are trying to say about it. This guy owns private property. You are free to do whatever you want on your property providing you are breaking no laws or causing no harm. Freedom is the essence of the U.S. Constitution, not whether one Amendment is more important than another. The law already has methods to handle this internet hunting idea. Both criminal and personal injury law apply if the operator is negligent, reckless or shows a callous disregard. And they also apply to the owner if sets-up this contraption to be able to aim it 45 degrees in the air and fire (though even at 45 degrees, not a whole lot of firearms will make it past 300 acres). What I find offensive is that the Texas Bureau of Parks is trying to find a way to stop him from doing it completely, simply because they just don't like it.
Freedom is about being able to live your life the way you want. Others may not like it. They may "anguish" over it. But that is different from being "injured" by it. If this guy wants to operate a remote-controlled rifle/hunting range, I support that notion providing it is done safely. Do I agree with it? No, I think it is pretty stupid and intuitively, contrary to what hunting is all about. But I agree that if he can find a way to set it up responsibly and have it be used safely, then he should be free to do it.
You have to have an expectation or privacy to have privacy issues. It is pretty-well settled rule that you have no privacy rights in public places. To travel on public roads, you have already given up a certain degree of privacy (e.g., requiring a breathalyzer test or loss of license for refusal, DUI checkpoints, camera monitoring for "traffic" purposes, etc).
Black boxes cut a very fine line on privacy. The issue not being whether you have any expectation of privacy about when, where and how you travel on public roads, but what kind of information is an invasion of privacy that a black box installed inside your car can provide?
Just some of the questions that will need to be answered regarding black boxes in our vehicles are:
(1) What information will the black box be able to provide Big Brother? (Obviously!)
(2) How will Big Brother be able to access that information? (i.e., will they need a warrant or will being in an accident be enough that a police office can pull out a PDA, plug into the black box in your car, and download the information he needs regarding your speed, G forces, when you applied the brakes, etc.).
(3) What civil liability or criminal charges can occur for an individual who disables a black box?