And the "first-rate" (at what?) citizens on Windows can go back to paying $1,000 to upgrade their systems to run Vista - and continue to pay me $35/hour for four to eight hours to remove the spyware on their machines.
IT geeks are some of the least intelligent designers of things in history.
As an example, now I'm futzing around with a client's Windows XP system. He wants to move the hard drive with XP intact from one machine to a newer machine.
Guess what? You guessed it! Can't be done.
First, Windows won't move without a repair install (or maybe a sysprep - that technigue apparently has been known to work.)
Then those Dell assholes rear their heads. He hasn't got a Dell reinstallation CD to do the repair install with. Okay, I can probably make one from the i386 directory. But it's not clear whether it will work on the new machine - or even if a Dell reinstallation CD will work. Because - and I can't get a straight answer from anyone as to which is true - either the Dell OS installers check for a Dell BIOS and won't load on any other machine - or they do. I've read it both ways on the boards and Usenet.
If I can't do the repair install with the Dell reinstallation CD he's ordering, OR I can't do it from the i386 install CD I can build, OR via a sysprep (and all of these are risky, so I have to back everything up first anyway), he'll have to go buy another full retail version of XP (for half or more of the cost of the new machine) to do either a repair install or a clean install.
NEVER buy Dell, HP or any of these assholes machines. Buy a white box, get a full copy of the OS.
Better yet, switch to Linux - which can at least figure out its hardware at boot time instead of relying on a stupid ass Registry...
I don't which is worse - geek morons or corporate management morons.
If BitTorrent is so efficient at distributing files, why isn't it efficient to distribute the torrents and trackers and available files lists?
Why does BitTorrent need aggregators?
Something is not quite right here.
Why don't they implement a distributed database of available files which itself is accessible and updated over BitTorrent?
These "aggregators" appear to be a freakin' waste of time anyway. Every time I have tried to find a file via a BitTorrent aggregator, I find the torrents are alleged to have so many seeders, but when you load up the torrent, it's zero. Five minutes after a file is seeded and downloaded, the seeders go away and the file isn't available any more. If you can't tell from the aggregator what is a live torrent and what isn't - and ninety five percent of the torrents aren't live - what good are they? They're basically ad revenue aggregators, not file aggregators. They all compete for how many (unworkable) torrents they can show on their pages.
Basically it's no different than any other P2P system - it's a total crap shoot to be able to find a file that IS in fact available. At least on eDonkey or whatever the odds are somewhat better.
The interface on these things could stand to be reworked heavily as well. Most of them are nearly incomprehensible. You have to be a serious file-sharing geek to want to use them regularly that you'll spend the hours necessary to figure out how to get this piece and that piece working, and all the varied terminology figured out.
Amule on my Kubuntu wasn't that difficult, but this business of downloading server lists - Kdemlia is always iffy - is a PITA.
Really is not worth the effort, I find. I managed to download a few MP3's I was looking for recently, but it's an all-day, all-night effort to get a dozen files.
I get a lot of stuff from the file hosting services. They try to remove copyrighted material, but they're a victim of their own success - they can't identify most of the tons of files they get as copyrighted or not unless somebody complains, so as long as someone uploads and points to the file, you can usually get it.
And it's far more convenient to pay a few bucks to Rapidshare and get access to a regular file download than futz around with a P2P system like BitTorrent where you end up waiting sixteen hours to download a 5MB file...
Time to go back to anonymous FTP hosted in countries with lax IP laws, I suspect.
Yes, I called them morons - because any sentient entity who joins a military and allows someone else to put them im harms way on the basis of intelligence they don't know for purposes they don't know based on motivations they don't know is a moron.
And I say that having done just that in Vietnam in 1967.
Anybody who "sacrifices" for their country is a moron by definition.
News to me - and I was there from August 1967 to July 1968.
Winning Tet didn't mean shit. The North Vietnamese and the Viet Cong could have continued fighting for another thirty years if necessary. They would have won in the end whether or not the US policial establishment lost its nerve.
Any US soldier who believes Vietnam was winnable is clueless about how the world works.
And that's the same US soldiers who are in Iraq running their mouth about "winning".
It is NOT POSSIBLE for ANY state to win a Fourth Generation War UNLESS they can somehow gain superior "credibility" than the opposing ideology - or they simply exterminate EVERYBODY on the opposing side.
Those are the US and Israeli options in the Middle East - nuke a billion Muslims or back off.
Period.
You're otherwise correct, however, except that even when we were fighting "Commies", we really didn't know who they were - certainly not in Vietnam. And I'd say the "defined goal" in Vietnam - the so-called "domino effect" - was pretty weak as a goal. Besides the "stated" goals for these ware are NEVER the REAL goals. They're just pablum for public consumption.
"They won because they were able to implement an effective campaign against the Axis Powers."
And this is where your whole argument that we could "win" collapses.
Because, as William Lind points out in his analysis of "Fourth Generation War", today's conflicts are not state vs state, but state vs non-state actors. The non-state actors may have support from some states or another, but they're primarily movements based on ideologies. They are self-regenerating.
And ideologies cannot be defeated militarily without exterminating nearly everybody who believes in them. They can only be defeated, as Lind says, by gaining greater "credibility" than the opposing ideology.
And this is where Bush and the neocons are utter losers. Not that they really care about "ideology" since the neocons are essentially Trotskyites and Jacobins who believe only in greed and power. But their "ideology" fuels their "political" solutions which are solely military in nature, and thus doomed to defeat against any competing ideology using 4GW.
When the US attacks Iran, this fact will be demonstrated in the large - about twice as large as Vietnam and four to ten times larger than the debacle in iraq.
The result will be a United States bled dry economically, militarily and geopolitically.
The so-called "clash of civilizations" is basically bullshit - but the neocons will make it real - and the US will LOSE.
William Lind is predicting just for starters the possible LOSS of the US army in Iraq when Bush attacks Iran (which is virtual certainty at this point.) Not the DEFEAT - the LOSS of that army - meaning tens of thousands of dead US troops, headlong evacuation from the country, and the leaving behind of scores or hundreds of billions of dollars of US equipment. This will be caused by the Iraqi Shia militias joining with Iranian Revolutionary Guards infiltrators to cut US Kuwait supply lines. They may possibly be assisted by several divisions of Iranian troops - but I doubt that. I believe the Iranians will wait for the US to invade Khuzestan and then wage the same sort of asymetrical war the Iraqi insurgents are waging against the US and Hibzallah waged against Israel. Witin thirty to ninety days of cutting US supply lines, the US army in Iraq will be out of food, water, fuel and ammo. That's all done for the US in Iraq at that point.
Al-Sadr can field an estimated 60,000 militia alone - and he's already said he would do so if Iran is attacked. And he isn't even pro-Iranian - he's an Iraqi nationalist. The REAL large Iraqi militias include the Badr Brigade who were trained and supported by Iran for years.
Add a few score thousand Iranian Revolutionary Guards infiltrators - probably quite a few are already in country - and the US military will be unable to move against Iran at all. It will be too busy defending its supply lines in Iraq.
Meanwhile, Iran will be dropping missiles on the nicely identified and GPS-coordinated (by Iranian spies and Iraqi insurgents) US military bases in Iraq. Unless the US can knock out virtually every Iranian missile system in the first 48 hours of airstrikes on Iran - and they won't, as the 1991 war on Saddam proved, movable missiles are hard to knock out - the US military bases will take serious damage in Iraq - and probably also in Kuwait and the UAE. Not enough damage to knock them out, probably - these bases are huge in Iraq - but enough to cause serious US casualties. One hit on a dining hall...remember the Iraqi insurgent attack on a US dining hall?
Many strategists are calling the US attack on Iraq the "biggest strategic mistake in US history."
You shoot ANY automatic weapon that isn't fixed to a tripod more than several rounds at a time and your accuracy goes to hell.
Assault rifles are for ASSAULT - as in close-range. You use them for anything else only when you don't have large-caliber battle rifles.
The AK-47 round is excellent for the assault purpose - much more so than M-16 round which sucks for penetration. That's why US police forces like the Ruger Mini-30 - it fires the heavier round than the Mini-14 and still doesn't look like a "foreign" weeapon for in-country use.
Snipers NEED large rifles to get range and penetration.
You're correct that it isn't "political correctness". It's stupidity and callous disregard for soldier's lives that require them to carry small caliber weapons. Lack of proper training in the military is the real reason. Soldiers are cannon fodder - PERIOD. So nobody bothers to train them to be truly effective. Truly effective soldiers could carry large OR small caliber automatic weapons and still be effective.
But the original post is still correct. You do not spend a year or more training a sniper and then use him for guard duty - not in an insurgent war. That's utterly stupid. Sniper teams should be used exclusively for identifying and taking out individual enemy resources, the higher command level or significance the better - especially in an insurgent context where access to those higher command levels is feasible (as opposed to conventional war, where command elements are usually in the rear and inaccessible to front-line snipers.)
Take the Saddam sons case. That whole operation was a fake, but if it had been real, using one sniper team to take down the sons would have far easier than demolishing the building and the neighborhood with machine guns, LAWs, rockets, and helicopters.
The US military is run by morons for morons and only morons join up.
Look at the Iraqi sniper videos. Our troops are manning checkpoints and fixed positions with signs on them that say, "Shoot me! I'm a moron!" Or "Run a car full of explosives into me! I'm a moron!"
Even putting General Petreaus back in action isn't going to help, either - especially since they're putting General Odierno back in action (who is a real moron.)
William Lind is predicting the LOSS of the US army in Iraq if Bush attacks Iran. Not the DEFEAT - the LOSS...as in thousands of troops dead, headlong evacuation, and the loss of hundreds of billions of dollars of equipment left behind. If Bush attacks Iran, the Iraqi Shia will cut our Kuwait supply lines. Thirty to ninety days later, no food, no water, and no ammo...despite any airlift ideas, it's impossible to supply that army from the air.
And Bush IS going to attack Iran - that's a virtual certainty now.
Used to read SOF all the time, BTW. Not lately, though.
"Finding and downloading stuff from iTMS is easier and faster than the P2P services. It's faster and easier enough that I'm willing to pay for it"
This is EXACTLY what I've been saying. NOBODY has EVER paid for MUSIC. They have paid for easy ACCESS to music.
The only time time anybody ever HAD to even pay for access was when all that existed was phonograph records and no cassette tape recorders (or perhaps that short period of time when there were CDs but no PCs).
I rarely bought records once FM/cassette recorders came out - I just taped off the radio. The defects in that approach mirror the defects in using P2P systems today: quality sucks, it takes time, hard to find, etc. And of course you had to buy tapes practically weekly.
The music industry needs to learn how to charge for ACCESS to music, not the music itself.
Apple is the only one who figured that out.
Unfortunately they have to use DRM or they won't get any stuff to sell from the music industry.
Since Apple only wants to sell iPods, not iTunes, if the industry would get off its ass and figure out how to make money from ACCESS to downloads, the music per se could be free and the artists would still get paid.
And the best way to get access to music is direct broadcast over the Net (video and/or audio). Charge for real-time access and forget about charging for the downloads. You can still charge for access to the downloads or not, as you choose. Why would anyone go anywhere else if YOU are the one providing the easiest downloads?
Is Google broke? Can't the media industry figure out to use Web access to make a buck like Google?
Morons. No, we're chimpanzees. We not only want OUR bananas, we want everybody else's bananas, too...
I assume he meant "Longhorn Server" - which doesn't exist yet (and may never exist).
You are correct that nothing else is relevant to Office 2007.
He's acting like CRM, Web services, groupware, and portals don't exist for any other OS - even while he claims to be using JBoss (which happens to be OSS and runs on Linux just as well as on Windows.)
In other words, a Microsoft shill who knows NOTHING about what is available for FREE on OSS.
Everything he claims to be doing on Windows you can do on OSS for NO MONEY.
No - HE has only five posts. Even Bill himself has posted more times than this guy. Or maybe this guy IS Bill (I assume Bill IS too busy to post here daily.)
The OTHER 800 Microsoft shills using his login ID have done the others.
And they don't interact much, so he doesn't know how many posts they've made in aggregate under this login ID.
And the idiot Windows fanboys who have been saying that NO ONE could EVER figure out how to use Linux will be explaining how a new steep AND "unintuitive" learning curve in Office is a positive thing...
And some of you "grownups" have been using Excel for years to do database work it was never designed for and can't do competently - spending hours futzing around with a "visual" representation of a database - which then becomes a corporate liability when you leave because nobody can figure out how it works.
You mean to tell me that every RSS reader references - and actually tries to FIND and DOWNLOAD - a specific SPECIFICATION hosted on ONE SITE ON THE PLANET?
Are you people utter fucking morons or what?
I can't believe design decisions like this.
I'm especially irritated because I have just spent the last week trying to find an rdiff-backup or rsync that functions on Windows WITHOUT A FUCKING 2GB or 4GB FILE SIZE LIMITATION! Even the Cygwin people could only tell me to "try it"...How about putting it in the fucking FAQ what the file size limits are?!
We HAVE LARGE FUCKING FILES THESE DAYS, MORONS!! We've HAD THEM FOR FIVE YEARS!!
Oh, nobody can be bothered to support librsync anymore...right...
Only Fedora Core 5 bothered to patch it so rdiff-backup can handle large files...
Backup isn't "sexy" like 3D wobbly windows, so nobody cares...
Doctors, lawyers and other professionals are morons.
They're all human.
They're all morons.
See how simple that was?
The article is right, of course. IT people have lousy attitudes - that's why they ARE IT people. The article thus puts the cart before the horse. You don't get into computers if you're a "people person". It's that simple. You DAMN SURE don't LOVE computers if you're a "people person." You like hardware because it's more reliable than people (unless you designed the hardware, of course - another major IT industry problem), and you like software because you can mold it and force it to do what you want (unless you designed it, of course - another problem with the IT industry.)
Face it, folks - the IT industry sucks - just like every other industry, if you bother to ask anybody working in those industries.
Slashdot Mirror
And the "first-rate" (at what?) citizens on Windows can go back to paying $1,000 to upgrade their systems to run Vista - and continue to pay me $35/hour for four to eight hours to remove the spyware on their machines.
Everybody's happy!
NO stuttering!
Maybe this one will work in my Kubuntu! The beta sucked.
Morons...
IT geeks are some of the least intelligent designers of things in history.
As an example, now I'm futzing around with a client's Windows XP system. He wants to move the hard drive with XP intact from one machine to a newer machine.
Guess what? You guessed it! Can't be done.
First, Windows won't move without a repair install (or maybe a sysprep - that technigue apparently has been known to work.)
Then those Dell assholes rear their heads. He hasn't got a Dell reinstallation CD to do the repair install with. Okay, I can probably make one from the i386 directory. But it's not clear whether it will work on the new machine - or even if a Dell reinstallation CD will work. Because - and I can't get a straight answer from anyone as to which is true - either the Dell OS installers check for a Dell BIOS and won't load on any other machine - or they do. I've read it both ways on the boards and Usenet.
If I can't do the repair install with the Dell reinstallation CD he's ordering, OR I can't do it from the i386 install CD I can build, OR via a sysprep (and all of these are risky, so I have to back everything up first anyway), he'll have to go buy another full retail version of XP (for half or more of the cost of the new machine) to do either a repair install or a clean install.
NEVER buy Dell, HP or any of these assholes machines. Buy a white box, get a full copy of the OS.
Better yet, switch to Linux - which can at least figure out its hardware at boot time instead of relying on a stupid ass Registry...
I don't which is worse - geek morons or corporate management morons.
If BitTorrent is so efficient at distributing files, why isn't it efficient to distribute the torrents and trackers and available files lists?
Why does BitTorrent need aggregators?
Something is not quite right here.
Why don't they implement a distributed database of available files which itself is accessible and updated over BitTorrent?
These "aggregators" appear to be a freakin' waste of time anyway. Every time I have tried to find a file via a BitTorrent aggregator, I find the torrents are alleged to have so many seeders, but when you load up the torrent, it's zero. Five minutes after a file is seeded and downloaded, the seeders go away and the file isn't available any more. If you can't tell from the aggregator what is a live torrent and what isn't - and ninety five percent of the torrents aren't live - what good are they? They're basically ad revenue aggregators, not file aggregators. They all compete for how many (unworkable) torrents they can show on their pages.
Basically it's no different than any other P2P system - it's a total crap shoot to be able to find a file that IS in fact available. At least on eDonkey or whatever the odds are somewhat better.
The interface on these things could stand to be reworked heavily as well. Most of them are nearly incomprehensible. You have to be a serious file-sharing geek to want to use them regularly that you'll spend the hours necessary to figure out how to get this piece and that piece working, and all the varied terminology figured out.
Amule on my Kubuntu wasn't that difficult, but this business of downloading server lists - Kdemlia is always iffy - is a PITA.
Really is not worth the effort, I find. I managed to download a few MP3's I was looking for recently, but it's an all-day, all-night effort to get a dozen files.
I get a lot of stuff from the file hosting services. They try to remove copyrighted material, but they're a victim of their own success - they can't identify most of the tons of files they get as copyrighted or not unless somebody complains, so as long as someone uploads and points to the file, you can usually get it.
And it's far more convenient to pay a few bucks to Rapidshare and get access to a regular file download than futz around with a P2P system like BitTorrent where you end up waiting sixteen hours to download a 5MB file...
Time to go back to anonymous FTP hosted in countries with lax IP laws, I suspect.
Yes, I called them morons - because any sentient entity who joins a military and allows someone else to put them im harms way on the basis of intelligence they don't know for purposes they don't know based on motivations they don't know is a moron.
And I say that having done just that in Vietnam in 1967.
Anybody who "sacrifices" for their country is a moron by definition.
BTW the way I hate nachos.
Moron.
Why am I not surprised?
This is where that idiot "toughest sheriff in America" operates, isn't it?
The moron who lets prisoners in his jail live in sewage?
Is he still alive or did somebody put a bullet in his head as he deserves?
Vietname was a "won war"?
News to me - and I was there from August 1967 to July 1968.
Winning Tet didn't mean shit. The North Vietnamese and the Viet Cong could have continued fighting for another thirty years if necessary. They would have won in the end whether or not the US policial establishment lost its nerve.
Any US soldier who believes Vietnam was winnable is clueless about how the world works.
And that's the same US soldiers who are in Iraq running their mouth about "winning".
It is NOT POSSIBLE for ANY state to win a Fourth Generation War UNLESS they can somehow gain superior "credibility" than the opposing ideology - or they simply exterminate EVERYBODY on the opposing side.
Those are the US and Israeli options in the Middle East - nuke a billion Muslims or back off.
Period.
You're otherwise correct, however, except that even when we were fighting "Commies", we really didn't know who they were - certainly not in Vietnam. And I'd say the "defined goal" in Vietnam - the so-called "domino effect" - was pretty weak as a goal. Besides the "stated" goals for these ware are NEVER the REAL goals. They're just pablum for public consumption.
"They won because they were able to implement an effective campaign against the Axis Powers."
And this is where your whole argument that we could "win" collapses.
Because, as William Lind points out in his analysis of "Fourth Generation War", today's conflicts are not state vs state, but state vs non-state actors. The non-state actors may have support from some states or another, but they're primarily movements based on ideologies. They are self-regenerating.
And ideologies cannot be defeated militarily without exterminating nearly everybody who believes in them. They can only be defeated, as Lind says, by gaining greater "credibility" than the opposing ideology.
And this is where Bush and the neocons are utter losers. Not that they really care about "ideology" since the neocons are essentially Trotskyites and Jacobins who believe only in greed and power. But their "ideology" fuels their "political" solutions which are solely military in nature, and thus doomed to defeat against any competing ideology using 4GW.
When the US attacks Iran, this fact will be demonstrated in the large - about twice as large as Vietnam and four to ten times larger than the debacle in iraq.
The result will be a United States bled dry economically, militarily and geopolitically.
The so-called "clash of civilizations" is basically bullshit - but the neocons will make it real - and the US will LOSE.
William Lind is predicting just for starters the possible LOSS of the US army in Iraq when Bush attacks Iran (which is virtual certainty at this point.) Not the DEFEAT - the LOSS of that army - meaning tens of thousands of dead US troops, headlong evacuation from the country, and the leaving behind of scores or hundreds of billions of dollars of US equipment. This will be caused by the Iraqi Shia militias joining with Iranian Revolutionary Guards infiltrators to cut US Kuwait supply lines. They may possibly be assisted by several divisions of Iranian troops - but I doubt that. I believe the Iranians will wait for the US to invade Khuzestan and then wage the same sort of asymetrical war the Iraqi insurgents are waging against the US and Hibzallah waged against Israel. Witin thirty to ninety days of cutting US supply lines, the US army in Iraq will be out of food, water, fuel and ammo. That's all done for the US in Iraq at that point.
Al-Sadr can field an estimated 60,000 militia alone - and he's already said he would do so if Iran is attacked. And he isn't even pro-Iranian - he's an Iraqi nationalist. The REAL large Iraqi militias include the Badr Brigade who were trained and supported by Iran for years.
Add a few score thousand Iranian Revolutionary Guards infiltrators - probably quite a few are already in country - and the US military will be unable to move against Iran at all. It will be too busy defending its supply lines in Iraq.
Meanwhile, Iran will be dropping missiles on the nicely identified and GPS-coordinated (by Iranian spies and Iraqi insurgents) US military bases in Iraq. Unless the US can knock out virtually every Iranian missile system in the first 48 hours of airstrikes on Iran - and they won't, as the 1991 war on Saddam proved, movable missiles are hard to knock out - the US military bases will take serious damage in Iraq - and probably also in Kuwait and the UAE. Not enough damage to knock them out, probably - these bases are huge in Iraq - but enough to cause serious US casualties. One hit on a dining hall...remember the Iraqi insurgent attack on a US dining hall?
Many strategists are calling the US attack on Iraq the "biggest strategic mistake in US history."
You ain't seen nothing yet.
You shoot ANY automatic weapon that isn't fixed to a tripod more than several rounds at a time and your accuracy goes to hell.
Assault rifles are for ASSAULT - as in close-range. You use them for anything else only when you don't have large-caliber battle rifles.
The AK-47 round is excellent for the assault purpose - much more so than M-16 round which sucks for penetration. That's why US police forces like the Ruger Mini-30 - it fires the heavier round than the Mini-14 and still doesn't look like a "foreign" weeapon for in-country use.
Snipers NEED large rifles to get range and penetration.
You're correct that it isn't "political correctness". It's stupidity and callous disregard for soldier's lives that require them to carry small caliber weapons. Lack of proper training in the military is the real reason. Soldiers are cannon fodder - PERIOD. So nobody bothers to train them to be truly effective. Truly effective soldiers could carry large OR small caliber automatic weapons and still be effective.
But the original post is still correct. You do not spend a year or more training a sniper and then use him for guard duty - not in an insurgent war. That's utterly stupid. Sniper teams should be used exclusively for identifying and taking out individual enemy resources, the higher command level or significance the better - especially in an insurgent context where access to those higher command levels is feasible (as opposed to conventional war, where command elements are usually in the rear and inaccessible to front-line snipers.)
Take the Saddam sons case. That whole operation was a fake, but if it had been real, using one sniper team to take down the sons would have far easier than demolishing the building and the neighborhood with machine guns, LAWs, rockets, and helicopters.
The US military is run by morons for morons and only morons join up.
Excellent post.
Look at the Iraqi sniper videos. Our troops are manning checkpoints and fixed positions with signs on them that say, "Shoot me! I'm a moron!" Or "Run a car full of explosives into me! I'm a moron!"
Even putting General Petreaus back in action isn't going to help, either - especially since they're putting General Odierno back in action (who is a real moron.)
William Lind is predicting the LOSS of the US army in Iraq if Bush attacks Iran. Not the DEFEAT - the LOSS...as in thousands of troops dead, headlong evacuation, and the loss of hundreds of billions of dollars of equipment left behind. If Bush attacks Iran, the Iraqi Shia will cut our Kuwait supply lines. Thirty to ninety days later, no food, no water, and no ammo...despite any airlift ideas, it's impossible to supply that army from the air.
And Bush IS going to attack Iran - that's a virtual certainty now.
Used to read SOF all the time, BTW. Not lately, though.
10x for doing this from a Teletype terminal.
12x for flipping DIP switches on a computer with no keyboard OR terminal.
20X for doing this on a machine with only 4K of RAM.
"Finding and downloading stuff from iTMS is easier and faster than the P2P services. It's faster and easier enough that I'm willing to pay for it"
This is EXACTLY what I've been saying. NOBODY has EVER paid for MUSIC. They have paid for easy ACCESS to music.
The only time time anybody ever HAD to even pay for access was when all that existed was phonograph records and no cassette tape recorders (or perhaps that short period of time when there were CDs but no PCs).
I rarely bought records once FM/cassette recorders came out - I just taped off the radio. The defects in that approach mirror the defects in using P2P systems today: quality sucks, it takes time, hard to find, etc. And of course you had to buy tapes practically weekly.
The music industry needs to learn how to charge for ACCESS to music, not the music itself.
Apple is the only one who figured that out.
Unfortunately they have to use DRM or they won't get any stuff to sell from the music industry.
Since Apple only wants to sell iPods, not iTunes, if the industry would get off its ass and figure out how to make money from ACCESS to downloads, the music per se could be free and the artists would still get paid.
And the best way to get access to music is direct broadcast over the Net (video and/or audio). Charge for real-time access and forget about charging for the downloads. You can still charge for access to the downloads or not, as you choose. Why would anyone go anywhere else if YOU are the one providing the easiest downloads?
Is Google broke? Can't the media industry figure out to use Web access to make a buck like Google?
Morons. No, we're chimpanzees. We not only want OUR bananas, we want everybody else's bananas, too...
I assume he meant "Longhorn Server" - which doesn't exist yet (and may never exist).
You are correct that nothing else is relevant to Office 2007.
He's acting like CRM, Web services, groupware, and portals don't exist for any other OS - even while he claims to be using JBoss (which happens to be OSS and runs on Linux just as well as on Windows.)
In other words, a Microsoft shill who knows NOTHING about what is available for FREE on OSS.
Everything he claims to be doing on Windows you can do on OSS for NO MONEY.
Pure Windows shill.
No - HE has only five posts. Even Bill himself has posted more times than this guy. Or maybe this guy IS Bill (I assume Bill IS too busy to post here daily.)
The OTHER 800 Microsoft shills using his login ID have done the others.
And they don't interact much, so he doesn't know how many posts they've made in aggregate under this login ID.
+5 Microsoft Shill
Rated by the other Microsoft shills here, of course...
This is
"Unbiased" comments are automatically deleted by Slash and the user's account revoked.
I can live with it.
"...relatively old Pentium 4 (with 3 GB memory)"
Now that makes me feel old.
I'm still running on an AMD 1.67 (Intel 2.0 equivalent) with 512MB.
"I need more than 256 columns, and 64k rows."
No - you need a database.
And not that POS called Access, BTW.
Like Windows doesn't need shills...
Hah!
Microsoft pays astroturfers - and so-called "journalists" - to run around Linux sites saying, "Gee, I LOVE Linux...BUT..." every day.
My position remains unaffected:
Windows is CRAP.
Linux and OSS are ALSO CRAP.
But Linux and OSS are FREE CRAP.
And the idiot Windows fanboys who have been saying that NO ONE could EVER figure out how to use Linux will be explaining how a new steep AND "unintuitive" learning curve in Office is a positive thing...
And some of you "grownups" have been using Excel for years to do database work it was never designed for and can't do competently - spending hours futzing around with a "visual" representation of a database - which then becomes a corporate liability when you leave because nobody can figure out how it works.
That was the previous build.
Now it's labeled "Linux killer"...
(NOT)
Get a life.
I've never even HEARD of the "demoscene".
Somebody stole your "intellectual property".
Oh, boo hoo! Welcome to the real world!
At least you didn't get shot in the process.
Why is this Slashdot news?
Let the rabbits eat the North Koreans.
Then, breed them bigger, give them AK-74's and send them to overrun South Korea.
Hah! Deal with that, Bush!
Referencing the other topic today...
You mean to tell me that every RSS reader references - and actually tries to FIND and DOWNLOAD - a specific SPECIFICATION hosted on ONE SITE ON THE PLANET?
Are you people utter fucking morons or what?
I can't believe design decisions like this.
I'm especially irritated because I have just spent the last week trying to find an rdiff-backup or rsync that functions on Windows WITHOUT A FUCKING 2GB or 4GB FILE SIZE LIMITATION! Even the Cygwin people could only tell me to "try it"...How about putting it in the fucking FAQ what the file size limits are?!
We HAVE LARGE FUCKING FILES THESE DAYS, MORONS!! We've HAD THEM FOR FIVE YEARS!!
Oh, nobody can be bothered to support librsync anymore...right...
Only Fedora Core 5 bothered to patch it so rdiff-backup can handle large files...
Backup isn't "sexy" like 3D wobbly windows, so nobody cares...
Chimpanzees. Jesus Baron von Fucking Christ!
Users are morons.
IT people are morons.
Doctors, lawyers and other professionals are morons.
They're all human.
They're all morons.
See how simple that was?
The article is right, of course. IT people have lousy attitudes - that's why they ARE IT people. The article thus puts the cart before the horse. You don't get into computers if you're a "people person". It's that simple. You DAMN SURE don't LOVE computers if you're a "people person." You like hardware because it's more reliable than people (unless you designed the hardware, of course - another major IT industry problem), and you like software because you can mold it and force it to do what you want (unless you designed it, of course - another problem with the IT industry.)
Face it, folks - the IT industry sucks - just like every other industry, if you bother to ask anybody working in those industries.
Welcome to the real world.
Chimpanzees. Jesus Baron von Fucking Christ!
This post got score zero?
Wow, the Solaris geeks are out in force today.
Nothing to do at the data center?
Oh, right, that's because Solaris is SO reliable, I suppose. That's why you're sitting around the data center on Sunday...
And they call Linux geeks fanatical...
Read my lips:
SOLARIS IS A HAS=BEEN!