Its only making it hard for those who would never pay for it to use it.
Actually it tends to not inconvenience those who would never pay, as they either know how to crack it or where to get the crack. instead it tends to make it hard for those who legitimately buy it. Product Keys. Activation. All that kind of stuff ticks off legitimate users, yet is rarely seen by the very people it's suposed to stop.
Personally I can't code for toffee and could contribute very little to FOSS projects. I'd still favour FOSS software over free-but-closed any day. Just because I perosnally can't tinker or improve it doesn't mean I don't appreciate the chance to do so, or the knowledge that others can.
I also find that when something doesn't cost anything you have to ask "Where's the catch?" With FOSS projects you know what the catch is. (You want it, you fix it) You can also check up on the project history. Even as a non-coder I certainly appreciate this. Plus you know what the project gains from having it Free - the extra potential help. With something that's simply without-cost you have to wonder what the company/writer is getting for it.
I'm mostly of that opinion myself these days. A few things (RoTS is probably one, HHGttG was another) I will see in the cinema as soon as I can. Some things I will see if any friends happen to be going. Other stuff I'll wait for the DVD.
OK in my case have a mild case of social anxiety on my side. Sitting in a room crammed with people I've never met with no guarantee of getting a front or aisle seat is something I refuse to do unless I've got damned high expectations of the film.
That and family films (such as The Incredibles) are full of screaming kids and people getting up to go to the bathroom halfway though. (The drawback of having to sit on an aisle seat.
Either way I'd rather watch it at home either on my own or with a good friend or two. I just think it sucks that this option involves several extra months of waiting. I don't download a bootleg, but I do understand why at least some of them do.
I'm pretty sure that's not usually why people pay to watch stuff. Especially traditionally people would pay at the cinema because it was the only way to see them. These days people pay at the cinema for the experience and quality. For video (and DVD) people would pay for the convenience of home watching that, unlike TV, was at a time of their choosing - and being able to pause when you need to go to the bathroom.
I pay at the cinema for (some of) the experience, the better audiovisual quality and not haivng to wait an extra several months for the home release. if I'm honest, though, the experience is only a small part of it and I'm really paying to see it now. I pay for DVDs for the special features that are missing from the internet rips.
The fact that the people involved get properly compensated is only a small part of why I pay.
Lets face it, in most cases move-screen quality is a major reason why most people "do the right thing", not because it is the right thing.
Some how it seems strange. I'm more than happy to pay for a printed newspaper/magazine. But not for an online one. Why is this?
I'm similar. I think it's to do with the media feeling like it has a value but the information itself less so. When you buy a newspaper you're paying for a stack of paper and ink - the things that actually carry the information.
With the Internet your already paying for the "media" as you're paying for your internet subscription. Either that our your place of work is. But either way the cost of carrying the information is already paid for. It feels like "paying twice" for something.
Also with a physical newspaper even if you don't actualy read it for a few weeks (or if you do, but there's nothing worthwhile in it) your money's not totally lost. The paper itself can be used in other ways, like for packing materials. If you subscribe for an online service if you miss a few weeks (or the news is rubbish) that's it. You have nothing to show for it.
Visually, they can do great things to change appearance of age. Check out the actress that played Moaning Myrtle in Movie 2. I don't think the character's age has ever been said, but she has to be younger than 17, and is probably closer to 14 because she hits on Harry when he was 12/14. How many of you knew the actress was 37 when that movie came out, and will be 40 this year playing the same character in GoF?
ISTR that she dies in her third year, so she'd have been 13 or 14 at the time. I could, however, tell that the actress was significantly older than a teenager. I didn't know how much older untill just now, but it was obvious that she was an adult playing a kid. Well, maybe only obvious to those who either work with kids or have kids of their own. But she didn't look the right age.
The main characters, however, will probably be fine should they stay on for the entire series. The age difference won't be so pronounced, meaning that the makeup department will probably be able to do a convincing enough job. Plus, as you mentioned, using the same actor with a year or two's age discrepancy will probably look less odd than having a whole new actor try to take over a role.
Besides, around that age kids really can seem to age that fast. And some don't. I've known kids who look three years older than they are, and on the other hand I know I still looked late-teens until I was about 22.
Also there is the issue of regions - advertisers want to advertise to target audiences. Very few companies want to advertise worldwide. Torrents are, by definition, worldwide. So you'd need sponsors who see value in advertising to the whole planet at once.
They don't have to advertise to the whole planet at once, they need to advertise to several markets at once. Instead they're currently advertising to several markets in a very piecemeal fashion. In the world of instant communication, however, this model simply can't keep up.
This is a problem that, as I've believed for years now, has arisen because the networks really dropped the ball with the arrival of the internet.
No, not downloads, but the simple distribution of information. Torrents are worldwide because, quite simply, many of us refuse to wait anymore the weeks/months/years it can take for shows to appear (if at all) outside their country of origin. People just don't trust their local networks anymore to actually get shows in a timely manner, or at all. But ti didn't have to be this way.
Early/mid 1990s communication technology grew to the point where it was a lot easier to find out about shows, games and movies that were available in other countries. No longer did you only know about the latest episodes to be broadcast in your region or country, you could easily find out about the actual latest episode. (Including realising that a show or game series actually has a lot more than was ever released in your home area)
What's this got to do with the topic at hand? Simple.
Over the past decade or longer people have learned that for non-local programming waiting for the official broadcast is not the best option anymore. The companies decided to maintain their seperate geographical markets (fair enough, their choice) but didn't shrink the lag between regional releases (their mistake). Maybe near-simultaneous releases of episodes would have carried a short-term bite into cross-marketing revenues but in the long term it may well have kept people waiting for the local broadcast.
Instead people go elsewhere for their episodes and, as a result, have grown (too?) used to on-demand advert-free programming. Like it or not, legal or not, that genie is pretty much out for good.
The world changed, and the TV execs didn't keep up. They made themselves all-but-obsolete. The industry, in its traditional form, is on its way out. What the industry and audience want are too fundamentally different now. Will this be bad for TV/entertainment? In the short term, probably. In the long term, possibly not. If the entertainment industries collapse it will be a mess, but something will fill the void eventually.
I liked the policy one place I temped with had. Non-smokers were allowed equal time to nip outside for a non-smoke break. Good excuse to go outside for a quick chat and a (probably advisable) break from staring at a screen.
Well the article does raise one very important question.
Do those $29 cheapo players support any DRM at all, or is it vanilla-mp3/WMA only? I thought those things didn't supports DRMd files - unless things've changed over the past couple years.
The thing is that if these things don't play DRM-WMA then she's just shot herself in the foot with this little article. Unless she's saying that at least they're equally restrictive - don't play anyone's files.
Also I have to say that when she says that preventing people using MS technology is anti-consumer and unfriendly I find that a little hard to take. Especially seeing that the "more open stores" she advocates are, in the majority of cases, IE-only. That doesn't sound very "pro consumer" or "friendly" to me.
At least ITMS runs on two platforms. Far from perfect, but a stop above the WMA stores in my opinion.
re: Apple adopting someone else's DRM Woudn't it be of benefit to consumers? Or better yet, how about Apple licensing their DRM liberally, like Microsoft does, so that we can play our iTMS songs on other-than-Apple devices?
I guess the problem with adopting someone else's DRM would be that, as someone pointed out elsewhere on this discussion, they'd have to pay (probably per iPod) a license fee to use the other DRM. When they've got a perfectly-functioning (from their PoV) DRM scheme already in place, why would they want to have to pay extra to use someone else's?
As for licensing out FairPlay, I have no idea. Technically it shouldn't be difficult for them to do this. However seeing that they tend to update iPod/iTunes every so often it could potentially become a headache when they have to keep in step with other people who are using the DRM scheme. Currently when they make a change it only affects themselves, so they only have to organise things internally.
Too many of the UK computer-based courses/examinations tend to be extremely Windows-centric. And even the bits that aren't about Windows have questions written by examiners and not techies.
This latter wouldn't be a bad thing except that some of the "correct" terminology required to pass the exams are not the terms/answers I (and many other techie-types) would use.
It's also not always just Windows-centric, but specific-version-centric. Some of last year's ECDL questions were so XP-based that the answers were different on the Windows 98 PCs we use in our centre. The secondary sorting characteristics are different between the versions, and the people who wrote the paper had several files with the same last-modified stamp and wrote a question based on an assumption about the secondary sort the OS would use.
Upgrading is (sadly) not a simple matter - these computers are in desperate need of replacing this year yet I can tell that whoever hold the budget has decided we don't need to get new ones yet.
Yes, as people keep saying, it's good to know that people are going to be defaulting to knowing how to use the most commonly used office suite around. But sooner or later it's going to cause problems when someone with their shiny new ECDL or CLAIT (two computer-literacy qualifications) certificate gets stumped when they get hired by a Mac house or somewhere that insists on using a non-MS-Office suite on Windows.
That, and people are making assumptions that because Windows/MS-Office is the only thing taught that nothing else exists and, as such, produce files for people with this assumption.
As a result, they filled up two rather large warehouses with documents, and told the feds: Here you go, have at it.
Now that's interesting - especially when taken alongside the Judge's suggestion that they be very thorough to head-off any SCO claims of IBM not helping.
The judge would almost have to know what "thorough" can mean when applied to IBM.
Exactly! The editor used the word share when Microsoft isn't sharing anything at all.
Actually, to be fair, for once they're actually using the term used in the original article's headline. The BBC's own headline uses the term share - only they don't even use the quotation marks, which do at least shed a bit of doubt on whether it's "sharing" at all.
I've looked into Debian a few times, although never actually tried it out yet. But I have a pretty good "outsider's" view of how Debian appears to anyone still considering it. And although some of my observations may be (somewhat/very/totally) off-base, this is how it can seem to a current non-Debian user.
Debian Stable seems to be doing just fine. It's a bit old, so hardware support is dated, but no one who needs a "stable" distro ever complains that Debian Stable isn't "stable" enough.
True. However a desktop user (and some will want a desktop that's totally stable) may find it extremely dated. Server maintainers may well be put off a fresh install of Debian, too, as it has been raised a lot here that a lot of the server packages have been long-since superceded. And if you can't get the more up to date (and, in some cases, more secure) packages without backporting then it doesn't really seen "stable" to some.
The hardware issue is also going to be a problem with servers. If it can't recognise many current hardware configurations it won't be suitable. However if stable won't take the hardware and testing won't get as frequent security updates then Debian becomes a much less viable option.
The goal for Debian Testing was for it to always be "ready to release". In theory, then, Testing would be an ideal base for third-party distros. Unfortunately, for some reason, few Debian-derived distros use Testing as a base. Most use Unstable instead.
From what I can tell, many people (including actual Debian users) have though Sarge to be "ready to release" since last year. However a lot of things have changed since then, and it is starting to look dated even before becoming stable. Sarge seems to be very much a 2003/2004 distribution, which is going to look odd in 2005.
The real drawback here is that if, like with Sarge, the Testing distribution becomes effectively "as stable as Stable, but without the timely security updates" it becomes a non-option for servers.
Also as Testing is, certainly in this case, still somewhat behind in its packages it doesn't really make a good base for a distro. Debian-based distros will be more likely to use Unstable as a starting-point as it's simply more current.
Especially desktop distros, where users are more likely to want the latest versions. Basing something from Sarge would certainly look a tad on the old side.
Granted some of these issues seem to be Woody/Sarge specific, but that itself highlight one of the perceived problems with Debian. Stable and Testing will be great shortly after a new Stable release, but after a while both will start to look slightly dated.
When it's fast approaching the third anniversary of the last Stable release it's only going to be Unstable that seems really current. And even then Sid lacks things like X.org which many people have said is the reason they jumped ship and the only thing keeping them from returning.
This is how things can seem from a non-Debian viewpoint. As such they can make Debian seem like a less than ideal option when considering the various options. And this is a real shame, as it has a very good reputation (I first heard about it in 1996 and, apart from the release-speed issues, haven't really heard much bad about it) but just seems a little daunting if you've not tried it before and don't have a spare machine to practice on.
But the next question to ask - would you adblock those ads saying how "evil it is to post those ads on my screen. Things should be free, and this advertising is pushing stuff on my computer. Why are they not paying me for my bandwidth." I seem to recall a few posters like this within the past week.
This is one of the inherant problems with the subscription vs advertising model used at the moment. There is an assumption that people who don't want to pay for content won't mind advertisements.
But, seeing that advertisements are basically trying to persuade you to buy things you don't already intend to, it seems like a broken model. Surely people who can't/won't spend money on a subscription aren't overly likely to buy from your advertisers.
Or, putting it the other way around, the people who are fundamentally opposed to being advertised at are very unlikely to want to spend money - especially on removing adverts. So the "subscribe for the sole benefit of having no adverts" model that some sites use is completely broken.
(I favour the sites where getting rid of adverts is just one of the benefits. You actually feel like your money's worth something that way)
Almost all protagonists in Silent Hill stories are looking for something or someone.
Not played the games yet, but have read a fair bit about them. And, yeah, "Silent Hill" does seem more of a concept than an absolute story.
If anything SH sounds like one of the few game franchises where you could come up with an original story and still be extremely faithful to the spirit of the original material. I'm sure the people in the games (and comics) are far from the only people who've got mixed up in Silent Hill - unlike some games where the primary characters were the only people involved. So why not make a film that uses the setting and the concept and follows the adventure of another protagonist who got mixed up in events.
A quick Google on with the terms Tiger and Computers listed Tiger Direct at the top (and second) and OS X Tiger as fourth (behind a page where the sysnopsis said the page was obslete). So doing a search on those terms would get TD first, anyway.
And, to be honest, anyone searhcing for a computer reseller using the term "Tiger" is obviously looking for that specific company. So how they'd get confused is anyone's business - well, unless they were looking to order an iPod from them and notice Apple has their own store and decide to buy directly from source.
It is entirely possible that the entire reason that they waited so long is that they've been talking to Apple about this the entire time. It is also entirely possible that Apple only *recently* gave Tiger Direct "the finger."
This is very possible, however if true then I'm surprised they don't make a bigger deal of that aspect of things. (Well, unless there's a point of law stating you can't release those kinds of details)
If Tiger Direct have been in negotiations then I would have thought making a big deal of only filing this as a last resort oftern talks fell through would paint them in a good light and Apple as being the "Big Bad Villain".
However, rightly or wrongly, if all we see is them suing on the eve of the release dats it looks like a moneygrab - even if it isn't. Even if they're in the right they've shot themselves in the foot by making themselves look like opportunists. "After negotiations failed..." are three small words that, if that is the case, would have this company looking in a much stronger position than they do right now.
Is there no way this can blow up in their face at all? I mean how long has the name "Tiger" been known as the enxt iteration on Mac OS X? Months? Since late last year at the latest I'm sure. And they wait until now to spring this?
If that doesn't come over as an obvious ploy to make money out of Apple then I don't know what does.
Granted the article is a little light on detail, like whether Tiger Direct had contacted Apple about this before. But if they didn't then they certainly had time to.
This is probably the most concise information about this that I've seen. I've seen (both in this discussion and elsewhere) much debate about why Commenting Is More Important or why Clear Code Is More Important, yet very few well-written reponses about why both (along with design docs) are important and in what context.
Back in Uni when we were being told about why Comments Were Important I really wish it'd been explained this way. Advice is a lot easier to take when there's a good explanation behind it.
When installing a printer I want to install the drivers. That is all. So when the Windows "New Hardware Wizard" pops up, I can point the wizard at the on-CD (or on-Network, on-harddrive, etc) directory containing the drivers. The way Windows is designed to work.
What I don't want to have to do is actually install a load of software that's not actually to do with the printing. Just the driver. Please. Thankyou.
I agree with you on that one, and to me it's actually a proof of two things.
1 - The basic concept was strong enough. (Apparently a tried-and-tested improv formula anyway) 2 - Something can be less than the original but still actually work.
It felt like a very different beast in some ways, yet still taken from the same mould in others. And in a way that's possibly the best way to go about such things.
Having said that, Whose Line did have one major thing going for it. It's real strength wasn't it's Britishness, it was the format. And it showed. Even though the Drew Carey version wasn't quite in the same class in my opinion, it was still a really fun show to watch.
Re:The Real Reason Why Phones Are Banned On Planes
on
Bluetooth on an Airplane?
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
You got modded up funny, and do seem to have put a largely humorous slant on it, but I think you do kinda have a serious point there. At least when it comes to the "700 mobiles all..." idea.
It may not be so much the message-alert tone, but there is that annoying buzz that can affect radios and stuff. Now one phone putting out interference as it searches for a signal then gets a backlog of messages may not pose too much of a risk... (Yes, I know that sometimes it can just be the one small signal in the wrong place in the wrong time) ...but 700 mobiles all making those connections at the one time could put out a hell of a lot of that damned buzzing. (Or possibly swamp out a small but vital device somewhere)
And maybe, compared to hardware failure, the buzzing noise might not seem like such a dangerous thing (personally I've found it little more than an irritation on my headphones) but do we really want a plane full of mobiles to result in the pilot getting a burst of buzzing on his headset when he's either trying to concentrate on something or get vital information over the radio?
Its not that cookies are such a bad thing when used correctly. Some people dont want to use them and thats fine. For them let them log in repeatedly and see ads that arent relevant or contextual to what they have been doing or watching.
That's why I have my browser set to ask me what I want to do with cookies, then I use per-site allow/block settings depending on whether I need to log in or not. If I don't need to log into it, or don't need settings to persist, then I don't let the cookies get set. (Although MSN/Hotmail/Passport is a real pig, as it seems arbitrary as to which cookies are required for Hotmail to load)
But at the end of the day it's up to me which of these do and don't persist on my computer.
And as for advertising, well I don't care as I mostly ignore them anyway. If I lack the money/justification to pay for a subscription to a site than I probably lack the same for whatever the adverts are trying to sell at me.
The ads here on Slashdot are about as relevantly targetted as they will get for me. But that doesn't change the simple fact that these days if I do want to spend money I'll go do my own damn legwork. Adverts really don't encourage me to seek out a product.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually it tends to not inconvenience those who would never pay, as they either know how to crack it or where to get the crack. instead it tends to make it hard for those who legitimately buy it. Product Keys. Activation. All that kind of stuff ticks off legitimate users, yet is rarely seen by the very people it's suposed to stop.
It depends whether you mean "free" or "Free".
Personally I can't code for toffee and could contribute very little to FOSS projects. I'd still favour FOSS software over free-but-closed any day. Just because I perosnally can't tinker or improve it doesn't mean I don't appreciate the chance to do so, or the knowledge that others can.
I also find that when something doesn't cost anything you have to ask "Where's the catch?" With FOSS projects you know what the catch is. (You want it, you fix it) You can also check up on the project history. Even as a non-coder I certainly appreciate this. Plus you know what the project gains from having it Free - the extra potential help. With something that's simply without-cost you have to wonder what the company/writer is getting for it.
I'm mostly of that opinion myself these days. A few things (RoTS is probably one, HHGttG was another) I will see in the cinema as soon as I can. Some things I will see if any friends happen to be going. Other stuff I'll wait for the DVD.
OK in my case have a mild case of social anxiety on my side. Sitting in a room crammed with people I've never met with no guarantee of getting a front or aisle seat is something I refuse to do unless I've got damned high expectations of the film.
That and family films (such as The Incredibles) are full of screaming kids and people getting up to go to the bathroom halfway though. (The drawback of having to sit on an aisle seat.
Either way I'd rather watch it at home either on my own or with a good friend or two. I just think it sucks that this option involves several extra months of waiting. I don't download a bootleg, but I do understand why at least some of them do.
"Supposed to", yes. In practice, usually not.
I'm pretty sure that's not usually why people pay to watch stuff. Especially traditionally people would pay at the cinema because it was the only way to see them. These days people pay at the cinema for the experience and quality. For video (and DVD) people would pay for the convenience of home watching that, unlike TV, was at a time of their choosing - and being able to pause when you need to go to the bathroom.
I pay at the cinema for (some of) the experience, the better audiovisual quality and not haivng to wait an extra several months for the home release. if I'm honest, though, the experience is only a small part of it and I'm really paying to see it now. I pay for DVDs for the special features that are missing from the internet rips.
The fact that the people involved get properly compensated is only a small part of why I pay.
Lets face it, in most cases move-screen quality is a major reason why most people "do the right thing", not because it is the right thing.
I'm similar. I think it's to do with the media feeling like it has a value but the information itself less so. When you buy a newspaper you're paying for a stack of paper and ink - the things that actually carry the information.
With the Internet your already paying for the "media" as you're paying for your internet subscription. Either that our your place of work is. But either way the cost of carrying the information is already paid for. It feels like "paying twice" for something.
Also with a physical newspaper even if you don't actualy read it for a few weeks (or if you do, but there's nothing worthwhile in it) your money's not totally lost. The paper itself can be used in other ways, like for packing materials. If you subscribe for an online service if you miss a few weeks (or the news is rubbish) that's it. You have nothing to show for it.
ISTR that she dies in her third year, so she'd have been 13 or 14 at the time. I could, however, tell that the actress was significantly older than a teenager. I didn't know how much older untill just now, but it was obvious that she was an adult playing a kid. Well, maybe only obvious to those who either work with kids or have kids of their own. But she didn't look the right age.
The main characters, however, will probably be fine should they stay on for the entire series. The age difference won't be so pronounced, meaning that the makeup department will probably be able to do a convincing enough job. Plus, as you mentioned, using the same actor with a year or two's age discrepancy will probably look less odd than having a whole new actor try to take over a role.
Besides, around that age kids really can seem to age that fast. And some don't. I've known kids who look three years older than they are, and on the other hand I know I still looked late-teens until I was about 22.
They don't have to advertise to the whole planet at once, they need to advertise to several markets at once. Instead they're currently advertising to several markets in a very piecemeal fashion. In the world of instant communication, however, this model simply can't keep up.
This is a problem that, as I've believed for years now, has arisen because the networks really dropped the ball with the arrival of the internet.
No, not downloads, but the simple distribution of information. Torrents are worldwide because, quite simply, many of us refuse to wait anymore the weeks/months/years it can take for shows to appear (if at all) outside their country of origin. People just don't trust their local networks anymore to actually get shows in a timely manner, or at all. But ti didn't have to be this way.
Early/mid 1990s communication technology grew to the point where it was a lot easier to find out about shows, games and movies that were available in other countries. No longer did you only know about the latest episodes to be broadcast in your region or country, you could easily find out about the actual latest episode. (Including realising that a show or game series actually has a lot more than was ever released in your home area)
What's this got to do with the topic at hand? Simple.
Over the past decade or longer people have learned that for non-local programming waiting for the official broadcast is not the best option anymore. The companies decided to maintain their seperate geographical markets (fair enough, their choice) but didn't shrink the lag between regional releases (their mistake). Maybe near-simultaneous releases of episodes would have carried a short-term bite into cross-marketing revenues but in the long term it may well have kept people waiting for the local broadcast.
Instead people go elsewhere for their episodes and, as a result, have grown (too?) used to on-demand advert-free programming. Like it or not, legal or not, that genie is pretty much out for good.
The world changed, and the TV execs didn't keep up. They made themselves all-but-obsolete. The industry, in its traditional form, is on its way out. What the industry and audience want are too fundamentally different now. Will this be bad for TV/entertainment? In the short term, probably. In the long term, possibly not. If the entertainment industries collapse it will be a mess, but something will fill the void eventually.
I liked the policy one place I temped with had. Non-smokers were allowed equal time to nip outside for a non-smoke break. Good excuse to go outside for a quick chat and a (probably advisable) break from staring at a screen.
Well the article does raise one very important question.
Do those $29 cheapo players support any DRM at all, or is it vanilla-mp3/WMA only? I thought those things didn't supports DRMd files - unless things've changed over the past couple years.
The thing is that if these things don't play DRM-WMA then she's just shot herself in the foot with this little article. Unless she's saying that at least they're equally restrictive - don't play anyone's files.
Also I have to say that when she says that preventing people using MS technology is anti-consumer and unfriendly I find that a little hard to take. Especially seeing that the "more open stores" she advocates are, in the majority of cases, IE-only. That doesn't sound very "pro consumer" or "friendly" to me.
At least ITMS runs on two platforms. Far from perfect, but a stop above the WMA stores in my opinion.
I guess the problem with adopting someone else's DRM would be that, as someone pointed out elsewhere on this discussion, they'd have to pay (probably per iPod) a license fee to use the other DRM. When they've got a perfectly-functioning (from their PoV) DRM scheme already in place, why would they want to have to pay extra to use someone else's?
As for licensing out FairPlay, I have no idea. Technically it shouldn't be difficult for them to do this. However seeing that they tend to update iPod/iTunes every so often it could potentially become a headache when they have to keep in step with other people who are using the DRM scheme. Currently when they make a change it only affects themselves, so they only have to organise things internally.
Too many of the UK computer-based courses/examinations tend to be extremely Windows-centric. And even the bits that aren't about Windows have questions written by examiners and not techies.
This latter wouldn't be a bad thing except that some of the "correct" terminology required to pass the exams are not the terms/answers I (and many other techie-types) would use.
It's also not always just Windows-centric, but specific-version-centric. Some of last year's ECDL questions were so XP-based that the answers were different on the Windows 98 PCs we use in our centre. The secondary sorting characteristics are different between the versions, and the people who wrote the paper had several files with the same last-modified stamp and wrote a question based on an assumption about the secondary sort the OS would use.
Upgrading is (sadly) not a simple matter - these computers are in desperate need of replacing this year yet I can tell that whoever hold the budget has decided we don't need to get new ones yet.
Yes, as people keep saying, it's good to know that people are going to be defaulting to knowing how to use the most commonly used office suite around. But sooner or later it's going to cause problems when someone with their shiny new ECDL or CLAIT (two computer-literacy qualifications) certificate gets stumped when they get hired by a Mac house or somewhere that insists on using a non-MS-Office suite on Windows.
That, and people are making assumptions that because Windows/MS-Office is the only thing taught that nothing else exists and, as such, produce files for people with this assumption.
As opposed to through people (sometimes intentionally, often not) leaving the shared directory containing their MP3 collection world-readable.
Now that's interesting - especially when taken alongside the Judge's suggestion that they be very thorough to head-off any SCO claims of IBM not helping.
The judge would almost have to know what "thorough" can mean when applied to IBM.
Actually, to be fair, for once they're actually using the term used in the original article's headline. The BBC's own headline uses the term share - only they don't even use the quotation marks, which do at least shed a bit of doubt on whether it's "sharing" at all.
I've looked into Debian a few times, although never actually tried it out yet. But I have a pretty good "outsider's" view of how Debian appears to anyone still considering it. And although some of my observations may be (somewhat/very/totally) off-base, this is how it can seem to a current non-Debian user.
True. However a desktop user (and some will want a desktop that's totally stable) may find it extremely dated. Server maintainers may well be put off a fresh install of Debian, too, as it has been raised a lot here that a lot of the server packages have been long-since superceded. And if you can't get the more up to date (and, in some cases, more secure) packages without backporting then it doesn't really seen "stable" to some.
The hardware issue is also going to be a problem with servers. If it can't recognise many current hardware configurations it won't be suitable. However if stable won't take the hardware and testing won't get as frequent security updates then Debian becomes a much less viable option.
From what I can tell, many people (including actual Debian users) have though Sarge to be "ready to release" since last year. However a lot of things have changed since then, and it is starting to look dated even before becoming stable. Sarge seems to be very much a 2003/2004 distribution, which is going to look odd in 2005.
The real drawback here is that if, like with Sarge, the Testing distribution becomes effectively "as stable as Stable, but without the timely security updates" it becomes a non-option for servers.
Also as Testing is, certainly in this case, still somewhat behind in its packages it doesn't really make a good base for a distro. Debian-based distros will be more likely to use Unstable as a starting-point as it's simply more current.
Especially desktop distros, where users are more likely to want the latest versions. Basing something from Sarge would certainly look a tad on the old side.
Granted some of these issues seem to be Woody/Sarge specific, but that itself highlight one of the perceived problems with Debian. Stable and Testing will be great shortly after a new Stable release, but after a while both will start to look slightly dated.
When it's fast approaching the third anniversary of the last Stable release it's only going to be Unstable that seems really current. And even then Sid lacks things like X.org which many people have said is the reason they jumped ship and the only thing keeping them from returning.
This is how things can seem from a non-Debian viewpoint. As such they can make Debian seem like a less than ideal option when considering the various options. And this is a real shame, as it has a very good reputation (I first heard about it in 1996 and, apart from the release-speed issues, haven't really heard much bad about it) but just seems a little daunting if you've not tried it before and don't have a spare machine to practice on.
This is one of the inherant problems with the subscription vs advertising model used at the moment. There is an assumption that people who don't want to pay for content won't mind advertisements.
But, seeing that advertisements are basically trying to persuade you to buy things you don't already intend to, it seems like a broken model. Surely people who can't/won't spend money on a subscription aren't overly likely to buy from your advertisers.
Or, putting it the other way around, the people who are fundamentally opposed to being advertised at are very unlikely to want to spend money - especially on removing adverts. So the "subscribe for the sole benefit of having no adverts" model that some sites use is completely broken.
(I favour the sites where getting rid of adverts is just one of the benefits. You actually feel like your money's worth something that way)
Not played the games yet, but have read a fair bit about them. And, yeah, "Silent Hill" does seem more of a concept than an absolute story.
If anything SH sounds like one of the few game franchises where you could come up with an original story and still be extremely faithful to the spirit of the original material. I'm sure the people in the games (and comics) are far from the only people who've got mixed up in Silent Hill - unlike some games where the primary characters were the only people involved. So why not make a film that uses the setting and the concept and follows the adventure of another protagonist who got mixed up in events.
A quick Google on with the terms Tiger and Computers listed Tiger Direct at the top (and second) and OS X Tiger as fourth (behind a page where the sysnopsis said the page was obslete). So doing a search on those terms would get TD first, anyway.
And, to be honest, anyone searhcing for a computer reseller using the term "Tiger" is obviously looking for that specific company. So how they'd get confused is anyone's business - well, unless they were looking to order an iPod from them and notice Apple has their own store and decide to buy directly from source.
This is very possible, however if true then I'm surprised they don't make a bigger deal of that aspect of things. (Well, unless there's a point of law stating you can't release those kinds of details)
If Tiger Direct have been in negotiations then I would have thought making a big deal of only filing this as a last resort oftern talks fell through would paint them in a good light and Apple as being the "Big Bad Villain".
However, rightly or wrongly, if all we see is them suing on the eve of the release dats it looks like a moneygrab - even if it isn't. Even if they're in the right they've shot themselves in the foot by making themselves look like opportunists. "After negotiations failed..." are three small words that, if that is the case, would have this company looking in a much stronger position than they do right now.
Is there no way this can blow up in their face at all? I mean how long has the name "Tiger" been known as the enxt iteration on Mac OS X? Months? Since late last year at the latest I'm sure. And they wait until now to spring this?
If that doesn't come over as an obvious ploy to make money out of Apple then I don't know what does.
Granted the article is a little light on detail, like whether Tiger Direct had contacted Apple about this before. But if they didn't then they certainly had time to.
This is probably the most concise information about this that I've seen. I've seen (both in this discussion and elsewhere) much debate about why Commenting Is More Important or why Clear Code Is More Important, yet very few well-written reponses about why both (along with design docs) are important and in what context.
Back in Uni when we were being told about why Comments Were Important I really wish it'd been explained this way. Advice is a lot easier to take when there's a good explanation behind it.
Exactly.
When installing a printer I want to install the drivers. That is all. So when the Windows "New Hardware Wizard" pops up, I can point the wizard at the on-CD (or on-Network, on-harddrive, etc) directory containing the drivers. The way Windows is designed to work.
What I don't want to have to do is actually install a load of software that's not actually to do with the printing. Just the driver. Please. Thankyou.
I agree with you on that one, and to me it's actually a proof of two things.
1 - The basic concept was strong enough. (Apparently a tried-and-tested improv formula anyway)
2 - Something can be less than the original but still actually work.
It felt like a very different beast in some ways, yet still taken from the same mould in others. And in a way that's possibly the best way to go about such things.
Having said that, Whose Line did have one major thing going for it. It's real strength wasn't it's Britishness, it was the format. And it showed. Even though the Drew Carey version wasn't quite in the same class in my opinion, it was still a really fun show to watch.
You got modded up funny, and do seem to have put a largely humorous slant on it, but I think you do kinda have a serious point there. At least when it comes to the "700 mobiles all..." idea.
It may not be so much the message-alert tone, but there is that annoying buzz that can affect radios and stuff. Now one phone putting out interference as it searches for a signal then gets a backlog of messages may not pose too much of a risk... (Yes, I know that sometimes it can just be the one small signal in the wrong place in the wrong time)
...but 700 mobiles all making those connections at the one time could put out a hell of a lot of that damned buzzing. (Or possibly swamp out a small but vital device somewhere)
And maybe, compared to hardware failure, the buzzing noise might not seem like such a dangerous thing (personally I've found it little more than an irritation on my headphones) but do we really want a plane full of mobiles to result in the pilot getting a burst of buzzing on his headset when he's either trying to concentrate on something or get vital information over the radio?
That's why I have my browser set to ask me what I want to do with cookies, then I use per-site allow/block settings depending on whether I need to log in or not. If I don't need to log into it, or don't need settings to persist, then I don't let the cookies get set. (Although MSN/Hotmail/Passport is a real pig, as it seems arbitrary as to which cookies are required for Hotmail to load)
But at the end of the day it's up to me which of these do and don't persist on my computer.
And as for advertising, well I don't care as I mostly ignore them anyway. If I lack the money/justification to pay for a subscription to a site than I probably lack the same for whatever the adverts are trying to sell at me.
The ads here on Slashdot are about as relevantly targetted as they will get for me. But that doesn't change the simple fact that these days if I do want to spend money I'll go do my own damn legwork. Adverts really don't encourage me to seek out a product.