It seems as this is one place a solar cell would be appropriate. Sure, first thing in the morning you might have to look at a light to boot your eyes but at least you don't have to worry about running out of juice when you need it.
Unlike the rest of you suckers, I'm set. I've got my "long lasting paper", along with a hammer and chisel to do the writing with (you should see the size of my forearms after copying all my pr0n onto my new archival material). As for infrastructure, well, all I need is my XB Falcon, hardtop of course. Fortunately, "Black Cloud" is a suitable post-apocolyptic name.
See you on the other side, you Jolt-drinking, Snoball-eating losers!
You're absolutely correct. My initial reaction was, "what a waste of time". After thinking about it a little more (sometimes I think before I post, usually when I'm stuffing my face full of cereal) I realized while the outcome is useless, the process wasn't. The guy is now smarter and more experienced for having done the work. Who knows? At some point in his career he may be working on a new product and the experience gained from writing a Newton emulator will mean the difference between success and failure. All work doesn't have to have a point to be useful.
In this case, though, he solved the wrong problem. Instead of asking, "will a Newton run Linux?" he asked, "will Linux run a Newtown?" Maybe he's in Soviet Russia...
Slashdot is more than a collection of links, it's a community. User participation is what makes slashdot. If you strip the public credit (name, link) people will still submit stories, because the readers of slashdot want the site to continue and be successful. When I've submitted a story, it's because I thought it was interesting and unique, not to garner fame or a link.
If you want to preserve credit, make it part of a user's profile. Just a simple box score without submission titles:
Stories submitted: 100 Stories accepted: 3
That's all there is to it. Trust me, if you remove the credit, people will still submit. Look at Fark. No credit, plenty of material.
I've had it. I'm through with this whole Internet thing. Limitless porn and amazon coupon codes are no longer worth it. I'm going back to writing checks, using stamps, and gaming using my console.
The first real annoyance was "boxen". Sure, it's pretty gay, but I can live with the occasional geek using it. (Actually, the first annoyance I remember was the green card spam, but that's going back a bit far). Then came "google" as a verb. Such nonsense, but trivial. The rise of the "blog" is easy to ignore - I don't care what most people think in person, so at least if they're busy typing their thoughts they're won't be able to tell them to me.
But now..."blogazine"? Blogazine. Lord, help me.
Now I've got to finish downloading the Internet's porn collection and burning it to DVD. You can't expect me to go cold turkey!
"it" herein is typically understood to mean "the situation", "the current course of events", or something similar
That doesn't make sense. Replacing that "it" with what you say it represents, the sentence now reads:
They're doing it again this year to make it appear as if [the situation] is more secure than UNIX/Linux.
See what I mean? That "it" has to refer to something. From reading the article I assume you meant "it" to refer to Windows, so the sentence could read, "...to make it appear as if Windows is more secure than UNIX/Linux."
The "article" is not an article but rather an opinion piece. For example:
Microsoft wants you to read the headlines as "Windows 3X safer than Linux." (If Microsoft is being quiet about the US-CERT numbers, it's because the company is too busy trying to come up with a fix for the Windows Meta File (WMF) vulnerability.)
The authors apparently know what Microsoft wants, even though they admit the company hasn't commented on the summary of vulnerabilities. I guess the authors assume the MS marketing department is working on this bug fix, which at the time the article was posted was fixed (but no patch had been released).
Reading further, the authors reference the "Technical Cyber Security Alerts", saying, "That's quite a different picture than the one the Microsoft press machine wants you to see." Once again MS is referenced, even though they had nothing to do with the summary of vulnerabilities and have issued no press release on the matter.
MS is mentioned twice though the company has not issued any press releases or new ads reflecting these numbers. On the other hand, the article repeatedly mentions the press:
Everywhere you look in the trade press today, you'll find glowing misrepresentations... ...many scribes sympathetic to the Microsoft cause go out of their way to make sure the real picture never emerges... ...you'd think that the mainstream tech press could get it right when reporting on security... ...scribes in the trade press are once again playing the US-CERT FUD game... Shame on them for purposely -- or ignorantly, as the case may be -- misleading their readers.
Yet in the links below the article there is only one direct link to an example of how the press has been misleading their readers.
Guys, if you're going to write something, call it an article, then post it to Slashdot, at least try to be a little more objective. I think most people are tired of MS vs the world now...it's so last year (this year it's Google vs the world). People are interested in performance, ease of use, security - getting the job done. Who has time for these pissing matches?
The piece does fit on a site named "NewsForge". Why report the news when you can manufacture it?
Joe Brockmeier and I have teamed up in a story on NewsForge to point out how the mainstream and trade press misrepresent the annual summary of vulnerabilities from US-CERT. They're doing it again this year to make it appear as if it is more secure than UNIX/Linux.
To what is the bold "it" referring? The previous "it" refers to the press misrepresentation of vulnerabilities. Is that misrepresentation more secure than Linux? Is the summary more secure? I hope the article passed by an editor as the summary sure didn't.
Maybe it's time for a new sister forge to NewsForge: GrammarForge.
That's what I hope to see...a trade-in program. I'd happily turn in my 2 Series 2 DVRs for a discount on 2 Series 3. Sure, TiVo can't reuse the parts but maybe they can sell them in 3rd world countries where even cable TV is a gift from the gods. Or since the TiVo is just a Linux box they can change the software a little to make them educational and donate them as a tax write off. Who wants a $100 laptop when you can get a TiVo plus "Mavis Beacon Teaches Typing" (though it may be difficult to master with the peanut shaped remote)?
Right now I have 2,859 songs in my collection, (mostly ripped from my CDs) which I can transfer to anything I own (or will own) that will play songs. 20 years from now, after you've paid Yahoo more than $1,200 and they drop their subscription service and all your music goes away -- I'll still be able to play every single one of those songs.
Let's say 2,000 of those songs came from CDs you purchased, and the average CD has 15 songs on it. That's 133 CDs. Being the frugal shopper you are, you only paid an average of $10 per CD. There's $1,333. Now 5 years from now your cat knocks over a candle and burns down your house, melting your CDs and frying your hard drive. What are you going to do then? If my house burns down at least I can download the music again.
And to be honest, I expect that in 20 years someone will have cracked the DRM on the music, but if not, oh well. $1,200 isn't a big deal...and over 20 years? That's trivial. I'm willing to pay for the convenience and the amount of time it saves. How long did it take you to rip 133 CDs and find and download the rest (ensuring each track was a good clean copy)?
Think of it this way - for $5 a month, you can listen to 1-1.5 million(?) whole songs of your choice.
If you pay for the $10 a month service and have a compatible player, you can even take your unlimited "rented" songs with you wherever you go.
The $5/month service also lets you put them on a compatible player or stream them to a compatible device (e.g. the SoundBridge).
It's a great deal if you don't have an iPod already. My wife had been buying songs from iTunes (just to listen on her computer - she didn't have an iPod) and is very happy with the switch to the subscription method.
Ah, but let's say our homes burn down. We escape but all is lost: my computer and your CD collection. I can get the tracks again by installing the software on a different computer and downloading them again (you can either stream or download with yahoo). I don't think anyone, even the Red Cross, is going to send you new CDs. Think of it as a music warranty:)
I understand I have access to the songs and I don't "own" them. However, even the songs you "own" aren't yours to do with as you please. The restrictions placed on me by the license agreement doesn't affect me as everything I want to do I can do.
I pay $30+/month for broadband, $90+/month for cable. $5/month for music isn't a big hit. It's a much better deal than satellite radio for a music listener.
You're betting that in 30 years Yahoo music service will still be around and carrying music you like, otherwise your investment is wasted.
Actually, I'm betting that in 30 years the DRM will have been cracked and I'll have all my music burned to holographic cubes or whatever replaces DVDs.:)
Ah, I didn't see that. However, that KB article is a year old so it may not apply to the new service. After all, "Plays for Sure" software can be activated and deactivated at will on different computers. It wouldn't make sense that Urge would use something other than Plays For Sure.
I've had that thought too. I guess it depends on how many sales of CDs or burnable tracks come from users of subscription services. Does the music industry see subscriptions as a revenue source or as an advertising mechanism (e.g. test drive)? In the meantime I'll enjoy it while I can!
Plus the subcription, so for someone like myself it's more expensive since all most every song we download gets burned.
It depends on how many songs you download and burn. The break-even point for you would be 25 songs in a month:
25 x $0.99 = $24.75
25 x $0.79 + $5.00 = $24.75
With Yahoo, though, you can download the full song, play it as much as you want before burning to see if it's worth burning to CD. Not a big deal if you just buy songs you know but if you like trying out something different the convenience might be worth it. You know, they do offer a free trial (1 week I think):)
But most people don't understand the subscription model and, when they do, they're hostile to it. People don't want to pay money month after month for music.
I don't know why you think people don't understand the subscription model. Magazines and newspapers have been around for years. Granted, this is a little different as when your magazine subscription runs out the company doesn't collect your back issues. People will learn, as cost-wise, subscription really has pay-per-track beat. I expect the MS marketing department to make a big deal about the difference.
Unless, like my wife, you want to burn the music to a cd to listen to in the car, in the shower, giver to your mom, etc, etc. How much would that cost with these rental service;)
I like to pick my songs. Also, I work in an windowless secure facility so satellite radio is not an option for me, and I've always thought the subscription fee is too high for what they offer (though I am tempted by the MLB broadcasts). In the car I usually use free radio for sports talk radio, NPR, traffic and weather updates, sometimes music.
No. You can have up to 3 computers licensed to access the music service, and as many "Plays for Sure" devices as you want to access the content. We have two playback devices, the Micro and the SoundBridge.
Yes, it's a subscription. I'm paying for access to the music. If I don't pay the bill I lose access. It's like a utility...water, gas, electric, music.
The upside is much greater than the downside for me. I had a very nice, large Christmas library that I played over the holidays. Would I buy all those songs at a buck each? Nope...maybe some but not as many. When I need a laugh at work I can listen to Chris Rock, George Carlin, or other comedians. If I had to pay per track I probably wouldn't listen, even if it meant I owned the track and could burn it to CD. I find I'm listening to many more genres than I'd consider to be in my core listening zone and adding music by artists I've never heard of. As new music is released my library grows larger, at no additional charge. And I can take the music with me wherever I want, as long as the device supports the format. Heck, we retired our CD player when I installed the SoundBridge. For music not available through the service (e.g. The Beatles) I just rip the CDs and play them over our home network, along with the protected content. $5/month is really a trivial amount for all this.
Subscription-based music is the way to go. This, combined with the Windows "Plays for Sure" initiative will ultimately give MS the upper hand over Apple in the music arena, unless Apple comes out with a subscription option.
I have a subscription to Yahoo Music Unlimited and I've found it is definitely worth the $60/year. Right now I've got 744 songs in my collection, which if purchased at iTunes would cost more than 12 years of subscription fees (assuming the price doesn't go up). I can license 3 computers to access my subscription, so I've got it set up on my home computer, my work computer, and my laptop. The service keeps them in sync so if I add music at home, it gets downloaded at work next time I start the service. Since I download the music to my computer, if the network goes down I can still play music.
If I want to burn CDs I can buy tracks for $0.79. But I haven't needed to do that. I have a Creative Zen Micro to carry around. What's really nice is the Roku SoundBridge is compatible with the service. I've got that hooked into the home theater system (and our wireless network) and I can access my complete music collection (even ripped music) using a remote control.
Ok, I realize this sounds like a commercial for the service. It's not...but I'm very happy with it and think that $60/year is a steal. I used to search the assorted P2P networks but my time has value too and it just wasn't worth it to search for and download music, only to find that I've picked up a bunch of bad tracks (P2P is still great for porn though).
So based on my experience with Yahoo Music Unlimited I think that despite its name Urge will be successful and combined with MS's marketing power may turn out to be an iTunes...well, not killer but maybe wounder.
You'd probably win that bet. Santa brought 2 new DSs to our house Christmas day, which means 4 new styluses. By the end of Christmas day we were down to 3. Fortunately we're still holding at 3...
Slashdot Mirror
It seems as this is one place a solar cell would be appropriate. Sure, first thing in the morning you might have to look at a light to boot your eyes but at least you don't have to worry about running out of juice when you need it.
Unlike the rest of you suckers, I'm set. I've got my "long lasting paper", along with a hammer and chisel to do the writing with (you should see the size of my forearms after copying all my pr0n onto my new archival material). As for infrastructure, well, all I need is my XB Falcon, hardtop of course. Fortunately, "Black Cloud" is a suitable post-apocolyptic name.
See you on the other side, you Jolt-drinking, Snoball-eating losers!
You're absolutely correct. My initial reaction was, "what a waste of time". After thinking about it a little more (sometimes I think before I post, usually when I'm stuffing my face full of cereal) I realized while the outcome is useless, the process wasn't. The guy is now smarter and more experienced for having done the work. Who knows? At some point in his career he may be working on a new product and the experience gained from writing a Newton emulator will mean the difference between success and failure. All work doesn't have to have a point to be useful.
In this case, though, he solved the wrong problem. Instead of asking, "will a Newton run Linux?" he asked, "will Linux run a Newtown?" Maybe he's in Soviet Russia...
Slashdot is more than a collection of links, it's a community. User participation is what makes slashdot. If you strip the public credit (name, link) people will still submit stories, because the readers of slashdot want the site to continue and be successful. When I've submitted a story, it's because I thought it was interesting and unique, not to garner fame or a link.
If you want to preserve credit, make it part of a user's profile. Just a simple box score without submission titles:
Stories submitted: 100
Stories accepted: 3
That's all there is to it. Trust me, if you remove the credit, people will still submit. Look at Fark. No credit, plenty of material.
I've had it. I'm through with this whole Internet thing. Limitless porn and amazon coupon codes are no longer worth it. I'm going back to writing checks, using stamps, and gaming using my console.
The first real annoyance was "boxen". Sure, it's pretty gay, but I can live with the occasional geek using it. (Actually, the first annoyance I remember was the green card spam, but that's going back a bit far). Then came "google" as a verb. Such nonsense, but trivial. The rise of the "blog" is easy to ignore - I don't care what most people think in person, so at least if they're busy typing their thoughts they're won't be able to tell them to me.
But now..."blogazine"? Blogazine. Lord, help me.
Now I've got to finish downloading the Internet's porn collection and burning it to DVD. You can't expect me to go cold turkey!
"it" herein is typically understood to mean "the situation", "the current course of events", or something similar
That doesn't make sense. Replacing that "it" with what you say it represents, the sentence now reads:
They're doing it again this year to make it appear as if [the situation] is more secure than UNIX/Linux.
See what I mean? That "it" has to refer to something. From reading the article I assume you meant "it" to refer to Windows, so the sentence could read, "...to make it appear as if Windows is more secure than UNIX/Linux."
The "article" is not an article but rather an opinion piece. For example:
Microsoft wants you to read the headlines as "Windows 3X safer than Linux." (If Microsoft is being quiet about the US-CERT numbers, it's because the company is too busy trying to come up with a fix for the Windows Meta File (WMF) vulnerability.)
The authors apparently know what Microsoft wants, even though they admit the company hasn't commented on the summary of vulnerabilities. I guess the authors assume the MS marketing department is working on this bug fix, which at the time the article was posted was fixed (but no patch had been released).
Reading further, the authors reference the "Technical Cyber Security Alerts", saying, "That's quite a different picture than the one the Microsoft press machine wants you to see." Once again MS is referenced, even though they had nothing to do with the summary of vulnerabilities and have issued no press release on the matter.
MS is mentioned twice though the company has not issued any press releases or new ads reflecting these numbers. On the other hand, the article repeatedly mentions the press:
Everywhere you look in the trade press today, you'll find glowing misrepresentations...
...many scribes sympathetic to the Microsoft cause go out of their way to make sure the real picture never emerges...
...you'd think that the mainstream tech press could get it right when reporting on security...
...scribes in the trade press are once again playing the US-CERT FUD game...
Shame on them for purposely -- or ignorantly, as the case may be -- misleading their readers.
Yet in the links below the article there is only one direct link to an example of how the press has been misleading their readers.
Guys, if you're going to write something, call it an article, then post it to Slashdot, at least try to be a little more objective. I think most people are tired of MS vs the world now...it's so last year (this year it's Google vs the world). People are interested in performance, ease of use, security - getting the job done. Who has time for these pissing matches?
The piece does fit on a site named "NewsForge". Why report the news when you can manufacture it?
But OSX is BSD-based, so wouldn't that fall under the Unix category? I assumed Windows, because that's usually what gets people worked up around here.
Joe Brockmeier and I have teamed up in a story on NewsForge to point out how the mainstream and trade press misrepresent the annual summary of vulnerabilities from US-CERT. They're doing it again this year to make it appear as if it is more secure than UNIX/Linux.
To what is the bold "it" referring? The previous "it" refers to the press misrepresentation of vulnerabilities. Is that misrepresentation more secure than Linux? Is the summary more secure? I hope the article passed by an editor as the summary sure didn't.
Maybe it's time for a new sister forge to NewsForge: GrammarForge.
That's what I hope to see...a trade-in program. I'd happily turn in my 2 Series 2 DVRs for a discount on 2 Series 3. Sure, TiVo can't reuse the parts but maybe they can sell them in 3rd world countries where even cable TV is a gift from the gods. Or since the TiVo is just a Linux box they can change the software a little to make them educational and donate them as a tax write off. Who wants a $100 laptop when you can get a TiVo plus "Mavis Beacon Teaches Typing" (though it may be difficult to master with the peanut shaped remote)?
Right now I have 2,859 songs in my collection, (mostly ripped from my CDs) which I can transfer to anything I own (or will own) that will play songs. 20 years from now, after you've paid Yahoo more than $1,200 and they drop their subscription service and all your music goes away -- I'll still be able to play every single one of those songs.
Let's say 2,000 of those songs came from CDs you purchased, and the average CD has 15 songs on it. That's 133 CDs. Being the frugal shopper you are, you only paid an average of $10 per CD. There's $1,333. Now 5 years from now your cat knocks over a candle and burns down your house, melting your CDs and frying your hard drive. What are you going to do then? If my house burns down at least I can download the music again.
And to be honest, I expect that in 20 years someone will have cracked the DRM on the music, but if not, oh well. $1,200 isn't a big deal...and over 20 years? That's trivial. I'm willing to pay for the convenience and the amount of time it saves. How long did it take you to rip 133 CDs and find and download the rest (ensuring each track was a good clean copy)?
Think of it this way - for $5 a month, you can listen to 1-1.5 million(?) whole songs of your choice.
If you pay for the $10 a month service and have a compatible player, you can even take your unlimited "rented" songs with you wherever you go.
The $5/month service also lets you put them on a compatible player or stream them to a compatible device (e.g. the SoundBridge).
It's a great deal if you don't have an iPod already. My wife had been buying songs from iTunes (just to listen on her computer - she didn't have an iPod) and is very happy with the switch to the subscription method.
Ah, but let's say our homes burn down. We escape but all is lost: my computer and your CD collection. I can get the tracks again by installing the software on a different computer and downloading them again (you can either stream or download with yahoo). I don't think anyone, even the Red Cross, is going to send you new CDs. Think of it as a music warranty
I understand I have access to the songs and I don't "own" them. However, even the songs you "own" aren't yours to do with as you please. The restrictions placed on me by the license agreement doesn't affect me as everything I want to do I can do.
I pay $30+/month for broadband, $90+/month for cable. $5/month for music isn't a big hit. It's a much better deal than satellite radio for a music listener.
You're betting that in 30 years Yahoo music service will still be around and carrying music you like, otherwise your investment is wasted.
:)
Actually, I'm betting that in 30 years the DRM will have been cracked and I'll have all my music burned to holographic cubes or whatever replaces DVDs.
Ah, I didn't see that. However, that KB article is a year old so it may not apply to the new service. After all, "Plays for Sure" software can be activated and deactivated at will on different computers. It wouldn't make sense that Urge would use something other than Plays For Sure.
I've had that thought too. I guess it depends on how many sales of CDs or burnable tracks come from users of subscription services. Does the music industry see subscriptions as a revenue source or as an advertising mechanism (e.g. test drive)? In the meantime I'll enjoy it while I can!
Plus the subcription, so for someone like myself it's more expensive since all most every song we download gets burned.
:)
It depends on how many songs you download and burn. The break-even point for you would be 25 songs in a month:
25 x $0.99 = $24.75
25 x $0.79 + $5.00 = $24.75
With Yahoo, though, you can download the full song, play it as much as you want before burning to see if it's worth burning to CD. Not a big deal if you just buy songs you know but if you like trying out something different the convenience might be worth it. You know, they do offer a free trial (1 week I think)
Where in the world did you get that from? That sounds like nonsense.
But most people don't understand the subscription model and, when they do, they're hostile to it. People don't want to pay money month after month for music.
I don't know why you think people don't understand the subscription model. Magazines and newspapers have been around for years. Granted, this is a little different as when your magazine subscription runs out the company doesn't collect your back issues. People will learn, as cost-wise, subscription really has pay-per-track beat. I expect the MS marketing department to make a big deal about the difference.
Unless, like my wife, you want to burn the music to a cd to listen to in the car, in the shower, giver to your mom, etc, etc. How much would that cost with these rental service
With Yahoo, it's $0.79/track.
I like to pick my songs. Also, I work in an windowless secure facility so satellite radio is not an option for me, and I've always thought the subscription fee is too high for what they offer (though I am tempted by the MLB broadcasts). In the car I usually use free radio for sports talk radio, NPR, traffic and weather updates, sometimes music.
No. You can have up to 3 computers licensed to access the music service, and as many "Plays for Sure" devices as you want to access the content. We have two playback devices, the Micro and the SoundBridge.
Yes, it's a subscription. I'm paying for access to the music. If I don't pay the bill I lose access. It's like a utility...water, gas, electric, music.
The upside is much greater than the downside for me. I had a very nice, large Christmas library that I played over the holidays. Would I buy all those songs at a buck each? Nope...maybe some but not as many. When I need a laugh at work I can listen to Chris Rock, George Carlin, or other comedians. If I had to pay per track I probably wouldn't listen, even if it meant I owned the track and could burn it to CD. I find I'm listening to many more genres than I'd consider to be in my core listening zone and adding music by artists I've never heard of. As new music is released my library grows larger, at no additional charge. And I can take the music with me wherever I want, as long as the device supports the format. Heck, we retired our CD player when I installed the SoundBridge. For music not available through the service (e.g. The Beatles) I just rip the CDs and play them over our home network, along with the protected content. $5/month is really a trivial amount for all this.
Subscription-based music is the way to go. This, combined with the Windows "Plays for Sure" initiative will ultimately give MS the upper hand over Apple in the music arena, unless Apple comes out with a subscription option.
I have a subscription to Yahoo Music Unlimited and I've found it is definitely worth the $60/year. Right now I've got 744 songs in my collection, which if purchased at iTunes would cost more than 12 years of subscription fees (assuming the price doesn't go up). I can license 3 computers to access my subscription, so I've got it set up on my home computer, my work computer, and my laptop. The service keeps them in sync so if I add music at home, it gets downloaded at work next time I start the service. Since I download the music to my computer, if the network goes down I can still play music.
If I want to burn CDs I can buy tracks for $0.79. But I haven't needed to do that. I have a Creative Zen Micro to carry around. What's really nice is the Roku SoundBridge is compatible with the service. I've got that hooked into the home theater system (and our wireless network) and I can access my complete music collection (even ripped music) using a remote control.
Ok, I realize this sounds like a commercial for the service. It's not...but I'm very happy with it and think that $60/year is a steal. I used to search the assorted P2P networks but my time has value too and it just wasn't worth it to search for and download music, only to find that I've picked up a bunch of bad tracks (P2P is still great for porn though).
So based on my experience with Yahoo Music Unlimited I think that despite its name Urge will be successful and combined with MS's marketing power may turn out to be an iTunes...well, not killer but maybe wounder.
You'd probably win that bet. Santa brought 2 new DSs to our house Christmas day, which means 4 new styluses. By the end of Christmas day we were down to 3. Fortunately we're still holding at 3...