Who needs a server when your home connection can feed 20Mbit/s?
I guess I'm just saying what everyone else is thinking, but...
- Someone whose ISP doesn't offer a fixed address - Someone whose ISP or router puts them behind NAT - Someone whose ISP's TOC bans servers - Someone who doesn't want their computer turned on / serving all the time
Microsoft still acts like they are the only game in town. They just refuse to accept that the competition has improved significantly from the time XP was released....
Where proprietary systems have been the bedrock of business applications, F/OSS is making strong inroads. LAMP anyone?
Trouble is, you chose a bad time to make that comment. Right now, LAMP's populatiry and superiority are being seriously threatened by C# w/.NET w/ Visual Studio w/ IIS6/7, which offers an extremely convenient and powerful development package. OSS really needs to develop its own equivalent, and importantly, a damn good IDE to go with it. Java with Eclipse is probably the closest at the moment.
Now I'm not knocking your right to support a candidate or vote with your wallet. But honestly, what you basically just suggested was that if we want a law to pass (or not) we should pay someone directly for it. That's what this country has come to.
Sorry, but I don't see how you can have it both ways. I think you either have to, yes, knock people's right to 'vote with their wallets', or you will see bills being passed because they earn the most money. You should't allow democracy to be treated like a capitalist market. I'd personally outlaw all 'donations' to political figures, and that includes things like positive/negative publicity; basically you'd want a department that was just dedicated to trying to sniff this stuff out, and eliminate it.
To be fair, there are one or two things you can do in IE you just *can't* do in other browsers.
For example, right now at my company we're coding an intranet site that automatically logs in a user using their Windows domain credentials, which IE automatically passes to the IIS if it detects that a site is a local intranet site and IIS issues a certain WWW-Authenticate header. You can get the same in Firefox by manually typing your username/password in, but the user is already logged in, they shouldn't have to do that. Thus, the intranet really has to be mainly designed for IE.
Yeah. That site is stupid. Why don't they just put up some ads? The readers from here will obviously go with the spirit of the site and not block the... oh, wait.
I think this is the federal government intruding where they have no right to be.
Agreed.
Look, I can see what they're trying to do here; I can see why it is probably necessary for the government to step in if disabled people are to get access to many services. However, I'd rather see rewards for compliance than punishment for non-compliance.
There's just something incredibly illiberal and unFree about the idea that, by *providing* a legal service to most, you can be breaking the law by not providing it to a few... and this is not on purpose, it is wholly passive. Plenty of 'passive discrimination' goes on all the time, and it has to for society to keep functioning. Are casinos discriminating against poor people because they don't have money to spend there? Are monitor makers and speaker makers discriminating against blind and deaf people because they don't incorporate some devices to help those groups use their products? Over here (Europe), there are companies that offer womens' only car insurance. That's a lot closer to active discrimination against my gender, but it's still legal. Government awarding money or favour to businesses who follow accessibility guidelines is fine, but there's something wrong with having a law that makes it illegal to offer *more* service to people. It just seems absurd, and any believer in a reasonably free economy should have a problem with it.
Another problem with this is where the line is drawn. Many people here seem to be saying that 'big companies' should have to follow accessibility guidelines, but what about medium sized companies? Small companies? Surely you don't expect some quick site thrown together by a sole trader to do so? What do you do, apply this law to companies that earn more than $500 million a year? Who should be able to be sued? The line is extremely fuzzy, and given this ambiguity, laws like this really don't make sense.
And what's the only way this process will ever be broken?
I say by totally rearranging the US political system. Bribery(lobbying) needs to be BANNED, PR electing needs to be introduced, the electoral college needs to be abolished, and the constitution needs to be strongly upheld. Any president thought to have breached any part of it deserves to be quickly impeached with a vengeance.
I really want OSS to succeed, really. I love the philosophy, and hate the idea of MS being the 'Rome' of my lifetime (the empire that collapses, but only a long time after I die). However, I can't see it happening. This is because it feels like OSS has a natural tendency to stagnate when most developers think things are 'good enough'.
Where's a reliable FastCGI module for Apache? Where's a good config file format, and a GUI to edit it, for Apache? Where's a Linux distro with a GUI as intuative as Windows Explorer? Yes, I recently tried Ubuntu and was very disappointed that its GNOME GUI is *still*, in my opinion, leagues behind what MS and Apple have to offer.
OSS devs develop stuff they care about, to the level that they find acceptable. They generally don't take no shit from nobody, and if you want something done, you can do it yourself. Patch it. I love the theory, but the practice is this: people DON'T HAVE FUCKING TIME to patch it. Businesses often DON'T HAVE THE MONEY. OSS needs to adapt to a philosophy of developing stuff to be better even when they personally don't get much benefit from it, because otherwise businesses WILL just pay MS to get what they want. It sucks, but there you go.
"Hey, boss, we need to push out group policies over all machines on domains foo and bar. Windows has Group Policy Editor and Active Directory. We can do the same thing with Linux, but it will mean spending 5000 man hours developing, testing, and deploying scripts, because nobody has bothered to come up with a solution yet."
What is even worse, is that on the rebound, a lot of people might actually think that voting for Hillary is a good idea. (shudder)
I have a genuine question: What's wrong with Hillary Clinton?
I'm not a US citizen so maybe this is some kind of no-brainer, but I've heard a lot of off-the-cuff criticism of HRC and virtually no real evidence to back this up. Seems to me the worst thing she did was get the shit kicked out of her by medical industry lobbyists for suggesting universal health care. What's the problem with her? She might just be the first vaguely attractive president the US had.
Slashdot Mirror
Only 11% of respondents said they be willing to safely implant a device that enabled them to use their mind to access the Internet.
Fortunately, this happens to match the exact % of the population whose IQ would be improved by having the Internet implanted in their brains.
Next they will need to spend some money to clean up the mess and carve up the pieces.
The only question I have is, how do you carve up a dog turd? Wouldn't it at least be a waste of a knife?
Anyways, these days mortal combat is now primarily an intellectual pursuit
Is there really anything intellectual about ripping a guy's head and spine off?
Who needs a server when your home connection can feed 20Mbit/s?
I guess I'm just saying what everyone else is thinking, but...
- Someone whose ISP doesn't offer a fixed address
- Someone whose ISP or router puts them behind NAT
- Someone whose ISP's TOC bans servers
- Someone who doesn't want their computer turned on / serving all the time
Meanwhile, feel free to try out SiteTruth and complain where appropriate; that's why we're in test.
Well, OK, as you said so... my site got a red bar thingy.
"Secure certificate
No valid certificate."
I'm running a games website, why the fuck does it need an SSL cert?
"Contents of web site
No street address found on the site."
I'm running a games website, why the fuck does it need a street address?
OK, I give up. Exactly whom or what is Pat?
I've not read the patent fully, but if the Slashdot summary is accurate
You must be new here.
Microsoft still acts like they are the only game in town. They just refuse to accept that the competition has improved significantly from the time XP was released....
Yeah, a 1% drop in market share'll do that to ya.
Hey and do not forget healthcare!
US healthcare.
I feel like I'm being accused of criminal activity from the first second I install a MS product now.
Well you ARE buying from a convicted monopolist. Doesn't that count as being complicit?
Go ask some of the old guys that ran the old mainframes....ask them what units acceptable uptime was counted in.
Sysadmins' heads?
Where proprietary systems have been the bedrock of business applications, F/OSS is making strong inroads. LAMP anyone?
.NET w/ Visual Studio w/ IIS6/7, which offers an extremely convenient and powerful development package. OSS really needs to develop its own equivalent, and importantly, a damn good IDE to go with it. Java with Eclipse is probably the closest at the moment.
Trouble is, you chose a bad time to make that comment. Right now, LAMP's populatiry and superiority are being seriously threatened by C# w/
As for uv radiation, you could tax solariums but taxing people in the sunlight is just unfeasible.
Nonsense! What's so difficult about staying in the basement all day?
Now I'm not knocking your right to support a candidate or vote with your wallet. But honestly, what you basically just suggested was that if we want a law to pass (or not) we should pay someone directly for it. That's what this country has come to.
Sorry, but I don't see how you can have it both ways. I think you either have to, yes, knock people's right to 'vote with their wallets', or you will see bills being passed because they earn the most money. You should't allow democracy to be treated like a capitalist market. I'd personally outlaw all 'donations' to political figures, and that includes things like positive/negative publicity; basically you'd want a department that was just dedicated to trying to sniff this stuff out, and eliminate it.
You can't un-GPL GPL'd software.
To be fair, there are one or two things you can do in IE you just *can't* do in other browsers.
For example, right now at my company we're coding an intranet site that automatically logs in a user using their Windows domain credentials, which IE automatically passes to the IIS if it detects that a site is a local intranet site and IIS issues a certain WWW-Authenticate header. You can get the same in Firefox by manually typing your username/password in, but the user is already logged in, they shouldn't have to do that. Thus, the intranet really has to be mainly designed for IE.
Yeah. That site is stupid. Why don't they just put up some ads? The readers from here will obviously go with the spirit of the site and not block the... oh, wait.
I think this is the federal government intruding where they have no right to be.
Agreed.
Look, I can see what they're trying to do here; I can see why it is probably necessary for the government to step in if disabled people are to get access to many services. However, I'd rather see rewards for compliance than punishment for non-compliance.
There's just something incredibly illiberal and unFree about the idea that, by *providing* a legal service to most, you can be breaking the law by not providing it to a few... and this is not on purpose, it is wholly passive. Plenty of 'passive discrimination' goes on all the time, and it has to for society to keep functioning. Are casinos discriminating against poor people because they don't have money to spend there? Are monitor makers and speaker makers discriminating against blind and deaf people because they don't incorporate some devices to help those groups use their products? Over here (Europe), there are companies that offer womens' only car insurance. That's a lot closer to active discrimination against my gender, but it's still legal. Government awarding money or favour to businesses who follow accessibility guidelines is fine, but there's something wrong with having a law that makes it illegal to offer *more* service to people. It just seems absurd, and any believer in a reasonably free economy should have a problem with it.
Another problem with this is where the line is drawn. Many people here seem to be saying that 'big companies' should have to follow accessibility guidelines, but what about medium sized companies? Small companies? Surely you don't expect some quick site thrown together by a sole trader to do so? What do you do, apply this law to companies that earn more than $500 million a year? Who should be able to be sued? The line is extremely fuzzy, and given this ambiguity, laws like this really don't make sense.
The US views the WTO as a convenient hammer to get it's ways in certain situations and as a small nuisance when it rules against them.
But the WTO has the power to tell other countries they can ignore US patents, copyrights, etc.
And what's the only way this process will ever be broken?
I say by totally rearranging the US political system. Bribery(lobbying) needs to be BANNED, PR electing needs to be introduced, the electoral college needs to be abolished, and the constitution needs to be strongly upheld. Any president thought to have breached any part of it deserves to be quickly impeached with a vengeance.
I'm currently running Debian stable on all my servers. Why would I want to get the next with Ubuntu? Would it be just as stable?
There's a great opportunity here. Ubuntu could be the Windows Server 2003 of Linux! Don't you see that?
... but does it come with IIS?
I have been considering this much of late.
I really want OSS to succeed, really. I love the philosophy, and hate the idea of MS being the 'Rome' of my lifetime (the empire that collapses, but only a long time after I die). However, I can't see it happening. This is because it feels like OSS has a natural tendency to stagnate when most developers think things are 'good enough'.
Where's a reliable FastCGI module for Apache? Where's a good config file format, and a GUI to edit it, for Apache? Where's a Linux distro with a GUI as intuative as Windows Explorer? Yes, I recently tried Ubuntu and was very disappointed that its GNOME GUI is *still*, in my opinion, leagues behind what MS and Apple have to offer.
OSS devs develop stuff they care about, to the level that they find acceptable. They generally don't take no shit from nobody, and if you want something done, you can do it yourself. Patch it. I love the theory, but the practice is this: people DON'T HAVE FUCKING TIME to patch it. Businesses often DON'T HAVE THE MONEY. OSS needs to adapt to a philosophy of developing stuff to be better even when they personally don't get much benefit from it, because otherwise businesses WILL just pay MS to get what they want. It sucks, but there you go.
"Hey, boss, we need to push out group policies over all machines on domains foo and bar. Windows has Group Policy Editor and Active Directory. We can do the same thing with Linux, but it will mean spending 5000 man hours developing, testing, and deploying scripts, because nobody has bothered to come up with a solution yet."
What would you choose for your business??
What is even worse, is that on the rebound, a lot of people might actually think that voting for Hillary is a good idea. (shudder)
I have a genuine question: What's wrong with Hillary Clinton?
I'm not a US citizen so maybe this is some kind of no-brainer, but I've heard a lot of off-the-cuff criticism of HRC and virtually no real evidence to back this up. Seems to me the worst thing she did was get the shit kicked out of her by medical industry lobbyists for suggesting universal health care. What's the problem with her? She might just be the first vaguely attractive president the US had.
In no more than 10 years, the movie studios will face the same problem the music studios have today: They become obsolete for the ambitioned creator.
What about the fact that decent actors/actresses (or ones that people want to see) want huge amounts of money, upfront?