I don't buy anything but if I'm bored I try to string them along for as much as possible wasting their money. With any luck I'll eventually be blacklisted and not receive any more calls.
Say "Wow, yes, I'm definately interested. Hold on while I go get my credit card information". Then place the call on hold, and go do something else.
Honest question. What does it matter? Is there some great advantage that I'm not thinking of to having a giant bundled suite of apps, rather than five or six individual downloads?
There's no reason there can't be a "bundle" installer, that installs all the programs in one go (and one download).
I think it's a good thing they moved away from the all-in-one application. It's nicer to pick and choose individual apps. The best illustration of this that comes to mind is StarOffice: version 5.2, the major new feature was that it had a new integrated desktop, and all the apps were combined together in one giant executable. In version 6 (the next major release IIRC) the major new feature was no more integrated desktop, and all the apps were split apart;)
The states really hate it when people buy stuff over the Internet, because that means that the money is being sent to another state; not only do they lose tax revenue but it means in-state businesses suffer.
IIRC from when I was doing e-commerce programming (ahh, the good ol' dot com days..) you only get taxed where you have nexus with the store. So for example, if you're in Flordia, and buy from New York, you don't pay any tax. If you're in Flordia, but buy from another county, you pay State tax (since you have nexus in Florida state) but not county or city tax.
Now, if you're buying from that company in New York, but they have a warehouse (or store or whatever tangible piece of property) in Florida, then you have to pay tax as if you bought from that warehouse (even if it was shipped from New York).
I think the big complication here is the crazy taxing that happens in the US. There's no federal sales tax, so state to state purchases don't get taxed. Maybe if there weren't so many levels of tax it would be easier..:)
Not that we up in Canada have it much better, but for most provinces, there's two taxes. Federal (GST) and Provincial (PST) -- Quebec and the maritimes have HST, which is effectively GST+PST.
I live in Ontario. If I buy from someone else in Ontario, I pay PST and GST. If I buy from someone in Alberta, I pay GST only. If I buy from Quebec, I pay HST (since effectively it's a federal tax). I wouldn't be surprised if I can get that tax back by filling out some myriad of forms from the Quebec government.. but whatever.
From a programming viewpoint anyways, the Canada system is a lot easier. I think it took me about 20 minutes to write the tax code for Canada. By comparison, I had to use a huge zip code database and do a lot more work figuring out the tax code for USA purchases.
Broadband is not everywhere yet, and never will be. I can take a dvd and watch it in my laptop or a portable player in the car or train (while driving through a tunnel through a mountain), on a plane, in the middle of nowhere, etc..
Furthermore, people have large collections of DVD. Why I want to wait even a few minutes to download something when I can just stick it in my DVD player. More likely, by the time that DVDs take a few minutes to download, I will have my entire DVD collection sitting on a massive harddrive in a media jukebox anyways (provided some corperation doesn't make that illegal, anyways) and I can watch on demand, just like downloading. Except I don't have to pay extra bandwidth fees (if applicable) or anyone else any money who wanted to charge per viewing (since they can).
These corporations are destroying the value of our essential property: our identities. They demand we give our personal info, without enforcing our copyrights to prevent its being disseminated
There's an idea (not sure if this is what you were implying): copyright your personal data. When you have to give info to someone, make them agree to a licence to use your info. "You are hereby granted a limited, non-exclusive right to this information. You may use this information internally within your company for the use of identifing and billing my account. you may not distribute this information to other parties or use it for any other purpose than stated above without my express written consent."
Then if they abuse it, you can sue them for copyright infringement.
They'll make a purchase against their already-paid-for credit through ITunes (of probably $10 increments), then download the 5MB song. [..] They gotta hit customers' credit cards and give probably 5-10% back to the credit card company.
A way to offset these things would be to charge a fee for topping up your account. Say if they charge $0.50 as a service charge for adding money. It wouldn't be worth it to only put $1 on your account, most people will probably put $5 or $10 or even $20 on their account at a time.
If apple has 100,000 customers that each have an average of $7 sitting in their account, that's $100k sitting in a bank account making interest, plus $50k in service fees (minus whatever MC/Visa charges them.. probably not much with high volume). If they have 1 million customers.. $7mill in the bank making interest and $500k from service fees.
Then of course, they have the $0.01 per song profit on top of that.
"The true installed base of Linux is being undercounted if all we do is look at the server shipments alone. We need to look at what companies actually do with the servers after they have purchased them."
To support these assertions, Pratt cited a recent poll of OSDL members which asked how many had purchased servers with an OS pre-loaded and then removed and replaced it with Linux. Virtually all of them claimed to have taken this action.
This is a good point, but asking OSDL members this question is somewhat akin to doing a survey of how many people run IIS among ASP developers.
I've only ever purchased one server with linux preloaded (from Dell). Every other linux system I've ever owned has come blank, except one workstation that had a copy of Windows preloaded.
Officially, I have 1 linux system, but in reality, I have probably 15 active systems.
I used Rremiere RT a few years ago for a couple of projects, and I really liked it at the time. A few months ago, I was asked to do a video project, and I ended up going with Vegas 4 (Sony has bought Sonic Foundry, and Vegas 5 is branded as Sony).
I tried Premiere Pro at a friend's place, and I was really not impressed with it after trying Vegas (keep in mind it had been a few years since I used any NLE softwarae). It was basically the same as I remember it from 5 years ago (maybe that was the problem) but I just didn't like using it, it felt clunky compared to vegas.
Now, my initial reaction to Vegas was "wow, prosumer" but after using it for a while, found it's really quite powerful, yet also really easy. Initially I didn't like that you could put two clips overtop of each other on the same track and have it do the auto-crossfade, but it is ocasionally handy. The interface is flexible so it really supports a couple different styles of editing.
The video I was working on was just under an hour long, and was made up of many smaller segments which I edited individually, rendered and then put together in one big project before rendering the final cut. Working with the full movie on my AMD 2200 with 512ram was noticably slower for a lot of operations, espessially compared to working on a 5 minute clip. Having more memory would definately be a plus.
By the looks of Vegas 5, they've given the interface a small makeover, but it doesn't really look like there's many new features. I would recommend taking a look at it anyways.
Actually, this will lead to the death of these ads anyway since now the site itself is controlling the counters for page-views of the ad. The ad farm won't be able to verify any of the page views except as a general hit count for the web server.
Or it'll go the other way -- ad servers will host the content. If you want to view the content, you'd have to see the ads.
I guess the best we could do then is have an extension to disable javascript and most css for those ad domains.
This isn't going to happen soon because the networks do not own most of the stations that broadcast their shows, and the individual stations would view such downloads as competition. Stations make their money on advertising revenue, and the rates they receive are based on the number of viewers watching that station.
Good point. Maybe the stations should allow their content to be downloaded, ads intact? They could even require registration if they really wanted, and only allow people within the local viewing area.
Based on such ratings tools as Nielsen and local population figures.
They'd also get much better rating analysis than Nielson, since they could track who is downloading what, and correlate the shows (hm, the people watching sci-fi aren't watching any reality tv at all!). Of course, the downside to that is marketers will want to exploit that somehow. I could put up with seeing ads in the show customized to me, but not with more telemarketers calling or junk mail getting delivered.
It's not like that 11,000 a pop is going for a good cause, anyhow...
Who cares? The point is, it's coming FROM a BAD cause.
Plus, it makes it worthwhile from the perspective that a bunch of people spent a bunch of time on taxpayer dollars towards coming up with and enforcing these rules -- now that money is getting paid back, and then some.
Windows and Mac OS X both have similar installer and update functionality. The difference is that they are both more stable platforms (in terms of whether or not certain packages are available) -- you don't need the same kind of dependency management that you need with Linux.
Is that a good thing though? Maybe you're missing the point. I haven't used OS X so I can't comment on it. I also haven't used Synaptic on Fedora -- I have, however, used Synaptic (and even more often, apt, which Synaptic is a front-end for) on Debian.
Windows Update updates windows, and possibly some other MS applications. The apt repository on my debian workstation has about 18,000 packages available to install. A lot of these packages are libraries, etc, but there are also quite a few applications.
The power of having a shared system of libraries, however, is that updates are automatic. If you're using, say, libssl, to make connections to servers, and there is a flaw or security hole in it, as the application developer, you don't have to do anything really. Once libssl is updated, your application is updated, and that's that. If anything, the next time you release your app, you specifically depend on >= the updated version of libssl. The other benefit is when a developer effectively abandons a package - it can still get updates, if there are problems with libraries it uses.
Contrast this to Windows. Since there are not really any central libraries, each application has to bundle its own - which means that the developer is responsible for updating their package to release the new version of the library. Obviously any core packages to Windows will get updated by MS eventually, but there are also a lot of 3rd party libraries in use. Some applications even put their dll files in the Windows directory, and while that would normally be a good idea, there's too many developers that don't play nice, and require a specific version (their app breaks when another updates), or install an old version and break other apps.
Sure this could be fixed, but all it takes is one developer to not adhere to the rules. On Debian, this is handled by the apt team - if an app doesn't play nice, it won't meet the requirments to get into the repository. Microsoft could do something similar with Windows Update, but I have a feeling that would end up where code signing has ended up - MS charging lots of money, and no developers will to pay for little perceived value.
Client Logic also has centres around the Maritimes (Atlantic Canada) in places like Moncton, Saint John, and I think Miramichi has one too.
That's probably understandable - with problems in the fishing industry, there's lots of people out of work out there (which means a large base of established workers to pick from). Technically, it doesn't really matter where you stick a call center, so long as you can bring in a few T1's (or whatever it is you're using). Espessially now using VoIP, you can literally have phone numbers anywhere.
I'd guess the wages are relatively low (compared to what they'd have to be if you put it in a large urban center), and at the same time the dialect and accents are going to be North American (though there are a few small places in newfoundland that have some of the strangest "english" I've heard).
Back when I used to work for a large ISP, we had a few customers that simply dissapeared - they were running these cheap hosting companies, and when they felt they had enough money in the bank they just abandoned their colocated servers in the racks, stopped paying the bills, disconnected their phone, etc.
I worked for a hosting company in the dot com days. When I first started there, they had their servers at WHHQ (webhosting headquarters or something like that). Usually they were decently responsive, but we were trying to get ahold of them for almost two weeks (phone, email) and nothing.
Finally, one day, we called and found this message (woohoo, I saved it) on their answering machine. We left messages, but never heard back from anyone. The server we had colocated is probably still rotting in a government lockup somewhere.:)
It is getting rolled out to many places but is INSANELY expensive and requires upgrading EVERY subscriber to a HD DVR cable box at an extreme expense to the cable company.
What does HD have to do with on-demand? The technology is already there in current set-top boxes, I've used it. If a given cable company can't get their supplier to make non-HD-capable boxes that can do this, then they either need to remind that supplier that they want to purchase a lot of them, or take their business elseware. Unless I'm missing something, is there a reason why it needs to be HD?
The reason those boxes are expensive is because of the HD, I'd assume. Eventually it will come down in price (and be replaced by another superior format that will cost as much as HD does now)..
also, when was the last time you tried to help eliminate the franchise fees that your local city ot town extorst from the cable companies to line their pockets?
I didn't even know this was going on. I assume this gives a cable company rights to a certain area, and is the reason there is only one to chose from?
How much are you willing to pay for what you want? and have you told your local cable company that you are willing to pay 2X your monthly bill for those features?
It's not just that, if they don't do it they're going to lose their entire business model. Look what happened to the music industry that initially rejected any sort of online model - as computers got faster and hard drives got bigger, MP3 use exploded and then with introduction of P2P, everyone started trading. Now the industry is coming in and has to somehow compete with free, which everyone has been getting for the last few years.
The movie industry seems to be a bit more ahead, but they're still not really doing too much. At the same time, movies are still pretty big for today's systems, and aren't nearly as popular as music (that will change). TV shows, on the other hand, are a lot more managable. It doesn't take very long to download fairly high-quality shows. The longer nothing is done, the more people get used to content when they want, with no commericals.. which means when cable co's finally do get around to doing something about it, they're going to have a much harder time convincing people to pay for content WITH ads, when they've been getting for it for free with no ads (same as the music industry is trying to push per-$ DRM content, when you can get DRM-less for free, albeit illegally).
And it could further endanger what for the past 50 years has been television's economic linchpin: the 30-second commercial.
That *particular* business model is dying, and legislation should not protect it
I was thinking about this just a few weeks ago, and I think that the current cable companies have the technology to overcome a bunch of problems here, without obsoleting this business model (which makes it more likely to happen).
Most people who have TV have probably said/thought at some point "wow, 200 channels, and nothing to watch". Me and my roommate have a fairly large collection of shows we watch, which is pretty nice because it makes it a lot easier to follow a series, as well as you can watch whenever you want. I got thinking how the cable companies could do something similar using their video-on-demand systems they currently use for movies.
Say you have a system where you go to the channel, and you get a list of shows to pick from. When you pick one, it instantly starts playing that. What does this do? It allows the viewer to watch what they want, when they want, yet still leaves a fairly large amount of control with the station, and also importantly, leaves the concept of a "tv station" in place.
Obviously if you try to start a system where the cable providers do everything, and TV stations themselves are obsoleted, it's not likely to get very far - there would just be too much opposition. Each "channel" would provide their own limited list of shows, and there are lots of ways of providing them. For example, you could allow the user to select "The Simpsons" and see one simpsons episode that day (each day you'd air a new one). You could also provide a list of a few, or even all, episodes to watch. This could in fact start a new breed of specialty stations that provide ie, every simpsons, family guy, and futurama episode (and hell, I'd subscribe to that).
Another power it leaves in control of the station is the ability to air commercials. This is a huge power - you could presumably get info on what the person watchs and tailor ads to each viewer (of course this is fraught with privacy issues, and being slashdot, I'm sure I'll get jumped on for suggesting that). You would also be able to air current ads, even if they're watching a show that originally aired a long time ago (basically, syndication).
The station would also be able to overlay text in real-time, much like they do now. Down at the bottom: "New epsiode available next Sunday at 8pm!". They could still air live events (sporting, etc), and basically if you want to watch it, you have to tune in at the time it's on, or wait until it's over and gets archived for on-demand viewing.
In the end, you get a system that would benefit both sides: the viewer gets to watch what they want, when they want. The station still gets to get revenue from commercials, still acts like a "tv station" (with promos for their shows), and hopefully gets to curb some downloading, since why download when you can just watch it without having to get out of your couch?
Yes, it means that the viewer still has to watch commercials. The trade off, I'd hope, is that there is no extra fee for this service, it would just be a standard offering. Cable boxes could be set to accept either these enhanced stations, or the normal broadcasts.. if you tune to a station with enhanced features, then you get those extras. Satellite providers of course could do the same, but it would require either a two-way satellite (upstream is going to be low-bandwidth anyways) or a broadband or other constant internet connection (the current method of dialing up, picking a show, and disconnecting would be too slow).
I'm guessing that the majority of this could be done with current technology. Video on demand movies already work this way from the viewer's end. The stations or cable companies would just have to write the head-end software to insert commercials and promos.
How about putting them on an RBL? When their customers can't send emails, and threaten lawsuits for breach of contract, the ISP operators tend to start paying attention.
That works both ways. How about when a customer/employee compains they can't receive any email from some user @domain.com? What happens when it's an extremely important client and they're getting messages "sorry, your address has been rejected from sending mail to this system"? When you're talking about money vs network politics, guess which one is going to win the majority of the time?
I've been using this at work for a while now, and I love it. It runs on my desktop, connected to an amp and speakers, and I can control it from my laptop or desktop, and (more importantly) the person that shares my office can also control it, even if i'm not here and my screen is locked. The majority of the time, we listen to streams with it, which are all stored in playlists. There are various interfaces it, the one I use is phpMp (web-based).
This might be considered a little OT but one thing that confuses me about how Mozilla itself implements this for their own products (Firefox etc.) is that it's used to report and discuss things that I wouldn't think are "bugs" such as feature requests, functions that don't work the way end users think they should, and complaints about "antifeatures". Some of them can be damn annoying but the software in these cases is working as designed.
The reason "bug"-tracking systems are used this way is because it works well. The bug system becomes basically a fancy "todo" list for software, and can pretty much be used to track all aspects of development. It does end up being a bit of a forum sometimes, which can be annoying, but it also keeps those discussions on topic and they can turn into legitimate items that provide exact details of work to be done.
I went for a long time without using bug tracking software, now I use it to keep track of all of my development - including things such as request for general IT tasks (computer is noisy, software requests, telephone moves). It definately beats my previous sticky-note system.
In an embedded system, it's not such a big issue if you have to GPL your code, since it won't be any use without the hardware you are embedding it in. Unique hardware is effectively a 'dongle' for Linux, in this case.
Writing an application that runs on the GPL'd linux kernel does not make that application GPL, you can do whatever you want with it. The only time you have to GPL your code is when you use GPL code yourself, or link to a GPL library, etc.
If you write a driver compilied into the kernel, that becomes GPL, but if you're concerned about it you can do a binary module (not that this is really a good thing, but its possible). More likely your comment applies here anyways - the driver is useless without whatever piece of hardware it's for, which, if you're writing a driver for it, is likely only sold as part of your embedded system.
I don't really see where the GPL issue is for embedded developers (being one myself). If you extend an application someone else wrote, then it's only fair you GPL it - they did a lot of work for you. If you don't want to GPL it, then develop it from scratch by yourself.
RealVNC makes/has one. They mention plugging it into a KVM, but I'd imagine it can also go straight into one PC. It also uses vnc as the protocol, so you can use any vncviewer (also available as a java applet) to use it.
As far as the snow plow operater is concerned, he was in trouble anyways. From the original article:
Contacted Monday about the arrest of the driver, Carney downplayed the role of GPS in identifying the suspect. Carney said he would have cooperated with investigators and provided information leading to the driver.
I don't see why this would be considered a 'controversal' use of GPS. Someone did something illegal, it made it easier to catch them. Would it have been better if the driver got away with it? (more likely it would have just taken them longer to catch them, as they'd have to go through all the snowplow companies individually).
I mean, its one thing to fine or get people in trouble for speeding - and really, that's up to the business owner if they're going to do that, since they do own the vehicles - but to help catch an actual criminal act is a good thing IMO.
I'm setting up Asterisk right now for use in our small office. Actually, it's basically setup now and I'm just waiting for my phones to get here.
Total cost for the hardware was under CDN$2000 (8 phones, 2-port fxs adapter for analog phones/fax machines, 4-port fxo card for incoming lines, and the PC). I probably spent about 40 hours total after deciding to use asterisk learning about it, configuring everything, and testing. Even at billable $60/hr, that works to $4400, which is a lot less than a comparable commercial system (I got quotes). It didn't actually cost that much anyways, since I don't get paid $60/hr.;)
We now have a phone system that has an IVR menu, pratically unlimited voicemail, and every other feature you'd expect in a phone system, plus when we open a branch office later this year I can use VoIP trunks to make intra-office calls pretty much free (and easy - encouraging communication between offices).
The system we have now is getting old, to add voicemail to it is $3000 by itself, plus the time to configure it (actually, I'd probably have to get someone to come in and set it up, since I only know the basics of how to program a few features). It can't do VoIP at all (unless you were to plug something into a CO port.. but then you'd have to dial it like an external number, and the other office wouldn't be able to call an extension directly).
This hasn't even gotten into the advanced stuff I can do fairly easily that wouldn't be possible with another system (without spend a LOT of money) -- such as, IVR status updates on system status; allowing customers to query their account balance etc.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't buy anything but if I'm bored I try to string them along for as much as possible wasting their money. With any luck I'll eventually be blacklisted and not receive any more calls.
Say "Wow, yes, I'm definately interested. Hold on while I go get my credit card information". Then place the call on hold, and go do something else.
If you run Asterisk, there's a great script to have some fun with them.
Honest question. What does it matter? Is there some great advantage that I'm not thinking of to having a giant bundled suite of apps, rather than five or six individual downloads?
;)
There's no reason there can't be a "bundle" installer, that installs all the programs in one go (and one download).
I think it's a good thing they moved away from the all-in-one application. It's nicer to pick and choose individual apps. The best illustration of this that comes to mind is StarOffice: version 5.2, the major new feature was that it had a new integrated desktop, and all the apps were combined together in one giant executable. In version 6 (the next major release IIRC) the major new feature was no more integrated desktop, and all the apps were split apart
The states really hate it when people buy stuff over the Internet, because that means that the money is being sent to another state; not only do they lose tax revenue but it means in-state businesses suffer.
:)
IIRC from when I was doing e-commerce programming (ahh, the good ol' dot com days..) you only get taxed where you have nexus with the store. So for example, if you're in Flordia, and buy from New York, you don't pay any tax. If you're in Flordia, but buy from another county, you pay State tax (since you have nexus in Florida state) but not county or city tax.
Now, if you're buying from that company in New York, but they have a warehouse (or store or whatever tangible piece of property) in Florida, then you have to pay tax as if you bought from that warehouse (even if it was shipped from New York).
I think the big complication here is the crazy taxing that happens in the US. There's no federal sales tax, so state to state purchases don't get taxed. Maybe if there weren't so many levels of tax it would be easier..
Not that we up in Canada have it much better, but for most provinces, there's two taxes. Federal (GST) and Provincial (PST) -- Quebec and the maritimes have HST, which is effectively GST+PST.
I live in Ontario. If I buy from someone else in Ontario, I pay PST and GST. If I buy from someone in Alberta, I pay GST only. If I buy from Quebec, I pay HST (since effectively it's a federal tax). I wouldn't be surprised if I can get that tax back by filling out some myriad of forms from the Quebec government.. but whatever.
From a programming viewpoint anyways, the Canada system is a lot easier. I think it took me about 20 minutes to write the tax code for Canada. By comparison, I had to use a huge zip code database and do a lot more work figuring out the tax code for USA purchases.
Broadband is not everywhere yet, and never will be. I can take a dvd and watch it in my laptop or a portable player in the car or train (while driving through a tunnel through a mountain), on a plane, in the middle of nowhere, etc..
Furthermore, people have large collections of DVD. Why I want to wait even a few minutes to download something when I can just stick it in my DVD player. More likely, by the time that DVDs take a few minutes to download, I will have my entire DVD collection sitting on a massive harddrive in a media jukebox anyways (provided some corperation doesn't make that illegal, anyways) and I can watch on demand, just like downloading. Except I don't have to pay extra bandwidth fees (if applicable) or anyone else any money who wanted to charge per viewing (since they can).
These corporations are destroying the value of our essential property: our identities. They demand we give our personal info, without enforcing our copyrights to prevent its being disseminated
There's an idea (not sure if this is what you were implying): copyright your personal data. When you have to give info to someone, make them agree to a licence to use your info. "You are hereby granted a limited, non-exclusive right to this information. You may use this information internally within your company for the use of identifing and billing my account. you may not distribute this information to other parties or use it for any other purpose than stated above without my express written consent."
Then if they abuse it, you can sue them for copyright infringement.
Would this work?
They'll make a purchase against their already-paid-for credit through ITunes (of probably $10 increments), then download the 5MB song.
.. probably not much with high volume). If they have 1 million customers .. $7mill in the bank making interest and $500k from service fees.
[..]
They gotta hit customers' credit cards and give probably 5-10% back to the credit card company.
A way to offset these things would be to charge a fee for topping up your account. Say if they charge $0.50 as a service charge for adding money. It wouldn't be worth it to only put $1 on your account, most people will probably put $5 or $10 or even $20 on their account at a time.
If apple has 100,000 customers that each have an average of $7 sitting in their account, that's $100k sitting in a bank account making interest, plus $50k in service fees (minus whatever MC/Visa charges them
Then of course, they have the $0.01 per song profit on top of that.
This is a good point, but asking OSDL members this question is somewhat akin to doing a survey of how many people run IIS among ASP developers.
I've only ever purchased one server with linux preloaded (from Dell). Every other linux system I've ever owned has come blank, except one workstation that had a copy of Windows preloaded.
Officially, I have 1 linux system, but in reality, I have probably 15 active systems.
I used Rremiere RT a few years ago for a couple of projects, and I really liked it at the time. A few months ago, I was asked to do a video project, and I ended up going with Vegas 4 (Sony has bought Sonic Foundry, and Vegas 5 is branded as Sony).
I tried Premiere Pro at a friend's place, and I was really not impressed with it after trying Vegas (keep in mind it had been a few years since I used any NLE softwarae). It was basically the same as I remember it from 5 years ago (maybe that was the problem) but I just didn't like using it, it felt clunky compared to vegas.
Now, my initial reaction to Vegas was "wow, prosumer" but after using it for a while, found it's really quite powerful, yet also really easy. Initially I didn't like that you could put two clips overtop of each other on the same track and have it do the auto-crossfade, but it is ocasionally handy. The interface is flexible so it really supports a couple different styles of editing.
The video I was working on was just under an hour long, and was made up of many smaller segments which I edited individually, rendered and then put together in one big project before rendering the final cut. Working with the full movie on my AMD 2200 with 512ram was noticably slower for a lot of operations, espessially compared to working on a 5 minute clip. Having more memory would definately be a plus.
By the looks of Vegas 5, they've given the interface a small makeover, but it doesn't really look like there's many new features. I would recommend taking a look at it anyways.
Actually, this will lead to the death of these ads anyway since now the site itself is controlling the counters for page-views of the ad. The ad farm won't be able to verify any of the page views except as a general hit count for the web server.
Or it'll go the other way -- ad servers will host the content. If you want to view the content, you'd have to see the ads.
I guess the best we could do then is have an extension to disable javascript and most css for those ad domains.
This isn't going to happen soon because the networks do not own most of the stations that broadcast their shows, and the individual stations would view such downloads as competition. Stations make their money on advertising revenue, and the rates they receive are based on the number of viewers watching that station.
Good point. Maybe the stations should allow their content to be downloaded, ads intact? They could even require registration if they really wanted, and only allow people within the local viewing area.
Based on such ratings tools as Nielsen and local population figures.
They'd also get much better rating analysis than Nielson, since they could track who is downloading what, and correlate the shows (hm, the people watching sci-fi aren't watching any reality tv at all!). Of course, the downside to that is marketers will want to exploit that somehow. I could put up with seeing ads in the show customized to me, but not with more telemarketers calling or junk mail getting delivered.
It's not like that 11,000 a pop is going for a good cause, anyhow...
Who cares? The point is, it's coming FROM a BAD cause.
Plus, it makes it worthwhile from the perspective that a bunch of people spent a bunch of time on taxpayer dollars towards coming up with and enforcing these rules -- now that money is getting paid back, and then some.
Windows and Mac OS X both have similar installer and update functionality. The difference is that they are both more stable platforms (in terms of whether or not certain packages are available) -- you don't need the same kind of dependency management that you need with Linux.
Is that a good thing though? Maybe you're missing the point. I haven't used OS X so I can't comment on it. I also haven't used Synaptic on Fedora -- I have, however, used Synaptic (and even more often, apt, which Synaptic is a front-end for) on Debian.
Windows Update updates windows, and possibly some other MS applications. The apt repository on my debian workstation has about 18,000 packages available to install. A lot of these packages are libraries, etc, but there are also quite a few applications.
The power of having a shared system of libraries, however, is that updates are automatic. If you're using, say, libssl, to make connections to servers, and there is a flaw or security hole in it, as the application developer, you don't have to do anything really. Once libssl is updated, your application is updated, and that's that. If anything, the next time you release your app, you specifically depend on >= the updated version of libssl. The other benefit is when a developer effectively abandons a package - it can still get updates, if there are problems with libraries it uses.
Contrast this to Windows. Since there are not really any central libraries, each application has to bundle its own - which means that the developer is responsible for updating their package to release the new version of the library. Obviously any core packages to Windows will get updated by MS eventually, but there are also a lot of 3rd party libraries in use. Some applications even put their dll files in the Windows directory, and while that would normally be a good idea, there's too many developers that don't play nice, and require a specific version (their app breaks when another updates), or install an old version and break other apps.
Sure this could be fixed, but all it takes is one developer to not adhere to the rules. On Debian, this is handled by the apt team - if an app doesn't play nice, it won't meet the requirments to get into the repository. Microsoft could do something similar with Windows Update, but I have a feeling that would end up where code signing has ended up - MS charging lots of money, and no developers will to pay for little perceived value.
Client Logic also has centres around the Maritimes (Atlantic Canada) in places like Moncton, Saint John, and I think Miramichi has one too.
That's probably understandable - with problems in the fishing industry, there's lots of people out of work out there (which means a large base of established workers to pick from). Technically, it doesn't really matter where you stick a call center, so long as you can bring in a few T1's (or whatever it is you're using). Espessially now using VoIP, you can literally have phone numbers anywhere.
I'd guess the wages are relatively low (compared to what they'd have to be if you put it in a large urban center), and at the same time the dialect and accents are going to be North American (though there are a few small places in newfoundland that have some of the strangest "english" I've heard).
Back when I used to work for a large ISP, we had a few customers that simply dissapeared - they were running these cheap hosting companies, and when they felt they had enough money in the bank they just abandoned their colocated servers in the racks, stopped paying the bills, disconnected their phone, etc.
:)
I worked for a hosting company in the dot com days. When I first started there, they had their servers at WHHQ (webhosting headquarters or something like that). Usually they were decently responsive, but we were trying to get ahold of them for almost two weeks (phone, email) and nothing.
Finally, one day, we called and found this message (woohoo, I saved it) on their answering machine. We left messages, but never heard back from anyone. The server we had colocated is probably still rotting in a government lockup somewhere.
It is getting rolled out to many places but is INSANELY expensive and requires upgrading EVERY subscriber to a HD DVR cable box at an extreme expense to the cable company.
What does HD have to do with on-demand? The technology is already there in current set-top boxes, I've used it. If a given cable company can't get their supplier to make non-HD-capable boxes that can do this, then they either need to remind that supplier that they want to purchase a lot of them, or take their business elseware. Unless I'm missing something, is there a reason why it needs to be HD?
The reason those boxes are expensive is because of the HD, I'd assume. Eventually it will come down in price (and be replaced by another superior format that will cost as much as HD does now)..
also, when was the last time you tried to help eliminate the franchise fees that your local city ot town extorst from the cable companies to line their pockets?
I didn't even know this was going on. I assume this gives a cable company rights to a certain area, and is the reason there is only one to chose from?
How much are you willing to pay for what you want? and have you told your local cable company that you are willing to pay 2X your monthly bill for those features?
It's not just that, if they don't do it they're going to lose their entire business model. Look what happened to the music industry that initially rejected any sort of online model - as computers got faster and hard drives got bigger, MP3 use exploded and then with introduction of P2P, everyone started trading. Now the industry is coming in and has to somehow compete with free, which everyone has been getting for the last few years.
The movie industry seems to be a bit more ahead, but they're still not really doing too much. At the same time, movies are still pretty big for today's systems, and aren't nearly as popular as music (that will change). TV shows, on the other hand, are a lot more managable. It doesn't take very long to download fairly high-quality shows. The longer nothing is done, the more people get used to content when they want, with no commericals.. which means when cable co's finally do get around to doing something about it, they're going to have a much harder time convincing people to pay for content WITH ads, when they've been getting for it for free with no ads (same as the music industry is trying to push per-$ DRM content, when you can get DRM-less for free, albeit illegally).
That *particular* business model is dying, and legislation should not protect it
I was thinking about this just a few weeks ago, and I think that the current cable companies have the technology to overcome a bunch of problems here, without obsoleting this business model (which makes it more likely to happen).
Most people who have TV have probably said/thought at some point "wow, 200 channels, and nothing to watch". Me and my roommate have a fairly large collection of shows we watch, which is pretty nice because it makes it a lot easier to follow a series, as well as you can watch whenever you want. I got thinking how the cable companies could do something similar using their video-on-demand systems they currently use for movies.
Say you have a system where you go to the channel, and you get a list of shows to pick from. When you pick one, it instantly starts playing that. What does this do? It allows the viewer to watch what they want, when they want, yet still leaves a fairly large amount of control with the station, and also importantly, leaves the concept of a "tv station" in place.
Obviously if you try to start a system where the cable providers do everything, and TV stations themselves are obsoleted, it's not likely to get very far - there would just be too much opposition. Each "channel" would provide their own limited list of shows, and there are lots of ways of providing them. For example, you could allow the user to select "The Simpsons" and see one simpsons episode that day (each day you'd air a new one). You could also provide a list of a few, or even all, episodes to watch. This could in fact start a new breed of specialty stations that provide ie, every simpsons, family guy, and futurama episode (and hell, I'd subscribe to that).
Another power it leaves in control of the station is the ability to air commercials. This is a huge power - you could presumably get info on what the person watchs and tailor ads to each viewer (of course this is fraught with privacy issues, and being slashdot, I'm sure I'll get jumped on for suggesting that). You would also be able to air current ads, even if they're watching a show that originally aired a long time ago (basically, syndication).
The station would also be able to overlay text in real-time, much like they do now. Down at the bottom: "New epsiode available next Sunday at 8pm!". They could still air live events (sporting, etc), and basically if you want to watch it, you have to tune in at the time it's on, or wait until it's over and gets archived for on-demand viewing.
In the end, you get a system that would benefit both sides: the viewer gets to watch what they want, when they want. The station still gets to get revenue from commercials, still acts like a "tv station" (with promos for their shows), and hopefully gets to curb some downloading, since why download when you can just watch it without having to get out of your couch?
Yes, it means that the viewer still has to watch commercials. The trade off, I'd hope, is that there is no extra fee for this service, it would just be a standard offering. Cable boxes could be set to accept either these enhanced stations, or the normal broadcasts.. if you tune to a station with enhanced features, then you get those extras. Satellite providers of course could do the same, but it would require either a two-way satellite (upstream is going to be low-bandwidth anyways) or a broadband or other constant internet connection (the current method of dialing up, picking a show, and disconnecting would be too slow).
I'm guessing that the majority of this could be done with current technology. Video on demand movies already work this way from the viewer's end. The stations or cable companies would just have to write the head-end software to insert commercials and promos.
Yeah, that's just frigging great... more zombies, spambots, haxxored boxes, and virus spewing PCs.
Maybe you haven't been paying attention. Microsoft has already solved this through their new anti-spyware offerings.
How about putting them on an RBL? When their customers can't send emails, and threaten lawsuits for breach of contract, the ISP operators tend to start paying attention.
That works both ways. How about when a customer/employee compains they can't receive any email from some user @domain.com? What happens when it's an extremely important client and they're getting messages "sorry, your address has been rejected from sending mail to this system"? When you're talking about money vs network politics, guess which one is going to win the majority of the time?
I've been using this at work for a while now, and I love it. It runs on my desktop, connected to an amp and speakers, and I can control it from my laptop or desktop, and (more importantly) the person that shares my office can also control it, even if i'm not here and my screen is locked. The majority of the time, we listen to streams with it, which are all stored in playlists. There are various interfaces it, the one I use is phpMp (web-based).
Move all heavy industry that uses massive amounts of electricity outside the US.
Because they won't use as much electricity if they're in another country?
This might be considered a little OT but one thing that confuses me about how Mozilla itself implements this for their own products (Firefox etc.) is that it's used to report and discuss things that I wouldn't think are "bugs" such as feature requests, functions that don't work the way end users think they should, and complaints about "antifeatures". Some of them can be damn annoying but the software in these cases is working as designed.
The reason "bug"-tracking systems are used this way is because it works well. The bug system becomes basically a fancy "todo" list for software, and can pretty much be used to track all aspects of development. It does end up being a bit of a forum sometimes, which can be annoying, but it also keeps those discussions on topic and they can turn into legitimate items that provide exact details of work to be done.
I went for a long time without using bug tracking software, now I use it to keep track of all of my development - including things such as request for general IT tasks (computer is noisy, software requests, telephone moves). It definately beats my previous sticky-note system.
In an embedded system, it's not such a big issue if you have to GPL your code, since it won't be any use without the hardware you are embedding it in. Unique hardware is effectively a 'dongle' for Linux, in this case.
Writing an application that runs on the GPL'd linux kernel does not make that application GPL, you can do whatever you want with it. The only time you have to GPL your code is when you use GPL code yourself, or link to a GPL library, etc.
If you write a driver compilied into the kernel, that becomes GPL, but if you're concerned about it you can do a binary module (not that this is really a good thing, but its possible). More likely your comment applies here anyways - the driver is useless without whatever piece of hardware it's for, which, if you're writing a driver for it, is likely only sold as part of your embedded system.
I don't really see where the GPL issue is for embedded developers (being one myself). If you extend an application someone else wrote, then it's only fair you GPL it - they did a lot of work for you. If you don't want to GPL it, then develop it from scratch by yourself.
RealVNC makes/has one. They mention plugging it into a KVM, but I'd imagine it can also go straight into one PC. It also uses vnc as the protocol, so you can use any vncviewer (also available as a java applet) to use it.
I don't see why this would be considered a 'controversal' use of GPS. Someone did something illegal, it made it easier to catch them. Would it have been better if the driver got away with it? (more likely it would have just taken them longer to catch them, as they'd have to go through all the snowplow companies individually).
I mean, its one thing to fine or get people in trouble for speeding - and really, that's up to the business owner if they're going to do that, since they do own the vehicles - but to help catch an actual criminal act is a good thing IMO.
I'm setting up Asterisk right now for use in our small office. Actually, it's basically setup now and I'm just waiting for my phones to get here.
;)
.. but then you'd have to dial it like an external number, and the other office wouldn't be able to call an extension directly).
Total cost for the hardware was under CDN$2000 (8 phones, 2-port fxs adapter for analog phones/fax machines, 4-port fxo card for incoming lines, and the PC). I probably spent about 40 hours total after deciding to use asterisk learning about it, configuring everything, and testing. Even at billable $60/hr, that works to $4400, which is a lot less than a comparable commercial system (I got quotes). It didn't actually cost that much anyways, since I don't get paid $60/hr.
We now have a phone system that has an IVR menu, pratically unlimited voicemail, and every other feature you'd expect in a phone system, plus when we open a branch office later this year I can use VoIP trunks to make intra-office calls pretty much free (and easy - encouraging communication between offices).
The system we have now is getting old, to add voicemail to it is $3000 by itself, plus the time to configure it (actually, I'd probably have to get someone to come in and set it up, since I only know the basics of how to program a few features). It can't do VoIP at all (unless you were to plug something into a CO port
This hasn't even gotten into the advanced stuff I can do fairly easily that wouldn't be possible with another system (without spend a LOT of money) -- such as, IVR status updates on system status; allowing customers to query their account balance etc.