The potential is there, but it's there now. It isn't the construction costs so much as the design costs that result in all the houses in a given development being identical (other that rotated 90 degrees, or mirrored).
There have been comments blasting you on this, and I'm sure more will, but Linux is all or nothing in my experience. Recent distributions install on the majority of the hardware out there with no additional drivers required. That said, when you do need the extra driver it can get difficult in a hurry.
I've run the last couple flavors of Mandrake on my main desktop, and it is much easier and takes about half as long to install as Windows (drivers & all). I've recently put together a box to use as a server, with a VIA SATA controller on the motherboard, and I'm going to have to upgrade the kernel to 2.6 to be able to recognize my SATA drives.
Bottom line is that I feel Linux is way ahead of Windows in ease of installation, but way, way behind in being supported by manufacturers (e.g., VIA's only Linux driver for my chipset is designed for Red Hat 7.2).
Just a thought -- I know that there has been some trouble with ATI drivers in the past. Being a download version, it wouldn't have proprietary drivers (or the one's that were just release), so it is likely that X is not running 3d accelerated. (The betas and release candidate didn't support 3d acceleration, but I figured it'd be fixed by this release.)
Not sure about a fix, but it's at least something you can check.
Well, considering that Pops got an associate degree in computer science back in the mid-80s, I don't worry too much about him (currently running Xandros). My mom, however, is another story. My dad doesn't have the patience to help her (& vice versa). That leaves me, even though I live on the opposite side of the state (about a 5 hour drive). Whenever I'm over there for holidays or whatnot, I do a full check of her system (running MS 98, Spybot S&D, AVG Anti-virus) and apply any updates. She knows enough not to open attachments, so she does pretty well. That, and I recently (over Christmas) talked her into Thunderbird (the spam blocker == major selling point) and basically just swapped Firebird for Explorer (erased the Explorer icons, imported her bookmarks into Firebird).
Email and eBay are about all she uses the computer for, so it works pretty well. When I'm confident in a distro's compatibility with her digital camera and find a simple photo editor, I figure I'll just make her a Linux user. As long as she can still do what she wants, she won't care.
Is it a curse, or just a factor of having an insane (in a good way) release schedule. You can hardly turn around without them offering a new version, with all of the then-current bells and whistles. So the latest stable release doesn't have the most bleeding edge components -- just wait a couple months.
Re:They'll never get into the schools though, unti
on
KDE 3.2.1 Released
·
· Score: 5, Funny
You have apparently not heard of the KDE Klingon Translation Team. According to them, the K in KDE actually stands for Klingon.
It is copyright infringement, but not piracy unless someone's making a profit (no matter what the RIAA says). That said, since most of those games are otherwise out of circulation, the publisher probably isn't going to kick up much of a fuss about it.
It's called spoliation of the evidence (no, that's not a a typo, that's how it's spelled). If IBM/Novell/etc can show that the evidence was destroyed, then the jury is allowed to consider that the evidence was probably damaging to SCO/MS.
Instead, they'll release enough of the emails to claim that they released them all (kind of like in a certain anti-trust action a few years ago). That way, nobody can prove anything based on the email or that SCO destroyed any email.
I think ESR probably did the right thing, because this is much more useful in the court of public opinion than in a court of law -- even if it could be proved. As the Register article points out, MS could have legitimate (from a business standpoint) reasons for investing in SCO that would be perfectly legal. But they can't do anything about how bad it looks, so they had a reason to hide it even if it were legit. So dragging it out where everyone can see it is the best course of action.
Ah, I see. But the facts themselves are not copyrighted, nor can they be. This act just allows databases/collections of facts to be copyrighted. Using a phone book as an example, the phone company may now be able to copyright that collection of facts (which goes contrary to established copyright law), but it does not own a copyright on the actual data inside the book -- i.e., you're not infringing the copyright by using/copying names and numbers out of the book. If you, say, photocopied the yellow pages and sold them, you would be. The tricky thing is where the dividing line is, but regardless I think indexes, journals, bibliographies, etc. would not be infringing anyone's copyright.
Preposterous. How many things in a library weren't already copyrighted? Do you think that just because an index or journal can now claim copyright that they're going to charge a library anymore (or less)? And the facts in the index are not copyrighted, and cannot be, just the index itself as a database of facts.
The point that everyone is missing, not helped at all by the article headline, is that this is about databases, not individual facts. Facts will still not be able to be copyrighted, just collections of them. Doesn't make the bill much better, but it's an important distinction.
I think there's a real chance of it being declared unconstitutional, because Congress's authority to issue patents and copyrights is "to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries." (US Const, Art. 1, s. 8, p. 8) That said, they'll probably just pass it as a law governing interstate commerce.
The First Amendment says, and I quote, "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or of the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
Mentioning god hardly rises to this level. Look in your wallet. Is the treasury department "violating" the Constitution by putting "In God We Trust" on all of our money? I suggest you read up on what the separation between church and state means and why it was put in the constitution. It has nothing to do with political leaders mentioning the "g" word. Did you know that there's an invocation (prayer) to open every session of Congress?
I agree that parallels can be drawn with Nazi Germany and other dictatorships, but only on the most superficial levels. Yes, Hitler was elected, but I suggest you look up the Brownshirts (political thugs, kind of like we're seeing, and have seen, in Haiti), the Beerhall Putsch (Hitler's first attempt to take power, which ended with him in "jail," where he wrote Mein Kampf), and the fragility of the Weimar Republic reeling under draconian reparations and humiliated by the Allies. Very, very fertile ground for even an average joe to think bad thoughts about other countries, regardless of the leader (analogous, in many ways, with the modern Middle East coming to grips with its colonial past and enormous disparity of wealth).
I agree that Bush has done some pretty terrible things, from an ethical standpoint. But nothing he's done has actually been illegal under US or international law. A stupid/overzealous/unilateralist Bush != evil Bush. If he'd done the same things, but in a more palatable manner (i.e., going through the UN instead of alienating everyone), I submit that people would have a different view of him. That's what bothers me the most -- not people disliking Bush, but rather mistaking his ineptitude for some grand, evil scheme. If you're going to dislike someone, do it for the right reason.
Slashdot Mirror
It's attached to your wrist.
The potential is there, but it's there now. It isn't the construction costs so much as the design costs that result in all the houses in a given development being identical (other that rotated 90 degrees, or mirrored).
Boy, and I thought houses in housing developments were too cookie-cutter now.
There have been comments blasting you on this, and I'm sure more will, but Linux is all or nothing in my experience. Recent distributions install on the majority of the hardware out there with no additional drivers required. That said, when you do need the extra driver it can get difficult in a hurry.
I've run the last couple flavors of Mandrake on my main desktop, and it is much easier and takes about half as long to install as Windows (drivers & all). I've recently put together a box to use as a server, with a VIA SATA controller on the motherboard, and I'm going to have to upgrade the kernel to 2.6 to be able to recognize my SATA drives.
Bottom line is that I feel Linux is way ahead of Windows in ease of installation, but way, way behind in being supported by manufacturers (e.g., VIA's only Linux driver for my chipset is designed for Red Hat 7.2).
Ahem. I, uh, that's what I meant . . . Yeah, yeah . . .
[hangs head in shame]
Just a thought -- I know that there has been some trouble with ATI drivers in the past. Being a download version, it wouldn't have proprietary drivers (or the one's that were just release), so it is likely that X is not running 3d accelerated. (The betas and release candidate didn't support 3d acceleration, but I figured it'd be fixed by this release.)
Not sure about a fix, but it's at least something you can check.
Having used both, I'd say the answer to you're question is "yes."
(i.e., all of the above)
Well, considering that Pops got an associate degree in computer science back in the mid-80s, I don't worry too much about him (currently running Xandros). My mom, however, is another story. My dad doesn't have the patience to help her (& vice versa). That leaves me, even though I live on the opposite side of the state (about a 5 hour drive). Whenever I'm over there for holidays or whatnot, I do a full check of her system (running MS 98, Spybot S&D, AVG Anti-virus) and apply any updates. She knows enough not to open attachments, so she does pretty well. That, and I recently (over Christmas) talked her into Thunderbird (the spam blocker == major selling point) and basically just swapped Firebird for Explorer (erased the Explorer icons, imported her bookmarks into Firebird).
Email and eBay are about all she uses the computer for, so it works pretty well. When I'm confident in a distro's compatibility with her digital camera and find a simple photo editor, I figure I'll just make her a Linux user. As long as she can still do what she wants, she won't care.
Is it a curse, or just a factor of having an insane (in a good way) release schedule. You can hardly turn around without them offering a new version, with all of the then-current bells and whistles. So the latest stable release doesn't have the most bleeding edge components -- just wait a couple months.
You have apparently not heard of the KDE Klingon Translation Team. According to them, the K in KDE actually stands for Klingon.
Gee, I wish I had that much time on my hands.
Yes, yes, I know that I am insightful, but this comment is a joke for crying out loud!
The fact that someone thinks the statement "programmers kill people" is insightful, well . . . that is a little scary.
For the humor-impaired, this comment is meant to be humorous as well.
Just wait until AOL starts mailing these out.
Hell, if AOL would send me one of these I'd actually be willing to use their service. Well, sign up for it anyway.
Software doesn't kill people; programmers kill people.
It is copyright infringement, but not piracy unless someone's making a profit (no matter what the RIAA says). That said, since most of those games are otherwise out of circulation, the publisher probably isn't going to kick up much of a fuss about it.
Well, I was thinking "actor" in a more gender neutral sense, but . . .
Gender neutral. Oh, dear god, that's not a mental image I want. Excuse while I go slit my wrists.
Well, it all depends on the scene, now doesn't it? This, for instance, might be an interesting choice . . .
I believe the word you are valiantly searching for is "rhetorical," not redundant.
No need to thank me; I'm just here to help.
Or else the person typing it up was not a good typist, and didn't bother to go back and correct his own typos.
. . . threatening to show up with a baseball bat and take out kneecaps.
I'm not saying the MS execs are anywhere near that level. . .
Exactly. They would hire someone to do it for them (with a name like "Baystar," or something).
It's called spoliation of the evidence (no, that's not a a typo, that's how it's spelled). If IBM/Novell/etc can show that the evidence was destroyed, then the jury is allowed to consider that the evidence was probably damaging to SCO/MS.
Instead, they'll release enough of the emails to claim that they released them all (kind of like in a certain anti-trust action a few years ago). That way, nobody can prove anything based on the email or that SCO destroyed any email.
I think ESR probably did the right thing, because this is much more useful in the court of public opinion than in a court of law -- even if it could be proved. As the Register article points out, MS could have legitimate (from a business standpoint) reasons for investing in SCO that would be perfectly legal. But they can't do anything about how bad it looks, so they had a reason to hide it even if it were legit. So dragging it out where everyone can see it is the best course of action.
Ah, I see. But the facts themselves are not copyrighted, nor can they be. This act just allows databases/collections of facts to be copyrighted. Using a phone book as an example, the phone company may now be able to copyright that collection of facts (which goes contrary to established copyright law), but it does not own a copyright on the actual data inside the book -- i.e., you're not infringing the copyright by using/copying names and numbers out of the book. If you, say, photocopied the yellow pages and sold them, you would be. The tricky thing is where the dividing line is, but regardless I think indexes, journals, bibliographies, etc. would not be infringing anyone's copyright.
Sorry, my mistake.
Preposterous. How many things in a library weren't already copyrighted? Do you think that just because an index or journal can now claim copyright that they're going to charge a library anymore (or less)? And the facts in the index are not copyrighted, and cannot be, just the index itself as a database of facts.
The point that everyone is missing, not helped at all by the article headline, is that this is about databases, not individual facts. Facts will still not be able to be copyrighted, just collections of them. Doesn't make the bill much better, but it's an important distinction.
I think there's a real chance of it being declared unconstitutional, because Congress's authority to issue patents and copyrights is "to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries." (US Const, Art. 1, s. 8, p. 8) That said, they'll probably just pass it as a law governing interstate commerce.
Just a couple of brief points --
The First Amendment says, and I quote, "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or of the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
Mentioning god hardly rises to this level. Look in your wallet. Is the treasury department "violating" the Constitution by putting "In God We Trust" on all of our money? I suggest you read up on what the separation between church and state means and why it was put in the constitution. It has nothing to do with political leaders mentioning the "g" word. Did you know that there's an invocation (prayer) to open every session of Congress?
I agree that parallels can be drawn with Nazi Germany and other dictatorships, but only on the most superficial levels. Yes, Hitler was elected, but I suggest you look up the Brownshirts (political thugs, kind of like we're seeing, and have seen, in Haiti), the Beerhall Putsch (Hitler's first attempt to take power, which ended with him in "jail," where he wrote Mein Kampf), and the fragility of the Weimar Republic reeling under draconian reparations and humiliated by the Allies. Very, very fertile ground for even an average joe to think bad thoughts about other countries, regardless of the leader (analogous, in many ways, with the modern Middle East coming to grips with its colonial past and enormous disparity of wealth).
I agree that Bush has done some pretty terrible things, from an ethical standpoint. But nothing he's done has actually been illegal under US or international law. A stupid/overzealous/unilateralist Bush != evil Bush. If he'd done the same things, but in a more palatable manner (i.e., going through the UN instead of alienating everyone), I submit that people would have a different view of him. That's what bothers me the most -- not people disliking Bush, but rather mistaking his ineptitude for some grand, evil scheme. If you're going to dislike someone, do it for the right reason.