The simple reason is, the telecom companies are not doing a good job of providing a service; otherwise there would be no need for a governmental agency to step in. I will agree there is often no commercial sense to be made out of putting broadband in some areas; but just because it is not economically feasible doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. REA was created for the same purpose; nobody wanted to bring power to rural communities, so the government stepped in and did it for them. Many of those old REA lines are now being sold to commercial providers, who make quite a profit. I see no reason why this won't end up the same way. The telecom companies are just like Microsoft; they see ANY anthill of competition, and they launch a nuclear warhead at it.
Well Microsoft doesn't sell just to mega-super-corporations with billions of dollars to blow on IT. If you're that customer, it makes no difference. For me, in the field of education, it makes all of the difference in the world. It comes down to how much you value your money.
Based on my experience, Open Source patches have a much smaller chance of screwing up other things when applied; this is because Open Source software has no vested interest in moving people onto the next "Big Thing" by making it difficult to use the last "Big Thing." Patches are maintained for Linux kernels as long as a significant interest remains in them. If not, you can always get the source and fix it yourself. For Windows 3.11 machines (I know of several that are still in use in my former company) there is no alternative but to "invest" in Windows XP, in this instance. The patch "system" for OSS is about fixing things; the patch "system" for Windows and/or most closed software is more often than not about exercising power over users and forcing upgrades.
Because Microsoft has proven time and time again that they innovate for one purpose; to destroy any and all competition, at which point they cease to innovate entirely. To do this while being a convicted monopolist is not allowed.
At least with Open Source Software you CAN maintain it if necessary. With closed source, there is no way to make any changes to old software...and much too often, the companies that make some of the obscure CAD stuff (my field, once) are out of business. At least having it open makes it possible to change something...even if you don't.
Exactly. At the time, the Clinton Administration waved the "Peace in Our Time" treaty like a bunch of Neville Chamberlains...Now what do we get? Instead of a war on our terms, against a non-nuclear enemy, we'll get a war on their terms, against a nuclear-and-willing-to-use-it enemy. To quote from the Wiki on Chamberlain...
"The theory was that dictatorships arose where peoples had grievances, and that by removing the source of these grievances, the dictatorship would become less aggressive."
We all know that worked great with Hitler, and it worked so wonderful with NK too. So now what do we do? Stand back and wait for the next "Great Patriotic War" when they get a huge stockpile built, or cut our losses and fight now?
This is after Fiorina squandered all of the combined resources of DEC and Compaq...Her "plan" to port the world+dog to Itanium would never have worked out; the world+dog was already on its way to commodity X86 hardware. Basically, she was on her way to building a company on ink. Overpriced ink. She should have been relegated to a taco stand in Tijuana years ago...
I've noticed that in almost any interview with Bill Gates on the subject of technology, he goes on and on about "rich" things. I remember one back in about 1996 that was basically about Wordpad...he kept repeating "rich"..."rich text" "rich media" "rich experience" "rich multimedia"...it's highly annoying...but then again, billionaires usually get obsessed with the premise that everyone is trying to steal from them, so perhaps he's just preoccupied with his piles of cash.
Well I know the moderation system of Slashdot is never going to function fairly, but my beef is that much more troll-istic posts are modded Insightful on a regular basis...
Re:What a stupid question....
on
No Pictures, Thanks
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Why does everybody have to use "Troll" as a slur, even when someone has a valid point? Here's a tip: If you don't like somebody's viewpoint, they aren't trolling when they state it to you. They may seem like weak points, but the guy has a point. I don't see any goatse holes or wipo trolls.
Let me answer these based on the current direction of media conglomerates...
1. You'll need a Microsoft Windows XP Media Center PC for that.
2. Your home-made videos will not go beyond a PC-based format, and don't even think about importing anything DRM'ed.
3.1. You won't need all of your old non-DRM content
3.2. You can't convert anything, because we will force you to buy it again
Don't look at DRM as ANYTHING but a scheme to force people into buying a new version of player to get the latest movie out. If it won't directly make the media companies profit, then it won't happen.
You know...
on
Linux, Inc.
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
You know something must be up if BillG himself is shuffling off to South America to persuade the government to lose interest in open software...
My experience is in School Districts. I see them buying into Software Assurance, and going from NT 4, to 2000 Server, to 2003 Server in the span of 4 years, and being charged at every step of the way. I look upon any Linux upgrades as wonderful and necessary, because they are FREE (as in beer) and not shoved in your face. I see the change from 2000 to 2003 un-necessary, because we gained little or no features and sank $$$ into SA.
There have been numerous sub-comments to mind about Microsoft not forcing updates because NT 4 still exists, etc...I am talking about the "new" Microsoft scheme of things. They will do anything in their power to get you away from "buying" their software to "leasing" it on a yearly basis. Software Assurance is the name of the game. I am talking swirling vortices like proprietary Office formats, and the general move to lock-out any product that might want to work with Windows...except those that are digitally signed, digitally sealed, and digitally delivered by MS. The vortex is the fact that working with MS is like a deal with the mob...it makes it very, very hard to get away.
It will be interesting to see how many people take the Linux plunge and break from the swirling vortex of regular, forced product updates. I am betting very few, unfortunately. It's just too much of a leap for most people...when Windows XP/20XX offers such a warm fuzzy UI feeling.
I hate to say it, but STRAWMAN...I never said people should have access to things like nuclear weapons or air force jets...but when there is not a COMPELLING reason, be it global devastation or F-16's falling from the skies, government "things" should be released. Remember, information wants to be free...Trident D-5's don't. We are rapidly coalescing into a paranoid schizophrenic society where we have to fight unseen, nonexistant enemies in the name of security. I fail to see how a VAST majority of GIS records should be Top Secret items. Any terrorist willing to blow himself up in the name of his deity is also willing to find someone with access to the information anyway...so all you are hurting is the public that would be served by the availability of such information.
Security Schmurity...if there is not a very, very compelling reason to keep people's noses out of such information...EVERYTHING should be released. I, for one, would like the rule to be if you want to come in and get it, it's TAXPAYER OWNED/FUNDED and you can do so. Short of plans for nuclear silos or locations of CIA monitoring stations, what compelling reason is there for not letting people know the location of water/gas services? Terrorists don't want to cause a water main break, they want to kill 1000's of people in spectacular attacks. In my opinion, it's just a cop-out so they don't have to do any extra work to provide it to the public.
In a world dominated by things like UniGraphics, AutoCAD, and Pro/Engineer, it will be nice to have a professional-level CAD package available under a less-restrictive license...But I don't see it challenging the established niches of those previous packages for awhile. It's the "if it's cheap, it must not be good" mentality that really does apply to CAD software...
This should solve a dilemma
on
Re-Pet a Reality
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
This whole experiment should solve the nature-vs-nurture controversy. The client claims that the cloned cat has the same personality as its donor...but then again, how closely was this one raised to its predecessor?
Boeing, though, and the development of the D-IVH, is heavily subsidized by the military. Boeing is rapidly becoming "the" defense contractor, having swallowed up McDD. Throw in some sweetheart 767 tanker leasing deals...and you can't hardly say that Boeing is anything but a large piece of the military-industrial complex. I will definately agree that it does represent a leap in technology for the USA, but is still short of the mid-80's Soviet Energia. The D-IVH can carry 28,000 pounds to geosynchronous orbit...the Energia could lift 36,000 pounds to the same path. The D-IVH can lift 48,000 pounds to LEO, the Energia could lift 200,000. So while the D-IVH is quite an accomplishment, it's not a Saturn V.
Perhaps an entire.goatse domain? Let me be the first to propose this to ICANN. Just think of the commercial possibilities! Goatse-branded hemmerhoidal creams, goatse cheese, goatse cola...the list goes on and on.
Slashdot Mirror
Arrr matey! Show me the pirates and I be on me way!
Obviously then, Open Source Software should be banned for national security reasons!
The simple reason is, the telecom companies are not doing a good job of providing a service; otherwise there would be no need for a governmental agency to step in. I will agree there is often no commercial sense to be made out of putting broadband in some areas; but just because it is not economically feasible doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. REA was created for the same purpose; nobody wanted to bring power to rural communities, so the government stepped in and did it for them. Many of those old REA lines are now being sold to commercial providers, who make quite a profit. I see no reason why this won't end up the same way. The telecom companies are just like Microsoft; they see ANY anthill of competition, and they launch a nuclear warhead at it.
Well Microsoft doesn't sell just to mega-super-corporations with billions of dollars to blow on IT. If you're that customer, it makes no difference. For me, in the field of education, it makes all of the difference in the world. It comes down to how much you value your money.
Based on my experience, Open Source patches have a much smaller chance of screwing up other things when applied; this is because Open Source software has no vested interest in moving people onto the next "Big Thing" by making it difficult to use the last "Big Thing." Patches are maintained for Linux kernels as long as a significant interest remains in them. If not, you can always get the source and fix it yourself. For Windows 3.11 machines (I know of several that are still in use in my former company) there is no alternative but to "invest" in Windows XP, in this instance. The patch "system" for OSS is about fixing things; the patch "system" for Windows and/or most closed software is more often than not about exercising power over users and forcing upgrades.
Because Microsoft has proven time and time again that they innovate for one purpose; to destroy any and all competition, at which point they cease to innovate entirely. To do this while being a convicted monopolist is not allowed.
At least with Open Source Software you CAN maintain it if necessary. With closed source, there is no way to make any changes to old software...and much too often, the companies that make some of the obscure CAD stuff (my field, once) are out of business. At least having it open makes it possible to change something...even if you don't.
Exactly. At the time, the Clinton Administration waved the "Peace in Our Time" treaty like a bunch of Neville Chamberlains...Now what do we get? Instead of a war on our terms, against a non-nuclear enemy, we'll get a war on their terms, against a nuclear-and-willing-to-use-it enemy. To quote from the Wiki on Chamberlain... "The theory was that dictatorships arose where peoples had grievances, and that by removing the source of these grievances, the dictatorship would become less aggressive." We all know that worked great with Hitler, and it worked so wonderful with NK too. So now what do we do? Stand back and wait for the next "Great Patriotic War" when they get a huge stockpile built, or cut our losses and fight now?
This is after Fiorina squandered all of the combined resources of DEC and Compaq...Her "plan" to port the world+dog to Itanium would never have worked out; the world+dog was already on its way to commodity X86 hardware. Basically, she was on her way to building a company on ink. Overpriced ink. She should have been relegated to a taco stand in Tijuana years ago...
I've noticed that in almost any interview with Bill Gates on the subject of technology, he goes on and on about "rich" things. I remember one back in about 1996 that was basically about Wordpad...he kept repeating "rich"..."rich text" "rich media" "rich experience" "rich multimedia"...it's highly annoying...but then again, billionaires usually get obsessed with the premise that everyone is trying to steal from them, so perhaps he's just preoccupied with his piles of cash.
Well I know the moderation system of Slashdot is never going to function fairly, but my beef is that much more troll-istic posts are modded Insightful on a regular basis...
Why does everybody have to use "Troll" as a slur, even when someone has a valid point? Here's a tip: If you don't like somebody's viewpoint, they aren't trolling when they state it to you. They may seem like weak points, but the guy has a point. I don't see any goatse holes or wipo trolls.
Let me answer these based on the current direction of media conglomerates... 1. You'll need a Microsoft Windows XP Media Center PC for that. 2. Your home-made videos will not go beyond a PC-based format, and don't even think about importing anything DRM'ed. 3.1. You won't need all of your old non-DRM content 3.2. You can't convert anything, because we will force you to buy it again Don't look at DRM as ANYTHING but a scheme to force people into buying a new version of player to get the latest movie out. If it won't directly make the media companies profit, then it won't happen.
You know something must be up if BillG himself is shuffling off to South America to persuade the government to lose interest in open software...
My experience is in School Districts. I see them buying into Software Assurance, and going from NT 4, to 2000 Server, to 2003 Server in the span of 4 years, and being charged at every step of the way. I look upon any Linux upgrades as wonderful and necessary, because they are FREE (as in beer) and not shoved in your face. I see the change from 2000 to 2003 un-necessary, because we gained little or no features and sank $$$ into SA.
There have been numerous sub-comments to mind about Microsoft not forcing updates because NT 4 still exists, etc...I am talking about the "new" Microsoft scheme of things. They will do anything in their power to get you away from "buying" their software to "leasing" it on a yearly basis. Software Assurance is the name of the game. I am talking swirling vortices like proprietary Office formats, and the general move to lock-out any product that might want to work with Windows...except those that are digitally signed, digitally sealed, and digitally delivered by MS. The vortex is the fact that working with MS is like a deal with the mob...it makes it very, very hard to get away.
It will be interesting to see how many people take the Linux plunge and break from the swirling vortex of regular, forced product updates. I am betting very few, unfortunately. It's just too much of a leap for most people...when Windows XP/20XX offers such a warm fuzzy UI feeling.
I hate to say it, but STRAWMAN...I never said people should have access to things like nuclear weapons or air force jets...but when there is not a COMPELLING reason, be it global devastation or F-16's falling from the skies, government "things" should be released. Remember, information wants to be free...Trident D-5's don't. We are rapidly coalescing into a paranoid schizophrenic society where we have to fight unseen, nonexistant enemies in the name of security. I fail to see how a VAST majority of GIS records should be Top Secret items. Any terrorist willing to blow himself up in the name of his deity is also willing to find someone with access to the information anyway...so all you are hurting is the public that would be served by the availability of such information.
Security Schmurity...if there is not a very, very compelling reason to keep people's noses out of such information...EVERYTHING should be released. I, for one, would like the rule to be if you want to come in and get it, it's TAXPAYER OWNED/FUNDED and you can do so. Short of plans for nuclear silos or locations of CIA monitoring stations, what compelling reason is there for not letting people know the location of water/gas services? Terrorists don't want to cause a water main break, they want to kill 1000's of people in spectacular attacks. In my opinion, it's just a cop-out so they don't have to do any extra work to provide it to the public.
In a world dominated by things like UniGraphics, AutoCAD, and Pro/Engineer, it will be nice to have a professional-level CAD package available under a less-restrictive license...But I don't see it challenging the established niches of those previous packages for awhile. It's the "if it's cheap, it must not be good" mentality that really does apply to CAD software...
This whole experiment should solve the nature-vs-nurture controversy. The client claims that the cloned cat has the same personality as its donor...but then again, how closely was this one raised to its predecessor?
Boeing, though, and the development of the D-IVH, is heavily subsidized by the military. Boeing is rapidly becoming "the" defense contractor, having swallowed up McDD. Throw in some sweetheart 767 tanker leasing deals...and you can't hardly say that Boeing is anything but a large piece of the military-industrial complex. I will definately agree that it does represent a leap in technology for the USA, but is still short of the mid-80's Soviet Energia. The D-IVH can carry 28,000 pounds to geosynchronous orbit...the Energia could lift 36,000 pounds to the same path. The D-IVH can lift 48,000 pounds to LEO, the Energia could lift 200,000. So while the D-IVH is quite an accomplishment, it's not a Saturn V.
Because the ad says so!
Is a "chatolics" anything like a "Chataholic"?
Perhaps an entire .goatse domain? Let me be the first to propose this to ICANN. Just think of the commercial possibilities! Goatse-branded hemmerhoidal creams, goatse cheese, goatse cola...the list goes on and on.