Actually, many of us don't like the stuff MS makes. The whole point is not that "everyone went out and bought into Windows 95 because they wanted to" but that there was no longer an upgrade path available outside Windows.
Remember that in 1994, PCs weren't as popular as they are now and that in 1992 they were even less so. In those days, most PC owners were somewhat technically savvy and many of them used non MS products like DR DOS and Desqview/X. Many used DOS extender utilities and the like. Most of those people even paid for these programs but MS (illegally) added code to Windows 3.1 to make it claim incompatibility with anything other than MS DOS, forcing people to switch. Go buy a copy of Undocumented DOS if you don't believe me.
Microsoft does not always succeed because they make good products -- they make good products, yes. That is because they hire young programmers with innovation in their minds. That is because they have lots of money and they got that money by being naughty in the past. Now they're trying to hide that.
Of course, the DOJ didn't have to issue a press release. The court findings of fact are the DOJ's press release because they agree with them. Microsoft gets to spew worthless words while the peoplof the USA have spoken through their elected and appointed court system.
Actually, anyone serious about investing will buy and hold for a long period of time - say 10 to 15 years or more.
I've always figured that statement is just an insult (slam) on those who don't. The point is that if you believe in a company and want to invest in that company, you should hold for long periods of time.
However, as recent legislation in other tech areas attest, technology stocks shouldn't be treated the same as the car industry or an oil company. Tech companies can rise and fall overnight and one's shares in those companies should be treated accordingly.
Whereas Bell Atlantic, Royal Bank of Canada and Ford Motor Company should be expected to be around for dozens of years more (as they have been already), AMD could disappear tomorrow (unlikely) as could Netscape (ooops, it is gone!:), or Real Networks.
People serious about making money more than in investing (yes, some may disagree on the ethics, but there isn't legislation preventing using teh market to make money, now is there?) will watch a company carefully and pull some of their money out when it looks like a fall, and put in when it looks like they're climbing...
I find RMS's views to be more imperical than necessary. He seems to want to force freedom on people as though they all wanted it. Some people would rather live in a prison and get free food than work for a living (yeah, really). It's probably a bad example, but the point is that true freedom comes from the choice of the programmer or the company to create what they want to create and be limited only in extreme cases (monopoly, etc.). This lack of restrictions includes being allowed to use the GPL or a closed-source MS style license...
I am pro-choice because it is not up to the government to decide what a woman can and cannot do with her own body.
It may very well not be up to the government what a woman (or man) does with his/her body. That's why suicide is illegal... oops;-).
"The Government" simply speaking, has nothing to do with it, they are simply to enforce the view of the general public in a democratic society. It seems that the general public, at this time (and just barely) sympathises on the side of "pro-choice" which is a term to indicate exactly what I said -- that the mother "owns" the baby inside her which is labelled a "fetus" because it is still attached to her womb.
If you believe that there is a difference in value between a human life inside a woman as yet unborn, and a baby one week old smothered by their teen mother, you need to rethink your system of beliefs. If you realize that their is no difference, you're stuck either saying that abortions are wrong or teens murdering infants that no-one else knew about is wrong. "She should have had an abortion instead of killing the child" is actually often stated in these cases.
Think about it.
PS, asking which communists I'm talking about it pretty numb -- communists are anti capitalism. And in the mid 1900's, the low moral values of North America in general were used as propaganda against capitalism.
PS #2, the technique I described is still in use in many circles today even though we tend toward others which are equally violent but considered less harmful... to the mother (who isn't a mother because she doesn't have a baby, just a fetus, right?).
As one of the probably many people who sent E-mail to ATI requesting specs and telling them about the convenience and benefits of open source, I'm thrilled:)
And on a conveniently offtopic note, killing Jews was perfectly legal in Nazi Germany, just as killing preborn children is in North America. The fact that one mother will lament a stillborn infant and another will have a premature baby after 6 months that the hospital will keep alive (not as part of the mother's body, I might add) and yet another "owns" her baby (as opposed to being responsible for it) because its still dependant on her for survival (which the government sees all children as being until 14 or so) and decides to have its head destroyed, cut open and sucked down a vacuum tube is proof our society is screwed up.
Anyway... freedom for all! Suffering for most!
(And we wonder why the communists think capitalist society is screwed up?)
Video card produces a stream of data at a certain pair of frequencies for V/Hsync... the cable going into the DVD card has this data and it is then passed through to the monitor untouched 99% of the time (depending on how often you watch DVD movies that is).
If you're watching a DVD movie, that section of the screen is rendered blue by the video card (as per the instructions of the software). The DVD card, being synchronized to the current V/Hsync of the video card (done at initialization for each resolution) produces data for the DVD image at the points where the data for the blue signal from the video card are...
Video output = V DVD output = D Video DVD Combined
The video signal is being mutated by the DVD card in one sense, but the DVD output of the DXR2 card is not affected one bit. If you think it is, you're crazy. If you want proof, just unhook your video card from the DVD card while its running a movie (not recommended!) and the picture will stay... assuming you're full-screen (or else there won't be enough data for multisync monitors).
I think my favorite feature of this would be to push a window away from me for a minute... making it smaller but still visible, etc. It would also be nice if there were clear definitions in window creation of peer windows vs. modal child windows because a child could cause the parent to be "pushed away" a little, making "stacking" obvious. Peer windows, OTOH could sit on top of another window normally.
What is needed is for digital signtures to get more prevalence in companies and have a legal challenge so that a body of case-law can be built to support digital signatures. More software that's well marketed and publicized will get us to that point.
You're clueless (no offense:). The DXR2 is connected directly to the monitor, the video card is in turn plugged into the DXR2 card. Sure, the video from your usual VGA cis of slightly lower quality, but the DVD output is perfect (at least as far as extra cables goes).
Also, (on a completely different note), reading Creative's notes, the DXR2 driver is attempting to comply with the current open video specs. This is quite impressive (aside from them opening the interface in the first place).
Lastly of course, I own a DXR2 card and am quite interested in seeing it on Linux with overlay support (through X/DGA maybe?).
What I'm more interested in is the fact that any company actually interested in porting their apps to Linux can take WINE and work with it to make it work the way they want.
Sure, people like out-of-the-box solutions; that's why they buy Redhat (or Windows for that matter). But the point is that with open source solutions, those who find problems can fix them. This isn't about the religion of open source (or it shouldn't be, at least), but the reasoning for open source.
Considering this article is relating ONLY to the workstation/server versions of Windows 2000, you're partially correct.
The point is that only users needing authentication need a license. Netscape server always priced itself against MS because it didn't do NT authentication of users, so you didn't need to buy the licensing. Ditto if you run Apache on NT (for some odd reason).
At any rate... the customer upgrade to 2000 (Workstation/Server) is interesting... but the gaming people will still be on 2000 home...
The basic premise of Christianity is to love. Loving includes giving yourself over to others to do with as they see fit. For instance, for all the people to abuse my personal beliefs and religion -- to attack and denounce things I hold more sacred than they is hurful and unthought of in my mind. However, it is my duty as a Christian to believe that they have equal worth to myself as a human being before a God who loves all even though we are all unholy people. This explains why we are told to continue to be slaves if we are already slaves -- do not desire to be what you are not, simply be the best you can be at what you are is well stated there and elsewhere.
Also note that the Old Testament Law (an understanding of which is presumed in many NT texts) states that every 7 years, all slaves are to be released, no matter what their debt. That, and slaves were only to be made slaves because of military conquest or a debt that could not be paid (better than repo-ing my house!).
Why is it considered "interesting" to a moderator that someone just slammed someone else's orthodoxy and ability to reason in science based on a compliment directed to the author of the article referenced by Slashdot? (Run-on)
In case no one has noticed, the average north american no longer believes that Science will solve their problems because as any intelligent person knows, answering questions doesn't bring you closer to the truth, it just gives you more questions. There is an almost infinite amount of information in the universe for us to parse, and yet we are self-righteous enough to believe that faith is wrong.
no better than just accepting religion
Why is accepting religion being accepted as inherently wrong? Since the author of the post didn't prove it wrong, are they themselves acting on a faith in Science, not rationally? After all, neither justified their stance -- isn't that wrong?
I know Slashdot repatriates articles for some people, but please read what I was replying to. There were several people concerned with the issue of incompatibity with browsers. I want people to use PNGs and not use GIFs. However, in deference to those who NEED GIF support, use this method and GIFs will no longer be as prevelant (sp?). If Netscape 3 supported PNGs, I'd use them exclusively (because that's what many Unicies are running).
We see many examples of people who believe things without proof. That is faith. We see them do stupid things because of their belief in that faith. That is the proof that faith is bad.
What's interesting (and anyone who's taken a serious philosophy course knows you sunk yourself here) is that you can't prove, rationally or not, that your view of "do stupid things" is correct and their view is wrong.
For instance:
You may believe that someone helping the poor simply because they believe in the value of human life because they believe in God is not rational. That may be so, for you.
As a good deconstructionist would say though (who would argue against God and faith along with you), it doesn't matter if its not rational for you, it just matters that its rational for them. In fact, faith is a very rational matter for most people of faith.
If I believe in God, it is for a reason. You can't prove my reasoning wrong. It may very well be faith. But it takes no more faith for me to believe in God than it takes for you to believe in an unproven, light-hearted attempt at an explanation of evolution that any biologist will give you.
Does it matter that I think your views are irrational? Not really. Does it matter that you think mine are? Ditto.
One of us may be right, and the other wrong, but this presupposes a universal "rightness" and "wrongness" which is typically the view of the God-fearing Judao-Christian mindset, not that of an individualist secular-humanist who thinks only things tangibly provable are real.
That, and you're out-numbered by far. So even by law of averages, most people beievein God and/or the supernatural and are not by your exstimation rational. Does this mean that you're not human because you don't fit the mould? No.
Be reasonable -- my arguments are, yours weren't. I guess people of faith can have more reason that rationalists?
This is different though. When you consider the FSF, you're not seeing a commercial entity that is actually making money on open source strategies. For all these multiple groups put out interesting articles and rant lots, RedHat is in a position to be heard and to make a dent in how corporate america thinks about and does business. Lets support them so that those other multimillion dollar companies will move toward open source instead of infighting so much.
You can use some simple Javascript to use both GIFs and PNGs (or JPGs and PNGs) if you want to test for browser compatibility. Remember that a non-Javascript browser should receive the non PNG graphic for good measure. This could be a pain, but could be implemented as a script to convert entire pages (anyone?):
The.enabledPlugin isn't strictly necessary -- it will simply prevent software like Netscape from attempting (or prompting) to download a plugin to support the type if not native.
Again, a simple wrapper could probably be made for this if anyone else finds it useful.
Wonderful details; thank-you very much. I figured that an intelligent company (which I've presumed TurboLinux is produced by:) would maintain a patch-based system to stay up to speed with current kernels. I'm glad to hear that's happening.
I'm just hoping that even if the entirety of the patches aren't accepted that parts of them will be, seperate from the whole (if that's possible) and made into either compilation options or/proc/ settings.
Slashdot Mirror
That and GCC vs. EGCS and PGCC ... somewhat still ongoing, but merging.
- Michael T. Babcock <homepage>
Actually, many of us don't like the stuff MS makes. The whole point is not that "everyone went out and bought into Windows 95 because they wanted to" but that there was no longer an upgrade path available outside Windows.
Remember that in 1994, PCs weren't as popular as they are now and that in 1992 they were even less so. In those days, most PC owners were somewhat technically savvy and many of them used non MS products like DR DOS and Desqview/X. Many used DOS extender utilities and the like. Most of those people even paid for these programs but MS (illegally) added code to Windows 3.1 to make it claim incompatibility with anything other than MS DOS, forcing people to switch. Go buy a copy of Undocumented DOS if you don't believe me.
Microsoft does not always succeed because they make good products -- they make good products, yes. That is because they hire young programmers with innovation in their minds. That is because they have lots of money and they got that money by being naughty in the past. Now they're trying to hide that.
- Michael T. Babcock <homepage>
Of course, the DOJ didn't have to issue a press release. The court findings of fact are the DOJ's press release because they agree with them. Microsoft gets to spew worthless words while the peoplof the USA have spoken through their elected and appointed court system.
- Michael T. Babcock <homepage>
I've always figured that statement is just an insult (slam) on those who don't. The point is that if you believe in a company and want to invest in that company, you should hold for long periods of time.
However, as recent legislation in other tech areas attest, technology stocks shouldn't be treated the same as the car industry or an oil company. Tech companies can rise and fall overnight and one's shares in those companies should be treated accordingly.
Whereas Bell Atlantic, Royal Bank of Canada and Ford Motor Company should be expected to be around for dozens of years more (as they have been already), AMD could disappear tomorrow (unlikely) as could Netscape (ooops, it is gone!
People serious about making money more than in investing (yes, some may disagree on the ethics, but there isn't legislation preventing using teh market to make money, now is there?) will watch a company carefully and pull some of their money out when it looks like a fall, and put in when it looks like they're climbing
- Michael T. Babcock <homepage>
So, you want the Star Trek display panels that only display the relevant buttons for the present activity? :-)
- Michael T. Babcock <homepage>
I find RMS's views to be more imperical than necessary. He seems to want to force freedom on people as though they all wanted it. Some people would rather live in a prison and get free food than work for a living (yeah, really). It's probably a bad example, but the point is that true freedom comes from the choice of the programmer or the company to create what they want to create and be limited only in extreme cases (monopoly, etc.). This lack of restrictions includes being allowed to use the GPL or a closed-source MS style license ...
- Michael T. Babcock <homepage>
It may very well not be up to the government what a woman (or man) does with his/her body. That's why suicide is illegal
"The Government" simply speaking, has nothing to do with it, they are simply to enforce the view of the general public in a democratic society. It seems that the general public, at this time (and just barely) sympathises on the side of "pro-choice" which is a term to indicate exactly what I said -- that the mother "owns" the baby inside her which is labelled a "fetus" because it is still attached to her womb.
If you believe that there is a difference in value between a human life inside a woman as yet unborn, and a baby one week old smothered by their teen mother, you need to rethink your system of beliefs. If you realize that their is no difference, you're stuck either saying that abortions are wrong or teens murdering infants that no-one else knew about is wrong. "She should have had an abortion instead of killing the child" is actually often stated in these cases.
Think about it.
PS, asking which communists I'm talking about it pretty numb -- communists are anti capitalism. And in the mid 1900's, the low moral values of North America in general were used as propaganda against capitalism.
PS #2, the technique I described is still in use in many circles today even though we tend toward others which are equally violent but considered less harmful
- Michael T. Babcock <homepage>
Why don't you just only read messages rated 2 and up? That gets you most of the good ones ... an no "first post" comment gets rated a 2 or 3 ...
- Michael T. Babcock <homepage>
As one of the probably many people who sent E-mail to ATI requesting specs and telling them about the convenience and benefits of open source, I'm thrilled :)
- Michael T. Babcock <homepage>
And on a conveniently offtopic note, killing Jews was perfectly legal in Nazi Germany, just as killing preborn children is in North America. The fact that one mother will lament a stillborn infant and another will have a premature baby after 6 months that the hospital will keep alive (not as part of the mother's body, I might add) and yet another "owns" her baby (as opposed to being responsible for it) because its still dependant on her for survival (which the government sees all children as being until 14 or so) and decides to have its head destroyed, cut open and sucked down a vacuum tube is proof our society is screwed up.
... freedom for all! Suffering for most!
Anyway
(And we wonder why the communists think capitalist society is screwed up?)
- Michael T. Babcock <homepage>
You want technical?
... the cable going into the DVD card has this data and it is then passed through to the monitor untouched 99% of the time (depending on how often you watch DVD movies that is).
...
... assuming you're full-screen (or else there won't be enough data for multisync monitors).
;)
Video card produces a stream of data at a certain pair of frequencies for V/Hsync
If you're watching a DVD movie, that section of the screen is rendered blue by the video card (as per the instructions of the software). The DVD card, being synchronized to the current V/Hsync of the video card (done at initialization for each resolution) produces data for the DVD image at the points where the data for the blue signal from the video card are
Video output = V
DVD output = D
Video DVD Combined
VVVVV DDD VVDDD
VVVVV DDD VVDDD
VVVVV DDD VVDDD
VVVVV VVVVV
The video signal is being mutated by the DVD card in one sense, but the DVD output of the DXR2 card is not affected one bit. If you think it is, you're crazy. If you want proof, just unhook your video card from the DVD card while its running a movie (not recommended!) and the picture will stay
Have a great day
- Michael T. Babcock <homepage>
I think my favorite feature of this would be to push a window away from me for a minute ... making it smaller but still visible, etc. It would also be nice if there were clear definitions in window creation of peer windows vs. modal child windows because a child could cause the parent to be "pushed away" a little, making "stacking" obvious. Peer windows, OTOH could sit on top of another window normally.
- Michael T. Babcock <homepage>
What is needed is for digital signtures to get more prevalence in companies and have a legal challenge so that a body of case-law can be built to support digital signatures. More software that's well marketed and publicized will get us to that point.
- Michael T. Babcock <homepage>
You're clueless (no offense :). The DXR2 is connected directly to the monitor, the video card is in turn plugged into the DXR2 card. Sure, the video from your usual VGA cis of slightly lower quality, but the DVD output is perfect (at least as far as extra cables goes).
Also, (on a completely different note), reading Creative's notes, the DXR2 driver is attempting to comply with the current open video specs. This is quite impressive (aside from them opening the interface in the first place).
Lastly of course, I own a DXR2 card and am quite interested in seeing it on Linux with overlay support (through X/DGA maybe?).
- Michael T. Babcock <homepage>
What I'm more interested in is the fact that any company actually interested in porting their apps to Linux can take WINE and work with it to make it work the way they want.
Sure, people like out-of-the-box solutions; that's why they buy Redhat (or Windows for that matter). But the point is that with open source solutions, those who find problems can fix them. This isn't about the religion of open source (or it shouldn't be, at least), but the reasoning for open source.
- Michael T. Babcock <homepage>
Considering this article is relating ONLY to the workstation/server versions of Windows 2000, you're partially correct.
... the customer upgrade to 2000 (Workstation/Server) is interesting ... but the gaming people will still be on 2000 home ...
The point is that only users needing authentication need a license. Netscape server always priced itself against MS because it didn't do NT authentication of users, so you didn't need to buy the licensing. Ditto if you run Apache on NT (for some odd reason).
At any rate
- Michael T. Babcock <homepage>
The basic premise of Christianity is to love. Loving includes giving yourself over to others to do with as they see fit. For instance, for all the people to abuse my personal beliefs and religion -- to attack and denounce things I hold more sacred than they is hurful and unthought of in my mind. However, it is my duty as a Christian to believe that they have equal worth to myself as a human being before a God who loves all even though we are all unholy people. This explains why we are told to continue to be slaves if we are already slaves -- do not desire to be what you are not, simply be the best you can be at what you are is well stated there and elsewhere.
Also note that the Old Testament Law (an understanding of which is presumed in many NT texts) states that every 7 years, all slaves are to be released, no matter what their debt. That, and slaves were only to be made slaves because of military conquest or a debt that could not be paid (better than repo-ing my house!).
- Michael T. Babcock <homepage>
In case no one has noticed, the average north american no longer believes that Science will solve their problems because as any intelligent person knows, answering questions doesn't bring you closer to the truth, it just gives you more questions. There is an almost infinite amount of information in the universe for us to parse, and yet we are self-righteous enough to believe that faith is wrong.
Why is accepting religion being accepted as inherently wrong? Since the author of the post didn't prove it wrong, are they themselves acting on a faith in Science, not rationally? After all, neither justified their stance -- isn't that wrong?
- Michael T. Babcock <homepage>
I know Slashdot repatriates articles for some people, but please read what I was replying to. There were several people concerned with the issue of incompatibity with browsers. I want people to use PNGs and not use GIFs. However, in deference to those who NEED GIF support, use this method and GIFs will no longer be as prevelant (sp?). If Netscape 3 supported PNGs, I'd use them exclusively (because that's what many Unicies are running).
- Michael T. Babcock <homepage>
What's interesting (and anyone who's taken a serious philosophy course knows you sunk yourself here) is that you can't prove, rationally or not, that your view of "do stupid things" is correct and their view is wrong.
For instance:
You may believe that someone helping the poor simply because they believe in the value of human life because they believe in God is not rational. That may be so, for you.
As a good deconstructionist would say though (who would argue against God and faith along with you), it doesn't matter if its not rational for you, it just matters that its rational for them. In fact, faith is a very rational matter for most people of faith.
If I believe in God, it is for a reason. You can't prove my reasoning wrong. It may very well be faith. But it takes no more faith for me to believe in God than it takes for you to believe in an unproven, light-hearted attempt at an explanation of evolution that any biologist will give you.
Does it matter that I think your views are irrational? Not really. Does it matter that you think mine are? Ditto.
One of us may be right, and the other wrong, but this presupposes a universal "rightness" and "wrongness" which is typically the view of the God-fearing Judao-Christian mindset, not that of an individualist secular-humanist who thinks only things tangibly provable are real.
That, and you're out-numbered by far. So even by law of averages, most people beievein God and/or the supernatural and are not by your exstimation rational. Does this mean that you're not human because you don't fit the mould? No.
Be reasonable -- my arguments are, yours weren't. I guess people of faith can have more reason that rationalists?
- Michael T. Babcock <homepage>
This is different though. When you consider the FSF, you're not seeing a commercial entity that is actually making money on open source strategies. For all these multiple groups put out interesting articles and rant lots, RedHat is in a position to be heard and to make a dent in how corporate america thinks about and does business. Lets support them so that those other multimillion dollar companies will move toward open source instead of infighting so much.
- Michael T. Babcock <homepage>
Very true. And GIMP is not licensed. And many of us use GIMP. Thus endeth story.
- Michael T. Babcock <homepage>
You can use some simple Javascript to use both GIFs and PNGs (or JPGs and PNGs) if you want to test for browser compatibility. Remember that a non-Javascript browser should receive the non PNG graphic for good measure. This could be a pain, but could be implemented as a script to convert entire pages (anyone?):
.enabledPlugin isn't strictly necessary -- it will simply prevent software like Netscape from attempting (or prompting) to download a plugin to support the type if not native.
<script language="JavaScript"> <!--
if (navigator.mimeTypes &&
navigator.mimeTypes["image/png"] != null && navigator.mimeTypes["image/png"].enabledPlugin)
document.write('<img src="image.png">');
else
document.write('<img src="image.gif">');
// -->
</script>
<noscript>
<img src="image.gif">
</noscript>
The
Again, a simple wrapper could probably be made for this if anyone else finds it useful.
- Michael T. Babcock <homepage>
... that, and we just gave them more publicity by posting their URL on Slashdot than they got in a day's spamming.
- Michael T. Babcock <homepage>
Wonderful details; thank-you very much. I figured that an intelligent company (which I've presumed TurboLinux is produced by :) would maintain a patch-based system to stay up to speed with current kernels. I'm glad to hear that's happening.
/proc/ settings.
I'm just hoping that even if the entirety of the patches aren't accepted that parts of them will be, seperate from the whole (if that's possible) and made into either compilation options or
Thank-you for the information.
- Michael T. Babcock <homepage>