I'd really like to evaluate Safari on Windows, but unfortunately it won't stay up long enough for me to do anything. It crashes, and crashes, and crashes... I can't get it to run. I don't seem to be alone. I've googled and I've found a lot of people having similar problems, but no solutions. My impression, therefore, is that this Beta is crap. Apple has gotten away with putting out a lot of crappy software (like iTunes and Quicktime -- iTunes wouldn't work until I found out that it was incompatible with early versions of Quicktime, and that one had to uninstall Quicktime, find an older version of Quicktime, install and uninstall in, and then reinstall iTunes to get it to work... -- Apple thinks this is reasonable !?!?). But Safari is the worst. What is especially galling is Apple's marketing of Quicktime as "the best browser for Windows". Safari isn't even the best browser for the Mac. I was thinking of getting an iPhone, but now I have to reconsider, seeing as Safari will probably be the browser that it uses...
I don't think this should be a polarizing issue. Being a member of a certain political party has nothing to do with the issue. But I would like to ask why, in a democracy, any organization should be deprived of the freedom of choice in choosing what tools they can use to do their work. Why should ODF be forced on anyone? Now, more democratic would be legislation that would prevent a state from using software (at least for a time) from any company (not specifically Microsoft) that has been convicted of violating anti-trust laws. Mandating that a government organization must use ODF seems heavy-handed.
Noone has the right to compel you to break the law. However, you need to be tactful and clever. I was in a similar situation in a company once, and this is how I handled it: 1) I explained in writing, why copying unlicensed Microsoft software was risky (this sould be easier now, seeing as almost all of Microsoft's products now feature activation) -- that the software may stop working at some point, how an OS update might disable or corrupt the unlicensed software, how certain free tools may require validation of the license, and how Microsoft could detect or discover the use of illegal copies and impose severe penalties on the company. 2) I explained the benefits of the alternatives: the money that could be saved by buying an enterprise license, or the free open source alternatives that nevertheless work seamlessly with Microsoft products without violating the law. 3) I explained how, that as an IT professional, it was unethical and illegal for me to willfully engage in pirating software, and how it would put my personal and professional life in jeopardy as well as put the company at risk -- (I attached some articles relating individuals and companies that had been caught and punished severely for such violations).
I was careful to cc the e-mail to at least two people. If my immediate supervisor had insisted on the piracy, I would have again reiterated the points, this time cc'ing the e-mail to his superior and bcc'ing the legal department (or if the company did not have a legal department -- to my lawyer). Then if I were to be reprimanded or fired because of my refusal to commit a crime, the lawsuit would more than make up for the inconvenience, and it might be fun. As it was, they backed down, and allowed me to implement my solution ( they didn't go for buying an enterprise license, but instead bought a couple of licenses for the "senior" people and allowing the others to use Open Office). In the end, my solutions (...like purchasing $10.00 software that could read MS project files, and obtaining free software to create PDF files, etc...), enhanced my reputation as an IT guru, rather than atrracting resentment or anger.
At all times my attitude was never confrontational or arrogant. It is important to appear that you are using your expertise and knowledge to guide your company on a productive, economic and legal path. Always act as though they didn't realise that what they wanted you to do was illegal. If they admit to knowing that what they want you to do is illegal and still insist that you do it (I doubt that many managers would be that stupid), just make sure you save those e-mails, but don't do the illegal activity. The law is on your side.
You should find a professional company to work for. What kind of business is this that can't afford the tools to operate legally??
I was a biochemistry major in college. As I recall DMS (dimethyl-sulfide), like DMSO (dimethyl sulfoxide), has an odor like cooked or rotting cabbage. In trying to refresh my memory I came across this passage from chemistry.org: "Dimethyl sulfide causes that distinctive smell from your St. Patrick's Day boiled cabbage. When this compound is present at low levels in wines, it contributes to an overall fruity odor. Dimethyl sulfide given off by marine organisms is thought to be a source of cloud condensation nuclei, and this, in turn could affect the Earth's climate.". So while DMS may be one component that contributes to the distinctive "beach" smell, I doubt that it alone gives the distinctive fresh aroma of the sea.
Why would one want to migrate to Linux if Windows does the job and has the tools you want to use? It seems silly to replace an Operating System and then struggle to get the apps on the new OS to do what apps on the OS you replaced did well. It's all about getting one's work done, not "being cool". If Linux really wants to make inroads on the desktop or in the enterprise then it has to have applications whose functionality is in demand. Also, Linux has to offer new killer apps. Why go through the expense of converting if there's no added value. One can argue about Microsoft's Licensing fees, upgrade costs, etc... But the fact of the matter is that there's not that much of a price differential when one considers conversion and support costs. Most Linux apps are not as mature, fully-featured or as easy to use as most Microsoft apps, and some areas of functionality don't even exist on the Linux platform. It's all about applications. You can have a really good OS, but if you don't have applications that people want, who cares? If your biggest selling point is that you can run or integrate with apps that are native to another operating system, you are actually promoting that other operating system. Remember IBM's OS Warp fiasco. There are a lot of different Linux distros out there, but they all seem to support the same old tired apps. The Linux community has done a good job catching up to Microsoft in terms of security, package management, user interface and installation technologies, but where are the applications?? When I can say, "hey, I would run windows except that I can't interface with my killer Linux app ", or "Windows doesn't run the critical Linux app I must have" -- that's when Linux will have arrived. The push in the Open Source community should be developing new, fantastic, robust applications for Linux, not pushing new distros. At least in the Americas. Linux seems to being doing fine in Europe and Asia.
It seems that the "authorities" are ignorant of the nature of the internet these days. Without a decent firewall and up-to-date virus protection a computer connected to the internet by a broadband connection will be infected within minutes. Porn sites store a lot of the material on unsuspecting, unprotected servers. I worked for company once and a developer working for me complained that a few hours after installing Oracle on a newly installed server, she had no disk space left. I investigated and found that the company had no firewall protecting it's network connected to the internet !!! The server in question had 25 gigabytes of porn filling up the database. I freaked out, but the management didn't seem to think it was such a big deal that they hadn't thought of protecting their network !! I think that distributors of porn have some sort of "bots" that search the net for unprotected storage to store their wares. The people whose computers are invaded in this way are victims, not criminals. The authorities are too stupid and ignorant to catch the real bad guys. How can pop-up ads on a computer be used to convict somebody of a sex crime?? Pop-up Ads are installed by a third party, involuntarily, and in any case, it only takes one accidental visit to a porn site to get "infected" with pop-ups that are difficult to "clean".
Predictive Technology ( see "Astrology", see "Operation Iraqi Freedom" ) is inherently flawed because it trivializes the existence of the human will. Predictions, even with the best statistical info and probablity heuristics, are successful only in mapping the "paths of least resistence". If we always succumb to our habits, our tendencies, our "comfortable behaviors"... then yes, it is very easy to predict what we will do. The fact of the matter however is that the world is filled with exceptions to profiling of any type, and one could almost argue that profiling, predicting, etc... leads to a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy. I contend that we always have the "choice to chose", even at the last moment before we act, and that certain choices invalidate any predictive system. This is why I think it is important to pay attention to all the choices we make (even the tiny ones -- like whether to use EQUAL [Aspartame, aka nutrasweet] or Stevia in one's coffee), and practice exerting our "will". Use it or lose it. As a zen master might say (or not) "The past and future do not exist.".
I've always admired Rosalind Franklin, the oft-overlooked molecular biologist who did much of the actual science (intricate lab work) that led to the discovery of the structure of DNA. She died at a young age (37)in 1958 and thus did not share in the nobel prize that was awarded to Watson and Crick in the 1960s. From accessexcellence.org (http://www.accessexcellence.org/RC/AB/BC/Rosalind _Franklin.html) we have: "After discovering the existence of the A and B forms of DNA, Rosalind Franklin also succeeded in developing an ingenious and laborious method to separate the two forms, providing the first DNA crystals pure enough to yield interpretable diffraction patterns. She then went on to obtain excellent X-ray diffraction patterns of crystalline B-form DNA and, using a combination of crystallographic theory and chemical reasoning, discovered important basic facts about its structure. She discovered that the sugar-phosphate backbone of DNA lies on the outside of the molecule, not the inside as was previously thought. She discovered the helical structure of DNA has two strands, not three as proposed in competing theories. She gave quantitative details about the shape and size of the double helix. The all- important missing piece of the puzzle, that she could not discover from her data, was how the bases paired on the inside of the helix, and thus the secret of heredity itself. That discovery remained for Watson and Crick to make. After Randall presented Franklin's data and unpublished conclusions at a routine seminar, aspects of her results were informally communicated to Watson and Crick by Maurice Wilkins and Max Perutz, without her or John Randall's knowledge. It was Watson and Crick who put all the pieces of the puzzle together from a variety of sources including Franklin's results, to build their ultimately correct and complete description of DNA's structure. Their model for the structure of DNA appeared in the journal Nature in April, 1953, alongside Franklin's own report. Rosalind Franklin never knew that Watson and Crick had gotten access to her results. At the time of the Watson and Crick publication and afterwards, Franklin appears not to have been bitter about their accomplishment. In her own publications about DNA structure, she agreed with their essential conclusions but remained skeptical about some details of their model. Franklin moved on to work on an even more challenging problem: the structure of an entire virus, called the Tobacco Mosaic Virus. Her subsequent publications on this topic would include four more papers in the journal Nature. Rosalind Franklin was friendly with both James Watson and Francis Crick, and communicated regularly with them until her life and career were cut short by cancer in April of 1958, at the age of 37. She died with a reputation around the world for her contributions to knowledge about the structure of carbon compounds and of viruses. After her death, Watson and Crick made abundantly clear in public lectures that they could not have discovered the structure of DNA without her work. However, because the Nobel Prize is not awarded posthumously, Rosalind Franklin could not be cited for her essential role in the discovery of the physical basis of genetic heredity. "
Rosalind Franklin, in my opinion, is one of the greatest scientists of the 20th century that few people know about.
There is nothing wrong with capitalism: supply and demand, opportunism, etc... I saw PS3s go for $2400 on e-bay. The people who bought them were happy (and could afford them), the people who sold them were happy, Sony is happy, the Chinese who stood on line and got 20000 yen for their trouble are happy. So what's the problem? I suppose I'm a little unhappy because I can't afford $2400 for a game console, and I can't get one for $600 before Christmas, but, to tell the truth, I wouldn't spend $600 for a game console anyway. I just got my kid "MLB The show" (for the PS2) for his birthday and he was ecstatic. I'm pretty sure he'll be content with the PS2 for a while until there's some "gotta-have" game that's on the PS3. By that time I'll probably be able to pick one up for $200 (while the 'latest-greatest' will be going for mega-bucks on e-bay), and I'll be happy. Now some people might say that the rich are getting richer (those who can buy up a bunch of $600 PS3s and resell them), but let's face it, the rich are going to get richer anyway, and in capitalism some of the poor get richer, and some of the middle-class get richer, too. So everyone is happier...
I'll never forget the dissapointment I felt when the Segway was finally revealed. I don't think the media backlash is the reason that the Segway did not revolutionize, well, anything... It just wasn't very revolutionary. Actually, I'm quite surprised that the Segway is still around, while the electric car has dissapeared. I didn't think for a moment that cities would be redesigned to accomodate Segways, but I did think that cities would have to be redesigned if Segways were ever going to become ubiquitous. From the ridiculous hype you would have thought that a portable anti-gravity unit had been invented (now that would have been revolutionary, -- not just for lazy people, but for emergency rescue personnel, etc...). The Segway was a solution waiting for a problem. I actually think widespread adoption of the Segway would create more problems ( more obesity, Segway-pedestrian accidents, etc..). It didn't even live up to it's "realistic" ads -- you can so fall off a Segway ( see George W. Bush:).
I wouldn't put it past Microsoft to actually try subliminal ads in the start-up sound. I think a non-configurable start-up sound is one of the silliest things I've ever heard of. I find even the most pleasant sound annoying after hearing it 300 times... No amount of rationalization can justify taking away this type of choice from the consumer(unless there's an ulterior motive like subliminal "programming"). This is the opposite of modern trends -- look at the popularity of ringtones, for instance. Why is Microsoft spending any time time on this -- I'm sure the majority of windows users probably don't mess with the startup sound, and those that do, probably will still find a way to configure it (and will only be annoyed that Microsoft has decided to make it difficult). It always seems strange to me that Microsoft feels the need to take something away from every new version of Windows ( they took Exchange out of 95, Tape drive support out of ME, System File Check out of 2000, Automatic NT Server login out of XP Home, etc...). This is usually why I wait unitil I'm forced to before I upgrade to the latest version of Windows -- features I don't care about are added, and features I've grown accustomed to are taken away. Windows 2000 and Windows XP Pro are very good operating systems, but I feel that they could've been great operating systems if Microsoft didn't cripple certain features that would have cost them nothing to keep. Microsoft does invest a lot of time thinking about new features to add, but they also seem to invest time in figuring out what features to cripple in their products. Strangely enough, there are some simple features that Microsoft doesn't have in their OS that are conspicuous in their absence: like tabbed browsing, multiple desktops, etc... that users like myself implement with add-ons, whereas in other OSes, like Linux and MACOS, have such features built in. Is Microsoft just trying to lose users?? What's next? Are they going to make the background Wallpaper and Screen-saver unchangable??
I guess Microsoft Shareholders, Employees and Insiders are concerned about the delay of a new Office and Windows, but I, for one, really don't care. Why is it necessary to have a new opersting system and office suite every year or two?? Is Windows XP that inadequate?? My favorite machines at home are happily running WIndows 2000 Pro or Fedora 9.0... Office 2000 or Open Office 1.0 does everything I need an office suite and it's difficult for me to imagine that more than a small minority of consumers need much more than what they are already using.
"Exchange 12 administration functions will be built atop Monad, which would enable users to do everything from the command line that can be done from the graphical interface." is a strange statement to me. My struggle with Windows has always been how to do things with the graphical user interface that I could easily do from the command line. Is Windows de-volving...??
It seems that this is a non-standard extension --i.e., it's not an offically sanctioned extension of the ECMA Script specification. So what we're talking about is a renegade Javascript that will not be supported by all browsers. This is a Microsoft game that I don't think is good to play if you're an advocate of cross-platform, non-proprietary standards (which I am). On the other hand, if they're implementing features that are already in the ECMA specification, then this is constructive progress if other browsers that believe in non-proprietary standards (not IE!!) eventually follow suit. What would be bad is if everyone decided to make their own special extensions to Javascript that aren't in the ECMA spec.
Actually, Linux market share may increase not because it grabs more "home" desktops, but because it will gain more "business" desktops. Linux flavors like Sun's Java Desktop and Novell/SUSE offerings are geared towards the business desktop. Most business applications (like Open Office) install just as easily as their Windows' counterparts, or will come pre-configured and installed with the OS. The crap one has to go through to install something like Quake 3 actually works in Linux's favor for the business desktop. EMployers don't want their employees installing Quake 3 on their computers! I recently had a client of mine ask me if there was a way I could prevent his employees from installing programs on their computers (running Windows 2000). Having Linux boxes is ideal for businesses,because, while the business applications are similar enough to their Windows counterparts in ease of use, the unfamiliarity of installation procedures to most employees will prevent them from messing with the companiy's "default" configured computers. Also, since linux doesn't have the market share, it is not attacked as vociferously by virus writers. So right now, Linux should become wildly popular on business desktops. Already in Asia, I believe governments have made Linux their official Operating System. Linux may become popular at home in Asia then, for the same reason many people buy Windows machines here -- because it's what they use at work...
The success of the Microsoft Operating Systems really didn't have much to do with their quality or power. As I recall PC-DOS didn't even have nested directories. It wasn't just marketing either -- Microsoft marketed the hell out of "Bob" and "OS/2 Warp", but those Operating Systems were not successes. In those early days of PCs, what sold PCs and with them MS-DOS, were the applications: WordStar, Lotus 1-2-3, and DBASE. What the Linux folks should learn is one simple lesson: Most people couldn't care less about the operating system, they just want to run applications that do what they want to do. An operating system should strive to be "invisible". The most disconcerting thing that people used to MS-DOS found when they wanted to try Linux was that the OS was too "visible". "What do you mean I have to mount my disks before I can use them!!? -- I don't have to do that in Windows or DOS." The best lesson that Linux can learn from the Microsoft crowd is "don't assume that the user knows anythhing about computing". When I say I think I'll use the MAC OS because it has a UNIX kernel, my friends don't know what I'm talking about. But if tell some musicians I'm switching to the MAC because of the Music Studio Software, they relate to me immediately. I can be showing of all the neat features of Fedora to my friends, but all they care about is the applications. I don't try anymore to sell "Linux" -- I sell Firefox, Open Office, Evolution etc... To become the munber one Operating System, Linux needs better applications and an Operating System that gets out of the way of the applications. I think Microsoft actually turns a lot of people off with always having a new Operating System to upgrade to. People who have the applications they use running on Windows 2000, Windows 98 or Windows 95(!!?), don't really care about the operating system. I know people will bring up the issues of security , scalability, etc... but most computer users don't care. They don't care what encryption you're using, just stop viruses from getting on their computers! So that's the key: mold the operating system so that the user doesn't even know it's there and provide some new essential applications that don't run on Windows. There really haven't been any real breakthrough applications on ANY platform in the last decade. Programmers are still creating Word Processors, Databases and Spreadsheets... The OS that supports the next breakthrough App will be able to "catch" Microsoft.
I don't get it. I just bought a $589.00 PC pre-loaded with Windows XP Home Edition. Why would someone in an asian country spend $400.00 to buy a PC with Windows Starter, which is a ridiculous operating system. $32.00 may not seem like much, but it's equivalent to spending $100.00 in the US. Besides, in these countries, a full version of Windows can be had for a few dollars -- so there's no market at all for Microsoft's nonsense. Linux is popular in Asian countries (I think Linux is the official government OS in China), so why would anyone pay for an inferior Windows?? This makes no sense at all. I have old disks of Windows 98 which can do more than Windows XP starter, and I'll give those away... Anyone who buys WIndows XP starter is a sure bet to appear on a new reality show called "What the hell is the matter with you??"
Prototype Arrays of Atomic Force Probes?? Is this real technology? I wonder is the talk of a real product by 2007 is credible, or just marketing to attract venture capital. I'm still waiting for products based on NRAM (made up of arrays of carbon nantubes) from Nantero (nantero.com). I wonder if "atomic force probes" are easier to manufacture than "arrays of carbon nanotubes"? Will Nanochip beat Nantero to the marketplace, or will they just burn through venture capital and next year we'll hear about another "Nano-'something'" company with some other "revolutionary technology" that's going to produce a marketable product "real soon now".
My statement "If you're an honest person..." was careless and flippant. Of course the situation warrants deeper thought. Nevertheless, though the notion of "The Right Thing" varies from person to person, what is written as law does not vary until the law is changed or ammended. Perhaps instead of saying "Do the right thing", I should've said "Obey the Law". Now, some laws are BAD. The problem with a Democracy is that the majority can be wrong. The problem with a representative government is that the majority very often elects people not qualified to create some of the laws they impose (especially dealing with technology), or they're just stupid. So, yes, sometimes civil disobedience seems justified to expose bad laws.The person who engages in civil disobedience, though, knows that they will be punished according to the law, unless a jury of their peers also finds the law ridiculous. Now I don't believe drug testing is fine if you don't have anything to hide, because drug test is invasive and a violation of personal privacy.
Who cares what the penalties are? If you're an honest person and you don't do the crime, then whatever penalties are irrelevant. I think the real problem is that people are being tried, convicted and punished without due process. The RIAA is wielding power like the IRS, but they are NOT a judicial body or a government agency. As us chessplayers like to say," the threat can be more effective than the execution..." Many people are forced to settle out of court, and more than a few innocent people have been harrassed. In a democracy this shouldn't happen. So the real problem with the overblown penalties is that the threat of such draconian penalties leads to extortion by the RIAA. The penalties don't work that well as a deterrent, millions are still downloading copyrighted material, but they do give the RIAA leverage to pressure money out of people without having to actually prove their case in a court of law.
Do I have any idea how many bajillions of people are who don't have an Internet connection and never run more than one or two apps at a time!?? Of course. There are even more bajillions of people who don't have computers... That's irrelevant to the question of why would anyone want to pay $36.00 for an operating system which isn't capable of networking and multitasking past 3 programs. Who would BUY such a thing when you can get much more for free? The profile of the person who doesn't have an internet connection and doesn't run more than one or two programs at a time is probably the profile of a person who doesn't much care about the difference between XP and Linux, or between Word or Open Office. Also, such a person is probably not in the market for a new OS and is perfectly happy running Windows 98SE on their 486. Hell, I know a lawyer's office that is perfectly happy with their 386's running Windows 95 (they refused to upgrade to 98 years ago when they realized that their internal e-mail would be lost unless they bought MS Outlook -- they don't have internet access, never get viruses, and have wonderful productivity). What is Microsoft's sales pitch?? --" DOWNGRADE YOUR COMPUTER FOR ONLY $36!! YOU'RE ONLY GETTING RIPPED OFF A LITTLE BIT!!" It seems to me that Microsoft is recruiting contestants for a new reality show called "What the hell is wrong with you!?"
Shouldn't the justice department and being using all available resources on "the war on terror". It seems that Ashcrosft and Co. seem to spare no lack of resources or effort on tracking down file sharers utilizing questionable tools (like the patriot act) that stomp all over the constitution and bill of rights, while the best they can do in stopping terrorism consists of making "code orange" annoucements.
I have no sympathy for Robert Parsons. In my mind people who write viruses and release them are terrorists and should be treated accordingly. Hey, don't do the crime. I think he got off too lightly.
Slashdot Mirror
There's a great video showing one users experience with Safari on windows. It really doesn't work:
http://blip.tv/file/265657/
This isn't even Beta software. It's totally unusable, if you can even get it to run.
I'd really like to evaluate Safari on Windows, but unfortunately it won't stay up long enough for me to do anything. It crashes, and crashes, and crashes... I can't get it to run. I don't seem to be alone. I've googled and I've found a lot of people having similar problems, but no solutions. My impression, therefore, is that this Beta is crap. Apple has gotten away with putting out a lot of crappy software (like iTunes and Quicktime -- iTunes wouldn't work until I found out that it was incompatible with early versions of Quicktime, and that one had to uninstall Quicktime, find an older version of Quicktime, install and uninstall in, and then reinstall iTunes to get it to work... -- Apple thinks this is reasonable !?!?). But Safari is the worst. What is especially galling is Apple's marketing of Quicktime as "the best browser for Windows". Safari isn't even the best browser for the Mac. I was thinking of getting an iPhone, but now I have to reconsider, seeing as Safari will probably be the browser that it uses...
I don't think this should be a polarizing issue. Being a member of a certain political party has nothing to do with the issue. But I would like to ask why, in a democracy, any organization should be deprived of the freedom of choice in choosing what tools they can use to do their work. Why should ODF be forced on anyone? Now, more democratic would be legislation that would prevent a state from using software (at least for a time) from any company (not specifically Microsoft) that has been convicted of violating anti-trust laws. Mandating that a government organization must use ODF seems heavy-handed.
Noone has the right to compel you to break the law. However, you need to be tactful and clever. I was in a similar situation in a company once, and this is how I handled it: 1) I explained in writing, why copying unlicensed Microsoft software was risky (this sould be easier now, seeing as almost all of Microsoft's products now feature activation) -- that the software may stop working at some point, how an OS update might disable or corrupt the unlicensed software, how certain free tools may require validation of the license, and how Microsoft could detect or discover the use of illegal copies and impose severe penalties on the company. 2) I explained the benefits of the alternatives: the money that could be saved by buying an enterprise license, or the free open source alternatives that nevertheless work seamlessly with Microsoft products without violating the law. 3) I explained how, that as an IT professional, it was unethical and illegal for me to willfully engage in pirating software, and how it would put my personal and professional life in jeopardy as well as put the company at risk -- (I attached some articles relating individuals and companies that had been caught and punished severely for such violations).
I was careful to cc the e-mail to at least two people. If my immediate supervisor had insisted on the piracy, I would have again reiterated the points, this time cc'ing the e-mail to his superior and bcc'ing the legal department (or if the company did not have a legal department -- to my lawyer). Then if I were to be reprimanded or fired because of my refusal to commit a crime, the lawsuit would more than make up for the inconvenience, and it might be fun. As it was, they backed down, and allowed me to implement my solution ( they didn't go for buying an enterprise license, but instead bought a couple of licenses for the "senior" people and allowing the others to use Open Office). In the end, my solutions (...like purchasing $10.00 software that could read MS project files, and obtaining free software to create PDF files, etc...), enhanced my reputation as an IT guru, rather than atrracting resentment or anger.
At all times my attitude was never confrontational or arrogant. It is important to appear that you are using your expertise and knowledge to guide your company on a productive, economic and legal path. Always act as though they didn't realise that what they wanted you to do was illegal. If they admit to knowing that what they want you to do is illegal and still insist that you do it (I doubt that many managers would be that stupid), just make sure you save those e-mails, but don't do the illegal activity. The law is on your side.
You should find a professional company to work for. What kind of business is this that can't afford the tools to operate legally??
I was a biochemistry major in college. As I recall DMS (dimethyl-sulfide), like DMSO (dimethyl sulfoxide), has an odor like cooked or rotting cabbage. In trying to refresh my memory I came across this passage from chemistry.org: "Dimethyl sulfide causes that distinctive smell from your St. Patrick's Day boiled cabbage. When this compound is present at low levels in wines, it contributes to an overall fruity odor. Dimethyl sulfide given off by marine organisms is thought to be a source of cloud condensation nuclei, and this, in turn could affect the Earth's climate.". So while DMS may be one component that contributes to the distinctive "beach" smell, I doubt that it alone gives the distinctive fresh aroma of the sea.
Why would one want to migrate to Linux if Windows does the job and has the tools you want to use? It seems silly to replace an Operating System and then struggle to get the apps on the new OS to do what apps on the OS you replaced did well. It's all about getting one's work done, not "being cool". If Linux really wants to make inroads on the desktop or in the enterprise then it has to have applications whose functionality is in demand. Also, Linux has to offer new killer apps. Why go through the expense of converting if there's no added value. One can argue about Microsoft's Licensing fees, upgrade costs, etc... But the fact of the matter is that there's not that much of a price differential when one considers conversion and support costs. Most Linux apps are not as mature, fully-featured or as easy to use as most Microsoft apps, and some areas of functionality don't even exist on the Linux platform. It's all about applications. You can have a really good OS, but if you don't have applications that people want, who cares? If your biggest selling point is that you can run or integrate with apps that are native to another operating system, you are actually promoting that other operating system. Remember IBM's OS Warp fiasco. There are a lot of different Linux distros out there, but they all seem to support the same old tired apps. The Linux community has done a good job catching up to Microsoft in terms of security, package management, user interface and installation technologies, but where are the applications?? When I can say, "hey, I would run windows except that I can't interface with my killer Linux app ", or "Windows doesn't run the critical Linux app I must have" -- that's when Linux will have arrived. The push in the Open Source community should be developing new, fantastic, robust applications for Linux, not pushing new distros. At least in the Americas. Linux seems to being doing fine in Europe and Asia.
It seems that the "authorities" are ignorant of the nature of the internet these days. Without a decent firewall and up-to-date virus protection a computer connected to the internet by a broadband connection will be infected within minutes. Porn sites store a lot of the material on unsuspecting, unprotected servers. I worked for company once and a developer working for me complained that a few hours after installing Oracle on a newly installed server, she had no disk space left. I investigated and found that the company had no firewall protecting it's network connected to the internet !!! The server in question had 25 gigabytes of porn filling up the database. I freaked out, but the management didn't seem to think it was such a big deal that they hadn't thought of protecting their network !! I think that distributors of porn have some sort of "bots" that search the net for unprotected storage to store their wares. The people whose computers are invaded in this way are victims, not criminals. The authorities are too stupid and ignorant to catch the real bad guys. How can pop-up ads on a computer be used to convict somebody of a sex crime?? Pop-up Ads are installed by a third party, involuntarily, and in any case, it only takes one accidental visit to a porn site to get "infected" with pop-ups that are difficult to "clean".
Predictive Technology ( see "Astrology", see "Operation Iraqi Freedom" ) is inherently flawed because it trivializes the existence of the human will. Predictions, even with the best statistical info and probablity heuristics, are successful only in mapping the "paths of least resistence". If we always succumb to our habits, our tendencies, our "comfortable behaviors"... then yes, it is very easy to predict what we will do. The fact of the matter however is that the world is filled with exceptions to profiling of any type, and one could almost argue that profiling, predicting, etc... leads to a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy. I contend that we always have the "choice to chose", even at the last moment before we act, and that certain choices invalidate any predictive system. This is why I think it is important to pay attention to all the choices we make (even the tiny ones -- like whether to use EQUAL [Aspartame, aka nutrasweet] or Stevia in one's coffee), and practice exerting our "will". Use it or lose it. As a zen master might say (or not) "The past and future do not exist.".
I've always admired Rosalind Franklin, the oft-overlooked molecular biologist who did much of the actual science (intricate lab work) that led to the discovery of the structure of DNA. She died at a young age (37)in 1958 and thus did not share in the nobel prize that was awarded to Watson and Crick in the 1960s. From accessexcellence.org (http://www.accessexcellence.org/RC/AB/BC/Rosalind _Franklin.html) we have:
"After discovering the existence of the A and B forms of DNA, Rosalind Franklin also succeeded in developing an ingenious and laborious method to separate the two forms, providing the first DNA crystals pure enough to yield interpretable diffraction patterns. She then went on to obtain excellent X-ray diffraction patterns of crystalline B-form DNA and, using a combination of crystallographic theory and chemical reasoning, discovered important basic facts about its structure. She discovered that the sugar-phosphate backbone of DNA lies on the outside of the molecule, not the inside as was previously thought. She discovered the helical structure of DNA has two strands, not three as proposed in competing theories. She gave quantitative details about the shape and size of the double helix. The all- important missing piece of the puzzle, that she could not discover from her data, was how the bases paired on the inside of the helix, and thus the secret of heredity itself. That discovery remained for Watson and Crick to make.
After Randall presented Franklin's data and unpublished conclusions at a routine seminar, aspects of her results were informally communicated to Watson and Crick by Maurice Wilkins and Max Perutz, without her or John Randall's knowledge. It was Watson and Crick who put all the pieces of the puzzle together from a variety of sources including Franklin's results, to build their ultimately correct and complete description of DNA's structure. Their model for the structure of DNA appeared in the journal Nature in April, 1953, alongside Franklin's own report.
Rosalind Franklin never knew that Watson and Crick had gotten access to her results. At the time of the Watson and Crick publication and afterwards, Franklin appears not to have been bitter about their accomplishment. In her own publications about DNA structure, she agreed with their essential conclusions but remained skeptical about some details of their model. Franklin moved on to work on an even more challenging problem: the structure of an entire virus, called the Tobacco Mosaic Virus. Her subsequent publications on this topic would include four more papers in the journal Nature. Rosalind Franklin was friendly with both James Watson and Francis Crick, and communicated regularly with them until her life and career were cut short by cancer in April of 1958, at the age of 37. She died with a reputation around the world for her contributions to knowledge about the structure of carbon compounds and of viruses. After her death, Watson and Crick made abundantly clear in public lectures that they could not have discovered the structure of DNA without her work. However, because the Nobel Prize is not awarded posthumously, Rosalind Franklin could not be cited for her essential role in the discovery of the physical basis of genetic heredity. "
Rosalind Franklin, in my opinion, is one of the greatest scientists of the 20th century that few people know about.
There is nothing wrong with capitalism: supply and demand, opportunism, etc... I saw PS3s go for $2400 on e-bay. The people who bought them were happy (and could afford them), the people who sold them were happy, Sony is happy, the Chinese who stood on line and got 20000 yen for their trouble are happy. So what's the problem? I suppose I'm a little unhappy because I can't afford $2400 for a game console, and I can't get one for $600 before Christmas, but, to tell the truth, I wouldn't spend $600 for a game console anyway. I just got my kid "MLB The show" (for the PS2) for his birthday and he was ecstatic. I'm pretty sure he'll be content with the PS2 for a while until there's some "gotta-have" game that's on the PS3. By that time I'll probably be able to pick one up for $200 (while the 'latest-greatest' will be going for mega-bucks on e-bay), and I'll be happy. Now some people might say that the rich are getting richer (those who can buy up a bunch of $600 PS3s and resell them), but let's face it, the rich are going to get richer anyway, and in capitalism some of the poor get richer, and some of the middle-class get richer, too. So everyone is happier...
I'll never forget the dissapointment I felt when the Segway was finally revealed. I don't think the media backlash is the reason that the Segway did not revolutionize, well, anything... It just wasn't very revolutionary. Actually, I'm quite surprised that the Segway is still around, while the electric car has dissapeared. I didn't think for a moment that cities would be redesigned to accomodate Segways, but I did think that cities would have to be redesigned if Segways were ever going to become ubiquitous. From the ridiculous hype you would have thought that a portable anti-gravity unit had been invented (now that would have been revolutionary, -- not just for lazy people, but for emergency rescue personnel, etc...). The Segway was a solution waiting for a problem. I actually think widespread adoption of the Segway would create more problems ( more obesity, Segway-pedestrian accidents, :).
etc..). It didn't even live up to it's "realistic" ads -- you can so fall off a Segway ( see George W. Bush
I wouldn't put it past Microsoft to actually try subliminal ads in the start-up sound. I think a non-configurable start-up sound is one of the silliest things I've ever heard of. I find even the most pleasant sound annoying after hearing it 300 times ... No amount of rationalization can justify taking away this type of choice from the consumer(unless there's an ulterior motive like subliminal "programming"). This is the opposite of modern trends -- look at the popularity of ringtones, for instance. Why is Microsoft spending any time time on this -- I'm sure the majority of windows users probably don't mess with the startup sound, and those that do, probably will still find a way to configure it (and will only be annoyed that Microsoft has decided to make it difficult). It always seems strange to me that Microsoft feels the need to take something away from every new version of Windows ( they took Exchange out of 95, Tape drive support out of ME, System File Check out of 2000, Automatic NT Server login out of XP Home, etc...). This is usually why I wait unitil I'm forced to before I upgrade to the latest version of Windows -- features I don't care about are added, and features I've grown accustomed to are taken away. Windows 2000 and Windows XP Pro are very good operating systems, but I feel that they could've been great operating systems if Microsoft didn't cripple certain features that would have cost them nothing to keep. Microsoft does invest a lot of time thinking about new features to add, but they also seem to invest time in figuring out what features to cripple in their products. Strangely enough, there are some simple features that Microsoft doesn't have in their OS that are conspicuous in their absence: like tabbed browsing, multiple desktops, etc... that users like myself implement with add-ons, whereas in other OSes, like Linux and MACOS, have such features built in. Is Microsoft just trying to lose users?? What's next? Are they going to make the background Wallpaper and Screen-saver unchangable??
I guess Microsoft Shareholders, Employees and Insiders are concerned about the delay of a new Office and Windows, but I, for one, really don't care. Why is it necessary to have a new opersting system and office suite every year or two?? Is Windows XP that inadequate?? My favorite machines at home are happily running WIndows 2000 Pro or Fedora 9.0... Office 2000 or Open Office 1.0 does everything I need an office suite and it's difficult for me to imagine that more than a small minority of consumers need much more than what they are already using.
"Exchange 12 administration functions will be built atop Monad, which would enable users to do everything from the command line that can be done from the graphical interface." is a strange statement to me. My struggle with Windows has always been how to do things with the graphical user interface that I could easily do from the command line. Is Windows de-volving...??
It seems that this is a non-standard extension --i.e., it's not an offically sanctioned extension of the ECMA Script specification. So what we're talking about is a renegade Javascript that will not be supported by all browsers. This is a Microsoft game that I don't think is good to play if you're an advocate of cross-platform, non-proprietary standards (which I am). On the other hand, if they're implementing features that are already in the ECMA specification, then this is constructive progress if other browsers that believe in non-proprietary standards (not IE!!) eventually follow suit. What would be bad is if everyone decided to make their own special extensions to Javascript that aren't in the ECMA spec.
Actually, Linux market share may increase not because it grabs more "home" desktops, but because it will gain more "business" desktops. Linux flavors like Sun's Java Desktop and Novell/SUSE offerings are geared towards the business desktop. Most business applications (like Open Office) install just as easily as their Windows' counterparts, or will come pre-configured and installed with the OS. The crap one has to go through to install something like Quake 3 actually works in Linux's favor for the business desktop. EMployers don't want their employees installing Quake 3 on their computers! I recently had a client of mine ask me if there was a way I could prevent his employees from installing programs on their computers (running Windows 2000). Having Linux boxes is ideal for businesses,because, while the business applications are similar enough to their Windows counterparts in ease of use, the unfamiliarity of installation procedures to most employees will prevent them from messing with the companiy's "default" configured computers. Also, since linux doesn't have the market share, it is not attacked as vociferously by virus writers. So right now, Linux should become wildly popular on business desktops. Already in Asia, I believe governments have made Linux their official Operating System. Linux may become popular at home in Asia then, for the same reason many people buy Windows machines here -- because it's what they use at work...
The success of the Microsoft Operating Systems really didn't have much to do with their quality or power. As I recall PC-DOS didn't even have nested directories. It wasn't just marketing either -- Microsoft marketed the hell out of "Bob" and "OS/2 Warp", but those Operating Systems were not successes. In those early days of PCs, what sold PCs and with them MS-DOS, were the applications: WordStar, Lotus 1-2-3, and DBASE. What the Linux folks should learn is one simple lesson: Most people couldn't care less about the operating system, they just want to run applications that do what they want to do. An operating system should strive to be "invisible". The most disconcerting thing that people used to MS-DOS found when they wanted to try Linux was that the OS was too "visible". "What do you mean I have to mount my disks before I can use them!!? -- I don't have to do that in Windows or DOS." The best lesson that Linux can learn from the Microsoft crowd is "don't assume that the user knows anythhing about computing". When I say I think I'll use the MAC OS because it has a UNIX kernel, my friends don't know what I'm talking about. But if tell some musicians I'm switching to the MAC because of the Music Studio Software, they relate to me immediately. I can be showing of all the neat features of Fedora to my friends, but all they care about is the applications. I don't try anymore to sell "Linux" -- I sell Firefox, Open Office, Evolution etc... To become the munber one Operating System, Linux needs better applications and an Operating System that gets out of the way of the applications. I think Microsoft actually turns a lot of people off with always having a new Operating System to upgrade to. People who have the applications they use running on Windows 2000, Windows 98 or Windows 95(!!?), don't really care about the operating system.
I know people will bring up the issues of security , scalability, etc... but most computer users don't care. They don't care what encryption you're using, just stop viruses from getting on their computers! So that's the key: mold the operating system so that the user doesn't even know it's there and provide some new essential applications that don't run on Windows. There really haven't been any real breakthrough applications on ANY platform in the last decade. Programmers are still creating Word Processors, Databases and Spreadsheets... The OS that supports the next breakthrough App will be able to "catch" Microsoft.
Check out http://www.baber.com/motherboards/intel_socket370. htm
There are some motherboards that don't have integrated video or LAN. They seem to be 3 times the price of the all-in-one motherboards, though.
I don't get it. I just bought a $589.00 PC pre-loaded with Windows XP Home Edition. Why would someone in an asian country spend $400.00 to buy a PC with Windows Starter, which is a ridiculous operating system. $32.00 may not seem like much, but it's equivalent to spending $100.00 in the US. Besides, in these countries, a full version of Windows can be had for a few dollars -- so there's no market at all for Microsoft's nonsense. Linux is popular in Asian countries (I think Linux is the official government OS in China), so why would anyone pay for an inferior Windows?? This makes no sense at all. I have old disks of Windows 98 which can do more than Windows XP starter, and I'll give those away... Anyone who buys WIndows XP starter is a sure bet to appear on a new reality show called "What the hell is the matter with you??"
Prototype Arrays of Atomic Force Probes?? Is this real technology? I wonder is the talk of a real product by 2007 is credible, or just marketing to attract venture capital. I'm still waiting for products based on NRAM (made up of arrays of carbon nantubes) from Nantero (nantero.com). I wonder if "atomic force probes" are easier to manufacture than "arrays of carbon nanotubes"? Will Nanochip beat Nantero to the marketplace, or will they just burn through venture capital and next year we'll hear about another "Nano-'something'" company with some other "revolutionary technology" that's going to produce a marketable product "real soon now".
My statement "If you're an honest person..." was careless and flippant. Of course the situation warrants deeper thought. Nevertheless, though the notion of "The Right Thing" varies from person to person, what is written as law does not vary until the law is changed or ammended. Perhaps instead of saying "Do the right thing", I should've said "Obey the Law". Now, some laws are BAD. The problem with a Democracy is that the majority can be wrong. The problem with a representative government is that the majority very often elects people not qualified to create some of the laws they impose (especially dealing with technology), or they're just stupid. So, yes, sometimes civil disobedience seems justified to expose bad laws.The person who engages in civil disobedience, though, knows that they will be punished according to the law, unless a jury of their peers also finds the law ridiculous.
Now I don't believe drug testing is fine if you don't have anything to hide, because drug test is invasive and a violation of personal privacy.
Who cares what the penalties are?
If you're an honest person and you don't do the crime, then whatever penalties are irrelevant. I think the real problem is that people are being tried, convicted and punished without due process. The RIAA is wielding power like the IRS, but they are NOT a judicial body or a government agency. As us chessplayers like to say," the threat can be more effective than the execution..." Many people are forced to settle out of court, and more than a few innocent people have been harrassed. In a democracy this shouldn't happen. So the real problem with the overblown penalties is that the threat of such draconian penalties leads to extortion by the RIAA. The penalties don't work that well as a deterrent, millions are still downloading copyrighted material, but they do give the RIAA leverage to pressure money out of people without having to actually prove their case in a court of law.
Do I have any idea how many bajillions of people are who don't have an Internet connection and never run more than one or two apps at a time!?? Of course. There are even more bajillions of people who don't have computers... That's irrelevant to the question of why would anyone want to pay $36.00 for an operating system which isn't capable of networking and multitasking past 3 programs. Who would BUY such a thing when you can get much more for free? The profile of the person who doesn't have an internet connection and doesn't run more than one or two programs at a time is probably the profile of a person who doesn't much care about the difference between XP and Linux, or between Word or Open Office. Also, such a person is probably not in the market for a new OS and is perfectly happy running Windows 98SE on their 486. Hell, I know a lawyer's office that is perfectly happy with their 386's running Windows 95 (they refused to upgrade to 98 years ago when they realized that their internal e-mail would be lost unless they bought MS Outlook -- they don't have internet access, never get viruses, and have wonderful productivity). What is Microsoft's sales pitch?? --" DOWNGRADE YOUR COMPUTER FOR ONLY $36!!
YOU'RE ONLY GETTING RIPPED OFF A LITTLE BIT!!" It seems to me that Microsoft is recruiting contestants for a new reality show called "What the hell is wrong with you!?"
Shouldn't the justice department and being using all available resources on "the war on terror". It seems that Ashcrosft and Co. seem to spare no lack of resources or effort on tracking down file sharers utilizing questionable tools (like the patriot act) that stomp all over the constitution and bill of rights, while the best they can do in stopping terrorism consists of making "code orange" annoucements.
I have no sympathy for Robert Parsons. In my mind people who write viruses and release them are terrorists and should be treated accordingly. Hey, don't do the crime. I think he got off too lightly.