There is no "purpose" of surround where music is concerned. The infrastructure is there due to movies, and musicians will do whatever they want with it.
And if the mix sucks, no one will buy it. There's nothing worse that buying an album to discover it's atrociously mixed; these days it's easy to listen first to avoid making that error.
In all cases of law, society should aspire not to sympathy in the legal system, but to impartiality. Slight, but substantial difference.
If the system worked better, I'd agree. For instance, flipping a (fair) coin is impartial, but I'd certainly feel sympathy for any innocent person subjected to such a "court."
Google has been verbed, it isn't easy killing something that has been verbed. When you search for something you 'Google' for it, MSNing for something just seems wrong.
Not easy, but possible, and TiVo will be next. Of course, it's easy for MS to say, having developed so many successful products. I don't think they've had a new profitable division in 15 years since MS Office - yes, last I checked their gaming division wasn't making them money.
the punishments don't fit the crimes in the US. while drug use/possession might be illegal elsewhere, it's not as major an offense as it is here. prison time for possession of marijuana. it's a non-violent crime. how about a fine or community service instead? the's why our prisons are over-crowded, there's too many non-violent "criminals" locked up. drugs shouldn't even be illegal here. and don't go and say "your username contains 420, so of course you think that" because i just got in the habit of adding that after my name when "rizzo" didn't work. there's just no really good reason for drugs to be illegal while alcohol and cigarettes are legal.
Actually, I was just going to point out how your chronic drug use has crippled your ability to capitalize sentences.
So they are going to close some 20-30 bases in the US so we can have weapons in space. Space weapons sound cool, but a substantial ground presence is needed in any confrontation, either to mop up the mess, or contain it.
I'll bite. Why? As long as we have enough bases to serve or armed soldiers, why do we need a few extra in, say, South Dakota? To repel an invasion from the inner Canadian provinces? I don't think that confrontation is coming anytime soon.
I dunno. All the power of BASIC with the ease-of-use of C -- maybe it's designed to discourage people from becoming programmers.
Closer to the other way around. Although Pascal does lack such "features" as allowing you to access arrays out of range. As the old saying goes, C gives you just enough rope to hang yourself, and C++ gives you 5 extra feet.
Most of the tabloids are above that too. They'll often invade the privacy of a public figure, in ways that are arguably unethical, but they won't print photographs, phone numbers and addresses of celebrity's relatives.
That's a good point. Since most of the tabloids have raised their standards, Maureen is well below them now.
I'm no fan of O'Gara. But she's no worse than scores of other reporters out there, and to claim her story was a gross violation of journalistic ethics is a biased response.
Well, you seem to be mixing tabloid and news journalism in your examples. Maureen claims to be an actual journalist, not a Papparazza. If she were to get a job with the National Enquirer and publish pictures of PJ next to Bigfoot, OK, fine. But the key is that most certainly isn't journalism.
But this was getting passed as real journalism along with material that actually is real journalism on LW. What Marueen did is NOT journalism. It was a personal attack. It wasn't professional. For instance, you won't see anything like that in the NYT or WSJ. For someone who claims to be a journalist, that was reprehensible.
The response to this piece by many zealots has been much more unethical than the publishing of the article. I realize that the response, in particular the DOS and threatening email, is attributal to only a small minority of OSS and Linux supporters, and that many of the leaders in the field have spoken out against them. But the denial of those actions has been almost perfunctory. We should be screaming about those who smear the Linux and OSS name with illegal and unethical attacks at least at the same volume we're screaming about O'Gara and Sys-Con.
That's not unethical, it's flat illegal. Not to split hairs, but I don't see it as unethical because the people doing it don't claim to have a code of ethics. To me, revenge in kind isn't necessarily unfair. I agree it's a bad idea because the OSS community is fighting an uphill PR battle anyway, and fighting it against someone with a media outlet isn't smart. But to continue my prior point, that ain't journalism either.
If you choose to put yourself in the spotlight, you can expect to have the press breathing down your neck. You don't have to like it but you might as well get used to it. It's a part of American life. It's the obverse side of the "freedom of the press" coin. Would you really prefer to live in a place where the press is constrained? There are those reading Slashdot who do, in fact, live in such a place. Ask them which is preferable.
Again, ethics vs. law. I don't think anyone's calling for overturning of the 1st Amendment. People are criticizing Maureen, not the law. What Maureen did wasn't illegal. It was certainly unethical as a journalist, though not as the hack Paparazza that she is.
I basically get what you're trying to say, but I think you can be objective and still be nauseated by what she did as someone who claims to be a journalist. Thankfully, she finally made it much easier to discredit her, which to me made that article a bonehead move on her part.
I'm not breaking an NDA here as I'm not actually on the dev team
Man, you're an idiot. NDA generally applies to contractors, not employees. As an employee, your rights are limited by all that shit you signed without reading when you were hired. I have a feeling it didn't limit your responsibility of secrecy to only things you work on; I'm pretty sure it covers stuff your coworkers tell you over beer. Even if you signed nothing - and working for MS, that ain't the case - you'd be covered by trade secret laws that explicitly forbid your doing what you did.
I'm glad you had the sense to post AC, but don't assume that gives you secure anonymity.
but I haven't run into any sites lately that require IE. Recent Mozilla handles everything just fine. Apart form some minor rendering weirdness on a few sites I haven't had to jump over to IE for anything.
...for, I dunno, *this* page, which still doesn't render right in Firefox.
I think the TCO thing takes for granted that a lot more people are pre-trained on windows during school/college... versus training people for linux's cost falls on to the company...
To a degree. Although the amount of training that most people receive in college is either 1) just enough to screw things up, or 2) not putting them in position to run a linux server anyway. When we start talking about Linux on the desktop, that's different, but most of the time in the corporate environment that's for dedicated-task workstations. So not too much of a training issue.
But I wasn't even talkinga about TCO.. just wanted to dispute the claim that MS support is bad.
Certainly you get what you pay for. But what people are talking about is the sort of support I'd get from MS for my home machine. The oft-spoken line from MS is that even with off-the-shelf MS products, you get support that doesn't exist with a linux product. And this is patently false - if you're comparing off-the-shelf MS to free linux download, the support for either is basically zero. If you're talking about enterprise level, you're buying a support contract from someone either way.
I'll concede the possibility that MS isn't at a disadvantage from a support angle, but it's by no means the crippling advantage they claim in their FUD. Really, the only argument there is the old "No one got fired by going MS" angle.
This is nice but as long as there is money to made sending spam there will be plenty of border-line companies jumping into the gap to replace others taken down. This isn't going to end until we go after the companies selling their products through the spammers.
For this particular sort of spam, they're selling knock-offs of the products being offered. In that case, the companies whose knocked-off products are being spammed are very much the victims as well and certainly are participants.
There are companies who deal with shady contractors for advertising, and six levels down it ends up in spam, but I don't think that's what we're dealing with here.
This is completely wrong. In the last 3 corporations i've worked for in the past 6 yrs, Microsoft support has been nothing short of impressive. Ofcourse, provided you pay for the right support, Microsoft really takes ownership of a problem and always fixes it. Perhaps i've just been lucky, but I've always been impressed with MS's support.
That support contract does change the TCO argument a lot though. You can easily get the same from, say, Red Hat et al, and not need to spend that support time resolving Trojan related issues.
Unfortunately, many users didn't go find Firefox once. They had someone more technically oriented install it for them.
Certainly there's that fraction. But it's smaller than the fraction that didn't go get IE, said fraction being approximately 1.0 since it comes with any windows computr.
The fact that Firefox security updates don't automatically install unless you notice and click on that red arrow in the upper right corner pretty much guarantees that a large fraction of copies will remain unpatched. When I've visited people for whom I installed Firefox 1.0 when it came out, I've noticed that none of them have noticed the red update icon or updated Firefox on their own.
I do agree that the meaning of said red arrow could be better explained. The problem is how to implement that without suffering accusations of nagware ("Updates are now available!") or spyware (automatically downloading updates).
"Often" is an overstatement. There were serveral incidents but given the number of patches they've released, your comment amounts to flamebait.
Is today nitpick day? I'd say "several" amounts to "often," in as much as both are rather ambiguous. I didn't say "always." So no it's not flamebait, if for no other reason than it wasn't SCREAMING, and the maker of said patches isn't here.
Slashdot Mirror
And if the mix sucks, no one will buy it. There's nothing worse that buying an album to discover it's atrociously mixed; these days it's easy to listen first to avoid making that error.
If the system worked better, I'd agree. For instance, flipping a (fair) coin is impartial, but I'd certainly feel sympathy for any innocent person subjected to such a "court."
Not easy, but possible, and TiVo will be next. Of course, it's easy for MS to say, having developed so many successful products. I don't think they've had a new profitable division in 15 years since MS Office - yes, last I checked their gaming division wasn't making them money.
Actually, I was just going to point out how your chronic drug use has crippled your ability to capitalize sentences.
Honestly? No. Looked like a piece of tripe. Liked the first two though.
I'll bite. Why? As long as we have enough bases to serve or armed soldiers, why do we need a few extra in, say, South Dakota? To repel an invasion from the inner Canadian provinces? I don't think that confrontation is coming anytime soon.
It takes a Terminator to defeat Skynet. It takes a script kiddie and a buffer overflow to defeat Windows.
Nah, they're usually too stoned to vote. Although if anyone named Garcia ran, he'd probably win.
Where's that? Is it near Baltimore?
...fuck HAM. We don't care. If your hobby gets in the way of cheap broadband for the masses, collect stamps.
Closer to the other way around. Although Pascal does lack such "features" as allowing you to access arrays out of range. As the old saying goes, C gives you just enough rope to hang yourself, and C++ gives you 5 extra feet.
A couple of hundred years later, Lamarck's theory lives on! Keep carrying that torch.
That's a good point. Since most of the tabloids have raised their standards, Maureen is well below them now.
Well, you seem to be mixing tabloid and news journalism in your examples. Maureen claims to be an actual journalist, not a Papparazza. If she were to get a job with the National Enquirer and publish pictures of PJ next to Bigfoot, OK, fine. But the key is that most certainly isn't journalism.
But this was getting passed as real journalism along with material that actually is real journalism on LW. What Marueen did is NOT journalism. It was a personal attack. It wasn't professional. For instance, you won't see anything like that in the NYT or WSJ. For someone who claims to be a journalist, that was reprehensible.
The response to this piece by many zealots has been much more unethical than the publishing of the article. I realize that the response, in particular the DOS and threatening email, is attributal to only a small minority of OSS and Linux supporters, and that many of the leaders in the field have spoken out against them. But the denial of those actions has been almost perfunctory. We should be screaming about those who smear the Linux and OSS name with illegal and unethical attacks at least at the same volume we're screaming about O'Gara and Sys-Con.
That's not unethical, it's flat illegal. Not to split hairs, but I don't see it as unethical because the people doing it don't claim to have a code of ethics. To me, revenge in kind isn't necessarily unfair. I agree it's a bad idea because the OSS community is fighting an uphill PR battle anyway, and fighting it against someone with a media outlet isn't smart. But to continue my prior point, that ain't journalism either.
If you choose to put yourself in the spotlight, you can expect to have the press breathing down your neck. You don't have to like it but you might as well get used to it. It's a part of American life. It's the obverse side of the "freedom of the press" coin. Would you really prefer to live in a place where the press is constrained? There are those reading Slashdot who do, in fact, live in such a place. Ask them which is preferable.
Again, ethics vs. law. I don't think anyone's calling for overturning of the 1st Amendment. People are criticizing Maureen, not the law. What Maureen did wasn't illegal. It was certainly unethical as a journalist, though not as the hack Paparazza that she is.
I basically get what you're trying to say, but I think you can be objective and still be nauseated by what she did as someone who claims to be a journalist. Thankfully, she finally made it much easier to discredit her, which to me made that article a bonehead move on her part.
I did yesterday, so ;P
Man, you're an idiot. NDA generally applies to contractors, not employees. As an employee, your rights are limited by all that shit you signed without reading when you were hired. I have a feeling it didn't limit your responsibility of secrecy to only things you work on; I'm pretty sure it covers stuff your coworkers tell you over beer. Even if you signed nothing - and working for MS, that ain't the case - you'd be covered by trade secret laws that explicitly forbid your doing what you did.
I'm glad you had the sense to post AC, but don't assume that gives you secure anonymity.
...for, I dunno, *this* page, which still doesn't render right in Firefox.
Most OEM computers do. It's called "Windows."
RTFM n00b.
To a degree. Although the amount of training that most people receive in college is either 1) just enough to screw things up, or 2) not putting them in position to run a linux server anyway. When we start talking about Linux on the desktop, that's different, but most of the time in the corporate environment that's for dedicated-task workstations. So not too much of a training issue.
But I wasn't even talkinga about TCO.. just wanted to dispute the claim that MS support is bad.
Certainly you get what you pay for. But what people are talking about is the sort of support I'd get from MS for my home machine. The oft-spoken line from MS is that even with off-the-shelf MS products, you get support that doesn't exist with a linux product. And this is patently false - if you're comparing off-the-shelf MS to free linux download, the support for either is basically zero. If you're talking about enterprise level, you're buying a support contract from someone either way.
I'll concede the possibility that MS isn't at a disadvantage from a support angle, but it's by no means the crippling advantage they claim in their FUD. Really, the only argument there is the old "No one got fired by going MS" angle.
For this particular sort of spam, they're selling knock-offs of the products being offered. In that case, the companies whose knocked-off products are being spammed are very much the victims as well and certainly are participants.
There are companies who deal with shady contractors for advertising, and six levels down it ends up in spam, but I don't think that's what we're dealing with here.
That support contract does change the TCO argument a lot though. You can easily get the same from, say, Red Hat et al, and not need to spend that support time resolving Trojan related issues.
Certainly there's that fraction. But it's smaller than the fraction that didn't go get IE, said fraction being approximately 1.0 since it comes with any windows computr.
The fact that Firefox security updates don't automatically install unless you notice and click on that red arrow in the upper right corner pretty much guarantees that a large fraction of copies will remain unpatched. When I've visited people for whom I installed Firefox 1.0 when it came out, I've noticed that none of them have noticed the red update icon or updated Firefox on their own.
I do agree that the meaning of said red arrow could be better explained. The problem is how to implement that without suffering accusations of nagware ("Updates are now available!") or spyware (automatically downloading updates).
Is today nitpick day? I'd say "several" amounts to "often," in as much as both are rather ambiguous. I didn't say "always." So no it's not flamebait, if for no other reason than it wasn't SCREAMING, and the maker of said patches isn't here.
Quite an apt analogy, as "fat" is the operative word.