Are any of these articles available as HTML? PDF is not, I repeat, IS NOT a suitable document exchange format. It's a print format. So unless you expect your audience to print out the document, please use HTML.
* note, I realize the parent has no control over this, I'm just venting in the hopes that the word might spread.
I have a feeling that argument wouldn't stand up very well. Therefore, I'd want to avoid having to make the argument at all. I'd like to see a proactive lawsuit attacking EMI or whoever first, before they can attack somebody else over DMCA violations.
Maybe the EFF could get the DoJ to look into the spyware matter (in fact, it is a virus since it will propogate itself silently when the victim inserts the disk.) That would be best since it would not require that the crime have been committed within the United States because, under U.S. law, writing a worm or virus is illegal no matter where the offense takes place. Failing that, if the tech makes it within U.S. borders, perhaps the offending company could be sued. The argument would be that it causes citizens to unknowingly install viruses/spyware on others' computers when they play the disk in an entirely legal way.
Near as I can tell, it's just the 56K software modem that doesn't work.
The added value comes in the various tweaks they've made to their Linux OS. It also looks like you have to be a customer to get a copy of it, so you can't cheap out and buy a laptop for half the price of theirs.
Is it worth the extra 600 bucks? I think if I were going to pay 3 grand for a laptop, I might consider it. Linux can be difficult to get to work correctly on laptops, but $600 is nothing to sniff at.
Another thing: show up with a $300 to $400 dollar web/database server, all new equipment with receipts, and ask them to duplicate that with Windows and IIS/MS SQL.
I think I understand what you're saying here, but I think it's a little over the top. In the United States, people can say absolutely anything they want so long as it does not cause immediate harm, like shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater. That is not to say that we should put up with websites that promote illegal activities. On the contrary, the sites should be removed when found and the site authors should be prosecuted for any laws that may have been broken, if any, but that is not the same thing as removing those persons' rights of free speech.
You've never been a soldier, have you? Well, in the interest of full disclosure, neither have I. However, I know and have known many soldiers, some very well. I have yet to meet one that would react in the manner you describe. Certainly there may (and probably are) soldiers that fit your description, but in my experience says they must be a very small minority.
Yes, troops are indoctrinated and there is some brain-washing going on, but that does not transform them into unthinking killing machines. In fact, the military places a very high value on situational awareness. A soldier who can't think clearly in confrontational situations is worse than useless: he's a danger to himself and everyone around him, including his own troops. Most soldiers I've met take their obligations and duties very seriously, and would never actually kill somebody just for speaking his mind. They are proud people, and rightfully so, and deserve our respect and support.
For you to suggest otherwise shows a disturbing lack of understanding of the world around you, and of respect for those who inhabit it.
You may wish to try a lighter desktop on that system. I suggest fluxbox. Others have suggested Xfce. There are several other good candidates, as I'm sure you know. I'm not trying to tell you what to do, just pointing out that you do have options aside from just putting up with poor performance.
Personally, I run KDE, but then I've dropped that 500 bucks you were talking about. If I were still stuck on a slow machine, I would definitely be running fluxbox. It's very usable, yet efficient in terms of memory and cpu management.
Unfortunately, a lot of companies do not pay federal taxes. I mean a lot of companies. Yet they still get the support of the U.S. government.
What a lot of companies do pay is campaign contributions, which are even more important if you want special favors from your local congress critter. This situation will not change until we have true campaign finance reform. IMO, we should not allow businesses to contribute to any political campaign or organization at all. Last time I checked, businesses do not have a right to vote, so why should they be able to contribute to the political process at all? Government is supposed to be by the people, for the people, and of the people -- not corporations.
Except that is exactly how it will be interpreted. It's not just the interpretation that counts but the enforcement. Laws like this make very convenient weapons against all sorts of adversaries. Well, it does for those who can make the law work for them. Those that cannot are generally SOL.
The proper way to do validation on the web is to perform it client side and server side. The real justification for using javascript validation on the client side is that the form will only be submitted once to the server for javascript-capable clients, but those that do not have javascript should still be able to submit the form and have it validated server-side. That way, you don't piss off your customers.
Then, as you mention, there is also the distinct possibility (probability for large sites) that somebody will try to hack the server through it's forms processing capability. Client side validation will not help you there. So, by insisting on both client side and server side validation of web forms in your applications you can achieve the proper mix of usability, efficiency, and security.
This is a discussion about vulnerabilities in IE. Nobody is debating its power as an intranet applications appliance; that's well known and understood. Its lack of suitability as a web browser, however, is not generally known outside of certain tech circles.
The Mozilla Foundation is fully aware of a need for an intranet applications appliance, and is developingtechnologies to address it. Its solution will run on nearly every platform in current use, not just MS Windows. Lets see Microsoft do that.
BTW, the 'hippies' crack is not conducive to reasonable discussion.
Bang, bang, Maxwell's silver hammer came down on his head. Bang, bang, Maxwell's silver hammer made sure that he was dead!
I called my radio station to ask them to play that, but they said the radio spectrum dissappeared. Something about lack of regulation. I wasn't really paying attention.
The answer has to do with ownership. The airwaves are a public resource, and as such, may be regulated by the government. Cable networks are not public resources (though one might argue that they should be, much like phone lines) but are owned by the company that operates the network. That means that the government has less recourse to make decisions governing their content because the government generally cannot regulate private resources the same way it does public resources.
The problem is that it's coming from Microsoft and, unless they open-source XAML completely, we can never be certain that there are no lock-in mechanisms that benifit Microsoft to the detriment of developers and users. Microsoft has consistantly shown that they can and will do things of that nature, and we are right to regard any of their technologies with some suspicion.
Well, there may be an underdog factor in many geeks' aversion to Microsoft, but I think it has more to do with how Microsoft runs it's business. It stomps all competition by any means necessary (ethical or not) while pushing flawed products. The products are flawed because, as impressive as some of them are, there are many glaring holes that could have been fixed with a minimum of effort but were not because there was no incentive to do so. This inattention to detail is, I think, something that rankles the engineer in many slashdot geeks, particularly because the company seems to be aware of it but also seems reluctant to address the issue.
The author's point was that Microsoft is not really innovating anymore. Even Longhorn doesn't seem to really be all that innovative and.Net is obviously a direct reaction to Java. They are simply applying their old business models to a rapidly changing market. It seems unlikely that this strategy can lead to long-term success in the face of new and powerful competition from a rapidly maturing open source movement.
Even more disturbing, if their patent holds up they will not have any competition to encourage them to innovate -- practically guaranteeing that they won't. There wouldn't be any additional money to be had from it, so additional innovation in the product would not seem to be productive from a revenue standpoint.
Once again we have a patent that is blindingly obvious to those versed in the art and will likely be used to stifle competition, and therefore innovation, in that art -- precisely the end result that both the letter and the spirit of the patent law is meant to prevent.
Of course the next step for the proprietary software interests will then be to have all compliant governments enact legislation requiring a license to operate or purchase 'non-Trusted' hardware, so that only those with enough dough to pay a license can develop software -- free or proprietary. You can be certain that the cost of a license will be well out of reach of the average coder, yet cheap enough that major software houses can buy them by the bundle.
The net effect of all of that will be to drive all innovation in software and hardware production overseas to countries that do not pass such foolish legislation.
Slashdot Mirror
Are any of these articles available as HTML? PDF is not, I repeat, IS NOT a suitable document exchange format. It's a print format. So unless you expect your audience to print out the document, please use HTML.
* note, I realize the parent has no control over this, I'm just venting in the hopes that the word might spread.
I have a feeling that argument wouldn't stand up very well. Therefore, I'd want to avoid having to make the argument at all. I'd like to see a proactive lawsuit attacking EMI or whoever first, before they can attack somebody else over DMCA violations.
Maybe the EFF could get the DoJ to look into the spyware matter (in fact, it is a virus since it will propogate itself silently when the victim inserts the disk.) That would be best since it would not require that the crime have been committed within the United States because, under U.S. law, writing a worm or virus is illegal no matter where the offense takes place. Failing that, if the tech makes it within U.S. borders, perhaps the offending company could be sued. The argument would be that it causes citizens to unknowingly install viruses/spyware on others' computers when they play the disk in an entirely legal way.
Yep, sure did.
HTML formatted mirror
Near as I can tell, it's just the 56K software modem that doesn't work.
The added value comes in the various tweaks they've made to their Linux OS. It also looks like you have to be a customer to get a copy of it, so you can't cheap out and buy a laptop for half the price of theirs.
Is it worth the extra 600 bucks? I think if I were going to pay 3 grand for a laptop, I might consider it. Linux can be difficult to get to work correctly on laptops, but $600 is nothing to sniff at.
Yes, that would appear to be the case.
Another thing: show up with a $300 to $400 dollar web/database server, all new equipment with receipts, and ask them to duplicate that with Windows and IIS/MS SQL.
Cheaper my ass.
I think I understand what you're saying here, but I think it's a little over the top. In the United States, people can say absolutely anything they want so long as it does not cause immediate harm, like shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater. That is not to say that we should put up with websites that promote illegal activities. On the contrary, the sites should be removed when found and the site authors should be prosecuted for any laws that may have been broken, if any, but that is not the same thing as removing those persons' rights of free speech.
You've never been a soldier, have you? Well, in the interest of full disclosure, neither have I. However, I know and have known many soldiers, some very well. I have yet to meet one that would react in the manner you describe. Certainly there may (and probably are) soldiers that fit your description, but in my experience says they must be a very small minority.
Yes, troops are indoctrinated and there is some brain-washing going on, but that does not transform them into unthinking killing machines. In fact, the military places a very high value on situational awareness. A soldier who can't think clearly in confrontational situations is worse than useless: he's a danger to himself and everyone around him, including his own troops. Most soldiers I've met take their obligations and duties very seriously, and would never actually kill somebody just for speaking his mind. They are proud people, and rightfully so, and deserve our respect and support.
For you to suggest otherwise shows a disturbing lack of understanding of the world around you, and of respect for those who inhabit it.
Ahem, you can't make this stuff up. Of course SCO can.
Good post.
You may wish to try a lighter desktop on that system. I suggest fluxbox. Others have suggested Xfce. There are several other good candidates, as I'm sure you know. I'm not trying to tell you what to do, just pointing out that you do have options aside from just putting up with poor performance.
Personally, I run KDE, but then I've dropped that 500 bucks you were talking about. If I were still stuck on a slow machine, I would definitely be running fluxbox. It's very usable, yet efficient in terms of memory and cpu management.
'urpmi fluxbox' -- couldn't get easier
Unfortunately, a lot of companies do not pay federal taxes. I mean a lot of companies. Yet they still get the support of the U.S. government.
What a lot of companies do pay is campaign contributions, which are even more important if you want special favors from your local congress critter. This situation will not change until we have true campaign finance reform. IMO, we should not allow businesses to contribute to any political campaign or organization at all. Last time I checked, businesses do not have a right to vote, so why should they be able to contribute to the political process at all? Government is supposed to be by the people, for the people, and of the people -- not corporations.
Except that is exactly how it will be interpreted. It's not just the interpretation that counts but the enforcement. Laws like this make very convenient weapons against all sorts of adversaries. Well, it does for those who can make the law work for them. Those that cannot are generally SOL.
The proper way to do validation on the web is to perform it client side and server side. The real justification for using javascript validation on the client side is that the form will only be submitted once to the server for javascript-capable clients, but those that do not have javascript should still be able to submit the form and have it validated server-side. That way, you don't piss off your customers.
Then, as you mention, there is also the distinct possibility (probability for large sites) that somebody will try to hack the server through it's forms processing capability. Client side validation will not help you there. So, by insisting on both client side and server side validation of web forms in your applications you can achieve the proper mix of usability, efficiency, and security.
This is a discussion about vulnerabilities in IE. Nobody is debating its power as an intranet applications appliance; that's well known and understood. Its lack of suitability as a web browser, however, is not generally known outside of certain tech circles.
The Mozilla Foundation is fully aware of a need for an intranet applications appliance, and is developing technologies to address it. Its solution will run on nearly every platform in current use, not just MS Windows. Lets see Microsoft do that.
BTW, the 'hippies' crack is not conducive to reasonable discussion.
I propose the Thomas Paine Institute in recognition of Common Sense.
Bang, bang, Maxwell's silver hammer
came down on his head.
Bang, bang, Maxwell's silver hammer
made sure that he was dead!
I called my radio station to ask them to play that, but they said the radio spectrum dissappeared. Something about lack of regulation. I wasn't really paying attention.
Dude, your sarcasm is showing. You might want to fix that ;)
The answer has to do with ownership. The airwaves are a public resource, and as such, may be regulated by the government. Cable networks are not public resources (though one might argue that they should be, much like phone lines) but are owned by the company that operates the network. That means that the government has less recourse to make decisions governing their content because the government generally cannot regulate private resources the same way it does public resources.
At least, that's the way it was explained to me.
The problem is that it's coming from Microsoft and, unless they open-source XAML completely, we can never be certain that there are no lock-in mechanisms that benifit Microsoft to the detriment of developers and users. Microsoft has consistantly shown that they can and will do things of that nature, and we are right to regard any of their technologies with some suspicion.
Well, there may be an underdog factor in many geeks' aversion to Microsoft, but I think it has more to do with how Microsoft runs it's business. It stomps all competition by any means necessary (ethical or not) while pushing flawed products. The products are flawed because, as impressive as some of them are, there are many glaring holes that could have been fixed with a minimum of effort but were not because there was no incentive to do so. This inattention to detail is, I think, something that rankles the engineer in many slashdot geeks, particularly because the company seems to be aware of it but also seems reluctant to address the issue.
.Net is obviously a direct reaction to Java. They are simply applying their old business models to a rapidly changing market. It seems unlikely that this strategy can lead to long-term success in the face of new and powerful competition from a rapidly maturing open source movement.
The author's point was that Microsoft is not really innovating anymore. Even Longhorn doesn't seem to really be all that innovative and
Ha!
;)
Haha!
Wahahahahahaha!!!
Idiots.
You should get an account. That's one of the most insightful AC posts I've seen in a while.
Even more disturbing, if their patent holds up they will not have any competition to encourage them to innovate -- practically guaranteeing that they won't. There wouldn't be any additional money to be had from it, so additional innovation in the product would not seem to be productive from a revenue standpoint.
Once again we have a patent that is blindingly obvious to those versed in the art and will likely be used to stifle competition, and therefore innovation, in that art -- precisely the end result that both the letter and the spirit of the patent law is meant to prevent.
Of course the next step for the proprietary software interests will then be to have all compliant governments enact legislation requiring a license to operate or purchase 'non-Trusted' hardware, so that only those with enough dough to pay a license can develop software -- free or proprietary. You can be certain that the cost of a license will be well out of reach of the average coder, yet cheap enough that major software houses can buy them by the bundle.
The net effect of all of that will be to drive all innovation in software and hardware production overseas to countries that do not pass such foolish legislation.
I'm writing this right now on an e-Machines T1.....
[No Carrier]