Steps for getting a Linux video player to work:
1. Install Redhat 9
2. Install apt for rpm
3. apt-get synaptic
4. Open synaptic and search for "mplayer"
5. Select desired search results and install
6. Run mplayer, and use it to play DVDs, DIVXs, XVIDs, MPEGs, etc...
Errr.. Did you compare this to the list that you have to do in Windows?
You don't have to even do step ONE!
Now, don't get me wrong. I am not a Windows fanboy. I run Linux on my home system. No dual-booting. 100% Linux. But, I will be among the first to admit that I would not recommend it to anyone wanting a PC. It just isn't for everybody. Neither is Windows, but the world is set up to make Windows easy. Hardware manufacturers certify and write drivers for Windows. Web designers design for Windows. Game writers write for Windows.
As more people switch over (ever dual booting!) to Linux, businesses will start to lethargicly move to support it. It is a slow process, and we are just at the beginning.
Great! Now if we can only get all SMTP to be secured... However, that is what appears to be the problem.:(
I don't want to have a legitimate email bounced/rejected because someone he goes through is using 'default' SMTP, and a server in-between is secured... I still think that as long as it is optional, it will not be implemented (at least correctly).
If we could get 90-some percent of the world on secured SMTP, then maybe it will force migration on the remaining percentage...
Software bugs happen, and it's impossible to test for every possibility (hardware configuration, etc). Just bear with them and let them fix it.
I think that the biggest objections aren't about the fact that there is a bug... I think it is about the bug's location in the code: the friggin product activation - a wholly unnecessary block of code for a legitimate user
(off topic, but you'd think it obvious that any time machine breakthrough would be all over the news right! ; i guess basic rationality doesn't come into this though. scary.)
It did make the news. Then, those who built it went back in time and got rid of the evidence...;)
Sure. The honest ISPs will have to bear the burden of administering this tax (for which, they will have administration costs - passed on to users). But what about these Hong Kong spamming sources? Or anything outside the jurisdiction of the 'email tax law'? An email tax is both unworkable and ineffective
What is needed, and has been pointed out in many other places, is a reform of the SMTP method. SMTP was designed many, MANY years ago when the only people on networks were technicians, academics, etc. These people created a system for THEM to use. They didn't really anticipate spam, because for spam to become effective, email needs to be wide-spread to the point near ubiquity. When email services are as common, you are going to get a lot of simple-minded gullible people out there. And these are the people who click on those ads, and bring in the spam revenue.
So, I guess we either need to reform and properly lock-down email sending to show only accurate information, or require a simple I.Q. test before logging into email!;) Of course, the latter opetion would surely bring about the swift demise of AOL...
You are right. The cops should know that a car whizzing by at 90 is driven by a NASCAR-wannabe, and is perfectly legal. All "car-driver-road condition" combinations should be formed into a matrixed spreadsheet and memorized, so that everyone can drive at different legal speeds.
That line of reasoning is fundamentally flawed. I should not be allowed to:
Remove my seatbelts
Remove the muffler
Remove the catalytic converter (or other pollution control)
Remove light bulbs from my brake lights, turn signals, etc.
Remove the headlights
Remove the horn
You get the point.
If you feel it should be disabled, please come up with a better reason than "it's mine!"... I don't know how the post got modded "insightful". My three-year-old uses that argument all the time, and I would say he was insightful enough to debate much of anything at this age.
Well, even though this was a funny comment for a few laughs (and I found if very funny, myself), there is a serious point to be made.
Mandrake just recalled their most recent patch because it wasn't correct. This is going to happen, regardless of whether you admin a Win or Linux system (or both!).
Errr... If you are that worried about a few cents in electric bills, perhaps you should never turn your PC on? Think of the HUMONGOUS cost savings there!;)
As much as I would like to bitch and moan about Microsoft and their nefarious activities... I have to admit that this seems like a move they HAVE to make. They were successfully sued because they used a concept (plug-ins) that someone ELSE had patented. I have to agree that this seems to be a legitimate defensive move on their part.
No bashing to be done here... The only real solution is U.S. Patent reform, and that is not going to happen any time soon, I fear. Let's move on to the next story.
VMWare uses a software redirection/emulation. The new chip would act (essentialy) like two separate CPUs.
The problem would be in splitting up and/or sharing resources, I think. There would have to be some sort of delays for this solution, similar to the ones you might see in VMWare. For example, you can't read from two different sections of memory (or hard drive) at the same time. There would need ot be some sort of pre-empting and priorities assigned. VMWare's solution uses code in RAM. Intel apparently thinks the CPU is a good place to do this...
But, will this also apply to the government? Or other well-funded, and politically well placed entities such as the RIAA?
When I see important officials in the government (read: Orin Hatch of Utah) saying it should be OK to destroy a file-sharer's computer, it sends alarm bells off!
Too often, politicians, and major funders of politicians think themselves all-knowing and immune to the laws they create.
Ummm... One thing that has seems to have been overlooked is the fact that solar energy isn't always 12on/12off in a day. The closer you live to the Artic Circle (or Antartic, for our southern hemisphere friends), you get a disproportionate lack of sunlight in the winters. Not very feasable in these locations.
On the other hand, if someone could make a darkness panel that makes energy out of a lack of light...;)
Yes, currently it is a test of a process that will be used in absentee voting. I was referring to the comment that "I for one would love to be able to vote from the comfort of my home/work/cafe without having to wait in lines. Overall voter turnout could be boosted.".
Once the "demonstration testing" is done, the scope of this can be easily broadened. This is something that, like considering switching from Electoral to Popular votes, has to be thoroughly thought-out before taking the plunge. And, quite frankly, I don't see a lot of thinking going on in D.C. - take "french fries" to "freedom fries", and now back to "french fries" for example (now that we have decided to stop thumbing our noses at the world and maybe include these other countries in world politics.
I have to agree with the original poster that *I* would like the convenience, too! However, there are broader issues to be considered. If obstacles can be addressed fairly for all, then I say go ahead!
Well, there are two points that have to be made when it comes to internet voting:
1) Only middle class and higher will be able to easily use this system (have internet connections). The very poor will have to wait in line and vote the oldfashioned way, or wait in line for access to the public library PC (if they have a library with connections nearby - think ghettos). The poorest peoples have the exact same right to vote, and making it effortless for those "with" money, and still laborous for those "without" will create a disparity - a weighted election.
2) I am not certain that I want numbskulls (forgive the term for its crudeness, but it is accurate) finding it so easy to vote. The weak-minded (those too dumb or lazy to register and show up at your voting precinct) will now be more readily enabled to cast votes for the candidate that spouts wrong ideas with mass-appeal.
As problematic as the current US voting system is, I can't see this fixing much! Make the vote tallies more accurate, yes! But do not change the methodology without ensuring that is is fair and just to all.
Slashdot Mirror
Errrr... Does this mean that when my Linux box gets taken out by a Blaster-clone worm, it is good news? ;) hehehe
Oh, come on Moderators! Someone has *got* to mod the parent here Funny! :) Everyone could use a good SCO joke!
Sounds like the perfect time to try out my new video card!
Sweeeeet! ;)
Like a computer?
I would post a comment under my ID, but it would probably infringe in AT&T's patent, too...
So I will post as AC! ;) He, he, he!
Wait! I'm logged in?!?!? Oh, shi---!
Oh yes, there are always exceptions.. ;)
Errr.. Did you compare this to the list that you have to do in Windows?
You don't have to even do step ONE!
Now, don't get me wrong. I am not a Windows fanboy. I run Linux on my home system. No dual-booting. 100% Linux. But, I will be among the first to admit that I would not recommend it to anyone wanting a PC. It just isn't for everybody. Neither is Windows, but the world is set up to make Windows easy. Hardware manufacturers certify and write drivers for Windows. Web designers design for Windows. Game writers write for Windows.
As more people switch over (ever dual booting!) to Linux, businesses will start to lethargicly move to support it. It is a slow process, and we are just at the beginning.
Great! Now if we can only get all SMTP to be secured... However, that is what appears to be the problem. :(
I don't want to have a legitimate email bounced/rejected because someone he goes through is using 'default' SMTP, and a server in-between is secured... I still think that as long as it is optional, it will not be implemented (at least correctly).
If we could get 90-some percent of the world on secured SMTP, then maybe it will force migration on the remaining percentage...
I think that the biggest objections aren't about the fact that there is a bug... I think it is about the bug's location in the code: the friggin product activation - a wholly unnecessary block of code for a legitimate user
Sure. The honest ISPs will have to bear the burden of administering this tax (for which, they will have administration costs - passed on to users). But what about these Hong Kong spamming sources? Or anything outside the jurisdiction of the 'email tax law'? An email tax is both unworkable and ineffective
What is needed, and has been pointed out in many other places, is a reform of the SMTP method. SMTP was designed many, MANY years ago when the only people on networks were technicians, academics, etc. These people created a system for THEM to use. They didn't really anticipate spam, because for spam to become effective, email needs to be wide-spread to the point near ubiquity. When email services are as common, you are going to get a lot of simple-minded gullible people out there. And these are the people who click on those ads, and bring in the spam revenue.
So, I guess we either need to reform and properly lock-down email sending to show only accurate information, or require a simple I.Q. test before logging into email! ;) Of course, the latter opetion would surely bring about the swift demise of AOL...
We might be able to use this computer to finally get one, correct answer to what happens to Schroedinger's cat!
Although I think that human brains may need an upgrade of their own to use this thing!
You are right. The cops should know that a car whizzing by at 90 is driven by a NASCAR-wannabe, and is perfectly legal. All "car-driver-road condition" combinations should be formed into a matrixed spreadsheet and memorized, so that everyone can drive at different legal speeds.
/sarcasm
That line of reasoning is fundamentally flawed. I should not be allowed to:
You get the point.
If you feel it should be disabled, please come up with a better reason than "it's mine!"... I don't know how the post got modded "insightful". My three-year-old uses that argument all the time, and I would say he was insightful enough to debate much of anything at this age.
Ohmygod! For a second there, I thought you were going to say The GNU Free Software Song! YIKES! ;)
Well, even though this was a funny comment for a few laughs (and I found if very funny, myself), there is a serious point to be made.
Mandrake just recalled their most recent patch because it wasn't correct. This is going to happen, regardless of whether you admin a Win or Linux system (or both!).
Errr... If you are that worried about a few cents in electric bills, perhaps you should never turn your PC on? Think of the HUMONGOUS cost savings there! ;)
As much as I would like to bitch and moan about Microsoft and their nefarious activities... I have to admit that this seems like a move they HAVE to make. They were successfully sued because they used a concept (plug-ins) that someone ELSE had patented. I have to agree that this seems to be a legitimate defensive move on their part.
No bashing to be done here... The only real solution is U.S. Patent reform, and that is not going to happen any time soon, I fear. Let's move on to the next story.
I think that there are tens of thousands of potential tutors that read /.!
"The 'ON' button is here... This mouse has three buttons for Linux...
I wonder what it pays? :)
I, for one [hic!] welshumm our [hic!] drunken overlrr-[hic!] overrrrrr...-[hic!]
leadershhhh!
[hic!]
VMWare uses a software redirection/emulation. The new chip would act (essentialy) like two separate CPUs.
The problem would be in splitting up and/or sharing resources, I think. There would have to be some sort of delays for this solution, similar to the ones you might see in VMWare. For example, you can't read from two different sections of memory (or hard drive) at the same time. There would need ot be some sort of pre-empting and priorities assigned. VMWare's solution uses code in RAM. Intel apparently thinks the CPU is a good place to do this...
But, will this also apply to the government? Or other well-funded, and politically well placed entities such as the RIAA?
When I see important officials in the government (read: Orin Hatch of Utah) saying it should be OK to destroy a file-sharer's computer, it sends alarm bells off!
Too often, politicians, and major funders of politicians think themselves all-knowing and immune to the laws they create.
Ummm... One thing that has seems to have been overlooked is the fact that solar energy isn't always 12on/12off in a day. The closer you live to the Artic Circle (or Antartic, for our southern hemisphere friends), you get a disproportionate lack of sunlight in the winters. Not very feasable in these locations.
On the other hand, if someone could make a darkness panel that makes energy out of a lack of light... ;)
Yes, currently it is a test of a process that will be used in absentee voting. I was referring to the comment that "I for one would love to be able to vote from the comfort of my home/work/cafe without having to wait in lines. Overall voter turnout could be boosted.".
Once the "demonstration testing" is done, the scope of this can be easily broadened. This is something that, like considering switching from Electoral to Popular votes, has to be thoroughly thought-out before taking the plunge. And, quite frankly, I don't see a lot of thinking going on in D.C. - take "french fries" to "freedom fries", and now back to "french fries" for example (now that we have decided to stop thumbing our noses at the world and maybe include these other countries in world politics.
I have to agree with the original poster that *I* would like the convenience, too! However, there are broader issues to be considered. If obstacles can be addressed fairly for all, then I say go ahead!
Well, there are two points that have to be made when it comes to internet voting:
1) Only middle class and higher will be able to easily use this system (have internet connections). The very poor will have to wait in line and vote the oldfashioned way, or wait in line for access to the public library PC (if they have a library with connections nearby - think ghettos). The poorest peoples have the exact same right to vote, and making it effortless for those "with" money, and still laborous for those "without" will create a disparity - a weighted election.
2) I am not certain that I want numbskulls (forgive the term for its crudeness, but it is accurate) finding it so easy to vote. The weak-minded (those too dumb or lazy to register and show up at your voting precinct) will now be more readily enabled to cast votes for the candidate that spouts wrong ideas with mass-appeal.
As problematic as the current US voting system is, I can't see this fixing much! Make the vote tallies more accurate, yes! But do not change the methodology without ensuring that is is fair and just to all.