It can be argued if he did that or if he predecessor did. However I'd view economic damage as much less severe than the damage Bush has done to civil liberties and open access / open government.
Up until recently (ie, the last six months or so) most of the bulbs you'd find in the typical discount stores were 4000-5000 degree.
Until you use them to light your basement; then you notice some turn on faster than others. Not that I mind, but my wife complains about it now and then.
a very valid reason for the NYT to block OSes which they don't make. I'm sorry where did you get the idea that the New York Times created Windows and Mac OS?
I was sticking with your analogy.. to show why it was bad.
To respond to what I think was your point: I think that the NYT, the movie theaters, and the kid with the lemonade stand next door have the right to set the terms of the deals they offer. This was never in dispute.
If a movie theater wants to require that you buy a brand new Porsche 911 before they will let you see "The Covenant" then that's just really great for them.
Didn't sound that way..
My suspicions arise from the fact that there is no advantage to the NYT of shutting out a large number of their customers, when these customers could be satisfied at no additional cost to NYT.
There is a cost. Isn't it one of the methods of Linux advocates to vocalize when something doesn't work right in Linux? At they very least they may feel the need to respond (sorry, but we have no plans, etc). Do you think that having a supported browsers list will stop them? They'll complain that Linux isn't one of the OS platforms. To actually list it, they need to make a big investment in QA time. Finally, its not a 'large number of their customers.' Its a very, very small set. Like it or not, Linux has not made any significant inroads into the desktop market.
I agree that this would make sense if the New York Times had created Windows or Mac OS, or Safari or IE. They'd be leveraging their content in order to sell the tool that one uses to access that content.
Some people just don't want to support multiple platforms; they don't care at all to take Linux users past the front page. That's just a valid a reason as pushing another product.
I think the presumption of guilt is a societal issue, not one of news coverage. People seem to think that you must be guilty, why would you be charged otherwise?
I read your analogy as restricting entry to those that met cretain criteria (which is what the article is about).
I already gave a very valid reason for the NYT to block OSes which they don't make. See why your analogy sucks? Finally, since when would theaters have to sell a competing product? If they don't want to let you in unless you bought Pepsi, that's there prerogative as well.
If you are so upset about the NYT blocking Linux based browsers, don't go there. Plenty of other news sites don't do this.
Our police have fairly respectable guidelines about what to put in their reports, at least most of the time. It's the fools who classify everything they can think of (including things like "Other") as speed-related who screw up the speed safety issue and warp the statistics.
I'm sure the guidelines are respectable; whether they are followed or not is another matter. Most states here say its illegal for police departments to set quotes for traffic violations issued. And officially this is the case. Unofficially, quotes still exist.
As for the motorways, the argument usually seems to be that at 70mph, most cars don't have good enough headlights to see far enough ahead to stop comfortably in the event of something being in the road, someone who shouldn't be there, etc. At the kind of speeds some drivers do on our motorways, it's near impossible to judge distances safely based only on a pair of tail lights from a car in front that you're fast approaching. And of course, there's always the idiot coming the other way with main beam on, dazzling you to the point where you can't really see anything at all. Obviously this all goes even more for major non-motorway routes that don't have the same prohibitions on pedestrians, cyclists, lack of wildlife access and so on, and which can have much more "interesting" road layout. If I can find the original paper later on, I'll post a link, though unfortunately Googling for obvious things seems to turn up dozens of speed/anti-speed rants and not much else these days.
So the limit should be set according to poor conditions? That's just silly. Especially when technology can easily compesate for that condition. As far as being blinded goes, does it really matter much if you're blinded at 50 instead of 70? Not likely.. the problem isn't your speed, its that you can't see, and lighting the highway won't do anything for that anyway.
How about remote desktop? It deliberately disables the ability to have multiple users connect to anything lower than Windows Server 2K3 (that's right, even with XPPro, you don't get useful things like that).
How useful that is for anything except a terminal server is debatable. Most business / home users don't need more than one person on a workstation at a time.
Oh please. You've got no clue, you've obviously never worked in web development. To do PROPER testing, you need to identify which version of the OS (In this case, its not even just Linux 2.2.6, its RH 9, Mandriva 2007, Ubantutu (whatever), Debian, Slack, and a host of others). Then you have to try various browser combinations on each; Konq, Mozilla, Netscape, FF. Then you have to try various versions, FF 1.0, FF 1.5.0, FF 1.5.1.
It takes time to test, which isn't free, and if issues are found you have to report back to some manager that must decide if its severe enough to warrant fixing, and if it is, take the time to not only fix it in a specific browser but make sure that fix doesn't break all the other browsers.
And before you respond with "they don't need to test all those" then how can you say for certain that the browser is supported? The answer is you can't.
They don't have to include Linux in their list of supported systems (requirements) if they don't want to "support" it. But what NYT has done here is to make sure that you are having trouble if you use Linux.
Because they don't want to even deal with feedback from Linux people saying that portions of their site doesn't work. They block it because they don't want to have to test it. There's nothing wrong with that.
It's hard to come up with an analogy here, but what the hell I'll try: A movie theater exhibits 3-D films, and there's a station outside to buy the "approved" 3-D glasses. Now a penguin walks up with some DIY glasses he's been experimenting with. He buys a ticket and goes through the line to the theater door.
And they won't let him in
"Sorry, sir, we don't support those glasses."
"I don't want you to support my glasses; just let me in."
"Sorry, you'll have to go buy glasses from the station outside"
Would you get a little suspicious? Would you wonder how the guy running that station got such a gig?
Ugh.. most analogies stink, and this isn't one of them. Lets change from 3D glasses to food and drink. Guess what? Movie theaters already DON'T have to let you carry your own food or drink in! I wouldn't wonder anything; they are trying to get you to remove their food, just like they want you to buy their 3D glasses.
Here, the NYT doesn't want to even bother with people using Linux past their front page. Nothing wrong with that, its their choice. They can attempt to block you if they want (because they are reserving the right to break those pages on Linux browsers in the future) just like the movie theater can.
Existing analog channels are NOT encrypted, so my statement that local filters would be required is true.
But I already told you this isn't true (that filters would be required); they could go back to the scrambling system, which didn't require 'hundreds of combinations of filters at each house.' Why on earth would they go the filter route when there already exists a way to block analog channels. Requiring a settop box doesn't make TVs useless; it makes the cable ready portion useless, but not the entire set.
There are at least 33.6 million analog TV's in the US that will not understand either an encrypted analog or digital signal (there are many not reported also). You don't see an issue with bricking millions of TV's to support a la carte when the cable companies are saying it isn't going to save consumers money anyway?
How on earth does requiring a settop box make the TV useless suddenly? It doesn't, its still prefectly usable.
Many of these people might not be interested in renting set top boxes for some of the infrequently used TV's that are on cable as well
How is that ANY different from digital cable now? Those analog TVs still need a box to decode the digital signal. A la carte cable doesn't change this at all. I don't know if you realize this but there was a time when TVs had two knobs; UHF and VHF. Guess what? You were REQUIRED to have a box to get cable AT ALL on these TVs. If you don't want the box, you don't get the cable.
As people begin upgrading these legacy TV's to digital/CableCard ready TV's or DVR's the legacy support problem will go away, but currently it is too early to force this change on people.
You've got to be only 17 or something; its only been in the last 10 or 15 years that you DIDN'T need a box to get cable at all! Most people are far more used to having a box for TV than are not. Just as we were getting used to Cable Ready TVs, digital came about, which required us to use boxes once again if we wanted that service. You act as if TVs never required a box before, and its some huge change for people that want cable tv to need a box. Hell, I remember at my grandmothers house 20 or so years ago, the cable box itself had a dial for all the channels!
However, I stated that it is illogical to state that something can not exist, simply because you have no evidence.
I understand that point. However my problem with the notion of a god is that for anything unexplained, we can always devise a simpler, non-supernatural explaination. If that is the case, then its not so illogical to think that god cannot exist.
I agree with you on aliens; its far more logical that some random 'accident' caused life in some kind of form on another planet. There is simply so much matter and energy in the universe to think otherwise.
The process used to create the computers might be clean, but what about their efficiency out in the world? The process used to create an SUV might be ecologically friendly, but if the beast still guzzles petrol, where's the benefit?
The benefit is that only 20 tons of CO2 are released, instead 20+ tons of CO2 plus other gases and chemicals dumped in a river or lake or what have you.
I think greenpeace is taken by some wacko organization that unlawfully attempts to board other vessels in the ocean, then complains when occupants of said vessel forcefully prevent them from boarding, saying that they could have been hurt by the occupants tactics...
The goal was to offer a la carte channels over analog, not to have them broadcast unencrypted (actually analog channels were scrambled, not encrypted). You claimed you needed many different combination of filters, which wasn't true; each channel can be scrabled independantly without the need for filters.
Not that you can do this with digital either; the only way to offer a la carte channels is via some settop box or built in device because analog or digital all the signal reaches your home.
I'm not sure what you think the purpose of analog is supposed to be except to transmit image and sound...
TVs that 'understood' cable are fairly recent thing; I don't see what the big deal of requiring a settop box is.
I'm not convinced that's the case. If I own a carpark, should I be allowed to turn away people based on what car they drive? If I own a hotel, should I be allowed to turn away people based on their religion? I don't think so.
Why not?
The NYT website is a website being made available to the general public. Is there a reason why they should be allowed to discriminate against certain people based on something irrelevant?
Its not available to the general public; the features they offer are available only to those that meet the requirements they set forth. Its not irrelevent; if they want to list that Linux based browsers will work with their site, they actually have to test to make sure it does, which costs money.
The only real question is if this was purposely done or not. I myself have seen my fair share of website that simply do not combinations of Linux and non-IE browsers for no obvious technical reason.
Here's the obvious technial reason: They don't think its worth the investment to have the site support Linux. You can't just assume it will work in Linux, you actually have to QA it. Increasing the number of platforms on which you have to QA increases your cost. They don't think the cost will be less than the benefit. Its probably on purpose, and its for good reason... cost of testing.
Free tinfoil: the OS check is so bizarre and unnecessary that I think it should be looked into. Did any money change hands to make this happen?
They want to prevent money from changing hands; their hands to the hands of their web designes / programmers. Seriously, supporting other OSes costs money. To properly support Linux, they'd have to setup various linux workstations, with various versions of the browser and flash player and test them all. To do that costs quite a bit of money they'd rather not spend.
I'm sick of these 'website dosen't support linux?!!13' stories. The answer is simple; to PROPERLY support said OS / Browser, you actually have to test your site with that OS / Browser, you don't just assume it works. Geez people, get over it. There isn't enough users on Linux for them to support anything but the main pages. Be happy they are doing that at least.
The argument was that you couldn't offer analog cable channels a la carte because it would be too expensive. My response was that cable providers have been able to scramble channels for years without needing hunderds and hundreds of filters for everyone.
Never was I saying that this is what should happen, I just was trying to point out that analog channels can be offered a la carte just as easy (and inexpensively) as digital.
FWIW, I'm not THAT old, but when I was a teen (early 1990s) HBO wasn't digital and was still blocked from non-paying customers. I think you missed my point...
However, if you line is configured to only work with pulse, you not only need a touch tone phone, but a phone which supports both touch-tone and pulse, with the little switch to go from one to the other.
There is no such line anymore.
Now, why would one keep the pulse lines in the house? It's quite simple actually... my mom still has pulse (with touch tone phones that have a switch actually), but refuses to "upgrade" her line to touch tone despite every attempt of the phone company to convince her. The reason is simple, the phone company charges a monthly fee for using touch tone over pulse.
Buy her a touch tone phone, and use it anyway. Phone companies long ago left pulse behind, touch tone works on every line even if you haven't paid the fee. Do you really think there's not a computer at the other end of the line to support these 'pulse' people?
I've had pretty good expeirence with voice systems too, I used TigerDirect's once and it worked ok, and they're faster than doing a menu system, you no longer have to listen to everyone else's options before yours comes up.
I have to admin I've never used TD's system, but I've used quite a bit other ones. I still have to listen to what the options are so that I know the 'magic words' to get me where I need to be. I don't know about you, but personally pushing buttons to enter a serial number is much faster for me than actually speaking the words. That's espcially true when the system doesn't understand you and gets it wrong, forcing you to start over.
I'd rather punch the numbers; at least I can memorize the correct sequence and get through quicker.
Slashdot Mirror
If that happens, that wooshing sound you here will be ever major vendor abondoning Linux / GNU.
It can be argued if he did that or if he predecessor did. However I'd view economic damage as much less severe than the damage Bush has done to civil liberties and open access / open government.
Up until recently (ie, the last six months or so) most of the bulbs you'd find in the typical discount stores were 4000-5000 degree.
Until you use them to light your basement; then you notice some turn on faster than others. Not that I mind, but my wife complains about it now and then.
Who said the Brits were paying? The most I've ever had to do to read a NYT article was fill in some registration crap.
a very valid reason for the NYT to block OSes which they don't make. I'm sorry where did you get the idea that the New York Times created Windows and Mac OS?
I was sticking with your analogy.. to show why it was bad.
To respond to what I think was your point: I think that the NYT, the movie theaters, and the kid with the lemonade stand next door have the right to set the terms of the deals they offer. This was never in dispute.
If a movie theater wants to require that you buy a brand new Porsche 911 before they will let you see "The Covenant" then that's just really great for them.
Didn't sound that way..
My suspicions arise from the fact that there is no advantage to the NYT of shutting out a large number of their customers, when these customers could be satisfied at no additional cost to NYT.
There is a cost. Isn't it one of the methods of Linux advocates to vocalize when something doesn't work right in Linux? At they very least they may feel the need to respond (sorry, but we have no plans, etc). Do you think that having a supported browsers list will stop them? They'll complain that Linux isn't one of the OS platforms. To actually list it, they need to make a big investment in QA time. Finally, its not a 'large number of their customers.' Its a very, very small set. Like it or not, Linux has not made any significant inroads into the desktop market.
I agree that this would make sense if the New York Times had created Windows or Mac OS, or Safari or IE. They'd be leveraging their content in order to sell the tool that one uses to access that content.
Some people just don't want to support multiple platforms; they don't care at all to take Linux users past the front page. That's just a valid a reason as pushing another product.
Not quite the same; they were taking US citizens money, which makes it fall under international trade and thus subject to some of the laws here.
I think the presumption of guilt is a societal issue, not one of news coverage. People seem to think that you must be guilty, why would you be charged otherwise?
I read your analogy as restricting entry to those that met cretain criteria (which is what the article is about).
I already gave a very valid reason for the NYT to block OSes which they don't make. See why your analogy sucks? Finally, since when would theaters have to sell a competing product? If they don't want to let you in unless you bought Pepsi, that's there prerogative as well.
If you are so upset about the NYT blocking Linux based browsers, don't go there. Plenty of other news sites don't do this.
Our police have fairly respectable guidelines about what to put in their reports, at least most of the time. It's the fools who classify everything they can think of (including things like "Other") as speed-related who screw up the speed safety issue and warp the statistics.
I'm sure the guidelines are respectable; whether they are followed or not is another matter. Most states here say its illegal for police departments to set quotes for traffic violations issued. And officially this is the case. Unofficially, quotes still exist.
As for the motorways, the argument usually seems to be that at 70mph, most cars don't have good enough headlights to see far enough ahead to stop comfortably in the event of something being in the road, someone who shouldn't be there, etc. At the kind of speeds some drivers do on our motorways, it's near impossible to judge distances safely based only on a pair of tail lights from a car in front that you're fast approaching. And of course, there's always the idiot coming the other way with main beam on, dazzling you to the point where you can't really see anything at all. Obviously this all goes even more for major non-motorway routes that don't have the same prohibitions on pedestrians, cyclists, lack of wildlife access and so on, and which can have much more "interesting" road layout. If I can find the original paper later on, I'll post a link, though unfortunately Googling for obvious things seems to turn up dozens of speed/anti-speed rants and not much else these days.
So the limit should be set according to poor conditions? That's just silly. Especially when technology can easily compesate for that condition. As far as being blinded goes, does it really matter much if you're blinded at 50 instead of 70? Not likely.. the problem isn't your speed, its that you can't see, and lighting the highway won't do anything for that anyway.
How about remote desktop? It deliberately disables the ability to have multiple users connect to anything lower than Windows Server 2K3 (that's right, even with XPPro, you don't get useful things like that).
How useful that is for anything except a terminal server is debatable. Most business / home users don't need more than one person on a workstation at a time.
Oh please. You've got no clue, you've obviously never worked in web development. To do PROPER testing, you need to identify which version of the OS (In this case, its not even just Linux 2.2.6, its RH 9, Mandriva 2007, Ubantutu (whatever), Debian, Slack, and a host of others). Then you have to try various browser combinations on each; Konq, Mozilla, Netscape, FF. Then you have to try various versions, FF 1.0, FF 1.5.0, FF 1.5.1.
It takes time to test, which isn't free, and if issues are found you have to report back to some manager that must decide if its severe enough to warrant fixing, and if it is, take the time to not only fix it in a specific browser but make sure that fix doesn't break all the other browsers.
And before you respond with "they don't need to test all those" then how can you say for certain that the browser is supported? The answer is you can't.
They don't have to include Linux in their list of supported systems (requirements) if they don't want to "support" it. But what NYT has done here is to make sure that you are having trouble if you use Linux.
Because they don't want to even deal with feedback from Linux people saying that portions of their site doesn't work. They block it because they don't want to have to test it. There's nothing wrong with that.
It's hard to come up with an analogy here, but what the hell I'll try: A movie theater exhibits 3-D films, and there's a station outside to buy the "approved" 3-D glasses. Now a penguin walks up with some DIY glasses he's been experimenting with. He buys a ticket and goes through the line to the theater door.
And they won't let him in
"Sorry, sir, we don't support those glasses."
"I don't want you to support my glasses; just let me in."
"Sorry, you'll have to go buy glasses from the station outside"
Would you get a little suspicious? Would you wonder how the guy running that station got such a gig?
Ugh.. most analogies stink, and this isn't one of them. Lets change from 3D glasses to food and drink. Guess what? Movie theaters already DON'T have to let you carry your own food or drink in! I wouldn't wonder anything; they are trying to get you to remove their food, just like they want you to buy their 3D glasses.
Here, the NYT doesn't want to even bother with people using Linux past their front page. Nothing wrong with that, its their choice. They can attempt to block you if they want (because they are reserving the right to break those pages on Linux browsers in the future) just like the movie theater can.
Existing analog channels are NOT encrypted, so my statement that local filters would be required is true.
But I already told you this isn't true (that filters would be required); they could go back to the scrambling system, which didn't require 'hundreds of combinations of filters at each house.' Why on earth would they go the filter route when there already exists a way to block analog channels. Requiring a settop box doesn't make TVs useless; it makes the cable ready portion useless, but not the entire set.
There are at least 33.6 million analog TV's in the US that will not understand either an encrypted analog or digital signal (there are many not reported also). You don't see an issue with bricking millions of TV's to support a la carte when the cable companies are saying it isn't going to save consumers money anyway?
How on earth does requiring a settop box make the TV useless suddenly? It doesn't, its still prefectly usable.
Many of these people might not be interested in renting set top boxes for some of the infrequently used TV's that are on cable as well
How is that ANY different from digital cable now? Those analog TVs still need a box to decode the digital signal. A la carte cable doesn't change this at all. I don't know if you realize this but there was a time when TVs had two knobs; UHF and VHF. Guess what? You were REQUIRED to have a box to get cable AT ALL on these TVs. If you don't want the box, you don't get the cable.
As people begin upgrading these legacy TV's to digital/CableCard ready TV's or DVR's the legacy support problem will go away, but currently it is too early to force this change on people.
You've got to be only 17 or something; its only been in the last 10 or 15 years that you DIDN'T need a box to get cable at all! Most people are far more used to having a box for TV than are not. Just as we were getting used to Cable Ready TVs, digital came about, which required us to use boxes once again if we wanted that service. You act as if TVs never required a box before, and its some huge change for people that want cable tv to need a box. Hell, I remember at my grandmothers house 20 or so years ago, the cable box itself had a dial for all the channels!
However, I stated that it is illogical to state that something can not exist, simply because you have no evidence.
I understand that point. However my problem with the notion of a god is that for anything unexplained, we can always devise a simpler, non-supernatural explaination. If that is the case, then its not so illogical to think that god cannot exist.
I agree with you on aliens; its far more logical that some random 'accident' caused life in some kind of form on another planet. There is simply so much matter and energy in the universe to think otherwise.
The process used to create the computers might be clean, but what about their efficiency out in the world? The process used to create an SUV might be ecologically friendly, but if the beast still guzzles petrol, where's the benefit?
The benefit is that only 20 tons of CO2 are released, instead 20+ tons of CO2 plus other gases and chemicals dumped in a river or lake or what have you.
I think greenpeace is taken by some wacko organization that unlawfully attempts to board other vessels in the ocean, then complains when occupants of said vessel forcefully prevent them from boarding, saying that they could have been hurt by the occupants tactics...
The goal was to offer a la carte channels over analog, not to have them broadcast unencrypted (actually analog channels were scrambled, not encrypted). You claimed you needed many different combination of filters, which wasn't true; each channel can be scrabled independantly without the need for filters.
Not that you can do this with digital either; the only way to offer a la carte channels is via some settop box or built in device because analog or digital all the signal reaches your home.
I'm not sure what you think the purpose of analog is supposed to be except to transmit image and sound...
TVs that 'understood' cable are fairly recent thing; I don't see what the big deal of requiring a settop box is.
Well if you're talking about that backwater of Canada... ;-)
In the US this isn't true.
I'm not convinced that's the case. If I own a carpark, should I be allowed to turn away people based on what car they drive? If I own a hotel, should I be allowed to turn away people based on their religion? I don't think so.
Why not?
The NYT website is a website being made available to the general public. Is there a reason why they should be allowed to discriminate against certain people based on something irrelevant?
Its not available to the general public; the features they offer are available only to those that meet the requirements they set forth. Its not irrelevent; if they want to list that Linux based browsers will work with their site, they actually have to test to make sure it does, which costs money.
The only real question is if this was purposely done or not. I myself have seen my fair share of website that simply do not combinations of Linux and non-IE browsers for no obvious technical reason.
Here's the obvious technial reason: They don't think its worth the investment to have the site support Linux. You can't just assume it will work in Linux, you actually have to QA it. Increasing the number of platforms on which you have to QA increases your cost. They don't think the cost will be less than the benefit. Its probably on purpose, and its for good reason... cost of testing.
Free tinfoil: the OS check is so bizarre and unnecessary that I think it should be looked into. Did any money change hands to make this happen?
They want to prevent money from changing hands; their hands to the hands of their web designes / programmers. Seriously, supporting other OSes costs money. To properly support Linux, they'd have to setup various linux workstations, with various versions of the browser and flash player and test them all. To do that costs quite a bit of money they'd rather not spend.
I'm sick of these 'website dosen't support linux?!!13' stories. The answer is simple; to PROPERLY support said OS / Browser, you actually have to test your site with that OS / Browser, you don't just assume it works. Geez people, get over it. There isn't enough users on Linux for them to support anything but the main pages. Be happy they are doing that at least.
Just to sum up the thread as I was reading it...
The argument was that you couldn't offer analog cable channels a la carte because it would be too expensive. My response was that cable providers have been able to scramble channels for years without needing hunderds and hundreds of filters for everyone.
Never was I saying that this is what should happen, I just was trying to point out that analog channels can be offered a la carte just as easy (and inexpensively) as digital.
FWIW, I'm not THAT old, but when I was a teen (early 1990s) HBO wasn't digital and was still blocked from non-paying customers. I think you missed my point...
However, if you line is configured to only work with pulse, you not only need a touch tone phone, but a phone which supports both touch-tone and pulse, with the little switch to go from one to the other.
There is no such line anymore.
Now, why would one keep the pulse lines in the house? It's quite simple actually... my mom still has pulse (with touch tone phones that have a switch actually), but refuses to "upgrade" her line to touch tone despite every attempt of the phone company to convince her. The reason is simple, the phone company charges a monthly fee for using touch tone over pulse.
Buy her a touch tone phone, and use it anyway. Phone companies long ago left pulse behind, touch tone works on every line even if you haven't paid the fee. Do you really think there's not a computer at the other end of the line to support these 'pulse' people?
How about you let go of that phone from the 1970s and spend $5 on a basic touch tone phone?
I've had pretty good expeirence with voice systems too, I used TigerDirect's once and it worked ok, and they're faster than doing a menu system, you no longer have to listen to everyone else's options before yours comes up.
I have to admin I've never used TD's system, but I've used quite a bit other ones. I still have to listen to what the options are so that I know the 'magic words' to get me where I need to be. I don't know about you, but personally pushing buttons to enter a serial number is much faster for me than actually speaking the words. That's espcially true when the system doesn't understand you and gets it wrong, forcing you to start over.
I'd rather punch the numbers; at least I can memorize the correct sequence and get through quicker.