...Consider V.92, the new-ish 56Kbps modem standard that introduces internet call waiting in hardware, quicker dials, and faster upstream. Next time I switch ISPs (and there's always a next time...), I'm going for one that supports V.92.
Kind of changes the economics if you assume you MUST have a second line for dialup...
And the value in 'broadband' is not the speed really. We've heard many times now, it's the instant availability stupid. People hate to have to wait (through busy signals potentially) to get online witha modem to check their mail. They like to have ICQ/AIM running all the time to see when their friends are online and to chat. It's all about convinience.
Disclaimer: I can only offer anecdotal evidence and my own opinions, I don't have statistics on this phenomenon.
I've personally never had broadband installed in my home after I left the dorms. And that WAS nice; I ran a linux server in my room, the IT guys let me have a fixed IP and server name, and I learned a lot about apache.
After that, I WAS on quite a budget for a while. But by the time I got a full-time job, I'd heard too many horror stories from my friends about reliability. And here's the thing about anecdotal evidence: sometimes it's what's most important! Particularly when your "anecdotes" are people in your neighborhood. Neighbor's DSL out all the time? Yours probably will be, too. Guy across town says Sprint Broadband is too slow? You're going through the same node.
For all of the "convenience" that you get when your service is actually on, I've found that good old dialup is the most dependable and consistent. While my brother has always had problems with AOL, I've always used a mom and pop that let me through on the first call about 95% of the time.
Up until now, the major sticking point about dialup is that it clogs your phone. But, with V.92 finally being implemented, that concern is addressed, as well as some of yours: I can get reliable "internet call waiting," AND the connect handshake is much faster, reducing those pesky waits, and preventing you from missing phone calls while you're online.
So, let's do the economic math again: the going rate for dialup is about $22 a month. Modems are cheap. And there's no install charge.
Cable modems and DSL modems are both more expensive, and generally have an installation charge. That's being waived sometimes now, so maybe not an issue. Then the monthly is at LEAST $30, generally more like 40. So we're talking a 45%-90% increase in price for a bunch more speed, and always on. Whereas I can ALWAYS dial up, and furthermore the connection comes with me when I travel.
So, I don't know. It IS kind of a toss up, I won't pretend I don't LIKE ethernet-like service at home. But when I sign up for one, they'd better give me a dialup for rainy days, and I'm not putting the modem in the closet:)
Ahh! No! Don't make them get rid of X-Box! It sucks so bad, it's sure to lead to their eventual downfall if you let 'em keep it!
Re:Actually...
on
Globalization
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
[ warning: this posts actually attempts to reason about the conflict between Israel and Palestine - it could get long! ]
But to the peaceniks who really do think that dropping support for Israel will end the violence in the Middle East,
I'm not a "peacenik," and I don't think that leaving Israel high and dry would solve everything, but I do think that America should use its sway to seriously pressure Sharon to change some Israeli policies. Having only been alive since 1978, I won't pretend to know everything about the Israel/Palestine conflict, but it seems like one reasonable demand on Israel is that they withdraw from the occupied territories in Palestine, immediately and completely.
I don't say this because I think it'll get Osama Bin Laden out of his cave proclaiming a deep and abiding love for America, but rather because it's just The Right Thing To Do. The lands are internationally recognized as belonging to Palestine, and the preponderance of the world urges this withdrawal every single year, but America and Israel basically give them the finger in the name of "maintaining security for the Israeli state." Well, that's about as acceptable as it would be for the US to go occupy BC, Sonora, and Chihuahua because we didn't like Mexican immigration policy or something. It's just not the way you deal with issues.
That said, if we insisted on the withdrawal from gaza and the west bank, it would obviously have to be accompanied by a strong security force to defend Israel proper to avoid genuinely giving in to Islamic extremists. Israeli security MUST be maintained, that is true. But not by occupying parts of Palestine in a campaign of attrition.
I don't think this argument is ignorant or antisemitic, but some people attribute both of those modifiers to any argument except total, unwavering support for every action by the Israeli government. But this is a state that occupies other nations' internationally recognized territories, and is willing to summarily execute foreign nationals without providing evidence of guilt of any crime, let alone a trial. If we are going to use US resources to defend a country, it should be one which adheres to values that we as Americans ostensibly hold.
Did we ask why Hitler hated Jews? No. Would it have helped? No.
Hello, of course we take it as read that Hitler was a nut, the real question is, "why was Germany in a position that an extremist Nut could come to power?" And the answer is, "the absurd treaty they were forced to sign at Versailles."
Hate to break it to ya, Mr. Patriot Man, but events do have causes, and even if we destroy all the terrorists now, if our policies (and even that very act of destruction, hm) create MORE terrorists every day, then we're still fighting a losing battle.
yes, but at least this works around the worst part of LILO on the MBR: the stupid cylinder limit. At least that's my biggest complaint. Of course, since I dual-boot NT, I can use the NT loader with no problems. But this MIGHT be a nice way to avoid the need to reboot into NT to properly place the bootsect.lnx, at least...
... a "Non-opoly." Because it doesn't have any of the same effects.
The problem with a corporation having a monopoly over a physical product, like the Standard Oil monopoly early in this century, is that they literally controlled all the oil, and could fix prices. With an IP monopoly like microsoft's, it's not quite like that. It's more that everyone is so deeply in the habit of using their stuff, that changing would cost too much, thus enabling microsoft to set prices.
The so-called "Open monopoly" would have neither of those problems because... it's not run by a corporation! Basically all it would amount to if, say, Apache took over the webserver market, is a lot of people getting an inexpensive webserver. If someone tried to raise their IT consulting rates because "Apache is the only game out there," someone else would jump in with all the knowledge for half the price, and the problem would be solved.
Basically, it's impossible for open systems to cause the bad effects of a corporate monopoly, since no single entity can strangle any particular market in the same way. Personally, I'm looking forward to the ubiquity of open source software, and I don't fear that I will be unable to use an alternative should Linux run 85% of the servers.
Hmm... but if you're running X on localhost:0, it's basically the same difference. The "dumb terminal" is on the same machine as the "powerful server," so it's a wash. Doesn't seem a whole lot worse than a packaged graphical solution designed to only run on the local machine.
Then, you still get the benefit of being ABLE to run an X server on a remote machine, and not being bound by its processor (whatever that may be). My personal gripe is the network bandwidth it requires for a good connection; I've never really been able to run an X session over the modem to my university account, which at times would be the whole point.
Um... not sure exactly what your point is, but I wasn't arguing that expert programmers should use anything BUT their favorite tools. What I'm saying is, the failure of Kdevelop (or other similar ides) is maybe due to the fact that the l33t hax0rs who write linux don't like those environments, and so don't bother to spend time producing them.
I wasn't really arguing "gui tools will enable linux to reach Nirvana," but rather that casual users approaching linux are a bit like vegetarians at a steakhouse: there's not a whole lot for them, and the proprietors couldn't care less.
[Agonized moan]... I knew someone would call it "FUD" if I put forth any arguments against open source, even if that's what the article was trolling-I-mean-asking for. I am not trying to spread fear, uncertainty, or doubt. I guess I should've said right out front that I've dumped MS (and most other proprietary software) in favor of Linux and would've go back.
But anyway, on to your points:
Regarding the warrantee issue. You and many other respondants are correct that proprietary software often has as little warrantee as legally possible. I regard this as a huge failure of our judicial system. Such "no liability" warrantees are disgusting and should not be allowed to stand. BUT, I thought there was an "implied warrantee of merchantability" on all things sold in the US, which might have a dim hope of ever being applied to software. Whereas, with Open Source, it's not a product, it's like "here's some code I wrote that I'll share with you," so there's not even room for that conceptually. I guess it is of little practical consequence. Like I said, I use linux, and don't lose sleep over the warrantee.
The discontinuance issue: you can bet that if a proprietary product is profitable, SOMEONE will maintain it and keep making it available. Of course, if you're one of the few stuck using an unprofitable product, and it's discontinued, you are indeed royally screwed. But my point was, it's not much better if you're using an open source solution that goes out of vogue: yes, you can hire a bunch of developers to continue it for you, but the cost of that, both financially and in terms of time and energy, can be way WAY prohibitive.
That would be my central argument against using open source in a business context, were I a businessman persuaded to argue that way: yes, you CAN continue a discontinued product for yourself, but do you really WANT to? Use open source, and it's a very real possibility.
Well, one big problem with open source that I've encountered is that almost everyone working on open source software is a programmer.
Argh! You are SO exactly right. I was going to write an essay about this once. Still might. Basically, the problem boils down to the fact that the supposition, "open source projects are built to scratch an itch," is precisely correct. And, the only people scratching are old, wizened programmers (and those who aspire to be like them).
The thing is, old wizened programmers are satisfied editing in emacs, compiling on the command line, and doing a pure text debug. In fact, they're downright happy with it. Not that there's anything WRONG with this; it's valid to argue that emacs is actually one of the most powerful editors out there, once you get to know it.
But computer USERS by and large don't want to reach that point of expertise. Nor should they be forced to, to use their computers for other ends. But they're not the ones contributing to the OS movement. Partly because they can't write the code, but PARTLY at least because those who can, just won't listen! And that might be the strongest argument of all against use of open source by business and casual users: the software just wasn't designed for them, and so it probably won't meet their needs (or perceived needs) as well as a more rounded product.
... which even a lot of OS-advocates don't contradict, but rather step around:
There's no support built into the product. Yes, you can hire people to support it for you, but it's a seperate cost.
Similarly, There is no warrantee of any kind. If it breaks, you have no one to complain to: "you get what you pay for."
The programmers may suddenly decide they have no vested interest in continuing the project, or development may slow to a crawl (eg, mozilla), and there's nothing you can do about it.
Now, the ADVANTAGE to having the source is that you can technically work around any of these issues, but generally only by hiring specialists, at a great expense to your company. It's the big white elephant that no one's talking about in the middle of the open source bazarre: "Software freedom! You have the source! You are empowered!" Yes, but at what COST? For most companies, fixing an open source program to make it do what they want, just isn't a viable option. Plus, many in the community would view it as a "corporate co-opting of volunteer work," and the company could be flamed out of contention before they even decide on a policy regarding releasing improvements to the community.
Open Source does seriously empower expert individuals who wish to customize and improve software for their own use, and the community with which those individuals share the improvements. But that's not really a business situation.
I hate this interpretation of Cox's action (and similar actions).
"Hey, by obeying the spirit of the law to an irrational degree, he's pointing out how STUPID it is and making us get our heads out of our asses and CHANGE it!!!!!1"
No, by doing this, he's letting the law win. And so are other people (including corporations) who restrain/censor themselves "in case" something might violate the DMCA. The way to protest is "damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead," and hope to eventually challenge the law on a constitutional basis. The argument that most people "can't afford" to pursue the case to that extent, is simply a sad commentary on what makes the US justice system go 'round. Let's rally and HELP them afford the challenge, eh?
Imagine if the American colonies had protested the Stamp Act by paying as much stamp duty as possible, and buying as much taxed tea as they could drink? We'd probably still be singing "God save the Queen" before sporting events.
[Whether a use qualifies as fair use depends on] the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes
Which means that it most certainly is legal to copy selections of a textbook that you, a teacher, own, and give them to your students. In fact this is precisely the original intent of the fair use clause. If you refer to that section of the USC, you will see that there are also limitations on quantity.
Secondly, your argument fails on logical grounds. If "anyone could say they're a teacher," couldn't anyone also say, "this use is my personal use" for any conceivable use of a copyrighted work? You're citing law the way Napster (and its users) wishes it was. Please refer to pertinent legislation before dictating the law to others.
You can _always_ get a free copy of your credit report, at least here in Canada.
Would that it were true in the US... you only get a free one if you've been defrauded OR denied credit. There are also a couple of states that entitle you to one free copy per year.
If you think you've been defrauded by someone using your credit card, you'd have to be cracked to use it again yourself.
This happened to me recently. Someone used not only my citibank card number, but also figured out my address and phone number (creepy...) and ordered some "virtual phone cards." I immediately notified citibank, who terminated that account, and rolled my balance over into a new one. I had new cards within days.
Furthermore, if you take advantage of it, being defrauded can make it that much more difficult for someone to steal your financial/personal information again. If you put a fraud watch on your SSN with the three major credit agencies (Equifax, Experian, and Trans Union), you will stop receiving pre-approved credit offers, and all institutions requesting to extend credit in your name must speak to you personally to confirm first.
Furthermore, if you've been defrauded, you can probably get a free copy of your credit report, and that can potentially help you clean up a whole other category of problem: inaccurate (but not fraudulent) credit information.
In short, disputing charges only puts you out for a few days, and is totally worth the hassle if you've genuinely been swindled. If you do it repeatedly, you might run into trouble, but that's because you become rightfully suspected of either taking advantage of the system, or handling your cards insecurely.
Already a potentially contentious plan, the recording industry inadvertently sparked a further wave of criticism last week with plans to protect its strategy from being undermined by a pending antiterrorism bill.
Ha! Gee, looks like someone clued up and realized this DoS-type of technique would count as "hacking" and leave them open to prosecution under the Anti-terrorism bill. Ah... that's just too classic!
Other companies, such as Ameritrade Holding, are opting for open-source technologies such as the GNU and Linux operating systems...
Um... which operating systems? How much you wanna bet they just use Linux, and some poor reporter was mislead by the GNU/Linux nomenclature? "Among other OSs, we use GNU/Linux..." "What's that? GNU and Linux? Got it!"
Someone pointed out the last time this IBM Deathstar issue came up that a lot of the people affected have VIA boards.
Argh... my problem is that it's so damn hard to find an athlon board WITHOUT a via southbridge. I have one right now with via north and south, and it flips out in 133 MHz mode, so I have to run my GHz athlon at 750. In looking for a replacement, I swore off via entirely, only to discover that most AMD 760/761 (north) boards also have a via southbridge!
So, does anyone want to suggest a Via-free motherboard for my GHz athlon??
I'm curious about what information AMD and Intel have to back up their claims that they're catching up to Transmeta in power requirements.
The only thing I've heard about is the revolutionary new Intel Pentium(R) processor, described by a company spokesman as "Like the pentium III, but consumes much less power." Operating with an order of magnitude fewer transistors, and clock speeds of up to 200MHz, the performance is almost as good as the Crusoe.
The best news is they're already released and available from reputable dealers everywhere!
One of the sections of the bill is (logically) aimed at cutting off terrorist funding, too. To whit:
In addition, the Senate bill incorporates money-laundering measures aimed at breaking up terrorist financial networks. For example, the bill would bar U.S. banks from doing business with offshore "shell banks" that have no physical office or affiliation with a legitimate bank.
Now, that's all well and good, but understand that these shell banks (often located in the carribean, when they're located anywhere) are also used by unscrupulous tax dodgers to make large portions of their income invisible to the IRS. So, this measure could also increase tax revenues substantially, since... well... it's not exactly the poorest of the poor who use these tax dodges:)
Not that it really justifies the bill as a whole. This just might be another interesting (and good!) side effect of it.
I can only assume the current high (only) bid is a joke. It's made by a guy named djblue42 ( feedback profile ) who, true to his handle, has purchased mostly musical equipment in the past. nothing more than a few hundred bucks.
Damn! Can they leave him a zillion negative feedbacks at once for backing out of such an expensive auction?!
... to get my laptop serviced, I guess. What's scary is that I have, on many occasions, left my laptop plugged in and in "Standby" mode while I was away. I noticed the thing getting hot, but not THAT hot. I thought.
Anyway, now I can get that pesky external floppy fixed... it never did work quite right...
Slashdot Mirror
...Consider V.92, the new-ish 56Kbps modem standard that introduces internet call waiting in hardware, quicker dials, and faster upstream. Next time I switch ISPs (and there's always a next time...), I'm going for one that supports V.92.
Kind of changes the economics if you assume you MUST have a second line for dialup...
And the value in 'broadband' is not the speed really. We've heard many times now, it's the instant availability stupid. People hate to have to wait (through busy signals potentially) to get online witha modem to check their mail. They like to have ICQ/AIM running all the time to see when their friends are online and to chat. It's all about convinience.
:)
Disclaimer: I can only offer anecdotal evidence and my own opinions, I don't have statistics on this phenomenon.
I've personally never had broadband installed in my home after I left the dorms. And that WAS nice; I ran a linux server in my room, the IT guys let me have a fixed IP and server name, and I learned a lot about apache.
After that, I WAS on quite a budget for a while. But by the time I got a full-time job, I'd heard too many horror stories from my friends about reliability. And here's the thing about anecdotal evidence: sometimes it's what's most important! Particularly when your "anecdotes" are people in your neighborhood. Neighbor's DSL out all the time? Yours probably will be, too. Guy across town says Sprint Broadband is too slow? You're going through the same node.
For all of the "convenience" that you get when your service is actually on, I've found that good old dialup is the most dependable and consistent. While my brother has always had problems with AOL, I've always used a mom and pop that let me through on the first call about 95% of the time.
Up until now, the major sticking point about dialup is that it clogs your phone. But, with V.92 finally being implemented, that concern is addressed, as well as some of yours: I can get reliable "internet call waiting," AND the connect handshake is much faster, reducing those pesky waits, and preventing you from missing phone calls while you're online.
So, let's do the economic math again: the going rate for dialup is about $22 a month. Modems are cheap. And there's no install charge.
Cable modems and DSL modems are both more expensive, and generally have an installation charge. That's being waived sometimes now, so maybe not an issue. Then the monthly is at LEAST $30, generally more like 40. So we're talking a 45%-90% increase in price for a bunch more speed, and always on. Whereas I can ALWAYS dial up, and furthermore the connection comes with me when I travel.
So, I don't know. It IS kind of a toss up, I won't pretend I don't LIKE ethernet-like service at home. But when I sign up for one, they'd better give me a dialup for rainy days, and I'm not putting the modem in the closet
2. Divest MSN, and X-Box divisions.
Ahh! No! Don't make them get rid of X-Box! It sucks so bad, it's sure to lead to their eventual downfall if you let 'em keep it!
[ warning: this posts actually attempts to reason about the conflict between Israel and Palestine - it could get long! ]
But to the peaceniks who really do think that dropping support for Israel will end the violence in the Middle East,
I'm not a "peacenik," and I don't think that leaving Israel high and dry would solve everything, but I do think that America should use its sway to seriously pressure Sharon to change some Israeli policies. Having only been alive since 1978, I won't pretend to know everything about the Israel/Palestine conflict, but it seems like one reasonable demand on Israel is that they withdraw from the occupied territories in Palestine, immediately and completely.
I don't say this because I think it'll get Osama Bin Laden out of his cave proclaiming a deep and abiding love for America, but rather because it's just The Right Thing To Do. The lands are internationally recognized as belonging to Palestine, and the preponderance of the world urges this withdrawal every single year, but America and Israel basically give them the finger in the name of "maintaining security for the Israeli state." Well, that's about as acceptable as it would be for the US to go occupy BC, Sonora, and Chihuahua because we didn't like Mexican immigration policy or something. It's just not the way you deal with issues.
That said, if we insisted on the withdrawal from gaza and the west bank, it would obviously have to be accompanied by a strong security force to defend Israel proper to avoid genuinely giving in to Islamic extremists. Israeli security MUST be maintained, that is true. But not by occupying parts of Palestine in a campaign of attrition.
I don't think this argument is ignorant or antisemitic, but some people attribute both of those modifiers to any argument except total, unwavering support for every action by the Israeli government. But this is a state that occupies other nations' internationally recognized territories, and is willing to summarily execute foreign nationals without providing evidence of guilt of any crime, let alone a trial. If we are going to use US resources to defend a country, it should be one which adheres to values that we as Americans ostensibly hold.
Did we ask why Hitler hated Jews? No. Would it have helped? No.
Hello, of course we take it as read that Hitler was a nut, the real question is, "why was Germany in a position that an extremist Nut could come to power?" And the answer is, "the absurd treaty they were forced to sign at Versailles."
Hate to break it to ya, Mr. Patriot Man, but events do have causes, and even if we destroy all the terrorists now, if our policies (and even that very act of destruction, hm) create MORE terrorists every day, then we're still fighting a losing battle.
yes, but at least this works around the worst part of LILO on the MBR: the stupid cylinder limit. At least that's my biggest complaint. Of course, since I dual-boot NT, I can use the NT loader with no problems. But this MIGHT be a nice way to avoid the need to reboot into NT to properly place the bootsect.lnx, at least...
... a "Non-opoly." Because it doesn't have any of the same effects.
The problem with a corporation having a monopoly over a physical product, like the Standard Oil monopoly early in this century, is that they literally controlled all the oil, and could fix prices. With an IP monopoly like microsoft's, it's not quite like that. It's more that everyone is so deeply in the habit of using their stuff, that changing would cost too much, thus enabling microsoft to set prices.
The so-called "Open monopoly" would have neither of those problems because... it's not run by a corporation! Basically all it would amount to if, say, Apache took over the webserver market, is a lot of people getting an inexpensive webserver. If someone tried to raise their IT consulting rates because "Apache is the only game out there," someone else would jump in with all the knowledge for half the price, and the problem would be solved.
Basically, it's impossible for open systems to cause the bad effects of a corporate monopoly, since no single entity can strangle any particular market in the same way. Personally, I'm looking forward to the ubiquity of open source software, and I don't fear that I will be unable to use an alternative should Linux run 85% of the servers.
Hmm... but if you're running X on localhost:0, it's basically the same difference. The "dumb terminal" is on the same machine as the "powerful server," so it's a wash. Doesn't seem a whole lot worse than a packaged graphical solution designed to only run on the local machine.
Then, you still get the benefit of being ABLE to run an X server on a remote machine, and not being bound by its processor (whatever that may be). My personal gripe is the network bandwidth it requires for a good connection; I've never really been able to run an X session over the modem to my university account, which at times would be the whole point.
Um... not sure exactly what your point is, but I wasn't arguing that expert programmers should use anything BUT their favorite tools. What I'm saying is, the failure of Kdevelop (or other similar ides) is maybe due to the fact that the l33t hax0rs who write linux don't like those environments, and so don't bother to spend time producing them.
I wasn't really arguing "gui tools will enable linux to reach Nirvana," but rather that casual users approaching linux are a bit like vegetarians at a steakhouse: there's not a whole lot for them, and the proprietors couldn't care less.
[Agonized moan]... I knew someone would call it "FUD" if I put forth any arguments against open source, even if that's what the article was trolling-I-mean-asking for. I am not trying to spread fear, uncertainty, or doubt. I guess I should've said right out front that I've dumped MS (and most other proprietary software) in favor of Linux and would've go back.
But anyway, on to your points:
Regarding the warrantee issue. You and many other respondants are correct that proprietary software often has as little warrantee as legally possible. I regard this as a huge failure of our judicial system. Such "no liability" warrantees are disgusting and should not be allowed to stand. BUT, I thought there was an "implied warrantee of merchantability" on all things sold in the US, which might have a dim hope of ever being applied to software. Whereas, with Open Source, it's not a product, it's like "here's some code I wrote that I'll share with you," so there's not even room for that conceptually. I guess it is of little practical consequence. Like I said, I use linux, and don't lose sleep over the warrantee.
The discontinuance issue: you can bet that if a proprietary product is profitable, SOMEONE will maintain it and keep making it available. Of course, if you're one of the few stuck using an unprofitable product, and it's discontinued, you are indeed royally screwed. But my point was, it's not much better if you're using an open source solution that goes out of vogue: yes, you can hire a bunch of developers to continue it for you, but the cost of that, both financially and in terms of time and energy, can be way WAY prohibitive.
That would be my central argument against using open source in a business context, were I a businessman persuaded to argue that way: yes, you CAN continue a discontinued product for yourself, but do you really WANT to? Use open source, and it's a very real possibility.
Well, one big problem with open source that I've encountered is that almost everyone working on open source software is a programmer.
Argh! You are SO exactly right. I was going to write an essay about this once. Still might. Basically, the problem boils down to the fact that the supposition, "open source projects are built to scratch an itch," is precisely correct. And, the only people scratching are old, wizened programmers (and those who aspire to be like them).
The thing is, old wizened programmers are satisfied editing in emacs, compiling on the command line, and doing a pure text debug. In fact, they're downright happy with it. Not that there's anything WRONG with this; it's valid to argue that emacs is actually one of the most powerful editors out there, once you get to know it.
But computer USERS by and large don't want to reach that point of expertise. Nor should they be forced to, to use their computers for other ends. But they're not the ones contributing to the OS movement. Partly because they can't write the code, but PARTLY at least because those who can, just won't listen! And that might be the strongest argument of all against use of open source by business and casual users: the software just wasn't designed for them, and so it probably won't meet their needs (or perceived needs) as well as a more rounded product.
Now, the ADVANTAGE to having the source is that you can technically work around any of these issues, but generally only by hiring specialists, at a great expense to your company. It's the big white elephant that no one's talking about in the middle of the open source bazarre: "Software freedom! You have the source! You are empowered!" Yes, but at what COST? For most companies, fixing an open source program to make it do what they want, just isn't a viable option. Plus, many in the community would view it as a "corporate co-opting of volunteer work," and the company could be flamed out of contention before they even decide on a policy regarding releasing improvements to the community.
Open Source does seriously empower expert individuals who wish to customize and improve software for their own use, and the community with which those individuals share the improvements. But that's not really a business situation.
I hate this interpretation of Cox's action (and similar actions).
"Hey, by obeying the spirit of the law to an irrational degree, he's pointing out how STUPID it is and making us get our heads out of our asses and CHANGE it!!!!!1"
No, by doing this, he's letting the law win. And so are other people (including corporations) who restrain/censor themselves "in case" something might violate the DMCA. The way to protest is "damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead," and hope to eventually challenge the law on a constitutional basis. The argument that most people "can't afford" to pursue the case to that extent, is simply a sad commentary on what makes the US justice system go 'round. Let's rally and HELP them afford the challenge, eh?
Imagine if the American colonies had protested the Stamp Act by paying as much stamp duty as possible, and buying as much taxed tea as they could drink? We'd probably still be singing "God save the Queen" before sporting events.
Please, Senators, don't pass this legislation!
Ha! Oh man. Making an appeal to senators in a slashdot posting is like posting an IT job in Sports Illustrated. No, wait, worse.
Which means that it most certainly is legal to copy selections of a textbook that you, a teacher, own, and give them to your students. In fact this is precisely the original intent of the fair use clause. If you refer to that section of the USC, you will see that there are also limitations on quantity.
Secondly, your argument fails on logical grounds. If "anyone could say they're a teacher," couldn't anyone also say, "this use is my personal use" for any conceivable use of a copyrighted work? You're citing law the way Napster (and its users) wishes it was. Please refer to pertinent legislation before dictating the law to others.
You can _always_ get a free copy of your credit report, at least here in Canada.
Would that it were true in the US... you only get a free one if you've been defrauded OR denied credit. There are also a couple of states that entitle you to one free copy per year.
If you think you've been defrauded by someone using your credit card, you'd have to be cracked to use it again yourself.
This happened to me recently. Someone used not only my citibank card number, but also figured out my address and phone number (creepy...) and ordered some "virtual phone cards." I immediately notified citibank, who terminated that account, and rolled my balance over into a new one. I had new cards within days.
Furthermore, if you take advantage of it, being defrauded can make it that much more difficult for someone to steal your financial/personal information again. If you put a fraud watch on your SSN with the three major credit agencies (Equifax, Experian, and Trans Union), you will stop receiving pre-approved credit offers, and all institutions requesting to extend credit in your name must speak to you personally to confirm first.
Furthermore, if you've been defrauded, you can probably get a free copy of your credit report, and that can potentially help you clean up a whole other category of problem: inaccurate (but not fraudulent) credit information.
In short, disputing charges only puts you out for a few days, and is totally worth the hassle if you've genuinely been swindled. If you do it repeatedly, you might run into trouble, but that's because you become rightfully suspected of either taking advantage of the system, or handling your cards insecurely.
Oh man!
Already a potentially contentious plan, the recording industry inadvertently sparked a further wave of criticism last week with plans to protect its strategy from being undermined by a pending antiterrorism bill.
Ha! Gee, looks like someone clued up and realized this DoS-type of technique would count as "hacking" and leave them open to prosecution under the Anti-terrorism bill. Ah... that's just too classic!
Other companies, such as Ameritrade Holding, are opting for open-source technologies such as the GNU and Linux operating systems...
Um... which operating systems? How much you wanna bet they just use Linux, and some poor reporter was mislead by the GNU/Linux nomenclature? "Among other OSs, we use GNU/Linux..." "What's that? GNU and Linux? Got it!"
Hehehehe.
Someone pointed out the last time this IBM Deathstar issue came up that a lot of the people affected have VIA boards.
Argh... my problem is that it's so damn hard to find an athlon board WITHOUT a via southbridge. I have one right now with via north and south, and it flips out in 133 MHz mode, so I have to run my GHz athlon at 750. In looking for a replacement, I swore off via entirely, only to discover that most AMD 760/761 (north) boards also have a via southbridge!
So, does anyone want to suggest a Via-free motherboard for my GHz athlon??
I'm curious about what information AMD and Intel have to back up their claims that they're catching up to Transmeta in power requirements.
The only thing I've heard about is the revolutionary new Intel Pentium(R) processor, described by a company spokesman as "Like the pentium III, but consumes much less power." Operating with an order of magnitude fewer transistors, and clock speeds of up to 200MHz, the performance is almost as good as the Crusoe.
The best news is they're already released and available from reputable dealers everywhere!
Now, that's all well and good, but understand that these shell banks (often located in the carribean, when they're located anywhere) are also used by unscrupulous tax dodgers to make large portions of their income invisible to the IRS. So, this measure could also increase tax revenues substantially, since... well... it's not exactly the poorest of the poor who use these tax dodges :)
Not that it really justifies the bill as a whole. This just might be another interesting (and good!) side effect of it.
Come on! It's called the "USA Act"* -- you'd have to be some kind of pinko commie terrorist bastard to vote against it, wouldn't you?!
* Yes really -- it's the "Uniting and Strengthening America Act."
I can only assume the current high (only) bid is a joke. It's made by a guy named djblue42 ( feedback profile ) who, true to his handle, has purchased mostly musical equipment in the past. nothing more than a few hundred bucks.
Damn! Can they leave him a zillion negative feedbacks at once for backing out of such an expensive auction?!
... to get my laptop serviced, I guess. What's scary is that I have, on many occasions, left my laptop plugged in and in "Standby" mode while I was away. I noticed the thing getting hot, but not THAT hot. I thought.
Anyway, now I can get that pesky external floppy fixed... it never did work quite right...