Scientific publishing has been a big business for some time. If scientists only wanted to publish their work then they would submit their papers to the Public Library of Science (PLOS) or to other free (of charge) publishing services. But they want fame, to advance their careers, and publishing in journals such as Cell, Science, or Nature is expensive; and access to scientific papers in those same journals is also expensive. But since scientists don't pay for those privileges out of their own pockets*, price doesn't seem to matter to them -- at least not as much as "fame".
____
*next time you donate to, say, a cancer research charity, remember that some of the money spent on "research" is actually spent on publishing articles in expensive journals
You have a right to say whatever you want; I have a right to *not* listen to what you're saying.
The question seems to be, whether we have the right to *selectively* listen to what they are saying. Like watching a movie on TV and turning the volume down during the commercials.
If that is the case, then commercial websites should warn their visitors that they are entering a commercial site and that the trade-off for access is to disable the ad & pop-up blockers in their browser. Visitors should be able to make an informed decision before entering the website rather that be forced to "swallow" the ads. Then the choice of browser would not be an issue.
I'm an active FF user and have been so for many years. I like the extensions, mainly Adblock. Of course I would like FF to grab a larger market share. But it's so frustrating that there are large-audience websites that are not FF-compatible. Banks, universities, government, customer support. And that won't change. It's no use pointing out that FF is more standards-compliant than IE. That doesn't help. Therefore I cannot do without the "Open this page in IE" (IE Lite) extension. My suggestion: make FF more "IE-compliant", install it by default on most PCs, and then people will see the advantages of browsing in FF and you'll see a surge in its usage. Otherwise, it's only either idiosyncrasy or evengelism that could bring more users to FF. Another thing: the Mozilla Foundation is a company. Non-profit, granted. But I don't know how much their programmers get paid. Last time I checked, that "foundation" had made USD 60 million a year. So, if I were a web site admin, how could they convince me to redesign my website to make it FF-compatible when I gain next to nothing in the process and they make so much money out of this compatibility, in "non-profit" mode? Maybe I'm not the only one who sees things this way.
AFAIK that is perfectly legal and compatible with the GPL. Open source doesn't necessarily also mean free of charge. Think RHEL. You may charge for it but you still have to distribute the source code.
I wonder if, when "the researchers found exactly one student who reported they'd actually met a stranger from the internet without their parents' permission", the parents were there, too.:)
Probably because.RTF cannot store every formatting detail the way.DOC and (I presume).ODF do. But I agree with you -- unless you want to do desktop publishing in MS Office or OOo,.RTF should be more than enough. Most publishing shops ask authors to submit their manuscript in MS Word and attach images/figures as separate hires TIFF or PS/EPS files. It would be great though if.RTF had better support for images.
Yes, but the open-source version requires imap-2004d and that means you need to downgrade to RHEL/CentOS 3.x. In my experience it won't work with cyrus-imapd.
"If there is any one big problem with kernel development and Linux it is the complete disconnection of the development process from normal users... I think the kernel developers at large haven't got the faintest idea just how big the problems in userspace are."
"Linux has *already* succeeded on the desktop. In a big way."
well, yes and no; it depends on the kind of audience you are talking about. there are two categories of "users" who are happy with the linux desktop. first, some businesses that only need certain software to run on their machines. second, developers and/or tech-savvy users who know where to dig answers to their questions when something doesn't work as expected -- and find that rewarding.
but for the rest of the world linux is not an option. that rest of the world wants videos and audios to play out-of-the box, when you double-click on their icons. they want the powerpoint presentations to look as intended, not with weird fonts. they want the web pages to show as intended by their creators, rather than struggle with cnn.com videoclips that won't open. they want wireless cards to work in WPA-PSK mode without having to manually edit configuration files. they want their cannon flat-bed scanner, sony digital camera, and logitech webcam to work out-of-the-box.
linux is the heir to the unix world, which was created to serve different purposes than windows. it still serves those purposes better than any other OSes.
Is there a reason your current screen shot isn't also displaying Firefox as the selected application?
The fact that Mozilla Firefox is missing on that list is a symptom of the problem. As you can see in this second screenshot, I can launch Firefox. Other programs on that list that cannot be uninstalled include OpenOffice.org, PHP, Quicktime, and others; but those programs are listed while Firefox is not. As you can see in the third screenshot, the earliest installation date shown is 22 June 2007; programs whose installation date is not shown cannot be uninstalled from the Control Panel, which suggests that whatever caused the problem happened before that date. Also, in the fourth screenshot you can see all items listed in registry key "HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\Cur rentVersion\Uninstall" -- I would expect to see more, given that I have installed more than 90 distinct applications on this computer.
I'll answer your second question later today, I don't have the laptop with me at this moment. And yes, both MySQL Server and Tools could be uninstalled fromm the Control Panel a few months ago. If I can come up with better proof (useful suggestions are welcome) I'll post it here.
Ok, have a look at these two merged scheenshots. On the left hand side you can see the Uninstall button for "Mozilla Thunderbird (2.0.0.4)", installed four days ago. On the right hand side that same button is unavailable for "MySQL Tools 5.0". It's also unavailable for all apps that are missing info such as the installation date and size (that is, most of the apps on that list).
...that most of you reacted as if I hated Vista. You may be surprised to learn that I actually like Vista, better than XP. I have purchased my HP laptop precisely because I wanted to experience Vista. BTW, I know exactly how to uninstall programs in Windows, Vista or other (I have been using, and programming in, Windows ever since release 3.1) and I have the administrator privileges required to do that. Enough of this. Uninstall is still possible (tested) using the Windows Installer CleanUp Utility (a.k.a. msicuu2.exe). As mentioned above, what puzzles me is that the Uninstall option is no longer available for programs that I have installed a few months ago and that some programs are no longer listed, as if they had never been installed. Since I am obviously not the only one in this situation, I was hoping to get an idea of the magnitude of the problem. Should I have asked those of you who don't have a clue of what this is about to please refrain from digressing? Thank you.
Maybe they are not conflicting goals. I think of the Internet in terms of a large city. People walking the streets. Businesses and recreation parks. As people are expected not to wear face-covering hoods (at least in Western world), some kind of identification potential for individuals always exists, but no formal "authentication" is required to walk your dog in the park, or to browse the products in a store, or to make a purchase and pay cash. One may need to "authenticate" to make a withdrawal at the bank, or to enter a particular building. Do you need to "authenticate" to drive your car back home on the freeway? Of course, security camera photos of you shopping at the mall may be stored somewhere, without your knowing it. IMO the Internet should be no more restrictive that that.
A company is supposed to make as much money as it can while abiding by rules established by law and ethics. But in doing so it depends on the entire infrastructure of the country it operates in and also on the people and governments buying that drug. A basic principle of the market economy involves negotiation. If a company is unwilling to negotiate then the government is right to make a decision in favor of the people it is supposed to represent.
And I really don't see what has that got to do with YouTube.
The one and only UAC that I like in Vista is a disabled one. After a couple of days of "Allow?/Deny?" annoyance I had to choose between Xanax and disabling UAC. I am a long time Linux user and I would say that sudo UAC, at least in terms on nerve-wracking potential.
"until a great cataclysmic period where it is greatly reduced" -- There is a cycle but no abrupt decreases in that graph. So the explanation may be different.
Slashdot Mirror
That CEO is mistaking learning means and tools for knowledge, reasoning, and curiosity.
Scientific publishing has been a big business for some time. If scientists only wanted to publish their work then they would submit their papers to the Public Library of Science (PLOS) or to other free (of charge) publishing services. But they want fame, to advance their careers, and publishing in journals such as Cell, Science, or Nature is expensive; and access to scientific papers in those same journals is also expensive. But since scientists don't pay for those privileges out of their own pockets*, price doesn't seem to matter to them -- at least not as much as "fame".
____
*next time you donate to, say, a cancer research charity, remember that some of the money spent on "research" is actually spent on publishing articles in expensive journals
The question seems to be, whether we have the right to *selectively* listen to what they are saying. Like watching a movie on TV and turning the volume down during the commercials.
If that is the case, then commercial websites should warn their visitors that they are entering a commercial site and that the trade-off for access is to disable the ad & pop-up blockers in their browser. Visitors should be able to make an informed decision before entering the website rather that be forced to "swallow" the ads. Then the choice of browser would not be an issue.
I'm an active FF user and have been so for many years. I like the extensions, mainly Adblock. Of course I would like FF to grab a larger market share. But it's so frustrating that there are large-audience websites that are not FF-compatible. Banks, universities, government, customer support. And that won't change. It's no use pointing out that FF is more standards-compliant than IE. That doesn't help. Therefore I cannot do without the "Open this page in IE" (IE Lite) extension. My suggestion: make FF more "IE-compliant", install it by default on most PCs, and then people will see the advantages of browsing in FF and you'll see a surge in its usage. Otherwise, it's only either idiosyncrasy or evengelism that could bring more users to FF. Another thing: the Mozilla Foundation is a company. Non-profit, granted. But I don't know how much their programmers get paid. Last time I checked, that "foundation" had made USD 60 million a year. So, if I were a web site admin, how could they convince me to redesign my website to make it FF-compatible when I gain next to nothing in the process and they make so much money out of this compatibility, in "non-profit" mode? Maybe I'm not the only one who sees things this way.
AFAIK that is perfectly legal and compatible with the GPL. Open source doesn't necessarily also mean free of charge. Think RHEL. You may charge for it but you still have to distribute the source code.
He is right. As a user, you don't see the mechanism behind the P2P client. eMule is simpler and more intuitive than a BitTorrent client.
I wonder if, when "the researchers found exactly one student who reported they'd actually met a stranger from the internet without their parents' permission", the parents were there, too. :)
Probably because .RTF cannot store every formatting detail the way .DOC and (I presume) .ODF do. But I agree with you -- unless you want to do desktop publishing in MS Office or OOo, .RTF should be more than enough. Most publishing shops ask authors to submit their manuscript in MS Word and attach images/figures as separate hires TIFF or PS/EPS files. It would be great though if .RTF had better support for images.
Buddy, why waste time with this? Go to http://wiki.vtiger.com/index.php/Vtiger_CRM_5.0.3_ -_Installation_Manual_for_Linux#Linux_Dependency_P ackages and read "imap-2004d" under _all_ Linux distros. And if you try instaling vTiger w/o it it will complain the imap support is missing.
Yes, but the open-source version requires imap-2004d and that means you need to downgrade to RHEL/CentOS 3.x. In my experience it won't work with cyrus-imapd.
"If there is any one big problem with kernel development and Linux it is the complete disconnection of the development process from normal users... I think the kernel developers at large haven't got the faintest idea just how big the problems in userspace are."
well, yes and no; it depends on the kind of audience you are talking about. there are two categories of "users" who are happy with the linux desktop. first, some businesses that only need certain software to run on their machines. second, developers and/or tech-savvy users who know where to dig answers to their questions when something doesn't work as expected -- and find that rewarding.
but for the rest of the world linux is not an option. that rest of the world wants videos and audios to play out-of-the box, when you double-click on their icons. they want the powerpoint presentations to look as intended, not with weird fonts. they want the web pages to show as intended by their creators, rather than struggle with cnn.com videoclips that won't open. they want wireless cards to work in WPA-PSK mode without having to manually edit configuration files. they want their cannon flat-bed scanner, sony digital camera, and logitech webcam to work out-of-the-box.
linux is the heir to the unix world, which was created to serve different purposes than windows. it still serves those purposes better than any other OSes.
peerguardian2 works fine on vista.
Is there a reason your current screen shot isn't also displaying Firefox as the selected application?
The fact that Mozilla Firefox is missing on that list is a symptom of the problem. As you can see in this second screenshot, I can launch Firefox. Other programs on that list that cannot be uninstalled include OpenOffice.org, PHP, Quicktime, and others; but those programs are listed while Firefox is not. As you can see in the third screenshot, the earliest installation date shown is 22 June 2007; programs whose installation date is not shown cannot be uninstalled from the Control Panel, which suggests that whatever caused the problem happened before that date. Also, in the fourth screenshot you can see all items listed in registry key "HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CuI'll answer your second question later today, I don't have the laptop with me at this moment. And yes, both MySQL Server and Tools could be uninstalled fromm the Control Panel a few months ago. If I can come up with better proof (useful suggestions are welcome) I'll post it here.
Ok, have a look at these two merged scheenshots. On the left hand side you can see the Uninstall button for "Mozilla Thunderbird (2.0.0.4)", installed four days ago. On the right hand side that same button is unavailable for "MySQL Tools 5.0". It's also unavailable for all apps that are missing info such as the installation date and size (that is, most of the apps on that list).
...that most of you reacted as if I hated Vista. You may be surprised to learn that I actually like Vista, better than XP. I have purchased my HP laptop precisely because I wanted to experience Vista. BTW, I know exactly how to uninstall programs in Windows, Vista or other (I have been using, and programming in, Windows ever since release 3.1) and I have the administrator privileges required to do that. Enough of this. Uninstall is still possible (tested) using the Windows Installer CleanUp Utility (a.k.a. msicuu2.exe). As mentioned above, what puzzles me is that the Uninstall option is no longer available for programs that I have installed a few months ago and that some programs are no longer listed, as if they had never been installed. Since I am obviously not the only one in this situation, I was hoping to get an idea of the magnitude of the problem. Should I have asked those of you who don't have a clue of what this is about to please refrain from digressing? Thank you.
it sounds reasonable to me.
Maybe they are not conflicting goals. I think of the Internet in terms of a large city. People walking the streets. Businesses and recreation parks. As people are expected not to wear face-covering hoods (at least in Western world), some kind of identification potential for individuals always exists, but no formal "authentication" is required to walk your dog in the park, or to browse the products in a store, or to make a purchase and pay cash. One may need to "authenticate" to make a withdrawal at the bank, or to enter a particular building. Do you need to "authenticate" to drive your car back home on the freeway? Of course, security camera photos of you shopping at the mall may be stored somewhere, without your knowing it. IMO the Internet should be no more restrictive that that.
...but, to be successful, both Linux and Solaris need to learn from MS, that is, try to figure out what the end users want.
And I really don't see what has that got to do with YouTube.
okay, it was supposed to look like this: "sudo [notequal] UAC" but some HTML characters are not allowed... ;)
The one and only UAC that I like in Vista is a disabled one. After a couple of days of "Allow?/Deny?" annoyance I had to choose between Xanax and disabling UAC. I am a long time Linux user and I would say that sudo UAC, at least in terms on nerve-wracking potential.
"until a great cataclysmic period where it is greatly reduced" -- There is a cycle but no abrupt decreases in that graph. So the explanation may be different.