>That _is_ a biggie butclaiming you would be stuck at 640x480 is plainly a lie.
Every time I update the distro that goes on my Toshiba notebook (ATI Radeon), the horrible thing that is supposed to be the display is totally unusable if I do anything besides disable framebuffer and X.
If I let it load the fb driver, what displays looks good until you start using it, then you see that what the device thinks is the framebuffer doesn't match what's displayed, often with very strange results.
If I let it load the XServer, the only result that works is, an 800x600 mode on a 1280x1024 display.
Similar problems with Redhat-ish and Debian-ish distros.
There really isn't any fun, having to take a distro that leaves you with an 80x25 console, or a 640x480 X desktop (and I feel lucky sometimes to have EITHER of these work correctly), and from there, find and download drivers for NV or ATI, and build and boot a kernel that works with what was otherwise a working live system.
This is really not a reasonable thing to expect from a user, not even from a user like me who has been running linux since 0.99pl1.
Whoa there. You talk about impeachment as though it's already on the table. Name a member of Congress that has indicated that he or she intends to introduce an article of impeachment. If not that, then name a candidate for the next Congress who has gone on record to indicate that impeachment is a possibility.
If no member of Congress is willing to stat the process, it does not start.
It's also still not at all clear what specific crimes could be charged, and what the evidence of those crimes would be.
I'm as opposed to the Bush administration policies as anyone, but in all the inept and ham-handed actions of the current government, I don't see the actual crime. I don't think the Iraq/WMD lies will be sufficient. I don't think the CIA leak case will reach this level either. It appears that the phone records database might technically have been legal. What else do we have? It needs to be good, not only for a Congressman to jeapordize his or her reputation to make the accusations, but also, to persuade the loyally partisan Republicans to support the measure.
Even the most optimistic projections still have 6 to 8 seats changing from Republican to Democrat...
>Do you have any idea how much this would cost the government, corporations, and small businesses?
I don't care. The alternative is to set aside the rule of law, and that's worth the blood of every last able-bodied person in the nation, many of whom have in the past in fact given their lives in order that it can be sustained.
When an entity becomes powerful enough that it can set aside the rule of law, the law has no meaning, and the nation is no more.
So, Microsoft violates their probation. What *should* happen is this:
The company should be disbanded, all its assets forfeited and sold at auction. Anyone on the executive committee of the company, and anyone else who knew or should have known that this violation would have occurred, should be sentenced to at least ten years in prison, and their personal assets forfeited and auctioned off.
Nothing less that that would happen to you or me and the company we controlled, if we purposely used our company to violate federal laws. The last thing we'd hear from a judge is "I see you are having trouble complying with the orders of this court. Perhaps if we give you a few more years to work on it you can get back to us on how you're coming with the whole court-mandated actions thing, okay?"
You and I wouldn't get that treatment. We would go to prison, our assets woudl be seized, and it wouldn't make the news.
When this authority is to be handed over to a Democratic administration, watch the same people scream bloody murder, because the commie terrorist sympathizing liberals will be spying on Americans.
Same goes for all the unprecedented powers that the Bush administration has asserted for the Executive. It seems to have all been done in a way that ignores the fact that all the authority will sooner or later be handed over to an opposition party.
"It's too late to start enforcing the us of SSN's, because they are already in place as an identification number, just like they told our parents and grandparents that they were NOT going to be used for."
Name one institution that isn't required to use your SSN (e.g., the Social Security office itself, your employer, tax departments, or your insurance company) that forces you to disclose your number to them.
Many will *allow* you to use a SSN if you *choose*, such as for drivers licenses in some states, or university ID numbers, but please name the ones that *require* you to use your SSN.
Oh, and don't just tell me, tell the Attorney General about it.
"SOX was not made to please the accountants or to make companies more efficient.. it was written to make executives and book cookers more accountable to the public."
The company I work for has taken a formal approach to SoX compliance and it hasn't bankrupted us or shackled us with any unreasonable amount of extra bureaucracy. One thing it has done, is educated employees, some who would have preferred to remain ignorant, about certain kinds business processes, and details about how and when our financials are reported. People who are resistant to that stuff make it very obvious that they are interested only in the narrow sphere of their own job and don't have a big-picture perspective. I'm sure that attitude gets noticed and it can't possibly have a beneficial impact on career development.
Are they going to make it illegal, in the sense of large scale corporate fraud, where the perpetrator gets to keep his mansions and private islands and billions of dollars and so on? Or are they going to make it illegal in the sense of getting caught with a gram of marijuana where the perpetrator does a career of hard time behind bars with forced labor, and loses basic rights of citizenship for life?
I'd read messages in this forum if I saw any that started with "I am a CPA with NN years of experience as an auditor, and I am an authority on the Sarbanes-Oxley Act...." or "I am an attorney specializing in business finance law, and I have represented clients on Sarbanes-Oxley compliance matters"...
I'm not seeing that, even browsing at +5. Do I want an accountant's design for a minimal spanning tree or a blitter? (Actually, I wonder if an accountant might deliver a novel take on a problem...) But no. People seem to be commenting because the company has recently made obvious efforts for SOX compliance, some have had to do training that they consider a waste of time, there's much more paperwork involved in any transaction that concerns money or other assets, and these procedures are no doubt presented by PHB types as "do it or die." Then they notice that their company has more accountants than anything else. Couple that with the perception that IT is a lower caste, and the resentment brews.
Then somebody links to an article about SOX and suddenly every slashdotter chimes in with an opinion.
Including me. I'm now going to look through the +5's again, and see if we've heard from anyone who actually is qualified to speak on the subject.
I don't think you are able to see the difference between a country like China that codes into law, proscriptions against and harsh penalties for expressions of dissent, and the US which does nothing at all in this realm.
Until you can show me a case where someone has been imprisoned or executed merely for peaceful expressions of dissent, I will not accept the original premise that China and the US are in the same ballpark on this issue.
>The point is that they've taken the attitude that anyone who criticizes them must be unpatriotic or a lunatic.
Who has? Are you attributing to the media and to members of the general public, the authority of government? Or can you point me to an Act of Congress, Presidential Order, or judicial opinion, which supports your claims?
Personally I see no evidence that political dissent is treated any differently under the current administration than it has been previously.
Insecure governments will go to any lengths to protect themselves from their perceived insecurities, even if it means imprisoning or murdering their own citizens, making war on their neighbors, or isolating themselves from the world.
"Easy for you to say because you already have your freedom. If you don't have freedom today, are you willing to die for the hope of others MAY have that freedom in the future?"
No, and as I said (easily), I'm not willing to have someone else make that decision for me.
"Also, maybe you wanna tell the parents of the thousands of students that mowed down by tanks, that they were 'not willing to pay the price'?"
What? They *were* willing to pay the price. And it did have some small impact, and the Chinese might be slightly more free today because of their sacrifice. But I stand by my original statement, that nobody could have or should have tried to make the decision for these protestors to put their lives on the line. Had Tianamen Square not happened, the people who didn't protest that day should not have been criticized for their inaction.
Don't be, it's perfectly understandable. I still maintain that for everyone who complains about their PHB, there's usually a PHB whose techniques are working toward a positive bottom line. It's one thing to be upset about the status quo, and it's another thing to be upset and also be willing to do something about it besides complain.
This whole "union" argument is just an expression of a desire to have someone else solve one's problems for them.
>If a Java application is Windows-optimized (which means clunky and unintuitive on Solaris, OS X, or Linux), where's the >benefit of a cross platform language and environment? Isn't one of the major selling points of Java "Write once, run >anywhere"?
There are still benefits. For the most part, you're still using a well-defined, standardized language. Which means you can hire programmers that know the language. Also, you've still got "most" of the software in a portable form, and in a MVC app, you really only have customized the view. And even then, it is likely to essentially be the *runtime* that's been customized for a platform optimization.
If the language helps you get to the last mile as a result of its standardization and popularity, then it's got benefits.
It may not be WORA, but it can not be that and still be a hell of a lot more portable than anything else.
> I've never seen a hard drive as quiet as you require, you'd probably have to isolate that in some way.
Everybody says that, but Samsung SP drives in elastic have not been a problem. It helps a little that they live in a more comfortable part of the audio spectrum for the purposes of interfering with recording.
> Or you could run a special thin client linux/bsd box, use remote desktop to your "real PC" somewhere else.
Due to the hardware and software choices I've made for application purposes, I've got to use Windows. X and Vnc latency are too much to be useful, really. I've tried it.
At this point, I'd settle for 10-meter usb2.0, keyboard, and vga cables, then I could put it outside the acoustic influence entirely.
>>the shareholder is valued more than the employee
>Maybe the employee should buy some shares.
You get it!
I also note that the complaints always come from someone whose merits have not equated to any promotion to any level of authority. They are always from people who have problems with the authority above them, and never from people who have elevated in their career development into a position of authority themselves.
I'm afraid we have a different definition of 'quiet' though. That's cool.
I consider -27dbA to be a maximum acceptable level, and that's really a compromise because it's so expensive to do any better.
Speaking of expensive cases. I'd be willing to pay a lot for a 2U case that would fit the depth of an audio rack and had a silent psu, etc.
Right now, the "silent pc" market is aimed at merely being quieter than the extremely noisy normal PCs.
Also, in some cases it's not so much the level of noise, as the wide range of frequencies that the noise lives in. I have plenty of audio equipment that I can use within one meter of a microphone, and I'd like a computer system that can do the same.
Slashdot Mirror
>That _is_ a biggie butclaiming you would be stuck at 640x480 is plainly a lie.
Every time I update the distro that goes on my Toshiba notebook (ATI Radeon),
the horrible thing that is supposed to be the display is totally unusable if I do anything besides disable framebuffer and X.
If I let it load the fb driver, what displays looks good until you start using it, then you see that what the device thinks is the framebuffer doesn't match what's displayed, often with very strange results.
If I let it load the XServer, the only result that works is, an 800x600 mode on a 1280x1024 display.
Similar problems with Redhat-ish and Debian-ish distros.
Don't accuse me of lying, please.
There really isn't any fun, having to take a distro that leaves you with an 80x25 console, or a 640x480 X desktop (and I feel lucky sometimes to have EITHER of these work correctly), and from there, find and download drivers for NV or ATI, and build and boot a kernel that works with what was otherwise a working live system.
This is really not a reasonable thing to expect from a user, not even from a user like me who has been running linux since 0.99pl1.
Whoa there. You talk about impeachment as though it's already on the table.
Name a member of Congress that has indicated that he or she intends to introduce an article of impeachment.
If not that, then name a candidate for the next Congress who has gone on record to indicate that impeachment is a possibility.
If no member of Congress is willing to stat the process, it does not start.
It's also still not at all clear what specific crimes could be charged, and what the evidence of those crimes would be.
I'm as opposed to the Bush administration policies as anyone, but in all the inept and ham-handed actions of the current government, I don't see the actual crime. I don't think the Iraq/WMD lies will be sufficient. I don't think the CIA leak case will reach this level either. It appears that the phone records database might technically have been legal. What else do we have? It needs to be good, not only for a Congressman to jeapordize his or her reputation to make the accusations, but also, to persuade the loyally partisan Republicans to support the measure.
Even the most optimistic projections still have 6 to 8 seats changing from Republican to Democrat...
>Just re-read that drunken drivvel and ask yourselves how someone somewhere said insightful
Routinely and repeatedly violate court orders and see how long the court treats it like a joke. "Speeding ticket", indeed.
Do we have a rule of law, or don't we?
>Do you have any idea how much this would cost the government, corporations, and small businesses?
I don't care. The alternative is to set aside the rule of law, and that's worth the blood of every last able-bodied person in the nation, many of whom have in the past in fact given their lives in order that it can be sustained.
When an entity becomes powerful enough that it can set aside the rule of law, the law has no meaning, and the nation is no more.
So, Microsoft violates their probation. What *should* happen is this:
The company should be disbanded, all its assets forfeited and sold at auction. Anyone on the executive committee of the company, and anyone else who knew or should have known that this violation would have occurred, should be sentenced to at least ten years in prison, and their personal assets forfeited and auctioned off.
Nothing less that that would happen to you or me and the company we controlled, if we purposely used our company to violate federal laws. The last thing we'd hear from a judge is "I see you are having trouble complying with the orders of this court. Perhaps if we give you a few more years to work on it you can get back to us on how you're coming with the whole court-mandated actions thing, okay?"
You and I wouldn't get that treatment. We would go to prison, our assets woudl be seized, and it wouldn't make the news.
>Just off the top of my head...
>Banks, many Utility companies, schools / universities,
>anyone you want to get a loan from
Banks *must* have your SSN or, for those who
do not have a SSN, a federal tax ID.
Show me a utility company or school that does not accommodate
an alternative identifier.
When this authority is to be handed over to a Democratic administration, watch the same people scream bloody murder, because the commie terrorist sympathizing liberals will be spying on Americans.
Same goes for all the unprecedented powers that the Bush administration has asserted for the Executive. It seems to have all been done in a way that ignores the fact that all the authority will sooner or later be handed over to an opposition party.
"It's too late to start enforcing the us of SSN's, because they are already in place as an identification number, just like they told our parents and grandparents that they were NOT going to be used for."
Name one institution that isn't required to use your SSN (e.g., the Social Security office itself, your employer, tax departments, or your insurance company) that forces you to disclose your number to them.
Many will *allow* you to use a SSN if you *choose*, such as for drivers licenses in some states, or university ID numbers, but please name the ones that *require* you to use your SSN.
Oh, and don't just tell me, tell the Attorney General about it.
"SOX was not made to please the accountants or to make companies more efficient.. it was written to make executives and book cookers more accountable to the public."
The company I work for has taken a formal approach to SoX compliance and it hasn't bankrupted us or shackled us with any unreasonable amount of extra bureaucracy. One thing it has done, is educated employees, some who would have preferred to remain ignorant, about certain kinds business processes, and details about how and when our financials are reported. People who are resistant to that stuff make it very obvious that they are interested only in the narrow sphere of their own job and don't have a big-picture perspective. I'm sure that attitude gets noticed and it can't possibly have a beneficial impact on career development.
Are they going to make it illegal, in the sense of large scale corporate fraud, where the perpetrator gets to keep his mansions and private islands and billions of dollars and so on? Or are they going to make it illegal in the sense of getting caught with a gram of marijuana where the perpetrator does a career of hard time behind bars with forced labor, and loses basic rights of citizenship for life?
I'd read messages in this forum if I saw any that started with "I am a CPA with NN years of experience as an auditor, and I am an authority on the Sarbanes-Oxley Act...." or "I am an attorney specializing in business finance law, and I have represented clients on Sarbanes-Oxley compliance matters"...
I'm not seeing that, even browsing at +5. Do I want an accountant's design for a minimal spanning tree or a blitter? (Actually, I wonder if an accountant might deliver a novel take on a problem...) But no. People seem to be commenting because the company has recently made obvious efforts for SOX compliance, some have had to do training that they consider a waste of time, there's much more paperwork involved in any transaction that concerns money or other assets, and these procedures are no doubt presented by PHB types as "do it or die." Then they notice that their company has more accountants than anything else. Couple that with the perception that IT is a lower caste, and the resentment brews.
Then somebody links to an article about SOX and suddenly every slashdotter chimes in with an opinion.
Including me. I'm now going to look through the +5's again, and see if we've heard from anyone who actually is qualified to speak on the subject.
I don't think you are able to see the difference between a country like China that codes into law, proscriptions against and harsh penalties for expressions of dissent, and the US which does nothing at all in this realm.
Until you can show me a case where someone has been imprisoned or executed merely for peaceful expressions of dissent, I will not accept the original premise that China and the US are in the same ballpark on this issue.
>The point is that they've taken the attitude that anyone who criticizes them must be unpatriotic or a lunatic.
Who has? Are you attributing to the media and to members of the general public, the authority of government?
Or can you point me to an Act of Congress, Presidential Order, or judicial opinion, which supports your claims?
Personally I see no evidence that political dissent is treated any differently under the current administration than it has been previously.
>Well?
Information wants to be free. That's a force.
Insecure governments will go to any lengths to protect themselves from their perceived insecurities, even if it means imprisoning or murdering their own citizens, making war on their neighbors, or isolating themselves from the world.
That's a far more dominant force.
>That doesn't sound much different from the Bush administration's stance toward anyone who disagrees with them.
Who do you know personally that has been summarily arrested and incarerated without process, for merely disagreeing with a Bush Administration policy?
"Easy for you to say because you already have your freedom. If you don't have freedom today, are you willing to die for the hope of others MAY have that freedom in the future?"
No, and as I said (easily), I'm not willing to have someone else make that decision for me.
"Also, maybe you wanna tell the parents of the thousands of students that mowed down by tanks, that they were 'not willing to pay the price'?"
What? They *were* willing to pay the price. And it did have some small impact, and the Chinese might be slightly more free today because of their sacrifice. But I stand by my original statement, that nobody could have or should have tried to make the decision for these protestors to put their lives on the line. Had Tianamen Square not happened, the people who didn't protest that day should not have been criticized for their inaction.
>Alot of people don't want to die or go to prison.
And we can't make the decision for them, but the bottom line is, as long as they are not willing to pay the price of freedom, they will not have it.
>Sorry to nitpick.
Don't be, it's perfectly understandable. I still maintain that for everyone who complains about their PHB, there's usually a PHB whose techniques are working toward a positive bottom line. It's one thing to be upset about the status quo, and it's another thing to be upset and also be willing to do something about it besides complain.
This whole "union" argument is just an expression of a desire to have someone else solve one's problems for them.
>If a Java application is Windows-optimized (which means clunky and unintuitive on Solaris, OS X, or Linux), where's the
>benefit of a cross platform language and environment? Isn't one of the major selling points of Java "Write once, run
>anywhere"?
There are still benefits. For the most part, you're still using a well-defined, standardized language. Which means you can hire programmers that know the language. Also, you've still got "most" of the software in a portable form, and in a MVC app, you really only have customized the view. And even then, it is likely to essentially be the *runtime* that's been customized for a platform optimization.
If the language helps you get to the last mile as a result of its standardization and popularity, then it's got benefits.
It may not be WORA, but it can not be that and still be a hell of a lot more portable than anything else.
> I've never seen a hard drive as quiet as you require, you'd probably have to isolate that in some way.
Everybody says that, but Samsung SP drives in elastic have not been a problem. It helps a little that they live in a more comfortable part of the audio spectrum for the purposes of interfering with recording.
> Or you could run a special thin client linux/bsd box, use remote desktop to your "real PC" somewhere else.
Due to the hardware and software choices I've made for application purposes, I've got to use Windows. X and Vnc latency are too much to be useful, really. I've tried it.
At this point, I'd settle for 10-meter usb2.0, keyboard, and vga cables, then I could put it outside the acoustic influence entirely.
>>the shareholder is valued more than the employee
>Maybe the employee should buy some shares.
You get it!
I also note that the complaints always come from someone whose merits have not equated to
any promotion to any level of authority. They are always from people who have problems with
the authority above them, and never from people who have elevated in their career development
into a position of authority themselves.
MSI/Nvidia, gotcha.
I'm afraid we have a different definition of 'quiet' though. That's cool.
I consider -27dbA to be a maximum acceptable level, and that's really a compromise because it's so expensive to do any better.
Speaking of expensive cases. I'd be willing to pay a lot for a 2U case that would fit the depth of an audio rack and had a silent psu, etc.
Right now, the "silent pc" market is aimed at merely being quieter than the extremely noisy normal PCs.
Also, in some cases it's not so much the level of noise, as the wide range of frequencies that the noise lives in. I have plenty of audio equipment that I can use within one meter of a microphone, and I'd like a computer system that can do the same.
>Incorrect. That's like saying your problem with O.J. Simpson is that he can get away with murder and you can't.
Asking for a prima donna rider for appearances is not murder.
>you don't want to in the first place.
Oh come now. EVERYBODY would like first class vip treatment.
"and again, most 'overclocking' boards will allow you to 'underclock' or 'undervolt' and generally underclocking is completely unlocked"
None of my ASUS or MSI boards have allowed this. Any brand suggestions? I'm far more interested in noise reduction than I am in performance.