That's great. Consider yourself smart and/or lucky. To be honest, I run AV software on all my Windows machines, and I don't think I've ever had it find a virus while I was using it. On the other hand, I have users, friends, and family member who seem to encounter viruses on a regular basis.
I don't know what they're doing, what sites they're visiting, or what behavior is leading them to find these viruses. At this point, I generally don't care, because I haven't had any luck getting them to stop whatever it is they're doing. The answer is that they have to run their computer as a non-administrator, and they need to run an Antivirus package.
The whole thing seems slightly tricky to me, in that even if the songs are hosted and freely available on the record label's website, it's still not clear to me by what license people are permitted to download those songs. What I mean is, if I own the copyright to a song, and then I put that song on a website without any kind of a password, does it necessarily follow that I've legally permitted people to download it without regard to any circumstances?
Because certainly it would seem crazy to put a link right on your homepage saying "click here to download this song", and then pursue copyright infringement cases against everyone who downloads it. On the other hand, court cases have recently decided that "making files available" does not equal "distribution", so it seems to me that simply having a file available on an apache server might not constitute an offer to distribute those files. In other words, just because my files are theoretically available online without a password doesn't mean I've given you permission/license to download them.
White LEDs are still quite expensive though, so bulb made out of it would be a lot more expensive than a standard one.
How long will it last in comparison with a standard one? I'm not asking rhetorically, since I really have no idea how much more expensive they are or how long they last. It does seem like something people tend to ignore, though. People get so focused on saving a few pennies now that they don't realize they'll be spending more over the long haul.
I'm responding because I feel you deserve a response for such a well written post
Thanks.
so now I have to tell Outlook not to search for the file every single day, there's no way I know of to stop it from searching
Try creating an archive (PST file) in the location it's looking. Once Outlook has successfully found it, you should be able to remove it the normal way. There are other ways to handle this, but it depends on the version of Outlook.
I have complaints about both Outlook and Exchange, but it doesn't matter because there still isn't much competition. I know, there's still Zimbra and Scalix and whatever else, but if I'm going to jump ship from Exchange, I want something either from a major vendor or something that's open source. I'm anxious to check out Apple's Snow Leopard, since no one else seems willing to bother.
If I recall correctly, the success of the Wii was a huge surprise to the industry as a whole
As was the PS3's failure. Not that the PS3 is a total failure, but it's a failure relative to what lots of people were expecting. If you read the predictions from before this generation of consoles was released, people thought that the most powerful system would destroy the competition, and it turned out to be the exact opposite. The least powerful system did best, and the most powerful is basically in last place.
But my larger point was that the console market isn't like consoles, in that backwards compatibility isn't that huge of an issue. Part of what keeps Microsoft dominant in the desktop OS market is that people have lots of old/legacy Windows applications that they want/need to run on Windows. In the console market, there aren't really "business critical" games, and being able to play your old games on your new console is a bit of a bonus.
I know some people think it's very important that they can play their PS2 games in the PS3 and that sort of thing, but I don't think it's a big deal for most people. For one thing, most people don't go back and play old games that often; when they're done with a game, they're done with it. But also, if you own a bunch of PS2 games, then you probably also own a PS2 to play them on. Being able to play them on your PS3 is mostly a convenience.
So for that reason, I think Microsoft's success in the console market (like everyone else's) is based largely on the quality/features of their latest console. If the PS4 is much better than the Xbox 3, then Microsoft won't be very successful.
Of course the 360 is doing better than PS3 largely because they got to market first and they've been able to price it cheaper. If Microsoft hadn't cut corners, they might not have made it to market first, and it would be more expensive than it is now.
So maybe the lesson is that if they want to beat Sony in the next generation, they'll have to cut corners then too.
The future of desktop OS is the browser and technologies like gears, silverlight and AIR.
God I hope not. Gears might be fine, but I really hope that people don't fall into letting Internet apps be held hostage by Microsoft and Adobe.
Microsoft will probably retain the 50-50 ratio on the server side and Server 2008 is excellent with AD.
I don't know how well Microsoft will retain the server-end. To me, a lot of it comes down to Exchange. If you want to use Exchange, you have to have an Exchange server and you pretty well have to run a Windows domain at that point, so you may as well let Windows dominate your network. On the other hand, if OSX and Linux come out with decent competitors to Exchange, then Microsoft is going to have to watch its back.
I think most people underestimate the importance of Exchange for Microsoft, but it's a big factor in keeping people using Windows on the server and Office on the desktop, which is in turn a big factor in keeping people using Windows on the desktop.
With the XBOX division, they will be making their $$ of Xbox live and not by selling the console.
I'd say there's a good chance XBox will survive, but you can never tell with the console market. Every new console effectively breaks compatibility anyway, so there's not a huge barrier for people to jump ship when the new generation comes along. The big advantage MS has right now (from what I understand) is that developing for the XBox and Windows PC at the same time is pretty easy, since they use a lot of similar tools. If Microsoft starts to lose its hold on the desktop gaming PC market, then they could lose that advantage.
Microsoft's labs may not match Google currently but they are coming out with some cool stuff.
I'm not sure Microsoft's R&D is the problem. Supposedly their research labs comes up with pretty cool stuff, but MS's management doesn't seem to want to turn that cool stuff into products unless they can figure out how they can use them to leverage Windows, Office, or the web presence (MSN & Live).
I think what's going to have to happen is that Microsoft will have a turn-over in management-- if not in actual management personnel, then in management philosophy. They'll have to start coming up with actual new products, or else actually improve their products in ways that are helpful to users/administrators (as opposed to ways that are useful to Microsoft and the RIAA/MPAA). Somewhere along the line, someone will figure out that it's the only way to stop the hemorrhaging.
Yeah, I don't know. I've used every version of Windows since WFW 3.1, and though the UI was a little better in XP, Win2k was the last upgrade that I did in Windows where I said to myself, "Well this is really going to make things better!" In XP and Vista, the controls have all been moved around, and I'm not sure whether the organization is better or worse-- I think it mostly comes down to "what you're used to". If you're used to looking for a certain network setting in one place and it's not there, it's going to be frustrating.
I used to hate Macs back in the 1990s, but I've used every version of OSX since 10.1. In some releases, the main features were speed and stability, while in others there were actual new features that are useful. To be honest, I don't use Expose or Spotlight that much, but I use the Dashboard and Time Machine. For whatever reason, I find Vista's sidebar and Shadow copy a lot less helpful even though they're pretty similar features.
Obviously there's a little bit of "to each his own" going on here. Whether a feature is "useful" or "useless" depends somewhat on who is using it, how that person is using it, and what they're using it for. But really none of that is really dealing with the point I was trying to make.
My point was that, if you look at the state of Windows, Linux, and OSX back in the year 2000, I think Windows 2000 was the best consumer/business desktop system available. Linux was hard to set up and use, and OSX barely existed. Now look at them today, and OSX and Linux are both great IMO. They've made vast improvements and continue to improve every day. Meanwhile, Microsoft has had all the resources in the world, and I'd say the improvement has been minimal. Both as an admin and as a user, there are very few improvements since Windows 2000 that actually make my life easier.
Now that's just my opinion, and I'd be interested in anyone who can explain how features in Vista make their lives easier. However, when I look at the lack of progress (or what I perceive as a lack of progress), it puts a little bit of doubt into my mind about whether Microsoft will continue to be as successful as they've been. It seems to me like they need a drastic change in direction, and perhaps that they need to fire their current management.
The interent does not need stimulus, it needs net equality of access not dominated by any one.
Sorry, but the Internet infrastructure in this country does need some stimuli. If you think broadband Internet is doing well enough on its own, then I think you're not paying attention. The "fast" Internet connections in this country generally aren't fast enough, and they certainly aren't ubiquitous enough. It's not strange in this country to live in a major city today and still be unable to get an upload rate above 512kbps for under $100 a month. That's retarded.
We can argue about where you want to place blame or what should be done about it, but certainly *something* should be done.
The only way to maximize the efficient use of resources is to remove government coercion from the marketplace
First, that assumes a real free market. Most people think that the important part of a "free market" is that there are multiple providers, and say, "Hey, there's cable and the phone company. You have 2 companies, so you have competition!" However, those two companies have a duopoly over the infrastructure, and so aren't really subject to the market forces that exist when you have a "free market".
The real important part of the "free market" is the low barrier of entry for newcomers, i.e. the ability for a new company to come along and set up their own ISP. You might be thinking right now, "What are you talking about, there are plenty of ISPs! There's not just Verizon and Comcast (or whoever your local phone and cable companies are), but there's Speakeasy and Earthlink and lots of other people!" Nope, there aren't. Those ISPs are providing rebranded service over Verizon's network. The fact is, even if you had the resources to start a company and string fiber optics everywhere, you wouldn't be allowed to do that. So if Verizon doesn't want to string fiber to an area, then you'll never get fiber connections in that area.
Now you might say, "That's what I'm talking about, remove the 'government coercion' that prevents people from stringing fiber everywhere!" Ok, great, now you'll end up with laws that allow any numnuts with a shovel to dig up the streets and other people's yards because they're "laying down cable". It'll be a mess.
Sorry, but really the Internet is "infrastructure". It's like our highway system. Is our highway system a failure, because it's nothing but "ditches to nowhere"? Should we turn over our highway system to Verizon for them to decide where they want to build roads?
Can I ask then: what do you like about Vista? What's so good that you hate going back to XP?
I use Vista, but maybe I'm just missing something. It's prettier. I'll give you that. Running the newest version of Vista with all the updates, I find it about as stable as XP (i.e. neither crashes on me very often).
I guess if you really like the UI changes enough, you might be willing to pay to upgrade, but otherwise I can't think of much of a reason. Maybe Bitlocker for laptops or if you're really using Shadow Copy? Those are the only two features that I see as being particularly useful, but I don't really use them. Mostly, when I look at the proposition of upgrading to Vista, I see it as spending a couple hundred dollars for a prettier interface (kind of good) and a more restrictive activation process (very annoying).
So that's the problem that I have with Vista. It's not that I think Vista is bad, but that I think it's not significantly better. And honestly, I feel the same way to some extent about Windows XP. Besides bug-fixes and such, I don't really see any features that have been added to Windows since Win2k that actually help me in any way. And that makes me pessimistic about Microsoft, because I think, "You give them several years to work on their flagship product, and this is the best they can do?"
There is still more difference between Windows7 and Vista than there is between OS X 10.0 and OS X 10.5
I'd like to hear some real support for this, not just citing "3000 features" vs. "300". What are those features, and what are the actual end-result of those features? I mean, you can point to every little change as a "new feature", but the question is, what is actually going to make a difference to anyone?
yet I don't see people running around here calling OS X 10.x releases service packs.
That's better, but it's not clear to me that it should cost anything to send a text. If cell networks are really overwhelmed (which is what the carriers tend to claim), then why wouldn't they be encouraging text messaging as a bandwidth saving measure? Surely it must take less bandwidth to send a text than to make a 2 minute call.
Of course, on the other hand, there's supply and demand. There's the issue that they don't want you to make text messages because they want you to use your minutes, and if you're willing to pay $0.20 a text, they'll want to charge you that. I'd feel better about the "supply and demand" issue, though, if there were more meaningful competition, and you didn't get the feeling that the carriers were colluding in some way.
Since when does Microsoft care about that? The real issue is that Microsoft has discovered that they may be able to lock people into Windows and Office, but they can't force people to buy new versions. Their "customers" will just keep on using Windows 2000 and Windows XP, and then Microsoft only gets a cut when someone buys a new computer, if that. And then, even then, they have to cut the price of their software for the OEMs, and so they aren't making the sort of money they like.
So what you continually hear out of Microsoft is how the future of computing will involve subscription models, constant charges for everything you want to do, and ubiquitous DRM. The point is simply to get you to continually pay Microsoft for the work they did in the 1990s.
'Both users and suppliers benefit from this new business model'
Only Microsoft could try to call a business model 'new'...
That's the part of that business model that you have a problem with? That they're calling it "new"?
The real problem in my mind is that really, it's either the user *or* the supplier that will benefit, but not both. Because the question is, will the user end up paying more when you calculate all the charges, or will they end up paying less? If they end up paying less, then the users benefit and the suppliers lose money. If they pay more, then the suppliers make more money but the users lose money.
There are plenty of other problems with this model, but certainly it won't benefit both suppliers and users.
I agree with this post, or at least this aspect of it: there isn't really going to be a technical solution. You won't find a magic DRM that actually works, can't be broken, and tracks everywhere the file goes.
What you probably can do is develop a system that will restrict access to the files to only a few authorized people, and tracks who accesses it from that server when. So it would allow you to say, "Only people who are working on this account can access this document, and only [Person A], [Person B], and [Person C] have ever downloaded that document. The last person to download it was [Person B], who downloaded it on [some date]" What you won't be able to say is, "Once [Person B] downloaded it, the information in that document was transfered to [Person D]."
Part of the problem is, even if you're able to implement extremely good DRM, it still won't necessarily stop Person B from reading the document from his monitor, copying the information by hand to a piece of paper, and then sending that paper to someone else (i.e. the analog hole).
If these documents really must be secured, you're going have to have policies and a culture that secure them. Technology can help, but it can't really fix the problem.
You can't make modified copies of someone else's copyrighted work without a license and then proceed to distribute those copies. If you do, that's copyright infringement.
It's really not hard.
Psystar can buy copies of OSX and then sell those same copies, yes. They're perfectly entitled to sell those same exact copies, those same boxed discs that Apple sells in their own stores. Psystar is then installing OSX on computers (which is copying), and then hacking those copies (which is modification).
Just to make it clear, if you're allowed to modify, copy, and distribute copyrighted work without a license, then the GPL doesn't hold either. If Psystar is allowed to install hacked OSX on their own machines, then Cisco should be allowed to install modified versions of Linux onto their routers without releasing the source of their modifications.
Would Apple sue for the "damage" of not selling the hardware?
Maybe they would sue for whatever amount of the cost of the hardware they want to claim is subsidizing the development of the OS?
In any case, I don't think Apple's really after the money. More likely they're interested in the injunction that prevents Psystar from continuing to sell their infringing copies, which would essentially put Psystar out of business.
Google operates by selling advertising. In a bad economy, lots of companies will cut their advertising budget. They aren't impervious to bad economic times.
My point is that if you're a consultant/contractor working part-time, but then you bail on your clients when they have an emergency and need you to work >6 hours a day (even if they're willing to pay), then don't expect to keep getting clients.
The real issue that I see is that extra-planetary solar power is the most obvious source of power where we wouldn't have to worry about running out of fuel (at least as long as the planet is habitable). We may have to worry about running out of materials for solar panels, but it's hard to imagine getting to the point of creating an entire dyson sphere of solar panels and still needing more power.
On the other hand, I'm just waiting for solar power on Earth to pick up, for us to essentially pave large areas on earth for collecting power, and then to have all the environmentalists complain about that. I'm anticipating that at some point we'll hear about "global cooling" concerns, since efficient solar power would also take heat out of the atmosphere.
Nuclear power comes out looking pretty good, but with rising energy needs, how many years of nuclear fuel do we have? However many we have, I hope the human race has more years than that.
I think we're eventually going to have to look for some kind of science-fictiony source of energy. Hopefully by the time we need it, science and engineering will have reached a point where it's less science-fictiony. But in the mean time, I think there's real value in imagining these sorts of solutions, evaluating what would be needed to make them work, and working toward making them practical. That's how progress gets made.
Nothing wrong with sending more landers, probes, etc to mars, the moon, wherever else we can get em.
Especially if you suspect that these places might have resources that we can figure out a way to use. Exploration for the sake of exploration is fine and dandy, but that's not generally why human exploration has happened. The reason people sailed across dangerous uncharted areas has usually been because they expected to find something of practical/financial value on the other side.
Yup, this doesn't really have much to do with the job being in IT. Generally two sorts of people work part-time:
People on the low end, perhaps just starting out. These might include personal assistants, receptionists, helpdesk personnel, service related jobs, etc. They don't make much money.
People on the high end. This group includes contractors, consultants, and the self-employed. There can be a lot of money there if you're very good, and it's only really a part-time job when things are slow. When things are busy, it's a more-than-full-time job, and if you're not willing to work more than full time when it's busy, then you won't keep getting work.
What it comes down to, in large part, is that there's no easy money. I know, we'd all love to think that we can find a nice and easy part-time job that still pays well, but if there are jobs out there like that, good luck finding them. And most likely, the only reason anyone will offer such a sweet deal is if you're highly skilled and valuable.
Slashdot Mirror
That's great. Consider yourself smart and/or lucky. To be honest, I run AV software on all my Windows machines, and I don't think I've ever had it find a virus while I was using it. On the other hand, I have users, friends, and family member who seem to encounter viruses on a regular basis.
I don't know what they're doing, what sites they're visiting, or what behavior is leading them to find these viruses. At this point, I generally don't care, because I haven't had any luck getting them to stop whatever it is they're doing. The answer is that they have to run their computer as a non-administrator, and they need to run an Antivirus package.
The whole thing seems slightly tricky to me, in that even if the songs are hosted and freely available on the record label's website, it's still not clear to me by what license people are permitted to download those songs. What I mean is, if I own the copyright to a song, and then I put that song on a website without any kind of a password, does it necessarily follow that I've legally permitted people to download it without regard to any circumstances?
Because certainly it would seem crazy to put a link right on your homepage saying "click here to download this song", and then pursue copyright infringement cases against everyone who downloads it. On the other hand, court cases have recently decided that "making files available" does not equal "distribution", so it seems to me that simply having a file available on an apache server might not constitute an offer to distribute those files. In other words, just because my files are theoretically available online without a password doesn't mean I've given you permission/license to download them.
White LEDs are still quite expensive though, so bulb made out of it would be a lot more expensive than a standard one.
How long will it last in comparison with a standard one? I'm not asking rhetorically, since I really have no idea how much more expensive they are or how long they last. It does seem like something people tend to ignore, though. People get so focused on saving a few pennies now that they don't realize they'll be spending more over the long haul.
I'm responding because I feel you deserve a response for such a well written post
Thanks.
so now I have to tell Outlook not to search for the file every single day, there's no way I know of to stop it from searching
Try creating an archive (PST file) in the location it's looking. Once Outlook has successfully found it, you should be able to remove it the normal way. There are other ways to handle this, but it depends on the version of Outlook.
I have complaints about both Outlook and Exchange, but it doesn't matter because there still isn't much competition. I know, there's still Zimbra and Scalix and whatever else, but if I'm going to jump ship from Exchange, I want something either from a major vendor or something that's open source. I'm anxious to check out Apple's Snow Leopard, since no one else seems willing to bother.
If I recall correctly, the success of the Wii was a huge surprise to the industry as a whole
As was the PS3's failure. Not that the PS3 is a total failure, but it's a failure relative to what lots of people were expecting. If you read the predictions from before this generation of consoles was released, people thought that the most powerful system would destroy the competition, and it turned out to be the exact opposite. The least powerful system did best, and the most powerful is basically in last place.
But my larger point was that the console market isn't like consoles, in that backwards compatibility isn't that huge of an issue. Part of what keeps Microsoft dominant in the desktop OS market is that people have lots of old/legacy Windows applications that they want/need to run on Windows. In the console market, there aren't really "business critical" games, and being able to play your old games on your new console is a bit of a bonus.
I know some people think it's very important that they can play their PS2 games in the PS3 and that sort of thing, but I don't think it's a big deal for most people. For one thing, most people don't go back and play old games that often; when they're done with a game, they're done with it. But also, if you own a bunch of PS2 games, then you probably also own a PS2 to play them on. Being able to play them on your PS3 is mostly a convenience.
So for that reason, I think Microsoft's success in the console market (like everyone else's) is based largely on the quality/features of their latest console. If the PS4 is much better than the Xbox 3, then Microsoft won't be very successful.
Of course the 360 is doing better than PS3 largely because they got to market first and they've been able to price it cheaper. If Microsoft hadn't cut corners, they might not have made it to market first, and it would be more expensive than it is now.
So maybe the lesson is that if they want to beat Sony in the next generation, they'll have to cut corners then too.
The future of desktop OS is the browser and technologies like gears, silverlight and AIR.
God I hope not. Gears might be fine, but I really hope that people don't fall into letting Internet apps be held hostage by Microsoft and Adobe.
Microsoft will probably retain the 50-50 ratio on the server side and Server 2008 is excellent with AD.
I don't know how well Microsoft will retain the server-end. To me, a lot of it comes down to Exchange. If you want to use Exchange, you have to have an Exchange server and you pretty well have to run a Windows domain at that point, so you may as well let Windows dominate your network. On the other hand, if OSX and Linux come out with decent competitors to Exchange, then Microsoft is going to have to watch its back.
I think most people underestimate the importance of Exchange for Microsoft, but it's a big factor in keeping people using Windows on the server and Office on the desktop, which is in turn a big factor in keeping people using Windows on the desktop.
With the XBOX division, they will be making their $$ of Xbox live and not by selling the console.
I'd say there's a good chance XBox will survive, but you can never tell with the console market. Every new console effectively breaks compatibility anyway, so there's not a huge barrier for people to jump ship when the new generation comes along. The big advantage MS has right now (from what I understand) is that developing for the XBox and Windows PC at the same time is pretty easy, since they use a lot of similar tools. If Microsoft starts to lose its hold on the desktop gaming PC market, then they could lose that advantage.
Microsoft's labs may not match Google currently but they are coming out with some cool stuff.
I'm not sure Microsoft's R&D is the problem. Supposedly their research labs comes up with pretty cool stuff, but MS's management doesn't seem to want to turn that cool stuff into products unless they can figure out how they can use them to leverage Windows, Office, or the web presence (MSN & Live).
I think what's going to have to happen is that Microsoft will have a turn-over in management-- if not in actual management personnel, then in management philosophy. They'll have to start coming up with actual new products, or else actually improve their products in ways that are helpful to users/administrators (as opposed to ways that are useful to Microsoft and the RIAA/MPAA). Somewhere along the line, someone will figure out that it's the only way to stop the hemorrhaging.
Geeze, my point wasn't that I can't find things, but that which order people prefer seems to be largely related to which one they're used to.
Yeah, I don't know. I've used every version of Windows since WFW 3.1, and though the UI was a little better in XP, Win2k was the last upgrade that I did in Windows where I said to myself, "Well this is really going to make things better!" In XP and Vista, the controls have all been moved around, and I'm not sure whether the organization is better or worse-- I think it mostly comes down to "what you're used to". If you're used to looking for a certain network setting in one place and it's not there, it's going to be frustrating.
I used to hate Macs back in the 1990s, but I've used every version of OSX since 10.1. In some releases, the main features were speed and stability, while in others there were actual new features that are useful. To be honest, I don't use Expose or Spotlight that much, but I use the Dashboard and Time Machine. For whatever reason, I find Vista's sidebar and Shadow copy a lot less helpful even though they're pretty similar features.
Obviously there's a little bit of "to each his own" going on here. Whether a feature is "useful" or "useless" depends somewhat on who is using it, how that person is using it, and what they're using it for. But really none of that is really dealing with the point I was trying to make.
My point was that, if you look at the state of Windows, Linux, and OSX back in the year 2000, I think Windows 2000 was the best consumer/business desktop system available. Linux was hard to set up and use, and OSX barely existed. Now look at them today, and OSX and Linux are both great IMO. They've made vast improvements and continue to improve every day. Meanwhile, Microsoft has had all the resources in the world, and I'd say the improvement has been minimal. Both as an admin and as a user, there are very few improvements since Windows 2000 that actually make my life easier.
Now that's just my opinion, and I'd be interested in anyone who can explain how features in Vista make their lives easier. However, when I look at the lack of progress (or what I perceive as a lack of progress), it puts a little bit of doubt into my mind about whether Microsoft will continue to be as successful as they've been. It seems to me like they need a drastic change in direction, and perhaps that they need to fire their current management.
The interent does not need stimulus, it needs net equality of access not dominated by any one.
Sorry, but the Internet infrastructure in this country does need some stimuli. If you think broadband Internet is doing well enough on its own, then I think you're not paying attention. The "fast" Internet connections in this country generally aren't fast enough, and they certainly aren't ubiquitous enough. It's not strange in this country to live in a major city today and still be unable to get an upload rate above 512kbps for under $100 a month. That's retarded.
We can argue about where you want to place blame or what should be done about it, but certainly *something* should be done.
The only way to maximize the efficient use of resources is to remove government coercion from the marketplace
First, that assumes a real free market. Most people think that the important part of a "free market" is that there are multiple providers, and say, "Hey, there's cable and the phone company. You have 2 companies, so you have competition!" However, those two companies have a duopoly over the infrastructure, and so aren't really subject to the market forces that exist when you have a "free market".
The real important part of the "free market" is the low barrier of entry for newcomers, i.e. the ability for a new company to come along and set up their own ISP. You might be thinking right now, "What are you talking about, there are plenty of ISPs! There's not just Verizon and Comcast (or whoever your local phone and cable companies are), but there's Speakeasy and Earthlink and lots of other people!" Nope, there aren't. Those ISPs are providing rebranded service over Verizon's network. The fact is, even if you had the resources to start a company and string fiber optics everywhere, you wouldn't be allowed to do that. So if Verizon doesn't want to string fiber to an area, then you'll never get fiber connections in that area.
Now you might say, "That's what I'm talking about, remove the 'government coercion' that prevents people from stringing fiber everywhere!" Ok, great, now you'll end up with laws that allow any numnuts with a shovel to dig up the streets and other people's yards because they're "laying down cable". It'll be a mess.
Sorry, but really the Internet is "infrastructure". It's like our highway system. Is our highway system a failure, because it's nothing but "ditches to nowhere"? Should we turn over our highway system to Verizon for them to decide where they want to build roads?
Can I ask then: what do you like about Vista? What's so good that you hate going back to XP?
I use Vista, but maybe I'm just missing something. It's prettier. I'll give you that. Running the newest version of Vista with all the updates, I find it about as stable as XP (i.e. neither crashes on me very often).
I guess if you really like the UI changes enough, you might be willing to pay to upgrade, but otherwise I can't think of much of a reason. Maybe Bitlocker for laptops or if you're really using Shadow Copy? Those are the only two features that I see as being particularly useful, but I don't really use them. Mostly, when I look at the proposition of upgrading to Vista, I see it as spending a couple hundred dollars for a prettier interface (kind of good) and a more restrictive activation process (very annoying).
So that's the problem that I have with Vista. It's not that I think Vista is bad, but that I think it's not significantly better. And honestly, I feel the same way to some extent about Windows XP. Besides bug-fixes and such, I don't really see any features that have been added to Windows since Win2k that actually help me in any way. And that makes me pessimistic about Microsoft, because I think, "You give them several years to work on their flagship product, and this is the best they can do?"
There is still more difference between Windows7 and Vista than there is between OS X 10.0 and OS X 10.5
I'd like to hear some real support for this, not just citing "3000 features" vs. "300". What are those features, and what are the actual end-result of those features? I mean, you can point to every little change as a "new feature", but the question is, what is actually going to make a difference to anyone?
yet I don't see people running around here calling OS X 10.x releases service packs.
Yes, people do that all the time.
There's plenty of competition amongst mobile phone carriers.
I wouldn't call 4 or 5 entrenched carriers "plenty of competition".
That's better, but it's not clear to me that it should cost anything to send a text. If cell networks are really overwhelmed (which is what the carriers tend to claim), then why wouldn't they be encouraging text messaging as a bandwidth saving measure? Surely it must take less bandwidth to send a text than to make a 2 minute call.
Of course, on the other hand, there's supply and demand. There's the issue that they don't want you to make text messages because they want you to use your minutes, and if you're willing to pay $0.20 a text, they'll want to charge you that. I'd feel better about the "supply and demand" issue, though, if there were more meaningful competition, and you didn't get the feeling that the carriers were colluding in some way.
What's in it for the consumer?
Since when does Microsoft care about that? The real issue is that Microsoft has discovered that they may be able to lock people into Windows and Office, but they can't force people to buy new versions. Their "customers" will just keep on using Windows 2000 and Windows XP, and then Microsoft only gets a cut when someone buys a new computer, if that. And then, even then, they have to cut the price of their software for the OEMs, and so they aren't making the sort of money they like.
So what you continually hear out of Microsoft is how the future of computing will involve subscription models, constant charges for everything you want to do, and ubiquitous DRM. The point is simply to get you to continually pay Microsoft for the work they did in the 1990s.
'Both users and suppliers benefit from this new business model'
Only Microsoft could try to call a business model 'new'...
That's the part of that business model that you have a problem with? That they're calling it "new"?
The real problem in my mind is that really, it's either the user *or* the supplier that will benefit, but not both. Because the question is, will the user end up paying more when you calculate all the charges, or will they end up paying less? If they end up paying less, then the users benefit and the suppliers lose money. If they pay more, then the suppliers make more money but the users lose money.
There are plenty of other problems with this model, but certainly it won't benefit both suppliers and users.
I agree with this post, or at least this aspect of it: there isn't really going to be a technical solution. You won't find a magic DRM that actually works, can't be broken, and tracks everywhere the file goes.
What you probably can do is develop a system that will restrict access to the files to only a few authorized people, and tracks who accesses it from that server when. So it would allow you to say, "Only people who are working on this account can access this document, and only [Person A], [Person B], and [Person C] have ever downloaded that document. The last person to download it was [Person B], who downloaded it on [some date]" What you won't be able to say is, "Once [Person B] downloaded it, the information in that document was transfered to [Person D]."
Part of the problem is, even if you're able to implement extremely good DRM, it still won't necessarily stop Person B from reading the document from his monitor, copying the information by hand to a piece of paper, and then sending that paper to someone else (i.e. the analog hole).
If these documents really must be secured, you're going have to have policies and a culture that secure them. Technology can help, but it can't really fix the problem.
You can't make modified copies of someone else's copyrighted work without a license and then proceed to distribute those copies. If you do, that's copyright infringement.
It's really not hard.
Psystar can buy copies of OSX and then sell those same copies, yes. They're perfectly entitled to sell those same exact copies, those same boxed discs that Apple sells in their own stores. Psystar is then installing OSX on computers (which is copying), and then hacking those copies (which is modification).
Just to make it clear, if you're allowed to modify, copy, and distribute copyrighted work without a license, then the GPL doesn't hold either. If Psystar is allowed to install hacked OSX on their own machines, then Cisco should be allowed to install modified versions of Linux onto their routers without releasing the source of their modifications.
Pick your side.
I'll be really surprised if Apple doesn't agree to simply make a deal with Psystar to manufacture clones for a licensing fee
Why would they, considering that Psystar doesn't seem to have a case?
Would Apple sue for the "damage" of not selling the hardware?
Maybe they would sue for whatever amount of the cost of the hardware they want to claim is subsidizing the development of the OS?
In any case, I don't think Apple's really after the money. More likely they're interested in the injunction that prevents Psystar from continuing to sell their infringing copies, which would essentially put Psystar out of business.
Google operates by selling advertising. In a bad economy, lots of companies will cut their advertising budget. They aren't impervious to bad economic times.
My point is that if you're a consultant/contractor working part-time, but then you bail on your clients when they have an emergency and need you to work >6 hours a day (even if they're willing to pay), then don't expect to keep getting clients.
The real issue that I see is that extra-planetary solar power is the most obvious source of power where we wouldn't have to worry about running out of fuel (at least as long as the planet is habitable). We may have to worry about running out of materials for solar panels, but it's hard to imagine getting to the point of creating an entire dyson sphere of solar panels and still needing more power.
On the other hand, I'm just waiting for solar power on Earth to pick up, for us to essentially pave large areas on earth for collecting power, and then to have all the environmentalists complain about that. I'm anticipating that at some point we'll hear about "global cooling" concerns, since efficient solar power would also take heat out of the atmosphere.
Nuclear power comes out looking pretty good, but with rising energy needs, how many years of nuclear fuel do we have? However many we have, I hope the human race has more years than that.
I think we're eventually going to have to look for some kind of science-fictiony source of energy. Hopefully by the time we need it, science and engineering will have reached a point where it's less science-fictiony. But in the mean time, I think there's real value in imagining these sorts of solutions, evaluating what would be needed to make them work, and working toward making them practical. That's how progress gets made.
Nothing wrong with sending more landers, probes, etc to mars, the moon, wherever else we can get em.
Especially if you suspect that these places might have resources that we can figure out a way to use. Exploration for the sake of exploration is fine and dandy, but that's not generally why human exploration has happened. The reason people sailed across dangerous uncharted areas has usually been because they expected to find something of practical/financial value on the other side.
Yup, this doesn't really have much to do with the job being in IT. Generally two sorts of people work part-time:
What it comes down to, in large part, is that there's no easy money. I know, we'd all love to think that we can find a nice and easy part-time job that still pays well, but if there are jobs out there like that, good luck finding them. And most likely, the only reason anyone will offer such a sweet deal is if you're highly skilled and valuable.