I've been looking around, good ol' Google, and digg.com and all that. So far, the only source I find for this story is that one Washington Post article. I think the Post is a valid news source, but it would be nice to have more sources to back this story up because I think it's important.
But, unless I'm misunderstanding, there's only going to be *twenty-six* of the things. They'll go to whoever pays the most money for them. I very much doubt you'll be able to get one.
That said, Slashdot could learn a lesson or two from Digg:
You're right it could, but it probably won't because it's old and dumb. OTOH, digg could learn a lot from this article. Let's hope someone over there in charge at digg reads the thing and implements a slashdot-style mod system. Ok, ok so the slashdot mod system ain't exactly what we'd call, uh, good, but it's better than nothing.
Sheesh. I read about this over at the BBC. That artcle, at least, made it clear that the concern was like the mildest of concerns. I mean we're talking one study makes one link between decaf coffee and some cholesterol levels and maybe one other thing. That's it. Big whoop. And even then, it only affected people that drank, I think, six or more cups a day.
So now everyone here is making fun of this slashdot article, and rightly so. This is what we call *sensationalism*. But hey it works, you clicked on the link right? Just as "the revolution will not be televised" I suspect much of the *real* news may not have splashy headlines or catchy theme music.
Alright, suppose I take the concerns that there my be a flu pandemic in the next few years seriously...
What the FUCK am I supposed to do about it? Huh? I've heard various non-woo-woo sources warn me of the potential for major hell, but thus far, no one I've heard has indicated how I might better prepare myself.
To make an allusion to a situation I have at work: we use a framework for development, and I have a tweaked copy I use for a pet project. But I don't dare ask for support on it, because I made modifications to the code beyond the specifications of the code. I can do that, because I am a developer and have rights to the codebase, etc. but then its no longer a standard. I can't expect it to support other applications built for the main framework and vice versa, etc...
... Ok, so, as you say, once you modify it, you can't expect support for it anymore. And how does this equate to Open Source being less open? I get the feeling he's making the statement "open source has hidden costs", then proceeding to tell us about something we already assumed and expected, but in such a way so that it seems new and different.
But more importantly, MS ain't exactly dead and buried yet. I forsee many, many more years of massive overbearing dominance by MS. They are far from dead so, even if Google-as-tyrant turned out to be plausible after all, we're still far away from that point in time.
I know that it's rude and intolerant of me to say this but--I really don't care.
I mean--I *really* don't care. If you could turn my *not* caring about this into a fuel, it would power a starship for a journey from here to Mars and back again. That is how much I don't care.
But I will click on the link and edu-ma-cate myself anyway because it's knowledge, and knowledge is good.
But does GNU software really comprise 95% of Linux?
(here I intentionally parrot something Linus said once) The major contribution of GNU to Linux, as I see it, is the compiler, and the GNU license itself.
If you're going to give credit to all major Linux components, then surely you'd have to credit X Windows as well. So now it's X/GNU/Linux. And then, really, since the desktop layer is so large, you should credit it too. Now it's {Gnome,KDE}/X/GNU/Linux.
And now, as we go along the name of your specific Linux system will become increasingly different from everyone elses as we list all the specific major software components that make your system what it is. This gets pedantic and tedious pretty fast. As a parent poster said, I think RMS is plenty good at making sure he and his get credit where it's due already.
I think this is the beginning of the end for DVDs and services around DVDs (Blockbuster, NetFlix, etc).
Funny, I thought Netflix was supposed to be the beginning of the end of Blockbuster. The Internet was the beginning of the end of newspapers, TV, radio--all other forms of content distribution. TV was the beginning of the end of radio, etc.
In the long run, you could be right of course, but very frequently the road from "the beginning of the end" to the actual end is very, very long with many twists along the path. Very frequently, the previous technology does not ever truly die out, it just gets relegated to semi-obscurity.
I like the "thank $DEITY" part, but on my system $DEITY = '\0' so it doesn't evaluate very well. Maybe some exception handling code should be thrown in.
I'd love if Jon Stewart could force comedy central to provide it's videos for video ipod.
If the insanely unlikely were to occur--that is, if somehow, despite all the technical, logistical, and legal considerations, it were somehow possible to download full episodes of the Daily Show to the new video iPod the same day they aired on cable, then I would buy one.
As a potential workaround, there's an extension named SessionSaver that saves all your current tabs when you close the FF window (assuming you have just one window open that is).
In this way, you could shut down FF periodically, then restart it. Of course, since I've never looked at the memory situation, for all I know, it might restart FF with exactly the same memory problem you seem to have had before, but it's worth a shot.
You're weird and strange. Where did this obsession over standards come from? I'm using Firefox because it was super-easy to start using it and because progressive search/find within a page is oodles better than IE's dorky pop-up search window. If it *happens* to be the case that Firefox also adheres to some W3 standards more than IE does, then so much the better, but it's not reason I switched.
Slashdot Mirror
But a mad, grafix haX0r will 0wn your ceral box and goatse it at an inopportune moment.
I've been looking around, good ol' Google, and digg.com and all that. So far, the only source I find for this story is that one Washington Post article. I think the Post is a valid news source, but it would be nice to have more sources to back this story up because I think it's important.
Anyone out there got more sources?
But, unless I'm misunderstanding, there's only going to be *twenty-six* of the things. They'll go to whoever pays the most money for them. I very much doubt you'll be able to get one.
You're right it could, but it probably won't because it's old and dumb. OTOH, digg could learn a lot from this article. Let's hope someone over there in charge at digg reads the thing and implements a slashdot-style mod system. Ok, ok so the slashdot mod system ain't exactly what we'd call, uh, good, but it's better than nothing.
Sheesh. I read about this over at the BBC. That artcle, at least, made it clear that the concern was like the mildest of concerns. I mean we're talking one study makes one link between decaf coffee and some cholesterol levels and maybe one other thing. That's it. Big whoop. And even then, it only affected people that drank, I think, six or more cups a day.
So now everyone here is making fun of this slashdot article, and rightly so. This is what we call *sensationalism*. But hey it works, you clicked on the link right? Just as "the revolution will not be televised" I suspect much of the *real* news may not have splashy headlines or catchy theme music.
Alright, suppose I take the concerns that there my be a flu pandemic in the next few years seriously...
What the FUCK am I supposed to do about it? Huh? I've heard various non-woo-woo sources warn me of the potential for major hell, but thus far, no one I've heard has indicated how I might better prepare myself.
Has that Umbrella Corporation got any tentacles involved in T virus research or cosmetics?
... you edit for Wikipedia, huh? ;-)
It's not a fact, it's a prediction. It's probably true, though.
The point is, it's a lot cheaper. Still, native is pretty cool. I may be switching to Mac from PC in a few more months. :)
... Ok, so, as you say, once you modify it, you can't expect support for it anymore. And how does this equate to Open Source being less open? I get the feeling he's making the statement "open source has hidden costs", then proceeding to tell us about something we already assumed and expected, but in such a way so that it seems new and different.
I agree with the Score 5 post9 28878
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=167044&cid=13
IMHO, Google is no kind of tyrant.
But more importantly, MS ain't exactly dead and buried yet. I forsee many, many more years of massive overbearing dominance by MS. They are far from dead so, even if Google-as-tyrant turned out to be plausible after all, we're still far away from that point in time.
You can find out on opensecrets.org.
I know that it's rude and intolerant of me to say this but--I really don't care.
I mean--I *really* don't care. If you could turn my *not* caring about this into a fuel, it would power a starship for a journey from here to Mars and back again. That is how much I don't care.
But I will click on the link and edu-ma-cate myself anyway because it's knowledge, and knowledge is good.
But does GNU software really comprise 95% of Linux?
(here I intentionally parrot something Linus said once) The major contribution of GNU to Linux, as I see it, is the compiler, and the GNU license itself.
If you're going to give credit to all major Linux components, then surely you'd have to credit X Windows as well. So now it's X/GNU/Linux. And then, really, since the desktop layer is so large, you should credit it too. Now it's {Gnome,KDE}/X/GNU/Linux.
And now, as we go along the name of your specific Linux system will become increasingly different from everyone elses as we list all the specific major software components that make your system what it is. This gets pedantic and tedious pretty fast. As a parent poster said, I think RMS is plenty good at making sure he and his get credit where it's due already.
Are there any good web sites out there that have current info on what networks are carrying what traffic? TIA
That settles it, now I *have* to buy one. Refurbished Mac Mini here I come, just as soon as I've got the extra $$$. (I'm still a cheap skate. :-) )
The article is very vague. Is there any indication of whether or not this is actually going to affect the big name cell phone companies?
Wow.
May I be forever touched by Your Noodly Appendage.
Hail! (and eat noodles)
Funny, I thought Netflix was supposed to be the beginning of the end of Blockbuster. The Internet was the beginning of the end of newspapers, TV, radio--all other forms of content distribution. TV was the beginning of the end of radio, etc.
In the long run, you could be right of course, but very frequently the road from "the beginning of the end" to the actual end is very, very long with many twists along the path. Very frequently, the previous technology does not ever truly die out, it just gets relegated to semi-obscurity.
I like the "thank $DEITY" part, but on my system $DEITY = '\0' so it doesn't evaluate very well. Maybe some exception handling code should be thrown in.
If the insanely unlikely were to occur--that is, if somehow, despite all the technical, logistical, and legal considerations, it were somehow possible to download full episodes of the Daily Show to the new video iPod the same day they aired on cable, then I would buy one.
That was really kind of fun and cool, space doggies and all. I mean, I don't have any special interest in C/NOFS, but at least now I know about it.
Why can't there be about 100 times more science education like this out there? That would make me happy.
As a potential workaround, there's an extension named SessionSaver that saves all your current tabs when you close the FF window (assuming you have just one window open that is).
In this way, you could shut down FF periodically, then restart it. Of course, since I've never looked at the memory situation, for all I know, it might restart FF with exactly the same memory problem you seem to have had before, but it's worth a shot.
You're weird and strange. Where did this obsession over standards come from? I'm using Firefox because it was super-easy to start using it and because progressive search/find within a page is oodles better than IE's dorky pop-up search window. If it *happens* to be the case that Firefox also adheres to some W3 standards more than IE does, then so much the better, but it's not reason I switched.