Nope, it's physicality. I have a hard time reading on screens, and I've yet to see a compelling e-book handheld with the same resolution as print, that I can read for six hours, that has the same classical feeling as flipping pages back and forth. For some things, it might work, but nothing beats curling up with a good book and a mug of hot chocolate by the fire and digging into a good novel.
Maybe it's just my browser, but when I click that link I end up at Microsoft.com. Perhaps this is thinly-veiled criticism on the part of the parent? Still weird though.
Re:I preferred them between a rock and hard place
on
SCO On the Rocks
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Yeah, but... but... I want them to flame out in a huge court loss. I want SCO's finances and future prospects to be devastated. I want a clear and definitive signal that Linux is safe and SCO was stupid to butt heads with Open Source.
This has nothing to do with open-source. SCO was stupid to butt heads with IBM in the first place, and going up against Novell at the same time is a dangerous gambit. SCO doesn't have much of a case in either area, and a loss against Novell would (as I understand the situation) invalidate any claims they might have to the copyright, though I believe the IBM suit is more about contracts than copyright.
This has nothing to do with Linux being open-source and everything to do with an insignificant company trying to take on a behemoth (IBM) and a big player (Novell) at the same time, without having a case in the first place. It's about SCO beefing itself up and trying to bully everyone around, only the first 'victims' it chose were a quarterback and a karate student, and now the bully is telling everyone that it will be kicking their asses, while its targets are just going about their lives ignoring SCO's talk until things come to a head and they have no choice but to give SCO a taste of the harsh reality that SCO apparantly can't accept (or even see).
SCO will die a slow wasting death, consumed by its own greed and insecurity, and convinced that the rest of the world stole from it and they all must pay the price. Its death comes, not from challenging open-source, but from a descent into madness of which their challenge is merely a symptom.
SCO is going to die pathetic, and they are going to rot forgotten.
We already have people to decide who is and is not a journalist - for example, the Canadian Association of Journalists, the International Federation of Journalists, and so on. This is how real journalists get press passes, by the way - they join the associations, which check their credentials, and issue passes.
I doubt this 'blogger' is a member of any professional journalism organizations. I doubt they have any formal training, or indeed any training whatsoever. I'm curious as to how 'journalism' can be confused with some guy writing something and distributing it to the masses. If I print flyers and distribute them on the street corner, am I a journalist? No. If I tape posters to streetlamps and hydro poles, am I a journalist? No.
Journalism is a profession that requires both skill and responsibility. To call bloggers 'journalists' is akin to calling an MCSE an 'engineer'. The word is far from the truth, and if being called a journalist requires nothing more than a voice, then the single most important career possible in an open and democratic society suddenly means nothing. When a loud voice and a sense of self-righteousness can be considered equal to understanding of ethics, unbiased reporting, and facility with the language, then 'journalism' is suddenly just a word, and all the respect it once deserved is lost forever.
These people are not journalists, they are not reporters, and they are not worthy of anyone's respect. They are helping someone who broke an NDA escape due process, something that I doubt any good journalist would be willing to do - but then, any good journalist wouldn't have posted the details in the first place.
This is not a free speech issue. This is a legal issue. Someone signed a contract saying they would not disclose the information they learned, and then they broke that contract. No one is speaking as to the blogger's right to post, they are only speaking as to the source's right to leak, which does not exist. This has nothing to do with rights and everything to do with contractual obligation, and the person who leaked this information should be revealed, as they can not and should not be trusted with sensitive information by any company, ever again.
Here's an example to put this into perspective: my company deals with a lot of personal information for thousands of clients. Do I want to hire someone who has, in the past, broken their contractual obligations? Do I want them leaking the spending habits of important clients to the press, putting my company and my business in danger?
Slashdotters are always talking about privacy issues, but the only things stopping me from leaking the (very) personal details of thousands of people onto the internet is my sense of ethics and an NDA. This person obviously does not have a sense of ethics, and if an NDA is worthless when hidden behind an 'anonymous tip', then you can all kiss your privacy goodbye.
When confronted with a job that demands of you what you are not willing to do, just do what I did when I found out the extent of a previous employer's spamming and illicit/illegal business dealings: nothing!
Sure, I had to keep the boss up to date on what I was pretending to do, but I saved up and got a trip to Israel out of him before he fired me.
So in responce to your question, yes, you are a fool. You should have pretended to work until they caught on and fired you, and in the meantime, been looking for other jobs. In larger companies, you can get away with this for quite a while too.
Wow, I've never seen well-done ugly icons before. The attention to detail in these icons is great (much better than Windows), but the icon design I have to say is ugly, blocky, and uninspired. It reminds me of the icons from System 6-7 & MacOS 8, which were great for their time compared to Windows, but are boring now. Why on earth would Gnome go from a blocky squared-off theme to a smooth, contoured one, and then go and make a blocky squared-off icon set the default?
If these are set as the default icons, I will swiftly change them.
I find with linux distros, the stuff included feels like it's all over the place, hard to find where things end up installing... but I'm really a vxworks fan... so take what I say with a grain of salt...;)
Generally this is true - this is the reason I restrict myself to Debian. With Debian, everything is packaged in the same manner, to the same standards, and it all makes sense. The structure makes it the only Linux distribution I'm willing to spend any time on.
When I tried FreeBSD, I felt that it had much more of a UNIX feel to it - I felt like I was dealing with something classic and powerful. I wasn't (there's only so much a P133 can do), and I had no use for FreeBSD whatsoever, but even just at the console, it felt more responsive and powerful. All subjective, but interesting.
First of all, you suggest that women don't like working in IT because their gender is just not predisposed to that. Perhaps they would feel more comfortable in a more 'feminine' job, like being a hosuewife, or working the make-up counter at The Bay, or maybe being a secretary?
I don't know who modded you insightful, but it's attitudes like your own that have brought about years of repressal of women, treating them like they can't do things and training them not to want to, just because of some imagined inabilities.
Perhaps girls don't want to be geeks because they would have to deal with closed-minded, mysogenist thinking such as your own, the opinion that just because someone has different chromosomes that they can't do their job or need to be hand-held.
As for your girlfriend not enjoying spending 6 hours recompiling and securing a *nix system, that's fine. Most of the guys I know, including programmers, are completely incapable of recompiling and securing a *nix system. I am perfectly capable of doing so, but I certainly wouldn't enjoy spending 6 hours doing it - that's either a waste of time, cleaning up someone else's mess, or not knowing what you're doing.
Perhaps girls don't want to be geeks because the geeks they meet are terrible at expressing themselves, using improper punctuation in written form (you've used apostrophes wrong three out of four times, and put quotes around 'stigmata'), or poor grasp of vocabulary (you meant 'stigma'). Or perhaps they're just turned off by people that try to sound intelligent and insightful, but are easily seen as people who are just trying to sound intelligent and insightful (you quoted 'stigmata' to make it stand out, when there's no grammatical reason for this - anyone who was actually using this word because of a good vocabulary wouldn't make the word stand out, because to them, it's just another word).
I'd never gotten around to watching the series, but now that my interest is piqued, I've decided to hit up bittorrent to continue watching this fantastic show.
A little ironic, to be sure, but it's mindshare - now when it comes out on DVD, I might buy it and watch it again, instead of just downloading DVD rips and watching for the first time.
I work as a sysadmin for an unnamed credit-card processor, and when I first interviewed for the job, one of the things my boss mentioned is that people will look for the Verisign logo. Yes, the same people that don't see the 'Help' link right in front of their faces get antsy if the processing website (i.e. us) doesn't have a verisign logo, regardless of whether the connection is encrypted or not (and it is - even going to our homepage redirects to an HTTPS URL, we encrypt everything).
I've had a few situations where I wanted to encrypt html and had no need of guaranteeing my server's identity to anyone.
I can't think of any reason that would want one but not the other - simply put, SSL encryption and verification are rolled into one because there's no point in encrypting traffic if you don't know where it's going to - i.e. man-in-the-middle attacks.
Unless, perhaps, you just want to fool casual sniffers about the content, but in that case, just use on-the-fly compression with e.g. mod_gzip and suffice that. It's not much less secure than non-authenticating SSL.
IANAL, but from what various law classes have taught me...
When it's generally accepted that what is being put in front of you is for a specific purpose (i.e. consent for surgery or permission to run a credit check), all you need to ask for is if there's anything in the contract that you need to know. If there's anything that would not be expected (e.g. 'if you die we get your organs'), then they will tell you, and if they don't, it's not enforcable.
I imagine that if tested in court, EULAs would be considered in the same realm.
With a 14-day free trial, assuming a 1:1 song length to encoding time ratio, I can copy 20160 minutes of songs, or a little over 5000 tracks at an average of 4 minutes per track - and I can download a LOT faster than I can play, so I can take advantage of the fact that you can put it on three machines and kick that up to 15,000 tracks in 14 days for free.
So yeah, those people do exist, and they're going to have huge music libraries by the end of the month.
Well, 12 days comes to 17280 minutes, or assuming 4 minutes per song, that's 4300 tunes. Not bad. And that assumes I only have one machine doing it - the Napster license lets you have music on three machines at once, for a total of 12000 songs in 12 days, or a thousand songs per day.
Not to start any speculation, but I was disassembling World of Warcraft the other day, and noticed something.
There were text fields with names of OSes - Win95, Win98, Win98SE, Win98OSR2, WinME, Win2K, WinXP, Win2k3, MacOSX, MacOS9 - and Linux.
I thought that was kind of interesting. It doesn't say anything, but it's neat to wonder. It's the kind of thing Blizzard might do (or maybe they were just playing around with it).
Slashdot Mirror
And, of course, the Microsoft Law of Competitive Software Development:
'A 44 magnum always beats four aces.'
I am not sure there actually is another cable service provider in Canada
Among others, there is Videotron in Quebec, and Rogers Cable - and be glad you don't have to deal with them.
Nope, it's physicality. I have a hard time reading on screens, and I've yet to see a compelling e-book handheld with the same resolution as print, that I can read for six hours, that has the same classical feeling as flipping pages back and forth. For some things, it might work, but nothing beats curling up with a good book and a mug of hot chocolate by the fire and digging into a good novel.
Maybe it's just my browser, but when I click that link I end up at Microsoft.com. Perhaps this is thinly-veiled criticism on the part of the parent? Still weird though.
Yeah, but... but... I want them to flame out in a huge court loss. I want SCO's finances and future prospects to be devastated. I want a clear and definitive signal that Linux is safe and SCO was stupid to butt heads with Open Source.
This has nothing to do with open-source. SCO was stupid to butt heads with IBM in the first place, and going up against Novell at the same time is a dangerous gambit. SCO doesn't have much of a case in either area, and a loss against Novell would (as I understand the situation) invalidate any claims they might have to the copyright, though I believe the IBM suit is more about contracts than copyright.
This has nothing to do with Linux being open-source and everything to do with an insignificant company trying to take on a behemoth (IBM) and a big player (Novell) at the same time, without having a case in the first place. It's about SCO beefing itself up and trying to bully everyone around, only the first 'victims' it chose were a quarterback and a karate student, and now the bully is telling everyone that it will be kicking their asses, while its targets are just going about their lives ignoring SCO's talk until things come to a head and they have no choice but to give SCO a taste of the harsh reality that SCO apparantly can't accept (or even see).
SCO will die a slow wasting death, consumed by its own greed and insecurity, and convinced that the rest of the world stole from it and they all must pay the price. Its death comes, not from challenging open-source, but from a descent into madness of which their challenge is merely a symptom.
SCO is going to die pathetic, and they are going to rot forgotten.
We already have people to decide who is and is not a journalist - for example, the Canadian Association of Journalists, the International Federation of Journalists, and so on. This is how real journalists get press passes, by the way - they join the associations, which check their credentials, and issue passes.
I doubt this 'blogger' is a member of any professional journalism organizations. I doubt they have any formal training, or indeed any training whatsoever. I'm curious as to how 'journalism' can be confused with some guy writing something and distributing it to the masses. If I print flyers and distribute them on the street corner, am I a journalist? No. If I tape posters to streetlamps and hydro poles, am I a journalist? No.
Journalism is a profession that requires both skill and responsibility. To call bloggers 'journalists' is akin to calling an MCSE an 'engineer'. The word is far from the truth, and if being called a journalist requires nothing more than a voice, then the single most important career possible in an open and democratic society suddenly means nothing. When a loud voice and a sense of self-righteousness can be considered equal to understanding of ethics, unbiased reporting, and facility with the language, then 'journalism' is suddenly just a word, and all the respect it once deserved is lost forever.
These people are not journalists, they are not reporters, and they are not worthy of anyone's respect. They are helping someone who broke an NDA escape due process, something that I doubt any good journalist would be willing to do - but then, any good journalist wouldn't have posted the details in the first place.
This is not a free speech issue. This is a legal issue. Someone signed a contract saying they would not disclose the information they learned, and then they broke that contract. No one is speaking as to the blogger's right to post, they are only speaking as to the source's right to leak, which does not exist. This has nothing to do with rights and everything to do with contractual obligation, and the person who leaked this information should be revealed, as they can not and should not be trusted with sensitive information by any company, ever again.
Here's an example to put this into perspective: my company deals with a lot of personal information for thousands of clients. Do I want to hire someone who has, in the past, broken their contractual obligations? Do I want them leaking the spending habits of important clients to the press, putting my company and my business in danger?
Slashdotters are always talking about privacy issues, but the only things stopping me from leaking the (very) personal details of thousands of people onto the internet is my sense of ethics and an NDA. This person obviously does not have a sense of ethics, and if an NDA is worthless when hidden behind an 'anonymous tip', then you can all kiss your privacy goodbye.
When confronted with a job that demands of you what you are not willing to do, just do what I did when I found out the extent of a previous employer's spamming and illicit/illegal business dealings: nothing!
Sure, I had to keep the boss up to date on what I was pretending to do, but I saved up and got a trip to Israel out of him before he fired me.
So in responce to your question, yes, you are a fool. You should have pretended to work until they caught on and fired you, and in the meantime, been looking for other jobs. In larger companies, you can get away with this for quite a while too.
'Calvin, go do something you hate. Being miserable builds character.'
Wow, I've never seen well-done ugly icons before. The attention to detail in these icons is great (much better than Windows), but the icon design I have to say is ugly, blocky, and uninspired. It reminds me of the icons from System 6-7 & MacOS 8, which were great for their time compared to Windows, but are boring now. Why on earth would Gnome go from a blocky squared-off theme to a smooth, contoured one, and then go and make a blocky squared-off icon set the default?
If these are set as the default icons, I will swiftly change them.
I find with linux distros, the stuff included feels like it's all over the place, hard to find where things end up installing... but I'm really a vxworks fan... so take what I say with a grain of salt... ;)
Generally this is true - this is the reason I restrict myself to Debian. With Debian, everything is packaged in the same manner, to the same standards, and it all makes sense. The structure makes it the only Linux distribution I'm willing to spend any time on.
When I tried FreeBSD, I felt that it had much more of a UNIX feel to it - I felt like I was dealing with something classic and powerful. I wasn't (there's only so much a P133 can do), and I had no use for FreeBSD whatsoever, but even just at the console, it felt more responsive and powerful. All subjective, but interesting.
Ok, where do I even start?
First of all, you suggest that women don't like working in IT because their gender is just not predisposed to that. Perhaps they would feel more comfortable in a more 'feminine' job, like being a hosuewife, or working the make-up counter at The Bay, or maybe being a secretary?
I don't know who modded you insightful, but it's attitudes like your own that have brought about years of repressal of women, treating them like they can't do things and training them not to want to, just because of some imagined inabilities.
Perhaps girls don't want to be geeks because they would have to deal with closed-minded, mysogenist thinking such as your own, the opinion that just because someone has different chromosomes that they can't do their job or need to be hand-held.
As for your girlfriend not enjoying spending 6 hours recompiling and securing a *nix system, that's fine. Most of the guys I know, including programmers, are completely incapable of recompiling and securing a *nix system. I am perfectly capable of doing so, but I certainly wouldn't enjoy spending 6 hours doing it - that's either a waste of time, cleaning up someone else's mess, or not knowing what you're doing.
Perhaps girls don't want to be geeks because the geeks they meet are terrible at expressing themselves, using improper punctuation in written form (you've used apostrophes wrong three out of four times, and put quotes around 'stigmata'), or poor grasp of vocabulary (you meant 'stigma'). Or perhaps they're just turned off by people that try to sound intelligent and insightful, but are easily seen as people who are just trying to sound intelligent and insightful (you quoted 'stigmata' to make it stand out, when there's no grammatical reason for this - anyone who was actually using this word because of a good vocabulary wouldn't make the word stand out, because to them, it's just another word).
Who mods you people up anyway? Seriously though.
I'd never gotten around to watching the series, but now that my interest is piqued, I've decided to hit up bittorrent to continue watching this fantastic show.
A little ironic, to be sure, but it's mindshare - now when it comes out on DVD, I might buy it and watch it again, instead of just downloading DVD rips and watching for the first time.
William Shatner? Is that you?
If it can be viewed, it will be copied, and then distributed.
The mods obviously feel that way.
I work as a sysadmin for an unnamed credit-card processor, and when I first interviewed for the job, one of the things my boss mentioned is that people will look for the Verisign logo. Yes, the same people that don't see the 'Help' link right in front of their faces get antsy if the processing website (i.e. us) doesn't have a verisign logo, regardless of whether the connection is encrypted or not (and it is - even going to our homepage redirects to an HTTPS URL, we encrypt everything).
I've had a few situations where I wanted to encrypt html and had no need of guaranteeing my server's identity to anyone.
I can't think of any reason that would want one but not the other - simply put, SSL encryption and verification are rolled into one because there's no point in encrypting traffic if you don't know where it's going to - i.e. man-in-the-middle attacks.
Unless, perhaps, you just want to fool casual sniffers about the content, but in that case, just use on-the-fly compression with e.g. mod_gzip and suffice that. It's not much less secure than non-authenticating SSL.
IANAL, but from what various law classes have taught me...
When it's generally accepted that what is being put in front of you is for a specific purpose (i.e. consent for surgery or permission to run a credit check), all you need to ask for is if there's anything in the contract that you need to know. If there's anything that would not be expected (e.g. 'if you die we get your organs'), then they will tell you, and if they don't, it's not enforcable.
I imagine that if tested in court, EULAs would be considered in the same realm.
May I post it on mine then? I have no problem paying for traffic to share this with the world.
With a 14-day free trial, assuming a 1:1 song length to encoding time ratio, I can copy 20160 minutes of songs, or a little over 5000 tracks at an average of 4 minutes per track - and I can download a LOT faster than I can play, so I can take advantage of the fact that you can put it on three machines and kick that up to 15,000 tracks in 14 days for free.
So yeah, those people do exist, and they're going to have huge music libraries by the end of the month.
Try Virtuosa or Tunebite (which is what I use).
Well, 12 days comes to 17280 minutes, or assuming 4 minutes per song, that's 4300 tunes. Not bad. And that assumes I only have one machine doing it - the Napster license lets you have music on three machines at once, for a total of 12000 songs in 12 days, or a thousand songs per day.
Nice.
Actually, it captures it from the sound card (in Windows, you can record sound card output), so at that point, it's still digital.
Good quality too.
The jig is up. I was hoping I'd finish my 14-day trial before anyone found out about this. Oh well, I got 8 gigs already, and I can get more today.
I use a program called tunebite that plays the files back and records them to MP3, as well as copying over album/artist metadata from the tags.
Hopefully I can get everything copied before they fix it (if they ever can fix it).
Not to start any speculation, but I was disassembling World of Warcraft the other day, and noticed something.
There were text fields with names of OSes - Win95, Win98, Win98SE, Win98OSR2, WinME, Win2K, WinXP, Win2k3, MacOSX, MacOS9 - and Linux.
I thought that was kind of interesting. It doesn't say anything, but it's neat to wonder. It's the kind of thing Blizzard might do (or maybe they were just playing around with it).
Did anyone else read this as 'College Students Turn Away From Landmines'?
I've heard of some pretty crazy dorm pranks, but that seems a little extreme.