I don't know how happy Connectix would be if MacOS was ported to the x86 platform. Apple gave them a pretty solid market to sell VirtualPC...So if people see MacOS runs on the much cheaper Intel platform, they'll buy a PC, and install MacOS on it.
Virtual PC would lose a significant portion of their business. People won't need to virtually run Windows under MacOS anymore, as they would be able to simply dual boot their system. You need Windows? Reboot.
Virtual PC is too much of a Mac selling point for them to allow this to go by quietly. I expect to hear something from them.
Better yet, when does a computer graduate from "Obsolete" to "Vintage"? Seems like hardware takes a step down before taking a step up.
People are guessing that to be designated as "Vintage", hardware should be 5-10 years old. I must disagree. The Pentium started shipping 6 years ago, and I don't consider a Pentium Processor as "Vintage" by ANY stretch of the imagination.
I think in the computer world, "Vintage" can't be an absolute, except in the idea of being older. Starting at about 10-15 years old seems about right, but it depends on the circumstance. The Commodore 64 and the i286 were introduced the same year - Which do you think is more a "Vintage" piece of hardware?
Personally, I'd side with the C64, but that's due to personal nostalgia. But hey! Vintage equipment is SUPPOSED to invoke nostalgic feelings, so the definition is in the eye of the beholder.
You'd think these people would try to be informed, if I know Compaq sucks, and you know Compaq sucks and Joe Schmoe Computer Buyer goes out, without trying to inform himself about the products, and buys a Compaq, then its his own damn fault.
I agree with you 100%. People need to make informed purchases. But that's not what this law is about.
Let's say Joe Schmoe Computer ignores his friends and buys a Compaq anyway (God help his poor soul). His Compaq comes with a warranty. He has problems with it, and tries to have it fixed under the Warranty. Compaq refuses to acknowledge the warranty. (They did this to me!) Now, Joe Schmoe Computer is SOL because Compaq refuses to abide by their own warranty.
But Joe can take action if the law says you MUST uphold your warranty. That's what the bill is about.
Now, if Joe were my friend, I'd sedate him before letting him buy a Compaq, but that's another story.
So a better analogy would be if you got into your 1982 Escort and it didn't start. Should the manufacturer have to fix it?
Okay, let's use that analogy. (Again, Hypothetical.)
I get into my 1982 Ford Escort, put the key in the ignition, and try to start the car. It doesn't start. After an investigation, it is found that it's due to a faulty starter that is found in all 1982 Ford Escorts. You have just discovered this manufacturer's flaw for the first time, however Ford has had many complaints in the past regarding similar issues. They finally acknowledge it's a defect, issue a recall, and correct the issue.
Now, for something better - a Non-Hypothetical, Real-Life situation. (And it's still a relevant analogy, too!)
The 1980 Mazda 626 had several manufacturer recalls done. Let's examine two of the recalls.
Wind noise around doors.
Steering wheel slightly off-center.
These issues are definitely not life threatening, and are minor irritants at most. Yet, Mazda issued recalls for these very issues. Should the manufacturer have to fix something they were responsible for creating problems in? Hell Yes!
Oh, and to invalidate yet another argument, someone brought up the issue of recalls not possibly going undetected for any excessive length of time. Well, the two recalls I mentioned were both issued in 1998 - The steering wheel in April, and the doors in July. That's 18 years between the car being manufactured and the recall being issued.
And to carry your analogy to real life: I get in my 1980 Mazda 626 and find it doesn't start. After an investigation, it was found that the battery went dead due to a manufacturer defect.
There was an October 1998 recall for that very issue.
I would make sure the customer had working kit, but I would not bend over backwards to do it.
And that's exactly why Mr. Customer won't buy anything from you.
Customers have every right to expect manufacturers to stand behind their products. Excellent customer service makes customers happy, and in turn, generates more customers, who in turn are made happy by receiving excellent customer service...(the pattern continues.)
If you're not willing to bend over backwards to satisfy your consumers, they're going to find other places that will. Believe me, they're out there - any successful business owner will tell you that 90% of the success is due to good customer service.
Nobody replaces hundreds of dollars of equipment just because you say "it's broken"
Anyone who does, is a fool. That's usually why manufacturers have you ship the item back to them so they can have a look at it. Nobody out there declares something "broken" just because the user thinks so.
...if a component claims to be up-to-date but doesn't work with Linux, can I sue?
This is the problem with the Judicial system today. Someone gets a problem with something, they immediately think "SUE!" If you (editor) had actually READ the article, you would have discovered it pertains to WARRANTY issues, and REPAIR issues. Hardware, my friend.
Now, if the company claimed outright that the product works with Linux, and in reality it DOESN'T - Then you have a lot more solid ground to stand on. But for crying out loud, Don't break out the lawyers! (You cry when it's done against things you support, but if it's in your favor you'll turn and do the same?)
..this seems to me more like a feel-good measure than a real benefit...
I bought a laptop from Compaq awhile back, and struggled with their so-called "customer service", just trying to get some repairs done while it was still 2 years before the end of the warranty. Writing to the BBB, and consumer protection divisions of several organizations had no effect. It wasn't until the company I bought it from (PC Connection) got wind of my situation, and kindly replaced it for me with a superior model/different brand, that this case was resolved.
Compaq refused to uphold their warranty, and I was left with a useless laptop. Now you're saying that having strong legal backing wouldn't be a real benefit? If it wasn't for the company I bought my laptop from, my POS Compaq would have ended up on eBay being sold "AS-IS" for quite a lot less than Compaq SAID they would have refunded me (in their warranty).
P.S.: I highly recommend PC Connection due to their outstanding customer service. No, I don't work for them, but they kindly replaced my shitty Compaq with a much better brand, and a superior model. I just wish I had this bill (law, hopefully) backing me up. Frustration is a lousy thing to be forced deal with by a company like Compaq, who's main concern is cutting costs and screwing the consumer.
...but there's no way the Ford should be held liable for a product that is, for all practical purposes, obsolete.
(NOTE: The Following is purely hypothetical.)
I walk outside, down my driveway, and I get into my 1982 Ford Escort. I put the key into the ignition, turn it, and my dashboard explodes. After an investigation, it's found that this was the result of a faulty ignition mechanism plaguing all 1982 Ford Escorts, that you have just discovered at the risk (expense?) of your life.
Now, are you going to tell me that Ford isn't responsible, simply because this car is "obsolete?" Wrong. You'd bet your ass Ford would issue a recall and correct the problem.
Computer hardware failures within the first two years are pretty rare, and usually covered by warrantee.
Sure - Rare if you get yourself a computer that is built well. However, Joe Computer is going to buy himself that spiffy Compaq he's had his eye on. Compaq is NOTORIOUS for shoddy computer equipment. (I speak from experience.)
Ahh, how I long for the Good 'Ol days of non-commercialized technology. As soon as corporations get ahold of the newest big thing (i.e.: Internet), everything gets commercial.
Ahhh, Sonny...Remember the days when the Internet was used for sharing information?
I do. But remembering them is like remembering a dream.
I'm so sick and tired of corporations bullying eachother over who has the bigger dick. I'm not involved, so I don't care. I just want to learn, socialize, and have fun.
But this can't be done anymore without seeing banner ads, or spam, or "X is suing Z because they created Y", or "Corinthians isn't a book from the bible, it's a soccer team! That's OUR rightful domain!", etc.
It's time for an underground internet, to take back to the sense of community the internet once had. Leave your commercialized, greedy asses on this internet.
I agree, Computer Historians are the ones who generate the web pages, but the Ask Slashdot article was asking if there was a *JOB* in existance for a computer historian.
You're comparing Computer Historians to Mechanics. Okay, let's run with that analogy.
Walk up to a Mechanic, and ask him what year the first car was built, where it was assembled, and what kind of engine it had. Or ask him what year the Bel Air was introduced.
Now, switch places. Walk up to your Network Administrator, and ask what year ENIAC was built, and what it was used for. Or ask what the first commercially available personal computer was, the year it was introduced, and how much it cost.
Pretty stupid, eh? Your argument is flawed.
Mechanics have a skill, and are trained to provide that skill as a service. History is simply reference information. You can easily find the history of the automobile without consulting a mechanic, just as you can locate historical information without the assistance of a Network Administrator. MY point is, you don't need a Computer Historian either. It would take more trouble to contact a Computer Historian, than to hit a search engine and find what the information yourself.
With the availability of TONS of historical data on computing at the click of a mouse, the job of a Computer Historian is pretty much obsolete. (No pun intended.)
Years ago, when the world wasn't interconnected, this may have been a viable hobby (note, 'hobby', and not 'profession', as computer historians are generally hobbyists), but not today. Anyone can hit up a search engine, and search for....say, ENIAC or EDVAC, and be presented with truckloads of material. The internet was spawned from computer history, so it's only natural that it has plenty of reference material regarding it's roots.
In the age of the Internet, and it's vast amounts of computer-related historical data, a person trying to do the same job would be pretty bored.
they've decided to take it upon themselves to police YOUR system.
With the exception of Time Warner's Acceptable Use Policy (Mirrored verbatim from city to city), they don't probe users' systems.
I had someone get kicked off the network for having telnet open.. apparently it's "windows or mac only" - with a vengance.
A) I seriously doubt you got a user "kicked off" for simply having telnet open. I had RoadRunner for over a year with several services (including telnet) open, and Time Warner was full aware of it. I talked with a few techs there, and they knew what I was running. How? I told them. They never "scanned" me to find out.
B) Part of the reason of RoadRunner eliminating the Windows/Macintosh login program was to support users of other operating systems. It used to be that users of RoadRunner would have to log into the system using an authentication program for either Windows or Mac. This step has been eliminated, in part because of pressure from users of other systems.
The extent of Time Warner's involvement with users' security can be found here.
All in all, it's been demonstrated that a system can actually run at sub zero temperatures.
Um, if that was the whole point of this experiment....wasn't it a bit redundant? I mean, people have chilled their systems beyond this point, many with better results. What was the point?
Anyway, the technique they used wasn't a very good one. The best way to cool a system is DIRECT CONTACT. They placed the motherboard in a bag, and submerged the bag in the chilled alcohol. No doubt, the cool air surrounding the bag lowered the temperature of the board (obvious by the overclocking results), but this is definitely inferior to less elaborate set-ups where cooling is *directly* applied to the system's components.
The results of this experiment weren't all that impressive.
This group was also risking the actual computer system BIG time. The fact they had to [try to] seal the board from the liquid makes this a risky undertaking. I'd feel more comfortable giving my board a bath in something a bit less conductive, like Mineral Oil.
Plus, they like to destroy working laptops. Okay, I can see the 286's being whacked, but those 386's could be used for SOMETHING other than target practice, no?
Don't you LOVE the IDIOTS that try to get First Post using their account logins? I think it's hilarious.
It really shows the mentality/maturity behind some of our "peers".
to tiny69: Get a life. I for one hope you get your account cancelled, and have your IP address blocked from accessing this site. Not necessarily because you are a "FIRST POSTER!" (that is a big part however), but that you were *stupid* enough to do it LOGGED IN!
First Posting is childish. But to use your account is just plain stupid. From here out, everyone knows *exactly* how to judge everything you say.
Unix DOESN'T suck. (By UNIX, I am referring to both UNIX and it's variants.)
So what's the problem? What DOES suck is the attempt to make Unix into a friendly operating system. Great.....IF you know what you're doing.
The Microsoft Windows 95 interface is successful because they had Human/Computer interaction experts working to design the interface. (Don't start with the 'Microsoft copied Apple copied Xerox' crap. Each interface is different enough that SOME design went into it.) The problem here, is that we have the Gnome people, and the KDE people, etc., trying to make a Graphical Interface - and they're trying to be too much like the other interfaces out there, and the rest of the design is just being assumed.
UNIX doesn't suck. It was designed to be a powerful network operating system - and that's exactly what it is. Sure, 10 years down the road it's going to be different. However, the basic functionality will be the same.
To say an Operating System sucks because of bad design of an additional interface is ignorant.
International Business Machines Corp. (NYSE:IBM - news) said on Monday that researchers are running the Linux operating system on a prototype wristwatch device, in a research test designed to show that Linux can be used as the basic software on the smallest devices.
We already knew this, but hey! This can easily refute the people who say that Linux isn't downward scaleable. "Hey, see my watch? It runs Linux! How's THAT for downward scaling?"
However, IBM does not have plans to commercialize the Linux watch itself, a spokeswoman said.
That's a very smart move. Anyone remember the Timex Data-Link watch? I'm not sure I totally buy this as research, though - because if you back up a bit:
``Designed to communicate wirelessly with PCs, cell phones and other wireless-enabled devices, the 'smart watch' will have the ability to view condensed email messages and directly receive pager-like messages,'' IBM said in a statement.
Erm, all of this for "research"? Sounds like a marketable product to me....but again: "IBM, REMEMBER THE DATA-LINK?"
Linux, which was developed by Finnish programmer Linus Torvalds, is used for many basic functions of Web sites, but is not yet considered mature enough for heavier business tasks.
It's not? Well jeez, I guess the millions of businesses that run Linux exclusively aren't considered 'Heavy.' Those Corporate Internet Solutions Providers are going to be disturbed to hear they aren't considered a "Heavy Business Task", and that their Linux infrastructure is only handling the "basic functions" of their operation.
How wise is it to post these kinds of stories? I really wish that Slashdot wouldn?t.
Um, you're hinting at "Security by Obscurity." As you know, this model does NOT work.
Emulation has been a big thing for a long time. MAME has been around for awhile. Many emulation sites exist. If it wasn't posted on Slashdot, it would have been posted somewhere else.
Believe me, the game companies are WELL aware of emulators. Trying to keep them secret is pointless.
Plus, you love emulators so much....How do you expect others to share your love of this technology if it's kept secret?
The best-known competitor is Red Hat, but others - notably TurboLinux and Mission Critical Linux - are in the market as well.
Notably? Am I the only one who has NEVER heard of "Mission Critical Linux"? (I'm NOT saying it's bad, but it's pretty much an unknown, and he ranks it up there as "notable." How about Slackware? Debian? Those aren't notable, but "Mission Critical Linux" is. He hasn't done his research.
Linux zealots for years have insisted that the operating system is an invulnerable perpetual motion machine, incapable of crashing or being infested by the kinds of worms and viruses that hackers are constantly sending Microsoft-powered servers.
Can I ask who has ever said that Linux is "Invulnerable", or "incapable of crashing"? I've *NEVER* heard those claims. This guy is an Asshole! Seems to me, he's overexaggerating this crap just to start up the FUD machine.
This looks like an alarmingly high number in comparison with Solaris' 34 or NetBSD's 10, but it is significantly less than the 122 racked up by Red Hat...
For the 800 BILLIONTH TIME: Red Hat is NOT Linux! This idiot is taking a select few distros, and catagorizing them all as "Linux." Someone smack this moron.
If you look this list over, and measure each system's number of vulnerabilities against the number of its customers, Linux is arguably the worst operating-system product in history, and Microsoft's the best. As Linux zealots are beginning to find out, it's a lot easier to masquerade as a better product than it is to go out and be one.
I could tear this entire paragraph up, but we all know it to simply be FUD. This jackass is trying to generate hits, and he's probably doing a good job.
Oh, did you happen to notice the bottom of the article? Look:
Fred Moody is the author of I Sing the Body Electronic: A Year with Microsoft on the Multimedia Frontier
-- THIS ARTICLE IS A PAID ADVERTISEMENT FOR MICROSOFT CORPORATION. --
No, not quite. Napster is profiting, technically, from the service of finding other users with music to share.
I agree. The fact that 90% of that music is copyrighted, however, doesn't bother Napster executives one bit, because they still make their money. (Oh sure, they put up their little disclaimer "Trading Copyrighted stuff is a No-No", but it's there for image only.)
Was IRC designed to transfer illegal material? It was designed to transfer files.
Actually, it wasn't. RFC 1459 says nothing about file transfer. IRC was desined to be a text-based chat. Nothing more.
I think. If I ICQ a copy of a song to someone over ICQ, does it fall under fair use?
Nope. It's the same principle, no matter how you trade the copyrighted material, including "burning" it to cassette and giving it to them.
I'm not a lawyer, and I don't feel like weeding through the technical jargon in "Fair Use", but from my current understanding, the following scenarios are totally legal and fall under fair use:
I have a CD Player at home, and a Cassette deck in my car. I copy the songs from CD to cassette to listen to in my car.
I have a CD Player in my Living Room, and a Computer in the Computer room. I rip the songs from CD to MP3 to listen to on my computer.
Basically, as long as you own the original CD, you have every legal right to do whatever you wish with the music *EXCEPT* duplicate it for someone else, no matter WHAT the means. Buying a CD basically gives you an unlimited 1-person license for your own use. (The RIAA would have you believe differently, but that's the way it is.)
Slashdot Mirror
Virtual PC would lose a significant portion of their business. People won't need to virtually run Windows under MacOS anymore, as they would be able to simply dual boot their system. You need Windows? Reboot.
Virtual PC is too much of a Mac selling point for them to allow this to go by quietly. I expect to hear something from them.
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
People are guessing that to be designated as "Vintage", hardware should be 5-10 years old. I must disagree. The Pentium started shipping 6 years ago, and I don't consider a Pentium Processor as "Vintage" by ANY stretch of the imagination.
I think in the computer world, "Vintage" can't be an absolute, except in the idea of being older. Starting at about 10-15 years old seems about right, but it depends on the circumstance. The Commodore 64 and the i286 were introduced the same year - Which do you think is more a "Vintage" piece of hardware?
Personally, I'd side with the C64, but that's due to personal nostalgia. But hey! Vintage equipment is SUPPOSED to invoke nostalgic feelings, so the definition is in the eye of the beholder.
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
I agree with you 100%. People need to make informed purchases. But that's not what this law is about.
Let's say Joe Schmoe Computer ignores his friends and buys a Compaq anyway (God help his poor soul). His Compaq comes with a warranty. He has problems with it, and tries to have it fixed under the Warranty. Compaq refuses to acknowledge the warranty. (They did this to me!) Now, Joe Schmoe Computer is SOL because Compaq refuses to abide by their own warranty.
But Joe can take action if the law says you MUST uphold your warranty. That's what the bill is about.
Now, if Joe were my friend, I'd sedate him before letting him buy a Compaq, but that's another story.
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
Okay, let's use that analogy. (Again, Hypothetical.)
I get into my 1982 Ford Escort, put the key in the ignition, and try to start the car. It doesn't start. After an investigation, it is found that it's due to a faulty starter that is found in all 1982 Ford Escorts. You have just discovered this manufacturer's flaw for the first time, however Ford has had many complaints in the past regarding similar issues. They finally acknowledge it's a defect, issue a recall, and correct the issue.
Now, for something better - a Non-Hypothetical, Real-Life situation. (And it's still a relevant analogy, too!)
The 1980 Mazda 626 had several manufacturer recalls done. Let's examine two of the recalls.
Wind noise around doors.
Steering wheel slightly off-center.
These issues are definitely not life threatening, and are minor irritants at most. Yet, Mazda issued recalls for these very issues. Should the manufacturer have to fix something they were responsible for creating problems in? Hell Yes!
Oh, and to invalidate yet another argument, someone brought up the issue of recalls not possibly going undetected for any excessive length of time. Well, the two recalls I mentioned were both issued in 1998 - The steering wheel in April, and the doors in July. That's 18 years between the car being manufactured and the recall being issued.
And to carry your analogy to real life: I get in my 1980 Mazda 626 and find it doesn't start. After an investigation, it was found that the battery went dead due to a manufacturer defect.
There was an October 1998 recall for that very issue.
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
And that's exactly why Mr. Customer won't buy anything from you.
Customers have every right to expect manufacturers to stand behind their products. Excellent customer service makes customers happy, and in turn, generates more customers, who in turn are made happy by receiving excellent customer service...(the pattern continues.)
If you're not willing to bend over backwards to satisfy your consumers, they're going to find other places that will. Believe me, they're out there - any successful business owner will tell you that 90% of the success is due to good customer service.
Nobody replaces hundreds of dollars of equipment just because you say "it's broken"
Anyone who does, is a fool. That's usually why manufacturers have you ship the item back to them so they can have a look at it. Nobody out there declares something "broken" just because the user thinks so.
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
Seems this dude does lots of other cool models as well. This guy sure knows his Lego.
Also quite impressive, is his Model of Tux!
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
Anyway, you don't get the full scope of the desk until you check out the pictu res.
He doesn't say how much he was paid, but he says that it was "worth [his] time."
Two Words:
Very Impressive.
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
This is the problem with the Judicial system today. Someone gets a problem with something, they immediately think "SUE!" If you (editor) had actually READ the article, you would have discovered it pertains to WARRANTY issues, and REPAIR issues. Hardware, my friend.
Now, if the company claimed outright that the product works with Linux, and in reality it DOESN'T - Then you have a lot more solid ground to stand on. But for crying out loud, Don't break out the lawyers! (You cry when it's done against things you support, but if it's in your favor you'll turn and do the same?)
I bought a laptop from Compaq awhile back, and struggled with their so-called "customer service", just trying to get some repairs done while it was still 2 years before the end of the warranty. Writing to the BBB, and consumer protection divisions of several organizations had no effect. It wasn't until the company I bought it from (PC Connection) got wind of my situation, and kindly replaced it for me with a superior model/different brand, that this case was resolved.
Compaq refused to uphold their warranty, and I was left with a useless laptop. Now you're saying that having strong legal backing wouldn't be a real benefit? If it wasn't for the company I bought my laptop from, my POS Compaq would have ended up on eBay being sold "AS-IS" for quite a lot less than Compaq SAID they would have refunded me (in their warranty).
P.S.: I highly recommend PC Connection due to their outstanding customer service. No, I don't work for them, but they kindly replaced my shitty Compaq with a much better brand, and a superior model. I just wish I had this bill (law, hopefully) backing me up. Frustration is a lousy thing to be forced deal with by a company like Compaq, who's main concern is cutting costs and screwing the consumer.
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
(NOTE: The Following is purely hypothetical.)
I walk outside, down my driveway, and I get into my 1982 Ford Escort. I put the key into the ignition, turn it, and my dashboard explodes. After an investigation, it's found that this was the result of a faulty ignition mechanism plaguing all 1982 Ford Escorts, that you have just discovered at the risk (expense?) of your life.
Now, are you going to tell me that Ford isn't responsible, simply because this car is "obsolete?" Wrong. You'd bet your ass Ford would issue a recall and correct the problem.
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
Sure - Rare if you get yourself a computer that is built well. However, Joe Computer is going to buy himself that spiffy Compaq he's had his eye on. Compaq is NOTORIOUS for shoddy computer equipment. (I speak from experience.)
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
Ahhh, Sonny...Remember the days when the Internet was used for sharing information?
I do. But remembering them is like remembering a dream.
I'm so sick and tired of corporations bullying eachother over who has the bigger dick. I'm not involved, so I don't care. I just want to learn, socialize, and have fun.
But this can't be done anymore without seeing banner ads, or spam, or "X is suing Z because they created Y", or "Corinthians isn't a book from the bible, it's a soccer team! That's OUR rightful domain!", etc.
It's time for an underground internet, to take back to the sense of community the internet once had. Leave your commercialized, greedy asses on this internet.
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
I agree, Computer Historians are the ones who generate the web pages, but the Ask Slashdot article was asking if there was a *JOB* in existance for a computer historian.
As a hobby, yes. Profession, No.
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
Walk up to a Mechanic, and ask him what year the first car was built, where it was assembled, and what kind of engine it had. Or ask him what year the Bel Air was introduced.
Now, switch places. Walk up to your Network Administrator, and ask what year ENIAC was built, and what it was used for. Or ask what the first commercially available personal computer was, the year it was introduced, and how much it cost.
Pretty stupid, eh? Your argument is flawed.
Mechanics have a skill, and are trained to provide that skill as a service. History is simply reference information. You can easily find the history of the automobile without consulting a mechanic, just as you can locate historical information without the assistance of a Network Administrator. MY point is, you don't need a Computer Historian either. It would take more trouble to contact a Computer Historian, than to hit a search engine and find what the information yourself.
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
Years ago, when the world wasn't interconnected, this may have been a viable hobby (note, 'hobby', and not 'profession', as computer historians are generally hobbyists), but not today. Anyone can hit up a search engine, and search for....say, ENIAC or EDVAC, and be presented with truckloads of material. The internet was spawned from computer history, so it's only natural that it has plenty of reference material regarding it's roots.
In the age of the Internet, and it's vast amounts of computer-related historical data, a person trying to do the same job would be pretty bored.
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
Well Shit, here I was thinking that LCARS could support damn near anything!
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
With the exception of Time Warner's Acceptable Use Policy (Mirrored verbatim from city to city), they don't probe users' systems.
I had someone get kicked off the network for having telnet open.. apparently it's "windows or mac only" - with a vengance.
A) I seriously doubt you got a user "kicked off" for simply having telnet open. I had RoadRunner for over a year with several services (including telnet) open, and Time Warner was full aware of it. I talked with a few techs there, and they knew what I was running. How? I told them. They never "scanned" me to find out.
B) Part of the reason of RoadRunner eliminating the Windows/Macintosh login program was to support users of other operating systems. It used to be that users of RoadRunner would have to log into the system using an authentication program for either Windows or Mac. This step has been eliminated, in part because of pressure from users of other systems.
The extent of Time Warner's involvement with users' security can be found here.
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
Um, if that was the whole point of this experiment....wasn't it a bit redundant? I mean, people have chilled their systems beyond this point, many with better results. What was the point?
Anyway, the technique they used wasn't a very good one. The best way to cool a system is DIRECT CONTACT. They placed the motherboard in a bag, and submerged the bag in the chilled alcohol. No doubt, the cool air surrounding the bag lowered the temperature of the board (obvious by the overclocking results), but this is definitely inferior to less elaborate set-ups where cooling is *directly* applied to the system's components.
The results of this experiment weren't all that impressive.
This group was also risking the actual computer system BIG time. The fact they had to [try to] seal the board from the liquid makes this a risky undertaking. I'd feel more comfortable giving my board a bath in something a bit less conductive, like Mineral Oil.
Plus, they like to destroy working laptops. Okay, I can see the 286's being whacked, but those 386's could be used for SOMETHING other than target practice, no?
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
by emmett (emmett@slashdot.org) on Saturday August 12, @03:51AM EST (#9)
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
It really shows the mentality/maturity behind some of our "peers".
to tiny69: Get a life. I for one hope you get your account cancelled, and have your IP address blocked from accessing this site. Not necessarily because you are a "FIRST POSTER!" (that is a big part however), but that you were *stupid* enough to do it LOGGED IN!
First Posting is childish. But to use your account is just plain stupid. From here out, everyone knows *exactly* how to judge everything you say.
Hope it was worth it.
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
I never said it was bad. I said it was bad when it's not done WELL.
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
So what's the problem? What DOES suck is the attempt to make Unix into a friendly operating system. Great.....IF you know what you're doing.
The Microsoft Windows 95 interface is successful because they had Human/Computer interaction experts working to design the interface. (Don't start with the 'Microsoft copied Apple copied Xerox' crap. Each interface is different enough that SOME design went into it.) The problem here, is that we have the Gnome people, and the KDE people, etc., trying to make a Graphical Interface - and they're trying to be too much like the other interfaces out there, and the rest of the design is just being assumed.
UNIX doesn't suck. It was designed to be a powerful network operating system - and that's exactly what it is. Sure, 10 years down the road it's going to be different. However, the basic functionality will be the same.
To say an Operating System sucks because of bad design of an additional interface is ignorant.
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
We already knew this, but hey! This can easily refute the people who say that Linux isn't downward scaleable. "Hey, see my watch? It runs Linux! How's THAT for downward scaling?"
However, IBM does not have plans to commercialize the Linux watch itself, a spokeswoman said.
That's a very smart move. Anyone remember the Timex Data-Link watch? I'm not sure I totally buy this as research, though - because if you back up a bit:
``Designed to communicate wirelessly with PCs, cell phones and other wireless-enabled devices, the 'smart watch' will have the ability to view condensed email messages and directly receive pager-like messages,'' IBM said in a statement.
Erm, all of this for "research"? Sounds like a marketable product to me....but again: "IBM, REMEMBER THE DATA-LINK?"
Linux, which was developed by Finnish programmer Linus Torvalds, is used for many basic functions of Web sites, but is not yet considered mature enough for heavier business tasks.
It's not? Well jeez, I guess the millions of businesses that run Linux exclusively aren't considered 'Heavy.' Those Corporate Internet Solutions Providers are going to be disturbed to hear they aren't considered a "Heavy Business Task", and that their Linux infrastructure is only handling the "basic functions" of their operation.
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
Um, you're hinting at "Security by Obscurity." As you know, this model does NOT work.
Emulation has been a big thing for a long time. MAME has been around for awhile. Many emulation sites exist. If it wasn't posted on Slashdot, it would have been posted somewhere else.
Believe me, the game companies are WELL aware of emulators. Trying to keep them secret is pointless.
Plus, you love emulators so much....How do you expect others to share your love of this technology if it's kept secret?
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
The best-known competitor is Red Hat, but others - notably TurboLinux and Mission Critical Linux - are in the market as well.
Notably? Am I the only one who has NEVER heard of "Mission Critical Linux"? (I'm NOT saying it's bad, but it's pretty much an unknown, and he ranks it up there as "notable." How about Slackware? Debian? Those aren't notable, but "Mission Critical Linux" is. He hasn't done his research.
Linux zealots for years have insisted that the operating system is an invulnerable perpetual motion machine, incapable of crashing or being infested by the kinds of worms and viruses that hackers are constantly sending Microsoft-powered servers.
Can I ask who has ever said that Linux is "Invulnerable", or "incapable of crashing"? I've *NEVER* heard those claims. This guy is an Asshole! Seems to me, he's overexaggerating this crap just to start up the FUD machine.
This looks like an alarmingly high number in comparison with Solaris' 34 or NetBSD's 10, but it is significantly less than the 122 racked up by Red Hat...
For the 800 BILLIONTH TIME: Red Hat is NOT Linux! This idiot is taking a select few distros, and catagorizing them all as "Linux." Someone smack this moron.
If you look this list over, and measure each system's number of vulnerabilities against the number of its customers, Linux is arguably the worst operating-system product in history, and Microsoft's the best. As Linux zealots are beginning to find out, it's a lot easier to
masquerade as a better product than it is to go out and be one.
I could tear this entire paragraph up, but we all know it to simply be FUD. This jackass is trying to generate hits, and he's probably doing a good job.
Oh, did you happen to notice the bottom of the article? Look:
Fred Moody is the author of I Sing the Body Electronic: A Year with Microsoft on the Multimedia Frontier
-- THIS ARTICLE IS A PAID ADVERTISEMENT FOR MICROSOFT CORPORATION. --
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
I agree. The fact that 90% of that music is copyrighted, however, doesn't bother Napster executives one bit, because they still make their money. (Oh sure, they put up their little disclaimer "Trading Copyrighted stuff is a No-No", but it's there for image only.)
Was IRC designed to transfer illegal material? It was designed to transfer files.
Actually, it wasn't. RFC 1459 says nothing about file transfer. IRC was desined to be a text-based chat. Nothing more.
I think. If I ICQ a copy of a song to someone over ICQ, does it fall under fair use?
Nope. It's the same principle, no matter how you trade the copyrighted material, including "burning" it to cassette and giving it to them.
I'm not a lawyer, and I don't feel like weeding through the technical jargon in "Fair Use", but from my current understanding, the following scenarios are totally legal and fall under fair use:
I have a CD Player at home, and a Cassette deck in my car. I copy the songs from CD to cassette to listen to in my car.
I have a CD Player in my Living Room, and a Computer in the Computer room. I rip the songs from CD to MP3 to listen to on my computer.
Basically, as long as you own the original CD, you have every legal right to do whatever you wish with the music *EXCEPT* duplicate it for someone else, no matter WHAT the means. Buying a CD basically gives you an unlimited 1-person license for your own use. (The RIAA would have you believe differently, but that's the way it is.)
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?