And me, as a republican, I think science needs to be left...
----
To some other influential republicans, however, science is already too left, and therefore, not right.
Actually, this is the first story I've read on slashdot where it wasn't a scientist claiming something religious. Whether it was bee flight disproving intelligent design, or new scientific research that strongly opposes intelligent design.
IMO, if scientists insist on mixing religion with science, this is what they get. Personally, I think the two should be separated, as faith-based belief systems are not based on physical evidence, therefore science can neither prove nor disprove them, and on top of that, science is not threatened by faith and faith is not threatened by science. (Unless your faith requires you to throw out scientific fact. Fortunately I follow the Bible, which does not dispute science unless taken out of context.)
With the boredome with AJAX, the technical industry quickly shifted focus to Windows Security holes and inconsistencies between IE and global standards. After realizing those were also quite boring, we quickly shifted to Intelligent Design, where even athiest start arguing as though it is even a valid scientific topic to be argued about.
Seriously, let's talk about AJAX again, or Blackberry lawsuits, because ID isn't geek related, and isn't even a scientific theory IMO. It is a religious theory that has no bearing on anything anyway. (As a Christian, I believe in Intelligent Design, in that God created the world, but that's faith-based, and has nothing to do with science whatsoever and should therefore be excluded from scientific discussions.)
The real question we should be asking NASA's Michael Griffin is will Internet Explorer 7's adherance to XML HTTP Requests lead to a Windows security vulnerability when accessing AJAX applications from windows-powered blackberries that contain file footage of the MPAA making illegal copies of DVDs that explain the bee's ability to fly?... in space?
And where's my flying car? 3-2-1 Contact and Isaac Asimov both promised those by the year 2000!
I unfortunately agree. The MPAA does have a case, considering the police were already called about potential stalking, and with this serving as evidence in that potential lawsuit, I can't help but agree this should be possible, to protect the innocent in this situation.
That said, I hope and pray that the author was smart enough to encode it with CSS, so we can actually have an example of using Fair Use policy to circumvent CSS encryption.
I'm tired of being told it is illegal to play DVDs on my linux-based laptop even though I own the DVD and have no DVD ripping libraries on my computer. Hopefully this publicity will force the MPAA to admit that there are cases that backup copies should be legal.
And to all the DVD ripping/sharing individuals, thanks for making it hard on the rest of us. Abuse of the system is what caused such strict policies and laws in the first place.
I think it just gives the user more freedom to do what he wants with it. Instead of having a company tell him he must use a special tool to remove broken lightbulbs, he can just go get a potato because nothing is standing in his way. The same goes for having a webserver on a cell phone, even if it isn't neccessary, at least its an option.
Personally, I can't see a reason to host information on a phone, but I'm sure there's some fun uses, primarily tying it into VOIP, possibly using your home PC to make wireless calls when your cell phone is in another room/building/state/etc.
But no, there is very little you could do with a webserver that you couldn't do without one.
""Of course you'll still need to use the Microsoft.XMLHTTP ActiveX object if you want to support IE6 and older."
Which means that browser type checking will need to remain pretty much for the foreseeable future. Inclusion of XMLHTTPRequest now is nice, but in practical terms its perfectly meaningless."
What this basically means is I can take down the "This site would be cool if your browser adopted more standards" message from the IE version of some of my web apps, and instead give a link for IE6 users to Firefox or IE7.
Now with the support of XMLHTTP Requests, are they planning on supporting XHTML anytime soon? Or are they waiting until Firefox is at least 2 generations ahead?
The law was struck down because it would have restricted adults access to legal pornography.
If that's a good reason to strike down a law, why are my DVDs still encrypted?
And another thing, aren't there privacy policies google would be forced to break by turning over the reports? Will the US government be willing to pay for the financial damages caused by this?
And finally, why not just get an xxx domain, cram all the stuff there, and porn filters would be insanely easy to write. I don't want to see porn, but I know others do, and it isn't my right to take that right from them. I do however, wish people would encourage their children to try hard in school and make something of themselves with half as much zeal as they put into protecting their internet porn rights.
Those who forget Slashdot posts are doomed to repeat them.
Those who remember are doomed to watch them repeating.
Those who forget to read Slashdot for a few days get to pick up where they left off.
Seriously, 50ms? it's like I'm going to have to get rid of my java applet navigation and "this page rocks" 3d animated.gif's or something... how am I supposed to have a professional site without those?
It definitely solves the messy issue, but it brings up a new problem. It looks like you would need a 2" wide by 8" high by 8" deep space just to add a 3.25 drive. On top of that, manufacturers are forced into a single interface, that would hobble future innovations. This looks like the type of thing that should already be on the market for people who want it. Basically a better looking version of Seagate external drives, which are designed to be stackable.
It is definitely doable with today's tecnology, but we'd still find a way to use wires in the back, because with this design it looks like you could not remove, move, arrange, add things without there being some fear of disconnecting a block of devices just because you removed the items on either side of them.
Plus, it looks like there's all sorts of software requirements to get this computer case to work, and I don't think a computer case should be software/OS dependent. (but that does sound like something that microsoft would be interested in)
My business is currently working on developing an application I believe to be better than the current application commonly used. The current application is priced in the millions of dollars, and they charge implementation fees, support fees, etc. on top of that, creating a product with a TCO in the tens of millions of dollars. (An organization I worked with once spent $65 million on the entire implementation.) That software can be modified, but the modified modules will not be supported, and the "vanilla" system meets only 80% of their needs.
My application hopes to produce a product of equal or greater quality, be released open source, and charge only for implementation, support, and custom modules. All custom modules will also be released open source, giving greater incentive for future customers to switch. If an organization creates their own module, they may submit the code for my company to review, clean up, document, and completely understand. At this point, they will receive a discount in support, and their custom module will be supported and offered as an Open Source module for other organizations to use free of charge.
In the end, my open source license makes for a more attractive package, and makes more organizations want to switch. I will make more money in the long run, and will provide a better quality product as well. Had this been closed source, nobody would have a reason to switch, and the incentive to create new modules for my company would be low to non-existant.
While the other company makes more money per sale, I am hoping to make more sales and focus more on creating better modules that meet the needs of my customers. Happy customers tip big, dissatisfied customers jump ship. While it is possible to satisfy customers with closed source applications, it is easier and more flexible with open source.
A clearly marked mission statement, terms and conditions, and license agreement should cut through 90% of lawyer fees, and should make for a quicker implementation at most large scale corporations. Licensing fees would be non-existant, and there would be no penalties for having too many copies, which accounts for a majority of software-based lawsuits.
"[...]the differentiator for customers is not the number comparison, but which vendor makes the patching and updating experience the least complex, most efficient and easiest to manage."
As an opinionated Linux user (read: open source fanboy), here is my analysis of Ubuntu Linux Updater vs. Windows XP Updater, comparing each in complexity, efficiency, and managability. These topics overlap each other, so the results for each category may look similar.
Least Complex: (complex = a whole made up of complicated or interrelated parts)
Ubuntu:
Notice warning stating I need to update my software. Click the Update icon, type in administrator password, click apply, watch as it downloads and updates everything, click close.
Windows XP:
Scenario 1: Notice message stating it already updated and restarted, ignoring the fact that I had left the computer rendering a 3d animation/compiling a complex application/etc.etc... and therefore loosing hours worth of work.
Scenario 2: Notice message stating I need to update my system. Click Okay, watch as it installs updates, then watch as it asks me to reboot my computer. Click Ask Again, and wait 15 minutes until it asks again, or reboots itself if you don't get to it in time.
Winner: Tie. Ubuntu requires more clicks and an administrative user, but Windows requires a restart 90% of the time, which isn't always an option.
Most Efficient: (efficient: productive of desired effects; especially : productive without waste
Ubuntu:
Downloads updates, installs them, and is done.
Windows XP:
Downloads updates, installs them, requires a reboot most of the time.
Winner: Ubuntu. Rebooting should not be required when doing anything other than upgrading the kernel, IMO.
Easiest to Manage (manage = to handle or direct with a degree of skill as to make and keep compliant)
Ubuntu:
A single update session updates all Ubuntu supported software as well as security patches. Meaning updating the entire system, graphics programs, office software, database servers, etc. If a new version of OpenOffice.org is out, I can be notified and it can be installed for me when it has been thoroughly tested to work with my system.
Windows XP:
A single update session updates all core Windows XP functions, sometimes including windows media player, security holes, web browsers, etc. This does not include any other Microsoft software. If you paid $400 for Microsoft Office XP, and Microsoft Office 2003 is released shortly thereafter, you must pay an upgrade fee of around $280+, and must have it mailed to you, or pick it up at a retail location.
Winner: Ubuntu. When considering managing the entire system, and not just managing kernel/OS specific security patches, Ubuntu completely handles with a great deal of skill the updates required to keep the system entirely compliant.
Conclusion:
Ubuntu has a much more attractive patching system to me, and I'm sure the same type of system is available in other package-based systems, including Red Hat, Gentoo, and of course Debian.
Were it not for the incessant need for Windows XP's updates to restart my machine for the smallest patches, I would prefer their security patching system based solely on the fact that it would be easier.
When it comes to completeness of an update system, Ubuntu picks up where Windows XP leaves off, by patching security holes in software as well as the operatin
Fair warning, the "Linux Powered GP2X" demo videos are in Windows Media Format. Be sure your windows machines are patched, rebooted, and sprinkled with holy water.
(I thought I remember hearing there was a security hole in the *insert core function of an operating system* engine of the windows kernel that could allow malicious scripts to take control of your computer and potentially give you cancer... Fortunately Chuck Norris' tears cure cancer, unfortunately he never cries.)
Oh, but I think that we do! And we even know who... it was DVD Jon, on the Internet, with a DeCSS decryption alogithm.
Actually, it's CSS to begin with that killed DVD for me. The fact that I can't legally play DVDs in the United States without a set-top player, Windows machine, or Mac OSX machine makes me wish I had the receipts to return the DVDs based on the fact that they are encrypted without offering a method of decryption on my laptop's DVD player short of switching operating systems, which is unacceptable.
Unencrypted Video for download and/or purchase on a standard piece of computer hardware, like a USB device, data DVD, etc.
Encrypted DVD wouldn't be bad, except for the fact I can't legally decrypt it, so either unencrypted or a format that allows every legal owner to decrypt it, regardless of software installed, and without requiring manditory hardware upgrades provided by a single manufacturer.
I'd also like to be able to play videos on my different hardware, and house it on a home server and stream it to other devices in my house. Basically do all the things the US Fair Use policies used to let me do before the movie industry got away with enforcing CSS encryption to the extent of not allowing me to play my own DVDs.
I guess I should read that google video store post next, huh?
Is it possible to use the.wmf exploit to install the.wfm exploit patch?
It's good to see that Microsoft is keeping things consistent in this new year. As an administrator, I was worried I would have to learn something new. Rinse, lather, patch, repeat.
But the microsoft advertisement said Windows was more secure, more reliable, and easier to use than linux... This article, and all of the past microsoft security hole articles, therefore, must be incorrect or misinformed.
Fortunately I talked my OS/software purchases over with a few developers before tying myself into a vendor. Sadly, the only Microsoft-developed application in my house is the computer that serves as a print/scanner server. (Silly how hardware manufacturers can strongarm you into an OS you don't trust.)
The past few companies I have worked for looked for the same thing: Someone to come in with a specific set of skills that would solve a specific problem and potentially grow into a full time developer that avoids previous roadblocks.
For me, this meant converting Access databases that was readable/writable on a network drive, and their associated tools into a PHP driven web application that took the database off the desktop and onto the server. (meaning my script would automate 90% of what they needed to do, and wouldn't let them accidentally screw things up with a poorly written query.
Now I am working for a universiy picking up where a multi-million-dollar application has left off, so I'm taking those skills, and writing my own open-source application that would meet more needs than the closed-source alternative.
The key to being a good developer in 2006, IMO, is finding a specific target and hitting it. If that means writing Microsoft Access Database interfaces for common call-center statistics, or writing PHP applications that help the medical industry keep track of prescription refills, just do it and do it well.
This worked for me, but I'm sure it was a crap-shot and probably won't work for everyone. I've had offers from fortune 100 companies and even had an offer from a top technology firm that normally doesn't accept applications without at least a 4 year degree. Of course I work for the public sector now and get paid crap, but I have the freedom to explore open-source technologies in a stress-free environment, so I'm much happier than most of my formally-educated friends in high paying jobs. (and since I still have them as friends, I get cool christmas presents that make crap-pay worth it!)
ID, when viewed as a personal belief in how things came to be, thrives by lack of evidence (at least for Christianity). But I'm not sure where ID comes into this conversation anyway...
Evolution is a Scientific theory with enough evidence to be taught as a strong theory in schools. ID is a non-scientific theory with no physical evidence.
If I became an expert Linux developer, and was familiar with every line of code in the kernel, I could not (short from reading the commentary, that has no effect on the compiled code) tell you what programs were used in the writing of the code, nore could I tell you why Linus decided write the kernel.
Science is the observation of what exists, and is based on what exists in our physical world. Based on that, there is no way to prove intelligent design. If it was provable, then Christianity would be a mere acknowledgement of scientific fact, and the relationship between Man and God would be equivalent to the relationship between Man and Gravity.
As a Christian, I look at Christianity as a faith based relationship with God, using the Bible as a foundation for that faith. I strongly feel Christianity itself should be taught in Christian schools, churches, etc. I also feel it should be taught by Christians acting like Christians, and providing reliable witness.
I feel that in science classes, science (and nothing else) should be taught. That includes refuting intelligent design. Refuting a religious belief has no place in a science class, while providing scientifically provable facts does.
As a Christian and an Elementary Teacher, if my wife is able to say "Your drawing looks very good!", she should also be able to say "Merry Christmas" and other non-scientific statements that are not being offered as fact.
Please stop making every scientific conversation an anti-Christian/anti-religious conversation, as they are not related.
The Bible does not say evolution does not exist, and neither does it say why the sun appears to move, or other scientific facts. The Bible makes its intent clear, and shows a peek into the spiritual aspect of the world, which once again has nothing to do with a science class. As a Christian, I feel science is the study of the physical evidence all around us, and as I learn more about science, I learn more about what God created. Once again, Faith != Science, and Scientific Research != proving faith-based beliefs false.
While PostgreSQL has been doing stored procedures, triggers, and foreign keys for quite some time, they still haven't invested much in marketing, and therefore are disqualified from most comparison charts.
I agree though, I'd rather compare full versions of each product (including postgres) and see the strengths and features of each.
After using Lightwave3D for a while moving to blender was difficult. Now that I've spent about 7 months or so playing with blender on my lunch breaks, I don't think I could go back to Lightwave. Unfortunately my Lightwave experience was on a school computer, so I can't take it with me.
I haven't played with Maya, but I've heard good things, and my 3dsmax experience (even after a year of Lightwave use) was horrible, I couldn't get a thing done without at least 10 references to the manual and a few online tutorials.
For me, an open source developer that likes to play with graphics, Blender's interface is a godsend. It makes more sense to me than anything else I've used, and it is highly customizable.
Quick price breakdown: Maya 7: $2,000/$7,000 (complete/unlimited) OS support: Win NT/2k/XP or OSX 3ds Max 8: $3,500 OS support: Win XP or 2k
Blender 2.40: $Free OS support: Linux, Windows, OSX, Solaris
While the others may be more production quality (so far), blender works great for me and is in my price range.
On top of that, 3ds/Maya won't run on any of my brand-new computers anyway!
so, you want slavery back? Women to be moved out of the workplace and into the kitchen?
Or are you saying you are against some of the things some Republicans stand for?
Sure, nobody stands for slavery and sexism anymore, but Republicans, like Democrats, stand against it.
Way to be a closed-minded bigot. I'm a recycling, non-gun owning, bio-diesel supporting, hemp-using (not marijuana for those uneducated browsers), replublican that doesn't like killing people in wars any more than I like killing people in the womb.
Point taken, EU is a big major service industry... one question: What does this have to do with our conversation?
Yesterday a friend let me borrow a craftsman hammer, it was dang comfortable and got the nail in the wall super-quick. When I went to the store, they were having a special Christmas sale where they were giving away Stanley brand hammers for free. I asked customer support if the Stanley hammer would also work to hammer nails into the walls of my apartment, because I've only ever used craftsman. The customer support associate assured me it would work, and low and behold, it worked! It feels a little different, but now that I'm used to it, I kind of prefer it.
Now, would I have been a bigger moron to have used a Craftsman Hammer, because the instructional DVD it came with on "Craftsman Hammering" looked better? Or am I a bigger moron because I realized there is no difference between "Craftsman Hammering" and "Hammering a nail"?
In response to your reccomendation of waking the hell up, why don't you wake the hell up and get your non-Amercian head out of your predjudice, conformist, gullible, marketing-loving A** then realize that a tool is a tool, and if it gets the job done it gets the job done.
MS is not the only OS out there, it just happens to be the biggest, most popular OS on the market. The downside is it is also the most targeted for malware, lawsuits, etc. And for some reason has the most security holes, and has a worse track record for customer service, software patching, and reliablity. So if you want to say that EU needs Microsoft to run, then my opinion of EU just dropped. If you are then saying EU needs an operating system to run, then I agree, and point at the various OSes available to you, most of which are primarily developed in the EU.
As someone else here said, take every penny the EU has spent on MS, spend it on something like Linux, and see what happens. Anything you want done will probably get done, and much quicker than with MS. To complain that your TV is too small and therefore sue the TV manufacturer sounds moronic to me, why not switch manufacturers to someone who makes a bigger TV?
I picture future interfaces being quicker, more intuitive, and much more customizable, but changing to 3D will simply be a gimick that will appeal to those who not only installed, but enjoyed the company of, the Bonzai Buddy.
In my dream world, the future interface I use will be an amazing mixture of the *nix shell and Firefox. Not that Firefox is an OS GUI, but just the fact that even being a simple browser, it has all sorts of powerful features that are subtle and easy to use.
I think we too often throw intelligent, intuitive, easy-to-use interfaces out the window in favor of something superficial that winds up making us spend most of our time minimizing and maximizing applications just to see the cute animation. I'd rather stick with an interface that allows me to choose what works for me, that way if someone wants the gimick, they choose the gimick, but if someone wants simplicity, they get simplicity. My preference shouldn't change someone else's computing experience, and theirs shouldn't change mine.
Interestingly enough, after using Windows since version 3.1, and using a linux shell for about 3 months, I find myself opening an SSH client for many simple tasks that I could also do by VNCing into my linux box. Simple, intuitive, easy-to-use features of the bash shell make menial tasks much nicer even to a Creative Suite owning, Flash animation authoring, 3d video compositing individual such as myself.
I think XML will be a bigger part of User Interfaces than 3D, and the future of Desktop Interfaces will simply be the fact that code and design are finally separated.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, this is the first story I've read on slashdot where it wasn't a scientist claiming something religious. Whether it was bee flight disproving intelligent design, or new scientific research that strongly opposes intelligent design.
IMO, if scientists insist on mixing religion with science, this is what they get. Personally, I think the two should be separated, as faith-based belief systems are not based on physical evidence, therefore science can neither prove nor disprove them, and on top of that, science is not threatened by faith and faith is not threatened by science. (Unless your faith requires you to throw out scientific fact. Fortunately I follow the Bible, which does not dispute science unless taken out of context.)
I don't think anybody will be switching back to IE7 from Firefox, the problem will be getting IE7 users to switch to Firefox.
With the boredome with AJAX, the technical industry quickly shifted focus to Windows Security holes and inconsistencies between IE and global standards. After realizing those were also quite boring, we quickly shifted to Intelligent Design, where even athiest start arguing as though it is even a valid scientific topic to be argued about.
Seriously, let's talk about AJAX again, or Blackberry lawsuits, because ID isn't geek related, and isn't even a scientific theory IMO. It is a religious theory that has no bearing on anything anyway. (As a Christian, I believe in Intelligent Design, in that God created the world, but that's faith-based, and has nothing to do with science whatsoever and should therefore be excluded from scientific discussions.)
The real question we should be asking NASA's Michael Griffin is will Internet Explorer 7's adherance to XML HTTP Requests lead to a Windows security vulnerability when accessing AJAX applications from windows-powered blackberries that contain file footage of the MPAA making illegal copies of DVDs that explain the bee's ability to fly? ... in space?
And where's my flying car? 3-2-1 Contact and Isaac Asimov both promised those by the year 2000!
I unfortunately agree. The MPAA does have a case, considering the police were already called about potential stalking, and with this serving as evidence in that potential lawsuit, I can't help but agree this should be possible, to protect the innocent in this situation .
That said, I hope and pray that the author was smart enough to encode it with CSS, so we can actually have an example of using Fair Use policy to circumvent CSS encryption.
I'm tired of being told it is illegal to play DVDs on my linux-based laptop even though I own the DVD and have no DVD ripping libraries on my computer. Hopefully this publicity will force the MPAA to admit that there are cases that backup copies should be legal.
And to all the DVD ripping/sharing individuals, thanks for making it hard on the rest of us. Abuse of the system is what caused such strict policies and laws in the first place.
I think it just gives the user more freedom to do what he wants with it. Instead of having a company tell him he must use a special tool to remove broken lightbulbs, he can just go get a potato because nothing is standing in his way. The same goes for having a webserver on a cell phone, even if it isn't neccessary, at least its an option.
Personally, I can't see a reason to host information on a phone, but I'm sure there's some fun uses, primarily tying it into VOIP, possibly using your home PC to make wireless calls when your cell phone is in another room/building/state/etc.
But no, there is very little you could do with a webserver that you couldn't do without one.
What this basically means is I can take down the "This site would be cool if your browser adopted more standards" message from the IE version of some of my web apps, and instead give a link for IE6 users to Firefox or IE7.
Now with the support of XMLHTTP Requests, are they planning on supporting XHTML anytime soon? Or are they waiting until Firefox is at least 2 generations ahead?
If it takes in the sever name, I should be high up there, I have a webserver named "Marvin" with an IP that ends in 42!
If that's a good reason to strike down a law, why are my DVDs still encrypted?
And another thing, aren't there privacy policies google would be forced to break by turning over the reports? Will the US government be willing to pay for the financial damages caused by this?
And finally, why not just get an xxx domain, cram all the stuff there, and porn filters would be insanely easy to write. I don't want to see porn, but I know others do, and it isn't my right to take that right from them. I do however, wish people would encourage their children to try hard in school and make something of themselves with half as much zeal as they put into protecting their internet porn rights.
Those who forget Slashdot posts are doomed to repeat them.
Those who remember are doomed to watch them repeating.
Those who forget to read Slashdot for a few days get to pick up where they left off.
Seriously, 50ms? it's like I'm going to have to get rid of my java applet navigation and "this page rocks" 3d animated .gif's or something... how am I supposed to have a professional site without those?
The cheat isn't going to like this one bit.
Yes, but with 42 Students involved, how could they not win?!
It definitely solves the messy issue, but it brings up a new problem. It looks like you would need a 2" wide by 8" high by 8" deep space just to add a 3.25 drive. On top of that, manufacturers are forced into a single interface, that would hobble future innovations. This looks like the type of thing that should already be on the market for people who want it. Basically a better looking version of Seagate external drives, which are designed to be stackable.
It is definitely doable with today's tecnology, but we'd still find a way to use wires in the back, because with this design it looks like you could not remove, move, arrange, add things without there being some fear of disconnecting a block of devices just because you removed the items on either side of them.
Plus, it looks like there's all sorts of software requirements to get this computer case to work, and I don't think a computer case should be software/OS dependent. (but that does sound like something that microsoft would be interested in)
My business is currently working on developing an application I believe to be better than the current application commonly used. The current application is priced in the millions of dollars, and they charge implementation fees, support fees, etc. on top of that, creating a product with a TCO in the tens of millions of dollars. (An organization I worked with once spent $65 million on the entire implementation.) That software can be modified, but the modified modules will not be supported, and the "vanilla" system meets only 80% of their needs.
My application hopes to produce a product of equal or greater quality, be released open source, and charge only for implementation, support, and custom modules. All custom modules will also be released open source, giving greater incentive for future customers to switch. If an organization creates their own module, they may submit the code for my company to review, clean up, document, and completely understand. At this point, they will receive a discount in support, and their custom module will be supported and offered as an Open Source module for other organizations to use free of charge.
In the end, my open source license makes for a more attractive package, and makes more organizations want to switch. I will make more money in the long run, and will provide a better quality product as well. Had this been closed source, nobody would have a reason to switch, and the incentive to create new modules for my company would be low to non-existant.
While the other company makes more money per sale, I am hoping to make more sales and focus more on creating better modules that meet the needs of my customers. Happy customers tip big, dissatisfied customers jump ship. While it is possible to satisfy customers with closed source applications, it is easier and more flexible with open source.
A clearly marked mission statement, terms and conditions, and license agreement should cut through 90% of lawyer fees, and should make for a quicker implementation at most large scale corporations. Licensing fees would be non-existant, and there would be no penalties for having too many copies, which accounts for a majority of software-based lawsuits.
As an opinionated Linux user (read: open source fanboy), here is my analysis of Ubuntu Linux Updater vs. Windows XP Updater, comparing each in complexity, efficiency, and managability. These topics overlap each other, so the results for each category may look similar.
Least Complex: (complex = a whole made up of complicated or interrelated parts)
Most Efficient: (efficient: productive of desired effects; especially : productive without waste
Easiest to Manage (manage = to handle or direct with a degree of skill as to make and keep compliant)
Conclusion:
Ubuntu has a much more attractive patching system to me, and I'm sure the same type of system is available in other package-based systems, including Red Hat, Gentoo, and of course Debian.
Were it not for the incessant need for Windows XP's updates to restart my machine for the smallest patches, I would prefer their security patching system based solely on the fact that it would be easier.
When it comes to completeness of an update system, Ubuntu picks up where Windows XP leaves off, by patching security holes in software as well as the operatin
And why is Microsoft advertising Features of Mac OS anyway?
Fair warning, the "Linux Powered GP2X" demo videos are in Windows Media Format. Be sure your windows machines are patched, rebooted, and sprinkled with holy water.
(I thought I remember hearing there was a security hole in the *insert core function of an operating system* engine of the windows kernel that could allow malicious scripts to take control of your computer and potentially give you cancer... Fortunately Chuck Norris' tears cure cancer, unfortunately he never cries.)
Actually, it's CSS to begin with that killed DVD for me. The fact that I can't legally play DVDs in the United States without a set-top player, Windows machine, or Mac OSX machine makes me wish I had the receipts to return the DVDs based on the fact that they are encrypted without offering a method of decryption on my laptop's DVD player short of switching operating systems, which is unacceptable.
Unencrypted Video for download and/or purchase on a standard piece of computer hardware, like a USB device, data DVD, etc.
Encrypted DVD wouldn't be bad, except for the fact I can't legally decrypt it, so either unencrypted or a format that allows every legal owner to decrypt it, regardless of software installed, and without requiring manditory hardware upgrades provided by a single manufacturer.
I'd also like to be able to play videos on my different hardware, and house it on a home server and stream it to other devices in my house. Basically do all the things the US Fair Use policies used to let me do before the movie industry got away with enforcing CSS encryption to the extent of not allowing me to play my own DVDs.
I guess I should read that google video store post next, huh?
Is it possible to use the .wmf exploit to install the .wfm exploit patch?
It's good to see that Microsoft is keeping things consistent in this new year. As an administrator, I was worried I would have to learn something new. Rinse, lather, patch, repeat.
But the microsoft advertisement said Windows was more secure, more reliable, and easier to use than linux... This article, and all of the past microsoft security hole articles, therefore, must be incorrect or misinformed.
Fortunately I talked my OS/software purchases over with a few developers before tying myself into a vendor. Sadly, the only Microsoft-developed application in my house is the computer that serves as a print/scanner server. (Silly how hardware manufacturers can strongarm you into an OS you don't trust.)
The past few companies I have worked for looked for the same thing: Someone to come in with a specific set of skills that would solve a specific problem and potentially grow into a full time developer that avoids previous roadblocks.
For me, this meant converting Access databases that was readable/writable on a network drive, and their associated tools into a PHP driven web application that took the database off the desktop and onto the server. (meaning my script would automate 90% of what they needed to do, and wouldn't let them accidentally screw things up with a poorly written query.
Now I am working for a universiy picking up where a multi-million-dollar application has left off, so I'm taking those skills, and writing my own open-source application that would meet more needs than the closed-source alternative.
The key to being a good developer in 2006, IMO, is finding a specific target and hitting it. If that means writing Microsoft Access Database interfaces for common call-center statistics, or writing PHP applications that help the medical industry keep track of prescription refills, just do it and do it well.
This worked for me, but I'm sure it was a crap-shot and probably won't work for everyone. I've had offers from fortune 100 companies and even had an offer from a top technology firm that normally doesn't accept applications without at least a 4 year degree. Of course I work for the public sector now and get paid crap, but I have the freedom to explore open-source technologies in a stress-free environment, so I'm much happier than most of my formally-educated friends in high paying jobs. (and since I still have them as friends, I get cool christmas presents that make crap-pay worth it!)
ID, when viewed as a personal belief in how things came to be, thrives by lack of evidence (at least for Christianity).
But I'm not sure where ID comes into this conversation anyway...
Evolution is a Scientific theory with enough evidence to be taught as a strong theory in schools. ID is a non-scientific theory with no physical evidence.
If I became an expert Linux developer, and was familiar with every line of code in the kernel, I could not (short from reading the commentary, that has no effect on the compiled code) tell you what programs were used in the writing of the code, nore could I tell you why Linus decided write the kernel.
Science is the observation of what exists, and is based on what exists in our physical world. Based on that, there is no way to prove intelligent design. If it was provable, then Christianity would be a mere acknowledgement of scientific fact, and the relationship between Man and God would be equivalent to the relationship between Man and Gravity.
As a Christian, I look at Christianity as a faith based relationship with God, using the Bible as a foundation for that faith. I strongly feel Christianity itself should be taught in Christian schools, churches, etc. I also feel it should be taught by Christians acting like Christians, and providing reliable witness.
I feel that in science classes, science (and nothing else) should be taught. That includes refuting intelligent design. Refuting a religious belief has no place in a science class, while providing scientifically provable facts does.
As a Christian and an Elementary Teacher, if my wife is able to say "Your drawing looks very good!", she should also be able to say "Merry Christmas" and other non-scientific statements that are not being offered as fact.
Please stop making every scientific conversation an anti-Christian/anti-religious conversation, as they are not related.
The Bible does not say evolution does not exist, and neither does it say why the sun appears to move, or other scientific facts. The Bible makes its intent clear, and shows a peek into the spiritual aspect of the world, which once again has nothing to do with a science class. As a Christian, I feel science is the study of the physical evidence all around us, and as I learn more about science, I learn more about what God created. Once again, Faith != Science, and Scientific Research != proving faith-based beliefs false.
While PostgreSQL has been doing stored procedures, triggers, and foreign keys for quite some time, they still haven't invested much in marketing, and therefore are disqualified from most comparison charts.
I agree though, I'd rather compare full versions of each product (including postgres) and see the strengths and features of each.
After using Lightwave3D for a while moving to blender was difficult. Now that I've spent about 7 months or so playing with blender on my lunch breaks, I don't think I could go back to Lightwave. Unfortunately my Lightwave experience was on a school computer, so I can't take it with me.
I haven't played with Maya, but I've heard good things, and my 3dsmax experience (even after a year of Lightwave use) was horrible, I couldn't get a thing done without at least 10 references to the manual and a few online tutorials.
For me, an open source developer that likes to play with graphics, Blender's interface is a godsend. It makes more sense to me than anything else I've used, and it is highly customizable.
Quick price breakdown:
Maya 7: $2,000/$7,000 (complete/unlimited) OS support: Win NT/2k/XP or OSX
3ds Max 8: $3,500 OS support: Win XP or 2k
Blender 2.40: $Free OS support: Linux, Windows, OSX, Solaris
While the others may be more production quality (so far), blender works great for me and is in my price range.
On top of that, 3ds/Maya won't run on any of my brand-new computers anyway!
so, you want slavery back? Women to be moved out of the workplace and into the kitchen?
Or are you saying you are against some of the things some Republicans stand for?
Sure, nobody stands for slavery and sexism anymore, but Republicans, like Democrats, stand against it.
Way to be a closed-minded bigot. I'm a recycling, non-gun owning, bio-diesel supporting, hemp-using (not marijuana for those uneducated browsers), replublican that doesn't like killing people in wars any more than I like killing people in the womb.
Point taken, EU is a big major service industry... one question: What does this have to do with our conversation?
Yesterday a friend let me borrow a craftsman hammer, it was dang comfortable and got the nail in the wall super-quick. When I went to the store, they were having a special Christmas sale where they were giving away Stanley brand hammers for free. I asked customer support if the Stanley hammer would also work to hammer nails into the walls of my apartment, because I've only ever used craftsman. The customer support associate assured me it would work, and low and behold, it worked! It feels a little different, but now that I'm used to it, I kind of prefer it.
Now, would I have been a bigger moron to have used a Craftsman Hammer, because the instructional DVD it came with on "Craftsman Hammering" looked better? Or am I a bigger moron because I realized there is no difference between "Craftsman Hammering" and "Hammering a nail"?
In response to your reccomendation of waking the hell up, why don't you wake the hell up and get your non-Amercian head out of your predjudice, conformist, gullible, marketing-loving A** then realize that a tool is a tool, and if it gets the job done it gets the job done.
MS is not the only OS out there, it just happens to be the biggest, most popular OS on the market. The downside is it is also the most targeted for malware, lawsuits, etc. And for some reason has the most security holes, and has a worse track record for customer service, software patching, and reliablity. So if you want to say that EU needs Microsoft to run, then my opinion of EU just dropped. If you are then saying EU needs an operating system to run, then I agree, and point at the various OSes available to you, most of which are primarily developed in the EU.
As someone else here said, take every penny the EU has spent on MS, spend it on something like Linux, and see what happens. Anything you want done will probably get done, and much quicker than with MS. To complain that your TV is too small and therefore sue the TV manufacturer sounds moronic to me, why not switch manufacturers to someone who makes a bigger TV?
moron...
I agree.
I picture future interfaces being quicker, more intuitive, and much more customizable, but changing to 3D will simply be a gimick that will appeal to those who not only installed, but enjoyed the company of, the Bonzai Buddy.
In my dream world, the future interface I use will be an amazing mixture of the *nix shell and Firefox. Not that Firefox is an OS GUI, but just the fact that even being a simple browser, it has all sorts of powerful features that are subtle and easy to use.
I think we too often throw intelligent, intuitive, easy-to-use interfaces out the window in favor of something superficial that winds up making us spend most of our time minimizing and maximizing applications just to see the cute animation. I'd rather stick with an interface that allows me to choose what works for me, that way if someone wants the gimick, they choose the gimick, but if someone wants simplicity, they get simplicity. My preference shouldn't change someone else's computing experience, and theirs shouldn't change mine.
Interestingly enough, after using Windows since version 3.1, and using a linux shell for about 3 months, I find myself opening an SSH client for many simple tasks that I could also do by VNCing into my linux box. Simple, intuitive, easy-to-use features of the bash shell make menial tasks much nicer even to a Creative Suite owning, Flash animation authoring, 3d video compositing individual such as myself.
I think XML will be a bigger part of User Interfaces than 3D, and the future of Desktop Interfaces will simply be the fact that code and design are finally separated.