Not quite. AOL has fallen about 20% since the announcement of the merger, but that was just trend that the stock has been suffering since reaching a mid-Dec high of around 95 (it is around 60 now). The market for AOL is shaky with more than a few people wondering if the merger will go through at all. There's a lot to be worried about with such a multinational to be created and the SEC will probably run them through lots of hoops. Time-Warner, however, jumped from an average of 65 pre-merger talk to over 100. It has since settled at a relatively "calm" 85.
The big problem with this merger is the viablity of AOL to maintain it's advantage as the dominant leader of internet eyeballs. It's profits are in it's ability to reach many different groups with niche advertising. Marketers love this idea. And with Time-Warner onboard, now AOL has something to sell besides itself. Movies, music, books, magazines, etc. The magic word here is retail. Gaining Time-Warner make AOL "respectable" and getting bought out makes TW a "dot-com." The best of both worlds? Well, maybe for them, at least until AOL tanks or gets sued.
AOL's ability to buy TW is dependent on it's stock remaining viable. With the fluctuations of the last month and back tracking to the last quarter of last year, tech stocks have become a gambler's paradise. And everyone is waiting for the bubble to pop. If it does happen after the AOL-TW merger, ugly things occur all around.
Personally, I have some problems with AOL. They tend to make some big publicty mistakes and I'm not sure how well Steve Case can handle a "real" company. If the merger goes through, it does mean that AOL will have a stable income and can ride through another big marketing gaffe (sure to happen when all of those magazine subscribers start getting solictated for AOL accounts and vice-versa). AOL has been able to establish itself as an "e-community," and that may very well stay true. The question how many gaffes will occur. While the current TW top management stays on board to run the TW division, Case still makes the final decisions. Given his track record, that is enough to give me the creeps.
I say that the AFA take the next big step and make it illegal for minors to view human nudity in any form without a permission slip from the parents covering each occasion of nudity. Anything sexual that could be viewed by minors should be illegal too (especially stuff like bananas, bolts and nuts, tunnels, biology classes, etc. Those things are just OBSCENE). And make it illegal for minors to have sex without parental permission. After all, sex can lead to pornography.
I'm extremely impressed by the USENET community's ability to get companies to respond quickly to spam complaints once UDP has been declared. Sanctions do work sometimes.
I am reminded of the saying of "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure." But people, especially the person who wrote the rant, don't see any benefits from prevention if they have never get sick.
Speaking of which, have you gotten your flu shot this year?
And don't tell me you weren't holding your breath before the first reports from New Zealand came in. I know I was.
After going through some research, I would personally not buy any Sony stock. The price has jumped a tremendous amount over the last year from 65 to a high of nearly 300 and is currently near that high. Granted, some consumer electronic stocks has gone nuts, but Sony's sales and income growth were miserable this last year. The price to earnings ratio of 90 puts it up there with some of the more wacked internet stocks. The stock split is definately an attempt to gain more capital, not unreasonable.
I did find out that Playstation by itself accounted for about 10% of Sony's income. That's pretty damn impressive. And Sony is betting the farm on PS2 to succeed. The next hurdle is seeing what happens in March 2000, when it's released in Japan.
Is Sony stock worth the money? Probably not. I can find other companies to invest money into with better, more solid future returns. Just my opinion. Please don't pelt me with stones if Sony stock goes crazy this next year.
On a personal level, I think that lawyers know more about technology than computer nerds give them credit for. But I also think the point is moot. Lawyers, like marketing folks, are hired guns. They work for the company for the rights of that company. Why yell at the lawyers for doing their jobs and assuming they are "just stupid?" They have to understand the technology to defend or attack it and they understand what they need to convince a judge. That's about it. The companies are the ones who are trying dicatate the party line, how high to jump, and what song to dance to.
Now judges are always a tricky mix because they aren't always lawyers. Some are elected and others appointed. They are also older than the general public (especially the computer geek group) and tend to hold more traditional views of copyright and patent rights. What it takes to change their minds is education of the impact of their decisions. Being "right" isn't enough. You need to create an understanding to make things work out.
Actually I do find it suprising that there is not as many high-tech startups in that area. There isn't much the city can do to convince young geeks from leaving. But here's my short list of what you need to try and keep high tech geeks in the area...
1) Investors: You need people with money who are willing to risk a bit of it on Pittsburgh. Silicon Valley works because it's got a rep and the money flows rather freely around here. Seattle's got the rep because M$ has the money. You need rich folks in Pittsburgh who are willing to play VC/angels to someone who has a few "cool ideas." Right now, the rich are playing the stock market to further line their pockets. Convince them to invest in a couple of startups. Between the research places and graduates, you should be able to mine a few good products out.
2) Atmosphere: For the most part, people can be very lazy. Inertia is a great non-motivator. I've never visited the area around CMU or even Pittsburgh itself, but you need to develop a place where people feel bad about leaving. You can't control the weather, but you can conrol the crime, street conditions, schools, traffic, hosuing, and other infrastructure. Improve and invest in a more "pleasant" atmosphere.
3) High-paying jobs for the area: One thing about the Valley, New York, and now Seattle is that it's very expensive to live in the area. For what most people pay for rent, you can be paying off the mortgage on a mansion elsewhere. Emphasize the "more bang for your buck" lifestyle. You might not be making $100K, but you can afford to buy as opposed to rent.
4) Promote small geek business: Got geeks? Show them off. Promote successful, innovative businesses in the area. Show you're bleeding edge tech. Be geeky, be proud. People will stick around if you promise they'll have a shot at the Next Big Thing.
5) Infrastructure: DSL, cable modems. Cheap and available. 'nuff said.
6) West Coast style: This one is harder to do because it's attitude rather than anything in particular. Employers need to have a less heavyhanded approach towards employees. Fewer constraints towards their time, promoting innovation/free thinking, progressive attitudes. Geeks and nerds hate working The Man and they don't like Him telling them what to do in their offtime.
7) Social interaction: Culture. Sure you got football, hockey, and baseball (barely...), but what else? I'm not talking ballet and museums necessarily, but you need to form an, please forgive the term, "intelligensia" society. Doesn't mean just cafes, bookstores, juice bars, and nightclubs. But it couldn't hurt.
8) Live for the future: In all the high tech hotspots, people are convinced the best is still to come and they are going to be creating it. Pittburgh was a steel town. You can remember that, but don't destroy your future living that over and over again.
Just a few ideas.
-S. Louie
Does this mean my NT won't crash today?
on
Happy Odd Day!
·
· Score: 2
On the last Odd Day for the next 1000+ years, I get the feeling I can try abusing the office NT machine to see if it doesn't crash.
Of course if/when it does, I'll start planning for 2/2/2000 as my "Get Even" day.
The fact that the Washington Times is owned by the Rev. Sun Myung Moon, founder of the Unification Church (the Moonies) and radical right-wing anti-communist, leaves me suspicous about the story. The Times has been a supporter of SDI (Star Wars), higher military spending, and quick to jump on the conspiracy bandwagon. The author of the article, Bill Gertz, has written a book called Betrayal: How the Clinton Administration Undermined American Security which is basically a diatribe on how America (and Bill Clinton in particular) has sold out to the Chinese and the Russians allowing them to create newer weapons of mass destruction and cripple the US military at the same time. The amazon.com site alone speaks volumes about how this writer's views.
The article itself raves of an oncoming the war with the Evil Communist Chinese Empire creating an anti-capitalism internet branch to their military. Yeah, the same government who has been begging and pleading to be able to do trade with the rest of the world is going to destroy the Internet, right before they invade the US ("Go Wolverines!"). I especially like the touch of the unnamed "senior Pentagon official" being informed, but not actually having an opinion on the subject. And then there is the expert, William Triplett, and his rabid anti-China book Red Dragon Rising who spouts off that those crafty Chinese will one day the US oil refineries though the Internet. Yesh. I like it better when Sandra Bullock was fighting evil in The Net. Rampant xenophobia rears it's ugly head.
That's the right idea. And it also points out an interesting dilemma comes with multiple master remotes. "Imprinting" works great when you have one master remote, the authorization code constantly changes according to usage, but what happens when you need more than one remote? A two car garage would likely need at least two remotes. This problem can be solved by storing a separate key for each remote device and having the door opener react to each one. That increases the possiblity of breaking the key, but allows for multiple master remotes. The question is how many keys to store. Currently, electronic devices with remotes can be spoofed by a universal remote, providing us with a master remote, but you can still use the original remote to work the device. Even with the introduction of authorization security, that situation is not likely to change so there is a minimum of two remotes for the device to be "imprinted" to. There may be a need for more. So each device will need to have a max # of remotes it can become imprinted on.
Hmm... So the "resurrected duckling" may need to be "imprinted" to multiple "mothers". Great, another image to digest, polygamist lesbian ducks raising undead ducklings.
Since you've already bought the Gateway (with Win98, most likely), I say stick with that and don't bother to go with Linux. Your grandfather doesn't need much more than the basics and all of those have been provided. It's good enough as is.
Just show him how to reboot, connect to AOL, use the browser, email, print, and write on the word processor, then hand him your pager number and say "if you ever need help, give me a call Grandpa." That's the right solution.
This ad definitely plays on the FUD aspect of "free" software as being unsupported. Kind of a cheap shot, but not entirely ineffective towards non-techies who question open-source software reliablity and support. These folks might buy into Xig's gig just because they are promoting support.
Intrestingly, they imply the size of the X server versus the kernel make it automatically suspect. Microsoft, take note....
The ad also implies the X server is an intimate part of the OS as opposed to being just an application. That itself is incorrect, but to a non-techie, it "appears" to be that way (ie. if your windows start dying, your system must be crashing). And that may be all that counts.
Even given that X itself is extremely stable, I've lost work on it when it has died. KDE and GNOME probably haven't boosted anyone's confidence level when dealing with X either, but if asked by management, I'd dismiss the ad out of hand (but start mumbling about a stable window manager).
Submit the review. It's good for people to get a few opinions on a book that tries to capture the "essence" of THE business model based off of Linux. More techie people will react to a direct review of the book on/. than elsewhear.
The Salon review makes me leery of buying the book (as does the "insta-biography/tabloid" feel of the title), but I'll probably scan it at the store. It's a good critical article about the book and Red Hat's juxaposition with the current marketplace and industry. Lots of questions, damn few solid answers. Fun! Fun! Fun!
Today's negative-based politics have already been affected by the Net. The Monica Lewinsky scandal was brought to light by the Drudge Report which at the time had the credibility of the National Enquirer among the net populous. Thanks to that one story, Matt Drudge now has a TV show and is considered a trustworthy journalist/TV pundit despite the number of retractions he has had to issue since he became mainstream.
A counterexample to the Monica Lewinsky scandal is Salon's coverage of far-right politicians "conspiring" against President Clinton. In this case, the President publically acknowledged the e-zine for news that may never have been seen outside of your local free alternative newspaper.
The media has long been considered to be the fourth branch of the the US government. They cover the bully pulpits of President and the Legistature and keep the public abreast of political happenings. With the arrival of the Net and CNN, the media has become reporting on a 24 hour cycle which meant more invasion of politician's lives and their motives. The consant need for new news forces the media and the media pundits to continue talking, trying to find new scandals, trying to finds new angles on old scandals, trying to tittlate, and letting finding solutions fall onto others.
Katz tries to convince us that the new political "Max Headroom" will change American politics via the Net. But there is no Max Headroom, no entity that exists only on the Net who can show as much charisma as a live/taped politician with party support. It's hard to convey that sense of charisma over the Net and no reason to do so. I can think of few people who get their primary political information off of the Net. Increasing interactability doesn't necessarily mean a net chat when doing a radio talk show will reach so many more people (something politicans are loath to do). I don't expect to vote for someone because of their website anymore than I would vote for them because I got their junk mail. However I can be influenced by a variety of news websites.
The Net has already changed politics, but not in the way that Katz thinks it has or will. It has become another media filter, but one that is improved by not just being another corporate newsmill. It allows disperate views to have their say on a more level playing ground than any other form of media. It's more alternative than your local alternative rag and has more POVs than a cocktail party. As it expands, there will be even more opinions and ideas. The question is if people will listen to them.
Any company that has either been hit or threatened by a sexual-harassment suit has to prove that they have done their best to insure that the work environment is not sexually-hostile. That includes removing pornography where reported and try to ensure that it doesn't happen again. Companies no longer tolerate centerfold pinups on the wall, they should also expect not to find it on your 21" screen.
Otherwise it's a possible million dollar lawsuit for the company and someone's job out the door.
If the sysadm feels that the scan is a problem, that person does have the right to say "no" and suffer the consequences. Personally, I'd just explain to HR how technically complex the task is, get them to send out a email memo announcing that company policy explaining the right to scan the system for porn plus the consequences, and not do the scan. Most folks will get the idea and delete it if they got it. Those who don't and get caught later showing it off, well, they get fired.
Remember the slacker sysadm concept for today to provide maximum results for minimal work. Sending an email warning will do in this case.
I find it insulting that Katz has decided to take it upon himself to declare that theaters should no longer determine whether or not they wish to enforce voluntary policies pertaining to MPAA ratings. The managers who are attempting to establish an R policy do so to conform to what they view as community standards. And there is nothing wrong with that. It's perfectly LEGAL for them to do that, just as it is legal for stores to "refuse service" to a customer as long as it is not discriminatory.
Is being treated differently because you are younger than 18 discriminatory? Hell yes, but it is also the point at which the LAW determines whether or not you're an adult. As arbitrary as it sounds, the law says the day before you turn 18 is different than your birthday. It's not a level of maturity that's being measured. It's not knowledge or experience that's measured. It's age that determines whether or not you can vote. Why? Because the government won't spend the time or effort to measure anything else unless you make it worth their while (example: see how many teenagers are serving hard time for "adult" crimes), so should we should expect theaters to determine an individual's maturity level before allowing them to watch a movie? Hell no.
And so, a business owner tries to make it their business to act like a member of the community and puts up a policy enforcing the R rating. Well, gosh darn it. Life sucks for the kids. If they can't get an adult to watch the movie with them, then that business owner has the right to refuse service.
All I read in Katz's article is whining. "I got a note from my Mommy." Even the schools have stopped believing that line. "I'm 17 and I couldn't watch a movie. Darn that's unfair!" That's life, brat. If you haven't learned that by now, you're gonna suffer when you get out in the real world. Go watch something they'll let you see. "I'm gonna buy DVD." If you wanna protest with your dollars, Hey, feel free to do so. The usher, cashier, or manager you had to argue with and whine to when you didn't get your way will appreciate it.
It's not the theater manager's fault that the movie is rated G, PG, PG-13, R or NC-17. It's the Movie Picture Association of America (MPAA) that sets up these ratings. The manager follows the rules set down by the corporation that owns the theaters who try very hard not to get sued and upset the stockholders by following MPAA's standards. You wanna do something about it? Try fighting the MPAA instead. The manager is just trying not to get fired because some brat's parents sued his bosses for not enforcing the rules.
What really upsets me about this story are the mention of parents who aren't willing to get involved enough with their kids to go watch these movies with them. The rules say "accompanied by a parent or adult guardian." What's to explain about that? You've known the rules have been since you were kids. Stop whining because you're too embarassed to ask Mom or Dad to watch the movie with you or because they won't do it. They have their reasons. Talk to them about it. Interact with your parents instead of putting the blame on the theater.
Maybe we had it easier when us older folks were younger, but then people weren't so lawsuit-happy back then.
Because, like great programmers and great sys admins, they are hard to find and with all that power (our money), you can't always figure out just how much you can trust them.
I am stunned and thrilled by the Magic 8-Ball. I stand here today grateful that thanks to the miracle of the Internet and simple robotics. I can waste minutes of a boring work day asking about my raise and getting actual answers about it. -S. Louie
The arguments made here are more or less the same as were made for personal computers 15 years ago. For some people, they are lifesavers, for others, toys, and to even more, both. Back then, pcs were for accounting, wordprocessing, games, and storing your recipes. That what makes computers great in the first place.
Theft and destruction of a $60,000 object? Oh yeah, that's a felony. These guys are going to suffer for a while, if not in jail, then paying back Lucasfilm for the price of the movie.
First Star Trek and Star Wars are two different genre who just happen to both take place in space. No one compares MASH to Apocalyse Now because they both take place in East Asia. Star Trek is "space drama" while Star Wars is "space fantasy." Even Lucas admits that what he tried to create with the whole SW thing is "myth-building." Roddenberry, and those who succeeded him, tried to make morality tales. SW takes place "in a galaxy far, far away" while ST is steeped in it's own grasp of humanity with the home planet of the Federation being Earth. Comparing the two genres of movies is a pointless.
ST was/is a television show first, a movie second. SW was a standalone film, which, upon success, became a series of films. And of the films, it is clear that SW is better. The ST films are hampered by keeping to the characters as they were created on TV. The ST chracters are forced to be more realistic (cough, cough) because two-dimensional hero-myth TV series die inthe first season unless they are on Saturday morning.
The revival of ST came about because of the success of SW. Once SW became a blockbuster, the other studios looked around and asked "Do we have anything like that?" Thus was born the first ST movie and the success of that film led directly into the new TV series.
Star Trek (the new set of serials) is not real science fiction. It's "space drama." It uses deus ex machina so much, they might as well be talking about using the Force. How many times has sticking the fuon generator into the fuon matix making show-saving uberfuons been the solution? I'd guess about 75% of the time. Even the Greek plays didn't rely on it so much.
And finally, SW didn't ruin science fiction films, corporations ruined them. The ability for film studios to control distribution and the loss of the independant movie houses which meant that the corporate studio sold movies to corporate theaters. The heads of studios became convinced the only way to make money was the blockbuster. Making $30 million from $5 million movies was good, but making $200 million from a $100 million is better. And there's lots of reasons for that, but it means smaller films with smaller distributions get less attention. And not many small films are made using sicence fiction anymore. Star Wars did not destroy the science fiction film genre anymore than Lord of the Rings destroyed fantasy books.
Slashdot Mirror
Not quite. AOL has fallen about 20% since the announcement of the merger, but that was just trend that the stock has been suffering since reaching a mid-Dec high of around 95 (it is around 60 now). The market for AOL is shaky with more than a few people wondering if the merger will go through at all. There's a lot to be worried about with such a multinational to be created and the SEC will probably run them through lots of hoops. Time-Warner, however, jumped from an average of 65 pre-merger talk to over 100. It has since settled at a relatively "calm" 85.
The big problem with this merger is the viablity of AOL to maintain it's advantage as the dominant leader of internet eyeballs. It's profits are in it's ability to reach many different groups with niche advertising. Marketers love this idea. And with Time-Warner onboard, now AOL has something to sell besides itself. Movies, music, books, magazines, etc. The magic word here is retail. Gaining Time-Warner make AOL "respectable" and getting bought out makes TW a "dot-com." The best of both worlds? Well, maybe for them, at least until AOL tanks or gets sued.
AOL's ability to buy TW is dependent on it's stock remaining viable. With the fluctuations of the last month and back tracking to the last quarter of last year, tech stocks have become a gambler's paradise. And everyone is waiting for the bubble to pop. If it does happen after the AOL-TW merger, ugly things occur all around.
Personally, I have some problems with AOL. They tend to make some big publicty mistakes and I'm not sure how well Steve Case can handle a "real" company. If the merger goes through, it does mean that AOL will have a stable income and can ride through another big marketing gaffe (sure to happen when all of those magazine subscribers start getting solictated for AOL accounts and vice-versa). AOL has been able to establish itself as an "e-community," and that may very well stay true. The question how many gaffes will occur. While the current TW top management stays on board to run the TW division, Case still makes the final decisions. Given his track record, that is enough to give me the creeps.
-S. Louie
I say that the AFA take the next big step and make it illegal for minors to view human nudity in any form without a permission slip from the parents covering each occasion of nudity. Anything sexual that could be viewed by minors should be illegal too (especially stuff like bananas, bolts and nuts, tunnels, biology classes, etc. Those things are just OBSCENE). And make it illegal for minors to have sex without parental permission. After all, sex can lead to pornography.
-S. Louie
I'm extremely impressed by the USENET community's ability to get companies to respond quickly to spam complaints once UDP has been declared. Sanctions do work sometimes.
-S. Louie
I am reminded of the saying of "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure." But people, especially the person who wrote the rant, don't see any benefits from prevention if they have never get sick.
Speaking of which, have you gotten your flu shot this year?
And don't tell me you weren't holding your breath before the first reports from New Zealand came in. I know I was.
-S. Louie
After going through some research, I would personally not buy any Sony stock. The price has jumped a tremendous amount over the last year from 65 to a high of nearly 300 and is currently near that high. Granted, some consumer electronic stocks has gone nuts, but Sony's sales and income growth were miserable this last year. The price to earnings ratio of 90 puts it up there with some of the more wacked internet stocks. The stock split is definately an attempt to gain more capital, not unreasonable.
I did find out that Playstation by itself accounted for about 10% of Sony's income. That's pretty damn impressive. And Sony is betting the farm on PS2 to succeed. The next hurdle is seeing what happens in March 2000, when it's released in Japan.
Is Sony stock worth the money? Probably not. I can find other companies to invest money into with better, more solid future returns. Just my opinion. Please don't pelt me with stones if Sony stock goes crazy this next year.
-S. Louie
On a personal level, I think that lawyers know more about technology than computer nerds give them credit for. But I also think the point is moot. Lawyers, like marketing folks, are hired guns. They work for the company for the rights of that company. Why yell at the lawyers for doing their jobs and assuming they are "just stupid?" They have to understand the technology to defend or attack it and they understand what they need to convince a judge. That's about it. The companies are the ones who are trying dicatate the party line, how high to jump, and what song to dance to.
Now judges are always a tricky mix because they aren't always lawyers. Some are elected and others appointed. They are also older than the general public (especially the computer geek group) and tend to hold more traditional views of copyright and patent rights. What it takes to change their minds is education of the impact of their decisions. Being "right" isn't enough. You need to create an understanding to make things work out.
-S. Louie
Actually I do find it suprising that there is not as many high-tech startups in that area. There isn't much the city can do to convince young geeks from leaving. But here's my short list of what you need to try and keep high tech geeks in the area...
1) Investors: You need people with money who are willing to risk a bit of it on Pittsburgh. Silicon Valley works because it's got a rep and the money flows rather freely around here. Seattle's got the rep because M$ has the money. You need rich folks in Pittsburgh who are willing to play VC/angels to someone who has a few "cool ideas." Right now, the rich are playing the stock market to further line their pockets. Convince them to invest in a couple of startups. Between the research places and graduates, you should be able to mine a few good products out.
2) Atmosphere: For the most part, people can be very lazy. Inertia is a great non-motivator. I've never visited the area around CMU or even Pittsburgh itself, but you need to develop a place where people feel bad about leaving. You can't control the weather, but you can conrol the crime, street conditions, schools, traffic, hosuing, and other infrastructure. Improve and invest in a more "pleasant" atmosphere.
3) High-paying jobs for the area: One thing about the Valley, New York, and now Seattle is that it's very expensive to live in the area. For what most people pay for rent, you can be paying off the mortgage on a mansion elsewhere. Emphasize the "more bang for your buck" lifestyle. You might not be making $100K, but you can afford to buy as opposed to rent.
4) Promote small geek business: Got geeks? Show them off. Promote successful, innovative businesses in the area. Show you're bleeding edge tech. Be geeky, be proud. People will stick around if you promise they'll have a shot at the Next Big Thing.
5) Infrastructure: DSL, cable modems. Cheap and available. 'nuff said.
6) West Coast style: This one is harder to do because it's attitude rather than anything in particular. Employers need to have a less heavyhanded approach towards employees. Fewer constraints towards their time, promoting innovation/free thinking, progressive attitudes. Geeks and nerds hate working The Man and they don't like Him telling them what to do in their offtime.
7) Social interaction: Culture. Sure you got football, hockey, and baseball (barely...), but what else? I'm not talking ballet and museums necessarily, but you need to form an, please forgive the term, "intelligensia" society. Doesn't mean just cafes, bookstores, juice bars, and nightclubs. But it couldn't hurt.
8) Live for the future: In all the high tech hotspots, people are convinced the best is still to come and they are going to be creating it. Pittburgh was a steel town. You can remember that, but don't destroy your future living that over and over again.
Just a few ideas.
-S. Louie
On the last Odd Day for the next 1000+ years, I get the feeling I can try abusing the office NT machine to see if it doesn't crash.
Of course if/when it does, I'll start planning for 2/2/2000 as my "Get Even" day.
-S. Louie
Here's the Supercomputing Con web site.
Interesting that SGI and Cray had seperate displays... I would hope it was just to appeal to the Cray crowd...
More notes please! Thanks for the first report!
-S. Louie
The fact that the Washington Times is owned by the Rev. Sun Myung Moon, founder of the Unification Church (the Moonies) and radical right-wing anti-communist, leaves me suspicous about the story. The Times has been a supporter of SDI (Star Wars), higher military spending, and quick to jump on the conspiracy bandwagon. The author of the article, Bill Gertz, has written a book called Betrayal: How the Clinton Administration Undermined American Security which is basically a diatribe on how America (and Bill Clinton in particular) has sold out to the Chinese and the Russians allowing them to create newer weapons of mass destruction and cripple the US military at the same time. The amazon.com site alone speaks volumes about how this writer's views.
The article itself raves of an oncoming the war with the Evil Communist Chinese Empire creating an anti-capitalism internet branch to their military. Yeah, the same government who has been begging and pleading to be able to do trade with the rest of the world is going to destroy the Internet, right before they invade the US ("Go Wolverines!"). I especially like the touch of the unnamed "senior Pentagon official" being informed, but not actually having an opinion on the subject. And then there is the expert, William Triplett, and his rabid anti-China book Red Dragon Rising who spouts off that those crafty Chinese will one day the US oil refineries though the Internet. Yesh. I like it better when Sandra Bullock was fighting evil in The Net. Rampant xenophobia rears it's ugly head.
-S. Louie
That's the right idea. And it also points out an interesting dilemma comes with multiple master remotes. "Imprinting" works great when you have one master remote, the authorization code constantly changes according to usage, but what happens when you need more than one remote? A two car garage would likely need at least two remotes.
This problem can be solved by storing a separate key for each remote device and having the door opener react to each one. That increases the possiblity of breaking the key, but allows for multiple master remotes. The question is how many keys to store. Currently, electronic devices with remotes can be spoofed by a universal remote, providing us with a master remote, but you can still use the original remote to work the device. Even with the introduction of authorization security, that situation is not likely to change so there is a minimum of two remotes for the device to be "imprinted" to. There may be a need for more. So each device will need to have a max # of remotes it can become imprinted on.
Hmm... So the "resurrected duckling" may need to be "imprinted" to multiple "mothers". Great, another image to digest, polygamist lesbian ducks raising undead ducklings.
-S. Louie
Since you've already bought the Gateway (with Win98, most likely), I say stick with that and don't bother to go with Linux. Your grandfather doesn't need much more than the basics and all of those have been provided. It's good enough as is.
Just show him how to reboot, connect to AOL, use the browser, email, print, and write on the word processor, then hand him your pager number and say "if you ever need help, give me a call Grandpa." That's the right solution.
The credo is "Keep it simple, stupid."
-S. Louie
This ad definitely plays on the FUD aspect of "free" software as being unsupported. Kind of a cheap shot, but not entirely ineffective towards non-techies who question open-source software reliablity and support. These folks might buy into Xig's gig just because they are promoting support.
Intrestingly, they imply the size of the X server versus the kernel make it automatically suspect. Microsoft, take note....
The ad also implies the X server is an intimate part of the OS as opposed to being just an application. That itself is incorrect, but to a non-techie, it "appears" to be that way (ie. if your windows start dying, your system must be crashing). And that may be all that counts.
Even given that X itself is extremely stable, I've lost work on it when it has died. KDE and GNOME probably haven't boosted anyone's confidence level when dealing with X either, but if asked by management, I'd dismiss the ad out of hand (but start mumbling about a stable window manager).
-S. Louie
Submit the review. It's good for people to get a few opinions on a book that tries to capture the "essence" of THE business model based off of Linux. More techie people will react to a direct review of the book on /. than elsewhear.
The Salon review makes me leery of buying the book (as does the "insta-biography/tabloid" feel of the title), but I'll probably scan it at the store. It's a good critical article about the book and Red Hat's juxaposition with the current marketplace and industry. Lots of questions, damn few solid answers. Fun! Fun! Fun!
-S. Louie
Details over at Steve Jackson Games in the December 6th, 1996 entry of the Illuminator. Perhaps one of the funniest AD&D references I've seen (the funniest being a column about old-time RPGs vs. the newer ones).
-S. Louie
http://www. nytimes.com/library/tech/99/09/biztech/articles/23 fraud.html
-S. Louie
A counterexample to the Monica Lewinsky scandal is Salon's coverage of far-right politicians "conspiring" against President Clinton. In this case, the President publically acknowledged the e-zine for news that may never have been seen outside of your local free alternative newspaper.
The media has long been considered to be the fourth branch of the the US government. They cover the bully pulpits of President and the Legistature and keep the public abreast of political happenings. With the arrival of the Net and CNN, the media has become reporting on a 24 hour cycle which meant more invasion of politician's lives and their motives. The consant need for new news forces the media and the media pundits to continue talking, trying to find new scandals, trying to finds new angles on old scandals, trying to tittlate, and letting finding solutions fall onto others.
Katz tries to convince us that the new political "Max Headroom" will change American politics via the Net. But there is no Max Headroom, no entity that exists only on the Net who can show as much charisma as a live/taped politician with party support. It's hard to convey that sense of charisma over the Net and no reason to do so. I can think of few people who get their primary political information off of the Net. Increasing interactability doesn't necessarily mean a net chat when doing a radio talk show will reach so many more people (something politicans are loath to do). I don't expect to vote for someone because of their website anymore than I would vote for them because I got their junk mail. However I can be influenced by a variety of news websites.
The Net has already changed politics, but not in the way that Katz thinks it has or will. It has become another media filter, but one that is improved by not just being another corporate newsmill. It allows disperate views to have their say on a more level playing ground than any other form of media. It's more alternative than your local alternative rag and has more POVs than a cocktail party. As it expands, there will be even more opinions and ideas. The question is if people will listen to them.
-S. Louie
Any company that has either been hit or threatened by a sexual-harassment suit has to prove that they have done their best to insure that the work environment is not sexually-hostile. That includes removing pornography where reported and try to ensure that it doesn't happen again. Companies no longer tolerate centerfold pinups on the wall, they should also expect not to find it on your 21" screen.
Otherwise it's a possible million dollar lawsuit for the company and someone's job out the door.
If the sysadm feels that the scan is a problem, that person does have the right to say "no" and suffer the consequences. Personally, I'd just explain to HR how technically complex the task is, get them to send out a email memo announcing that company policy explaining the right to scan the system for porn plus the consequences, and not do the scan. Most folks will get the idea and delete it if they got it. Those who don't and get caught later showing it off, well, they get fired.
Remember the slacker sysadm concept for today to provide maximum results for minimal work. Sending an email warning will do in this case.
-S. Louie
I find it insulting that Katz has decided to take it upon himself to declare that theaters should no longer determine whether or not they wish to enforce voluntary policies pertaining to MPAA ratings. The managers who are attempting to establish an R policy do so to conform to what they view as community standards. And there is nothing wrong with that. It's perfectly LEGAL for them to do that, just as it is legal for stores to "refuse service" to a customer as long as it is not discriminatory.
Is being treated differently because you are younger than 18 discriminatory? Hell yes, but it is also the point at which the LAW determines whether or not you're an adult. As arbitrary as it sounds, the law says the day before you turn 18 is different than your birthday. It's not a level of maturity that's being measured. It's not knowledge or experience that's measured. It's age that determines whether or not you can vote. Why? Because the government won't spend the time or effort to measure anything else unless you make it worth their while (example: see how many teenagers are serving hard time for "adult" crimes), so should we should expect theaters to determine an individual's maturity level before allowing them to watch a movie? Hell no.
And so, a business owner tries to make it their business to act like a member of the community and puts up a policy enforcing the R rating. Well, gosh darn it. Life sucks for the kids. If they can't get an adult to watch the movie with them, then that business owner has the right to refuse service.
All I read in Katz's article is whining. "I got a note from my Mommy." Even the schools have stopped believing that line. "I'm 17 and I couldn't watch a movie. Darn that's unfair!" That's life, brat. If you haven't learned that by now, you're gonna suffer when you get out in the real world. Go watch something they'll let you see. "I'm gonna buy DVD." If you wanna protest with your dollars, Hey, feel free to do so. The usher, cashier, or manager you had to argue with and whine to when you didn't get your way will appreciate it.
It's not the theater manager's fault that the movie is rated G, PG, PG-13, R or NC-17. It's the Movie Picture Association of America (MPAA) that sets up these ratings. The manager follows the rules set down by the corporation that owns the theaters who try very hard not to get sued and upset the stockholders by following MPAA's standards. You wanna do something about it? Try fighting the MPAA instead. The manager is just trying not to get fired because some brat's parents sued his bosses for not enforcing the rules.
What really upsets me about this story are the mention of parents who aren't willing to get involved enough with their kids to go watch these movies with them. The rules say "accompanied by a parent or adult guardian." What's to explain about that? You've known the rules have been since you were kids. Stop whining because you're too embarassed to ask Mom or Dad to watch the movie with you or because they won't do it. They have their reasons. Talk to them about it. Interact with your parents instead of putting the blame on the theater.
Maybe we had it easier when us older folks were younger, but then people weren't so lawsuit-happy back then.
-S. Louie
Because, like great programmers and great sys admins, they are hard to find and with all that power (our money), you can't always figure out just how much you can trust them.
-S. Louie
I am stunned and thrilled by the Magic 8-Ball. I stand here today grateful that thanks to the miracle of the Internet and simple robotics. I can waste minutes of a boring work day asking about my raise and getting actual answers about it.
-S. Louie
The arguments made here are more or less the same as were made for personal computers 15 years ago. For some people, they are lifesavers, for others, toys, and to even more, both. Back then, pcs were for accounting, wordprocessing, games, and storing your recipes. That what makes computers great in the first place.
ie. this is a moot argument.
-S. Louie
Theft and destruction of a $60,000 object? Oh yeah, that's a felony. These guys are going to suffer for a while, if not in jail, then paying back Lucasfilm for the price of the movie.
-S. Louie
Okay, a few points here....
First Star Trek and Star Wars are two different genre who just happen to both take place in space. No one compares MASH to Apocalyse Now because they both take place in East Asia. Star Trek is "space drama" while Star Wars is "space fantasy." Even Lucas admits that what he tried to create with the whole SW thing is "myth-building." Roddenberry, and those who succeeded him, tried to make morality tales. SW takes place "in a galaxy far, far away" while ST is steeped in it's own grasp of humanity with the home planet of the Federation being Earth. Comparing the two genres of movies is a pointless.
ST was/is a television show first, a movie second. SW was a standalone film, which, upon success, became a series of films. And of the films, it is clear that SW is better. The ST films are hampered by keeping to the characters as they were created on TV. The ST chracters are forced to be more realistic (cough, cough) because two-dimensional hero-myth TV series die inthe first season unless they are on Saturday morning.
The revival of ST came about because of the success of SW. Once SW became a blockbuster, the other studios looked around and asked "Do we have anything like that?" Thus was born the first ST movie and the success of that film led directly into the new TV series.
Star Trek (the new set of serials) is not real science fiction. It's "space drama." It uses deus ex machina so much, they might as well be talking about using the Force. How many times has sticking the fuon generator into the fuon matix making show-saving uberfuons been the solution? I'd guess about 75% of the time. Even the Greek plays didn't rely on it so much.
And finally, SW didn't ruin science fiction films, corporations ruined them. The ability for film studios to control distribution and the loss of the independant movie houses which meant that the corporate studio sold movies to corporate theaters. The heads of studios became convinced the only way to make money was the blockbuster. Making $30 million from $5 million movies was good, but making $200 million from a $100 million is better. And there's lots of reasons for that, but it means smaller films with smaller distributions get less attention. And not many small films are made using sicence fiction anymore. Star Wars did not destroy the science fiction film genre anymore than Lord of the Rings destroyed fantasy books.
-S. Louie
I nearly lost it when the girlfriend mentioned being chased by the boyfriend wielding a TIE fighter after having sex.
"I have you now...."
-S. Louie