SCO's case has been circling the toilet bowl from day one. Hence, any time they come up with a "smoking gun" will be the right time to reveal it.
If you extend your toilet bowl analogy, that isn't smoke coming off their claims, but steam. And that isn't a gun that is steaming, but a pile of... well, you get the picture.
Re:I'm not a doctor, but I play one on Slashdot
on
Sleeping Problems?
·
· Score: 1
Asking medical advice from these folks is silly.
You're talking about doctors here, right?
I am suggesting that one should ask the advice of medical doctors about health issues instead of doctors of computer science. I would suspect that on Slashdot there are far fewer of the former than the latter.
I'm not a doctor, but I play one on Slashdot
on
Sleeping Problems?
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Sleep disorders can be a symptom of medical problem. And lack of sleep can lead to them. Don't be a dork. Go to the doctor. The doctor will likely perscribe you some anti-anxiety medication or sleeping pills.
I'm a big fan of SETI, but they tend to downplay the fact that we're only likely to be able to pick up signals beamed directly at us.
That may be true now, but not necessarily in 20 years. Heck, in 20 years we may discover a more practical way to transmit over vast distances... and suddenly discover aliens are already trying to communicate with us.
Or maybe not. A lot can change in 20 years though.
I disagree. It's a lot easier to start going to www.newsearchengine.com than www.google.com than it is to switch your browser, especially if you don't own the machine you work on (e.g. work machine)
Not only that, there are brain dead web application developers that sell web services to companies, and insist on writing to IE6 as opposed to standards. I deal with two such providers to my company. Their only reason: "We only support IE6". The result, goofy looking, confusing, non-standard displays on anything other than IE. In neither case would actually altering the code (javascript mainly, and a couple of IE only HTML tags) be a major undertaking. They just won't do it without being paid a huge sum of money.
The solution is actually simple. Don't hire a photographer who is not willing to do what you want them to do.
Programmers, even consultants, almost always assign copyrights as part of the contract. There's no reason photographers can't. It comes down to the fact that they don't like to. And if you agree to those terms, you're stuck.
However, since you're comissioning the work, you have just as much interest in the copyright as they do. Don't sign away your rights. Find a photographer that will share the copyrights, or give them over.
Photography is a tough business to make a living in. I'm sure there are some photographers willing to go that extra mile. Many would be thrilled to have the job.
As a side note, photographers also have to have a release signed from you in order to use your image for commercial purposes. They can't use the photo (commercially - like promoting their business) without it. If you didn't sign such a release, you could point out that the images are of no use to him. Offer to sign a release in exchange for shared copyrights.
If you did sign a release AND signed away your interest in the copyrights, well... consider it a learning experience.
Your attitude is elitist, "if you don't want the fancy features, get a disposable camera." Beyond the fact that disposables get expensive real fast, what if I want to have a single camera and be able to take real photos AND snapshots?
Then learn to use the camera. Cameras come in a huge varity, both film and digital. If you want it to be simple, buy a point and shoot. Even the most complicated digitals can be used as point and shoot. If you want to be able to exercise the additional control, then you have to LEARN.
The point of the article is that the simple should be simple. If I want to take a picture, I press a button. When I install a dictionary program, instead of being interviewed by the program, let me quickly look up words.
What I took away from the article is that the author wants a general purpose computer to behave like a single purpose device and read his mind. He wants to be able to think about what he wants and press the "do it" button, and have that work. Let's face it, someone who can't install a chess program without hiring someone to do it for them is not too bright. Let's not even get into how dumb you have to be to not be able to adjust the sound volume. And he would have us believe he can play chess?
I find it ironic that he would choose cameras for some of his examples. The simplest film cameras are more complicated for point-and-shoot use than digital cameras.
What ISO? Digital: who cares, leave it on auto Point-and-shoot Film: Did you select and properly load the right film?
What apature? Digital: who cares, leave it on auto Point-and-shoot Film: Hmm... I guess you have to take you chances if you don't want to learn, odds are with a PnS you're S.O.L. anyway.
What is the lighting conditions? Digital: who cares, leave it on auto Point-and-shoot Film: Do you need to change your film? What do you do with the half exposed roll in the camera?
Subject wrong distance to fill frame? Digital: Adjust the zoom. You could also choose the film method (that is if having 2 options does't confuse you) Point-and-shoot Film: get closer or back up
Out of focus? Digital: Half press the button (or, with some, just leave in auto and point at subject) Point-and-shoot Film: You didn't really want it in focus, did you?
Want to see the pictures? Digital: Unplug card from camera, plug into card reader (or plug the cable into camera and computer). Chose where you want to copy them. Click on the icons that look interesting. Point-and-shoot Film: Rewind the film, unload the camera, be careful to put the film in the special container (you didn't lose it, did you?), choose where you wan to have them developed, drive there, wait in line, fill out the form, give them the film, wait, come back, get in line again, give them the reciept (you didn't lose it, did you?), pay for the prints (even the bad ones).
But I could imagine that making Windows just look a bit less stable (like, every now and then, a save from a random program destroys the file instead, programs start to crash randomly once in a while,...) would be more effective in making Windows look bad. After all, instability is what everyone expects from Windows anyway, so if the increase if instability isn't too rapid, you wouldn't really suspect a virus, but just blame Microsoft: Thus, such a "slightly destructive" virus would probably cause more long-term damage to the Windows platform than a "wiping Windows" virus.
You've described the normal behavior of Windows. How could you tell Windows had a virus?
$300k per employee is a high stat, but the typical office worker costs a company $100k-$150k a year when things beyond salary such as the cost of supplying that employee with the office space and supplies needed to do their job, insurance costs, administrative expenses, and other such costs are factored in.
Often one department in a big company "charges" other departments for accounting purposes. Perhaps the additional cost is the inter-department cost of licensing only Microsoft software.
This is not necessarily a software patent. It's a process patent. In theory, they could stop you from performing the same process whether you're using a keyboard or doing it by hand.
I'd be willing to go as far as saying there shouldn't be process patents. Patents were intended to give innovators a limited monopoly for innovations. The purpose being to encourage research. Processes need no such artificial support. Businesses will create processes that improve their margin automatically without such government approved and enforced incentives.
It certainly sounds ridiculous on the face of it. But, in this current system, it'd be foolish for a company to not try and patent everything they can, even if they have no intention of enforcing it, before the competition does.
Then if you've accidentally infringed on someone else's silly patent, you can trade rights instead of having to cough up money.
IMNSHO, software patents should be eliminated entirely, and copyrights should only cover published works (i.e. source - you know, like books for which copyrights were origionally intended). What's left is trade secrets.
I'd be willing to bet that Microsoft would take a lot longer to reduce to rubble than Linus and his ragtag crew of happy software authors.
I wish I hadn't wasted my moderator points earlier today, or I would have modded this up. Thank you for pointing these things out (and saving me the time).
Well some of us have more respect for ourselves and others to lie about what internet browser they are using.
Maybe so, but if you phrase it properly you can call it upselling.
For example: "This is FireFox, it's a security enhancement for web browsing on Microsoft OSes. It comes with lots of advanced browser features and is much faster. Give it a try."
Oh, but it has. It changed from being a hobby to being a business. A business based in part on ad revenue. And I, as a consumer, for whom those ads are targetted, certainly have every right to comment on the quality of the service.
One thing that has remained pretty much the same is the quality of the service. I expect more from professionals than I do from hobbyists. And don't kid yourself into thinking they haven't entered the realm of paid professionals.
Don't get me wrong, the Slashdot crew broke ground. I respect them for that. They were among the first to do what they do. They created something wonderful. Then they got paid and have done little more than add a couple of features to the website since then. Moderating and meta-moderating and karma may help weed some of the nonsense out of the user responses, but unless they pay attention to people like me the nonsense will continue in the articles themselves.
I intend this as constructive criticism, not a troll or a flame. I want Slashdot to stay around. I just want it to be better.
So, you're saying that you should be able to get a full and complete understanding of a technical system solution from a Slashdot article blurb without doing any research of your own or without reading any of the links?
I believe what what the poster meant was that a news posting should at least have a basic overview of what the heck it's about.
I know what Knoppix is, I know what screen is, but I don't have a clue what NX is. Even descriptive adjectives would help.
I'm interested in finding out what NX is. Since the link is Sashdotted I can't at the moment. I've gotten side tracked by your anonymous flame. I will probably have forgotten about it by later today. So I'm left wondering.
The editors here signed million dollar contracts, revenue is coming in from ads and subscriptions, they've been at it for years.... you'd think they'd have learned at least a few basic journalism techniques.
I see a lot of wrong information posted as news. The most descriptive news items are typically when they lucked out and copied a good paragraph from the story link. Heck, they aren't even good at checking to see if they've already posted the story on their own site.
It's just laziness. I'd expect such from volunteers... but as I pointed out, they're getting paid well.
Just because the environment is different doesn't mean it is better or worse. Remember, the grass is always greener.
I've done both. There's no contest. Making $50K+/year in an IT job is hands-down better than making $25K/year sweeting one's ass off crawling through fiberglass insulation looking for where a squirrel chewed through an burgular alarm wire.
Digital Photography Review lists two* SLRs for under $1000. Click here and select SLR / under $1000. Select under $2000 and you open your options up to nine*.
I plan to buy the Canon 300D soon. Though it is a somewhat crippled (with some uncrippling hacks available) version of the 10D, it is still an exceptional value.
*The HP Photosmart doesn't belong on the list. It's not actually a SLR so I am not including it in my count. Looks like an error in the site's database.
Slashdot Mirror
You could always supeona all the source code for SCO Unix. You know the proof has got to be in there somewhere.
SCO's case has been circling the toilet bowl from day one. Hence, any time they come up with a "smoking gun" will be the right time to reveal it.
If you extend your toilet bowl analogy, that isn't smoke coming off their claims, but steam. And that isn't a gun that is steaming, but a pile of... well, you get the picture.
I am suggesting that one should ask the advice of medical doctors about health issues instead of doctors of computer science. I would suspect that on Slashdot there are far fewer of the former than the latter.
Sleep disorders can be a symptom of medical problem. And lack of sleep can lead to them. Don't be a dork. Go to the doctor. The doctor will likely perscribe you some anti-anxiety medication or sleeping pills.
Asking medical advice from these folks is silly.
I'm a big fan of SETI, but they tend to downplay the fact that we're only likely to be able to pick up signals beamed directly at us.
That may be true now, but not necessarily in 20 years. Heck, in 20 years we may discover a more practical way to transmit over vast distances... and suddenly discover aliens are already trying to communicate with us.
Or maybe not. A lot can change in 20 years though.
Its censorship no matter what age it is. And those rules do pop up every so often, but are constantly overturned in court.
It's not censorship if a theatre does it. It's only censorship if the government does it.
I wish people would stop confusing business decisions with laws.
The UN matters when they agree with US and doesn't matter when they don't?
Well, yes. That is more or less the reality of the UN's importance.
I disagree. It's a lot easier to start going to www.newsearchengine.com than www.google.com than it is to switch your browser, especially if you don't own the machine you work on (e.g. work machine)
Not only that, there are brain dead web application developers that sell web services to companies, and insist on writing to IE6 as opposed to standards. I deal with two such providers to my company. Their only reason: "We only support IE6". The result, goofy looking, confusing, non-standard displays on anything other than IE. In neither case would actually altering the code (javascript mainly, and a couple of IE only HTML tags) be a major undertaking. They just won't do it without being paid a huge sum of money.
The solution is actually simple. Don't hire a photographer who is not willing to do what you want them to do.
Programmers, even consultants, almost always assign copyrights as part of the contract. There's no reason photographers can't. It comes down to the fact that they don't like to. And if you agree to those terms, you're stuck.
However, since you're comissioning the work, you have just as much interest in the copyright as they do. Don't sign away your rights. Find a photographer that will share the copyrights, or give them over.
Photography is a tough business to make a living in. I'm sure there are some photographers willing to go that extra mile. Many would be thrilled to have the job.
As a side note, photographers also have to have a release signed from you in order to use your image for commercial purposes. They can't use the photo (commercially - like promoting their business) without it. If you didn't sign such a release, you could point out that the images are of no use to him. Offer to sign a release in exchange for shared copyrights.
If you did sign a release AND signed away your interest in the copyrights, well... consider it a learning experience.
Then learn to use the camera. Cameras come in a huge varity, both film and digital. If you want it to be simple, buy a point and shoot. Even the most complicated digitals can be used as point and shoot. If you want to be able to exercise the additional control, then you have to LEARN.
What I took away from the article is that the author wants a general purpose computer to behave like a single purpose device and read his mind. He wants to be able to think about what he wants and press the "do it" button, and have that work. Let's face it, someone who can't install a chess program without hiring someone to do it for them is not too bright. Let's not even get into how dumb you have to be to not be able to adjust the sound volume. And he would have us believe he can play chess?
I find it ironic that he would choose cameras for some of his examples. The simplest film cameras are more complicated for point-and-shoot use than digital cameras.
What ISO?
Digital: who cares, leave it on auto
Point-and-shoot Film: Did you select and properly load the right film?
What apature?
Digital: who cares, leave it on auto
Point-and-shoot Film: Hmm... I guess you have to take you chances if you don't want to learn, odds are with a PnS you're S.O.L. anyway.
What is the lighting conditions?
Digital: who cares, leave it on auto
Point-and-shoot Film: Do you need to change your film? What do you do with the half exposed roll in the camera?
Subject wrong distance to fill frame?
Digital: Adjust the zoom. You could also choose the film method (that is if having 2 options does't confuse you)
Point-and-shoot Film: get closer or back up
Out of focus?
Digital: Half press the button (or, with some, just leave in auto and point at subject)
Point-and-shoot Film: You didn't really want it in focus, did you?
Want to see the pictures?
Digital: Unplug card from camera, plug into card reader (or plug the cable into camera and computer). Chose where you want to copy them. Click on the icons that look interesting.
Point-and-shoot Film: Rewind the film, unload the camera, be careful to put the film in the special container (you didn't lose it, did you?), choose where you wan to have them developed, drive there, wait in line, fill out the form, give them the film, wait, come back, get in line again, give them the reciept (you didn't lose it, did you?), pay for the prints (even the bad ones).
You've described the normal behavior of Windows. How could you tell Windows had a virus?
Often one department in a big company "charges" other departments for accounting purposes. Perhaps the additional cost is the inter-department cost of licensing only Microsoft software.
This is not necessarily a software patent. It's a process patent. In theory, they could stop you from performing the same process whether you're using a keyboard or doing it by hand.
I'd be willing to go as far as saying there shouldn't be process patents. Patents were intended to give innovators a limited monopoly for innovations. The purpose being to encourage research. Processes need no such artificial support. Businesses will create processes that improve their margin automatically without such government approved and enforced incentives.
It certainly sounds ridiculous on the face of it. But, in this current system, it'd be foolish for a company to not try and patent everything they can, even if they have no intention of enforcing it, before the competition does.
Then if you've accidentally infringed on someone else's silly patent, you can trade rights instead of having to cough up money.
IMNSHO, software patents should be eliminated entirely, and copyrights should only cover published works (i.e. source - you know, like books for which copyrights were origionally intended). What's left is trade secrets.
I wish I hadn't wasted my moderator points earlier today, or I would have modded this up. Thank you for pointing these things out (and saving me the time).
The term was in use before then, at the quote indicates. The "first actual case" would imply that "virtual" bugs had been found previously.
See here for more information.
Is that one of the 86.55% of all statistics which are made up on the spot?
No, it's part of the other 25% of statistics that don't add up.
Well some of us have more respect for ourselves and others to lie about what internet browser they are using.
Maybe so, but if you phrase it properly you can call it upselling.
For example: "This is FireFox, it's a security enhancement for web browsing on Microsoft OSes. It comes with lots of advanced browser features and is much faster. Give it a try."
Nothings changed since they started making money.
Oh, but it has. It changed from being a hobby to being a business. A business based in part on ad revenue. And I, as a consumer, for whom those ads are targetted, certainly have every right to comment on the quality of the service.
One thing that has remained pretty much the same is the quality of the service. I expect more from professionals than I do from hobbyists. And don't kid yourself into thinking they haven't entered the realm of paid professionals.
Don't get me wrong, the Slashdot crew broke ground. I respect them for that. They were among the first to do what they do. They created something wonderful. Then they got paid and have done little more than add a couple of features to the website since then. Moderating and meta-moderating and karma may help weed some of the nonsense out of the user responses, but unless they pay attention to people like me the nonsense will continue in the articles themselves.
I intend this as constructive criticism, not a troll or a flame. I want Slashdot to stay around. I just want it to be better.
Slashdot shouldn't rest on its laurels.
I believe what what the poster meant was that a news posting should at least have a basic overview of what the heck it's about.
I know what Knoppix is, I know what screen is, but I don't have a clue what NX is. Even descriptive adjectives would help.
I'm interested in finding out what NX is. Since the link is Sashdotted I can't at the moment. I've gotten side tracked by your anonymous flame. I will probably have forgotten about it by later today. So I'm left wondering.
The editors here signed million dollar contracts, revenue is coming in from ads and subscriptions, they've been at it for years.... you'd think they'd have learned at least a few basic journalism techniques.
I see a lot of wrong information posted as news. The most descriptive news items are typically when they lucked out and copied a good paragraph from the story link. Heck, they aren't even good at checking to see if they've already posted the story on their own site.
It's just laziness. I'd expect such from volunteers... but as I pointed out, they're getting paid well.
I just have to say, that is an awesome sig you have there. I could use that on a t-shirt :)
Don't be so quick to make that T-shirt. SCO will sue you for violating their IP.
You do that. I, personally, would just adjust the white balance.
I've done both. There's no contest. Making $50K+/year in an IT job is hands-down better than making $25K/year sweeting one's ass off crawling through fiberglass insulation looking for where a squirrel chewed through an burgular alarm wire.
It will look bad to anyone who doesn't really, really like orange.
Digital Photography Review lists two* SLRs for under $1000. Click here and select SLR / under $1000. Select under $2000 and you open your options up to nine*.
I plan to buy the Canon 300D soon. Though it is a somewhat crippled (with some uncrippling hacks available) version of the 10D, it is still an exceptional value.
*The HP Photosmart doesn't belong on the list. It's not actually a SLR so I am not including it in my count. Looks like an error in the site's database.