Why is the submitter suggesting "conversion" to OSS (as if it were a religion)?
The key is to pick the right solution for solving a problem.
Windows is one option. OS X is another. And OSS (be it BSD or Linux) is yet another.
What is the basis of this "conversion?"
If those people have a working solution, and that solution is well-supported, then why change anything? It simply does not make sense to move from a working system to a new system without some actual requirement (business problem, technical problem, support requirements, etc.) to justify it.
As an example: Most of my clients are on homogeneous networks running Windows. It is what they are comfortable with. Their applications run on Windows, and their medical apps require Windows. When we first started doing work for one of them, their network was WIDE open on the network, it was peer-peer, and sharing files, printers, etc. was frightningly finicky. Their systems were rife with spyware, viruses, and so forth. The first thing we did was clean off viruses, spyware, rootkits, and so forth, and put them behind a proper firewall. They had a server they had purchased prior to our coming on board which was installed as a standalone server. We implemented active directory. They wanted to upgrade their systems and a LOT of their software was "unlicensed" (e.g., one set of Office disks used to install MS Office on all computers. We then centralized and secured their data on the server, made it easily accessible those who needed it, and otherwise locked things down.
Our next step after setting up active directory was to install Firefox and having them implement a policy where MSIE was disallowed except where business requirements (claim submissions, etc.) presented a technical requirement for MSIE, and have since installed Windows Defender. This solved their previously-recurring Spyware issue, and in that case OSS (Firefox) was the most inexpensive and best solution. That made sense; business and technical basis were used for that decision, not "ZOMG Microsoft is the debil, use OSS!"
Now, to resolve the Microsoft Office dilemma, we presented several options: Office, Office Pro, and Open Office and the costs involved (OEM pricing since OEM software legally CANNOT be tied to hardware based on several court rulings). The manager at the time was open to trying out OpenOffice. She tried it, decided to let us deploy it, and we were pleasantly surprised to discover that the extent of training required was telling the clerks "Write = Word, Calc = Excel, Impress = Powerpoint, and Base = Access" and they quickly (the first day) discovered OOo had features I didn't know they had. Now, prior to late OOo 1.9xx builds, I would never, ever have suggested OOo as a solution for ANYONE who had to exchange MS Office docs with anyone, but OOo 1.99/2.x works admirably well and it turned out to be a practical solution.
However there is another division of the company (under the same roof) where the scheduling macros one of the manager implemented in Excel would require a rewrite for OOo, so given the time to reimplement vs. the cost for Office seats, the more practical and less expensive solution is Microsoft's proprietary offering. So, they elected to continue using Microsoft Office, but since they were purchasing new computers anyhow, they just ensured that they purchased Microsoft Office for each PC.
In each case, we weighed the pros and cons with the purchasing managers and the president, and chose OSS where practical.
Now, I have several architectural/civil engineering firms as clients. One of them was in bad, bad shape and their servers were running on "pirated" Windows Enterprise licenses, for which they lacked even the install media, one single "license" of Acrobat Pro, and they had issues with Spyware. We suggested Firefox for the web browser, PDF creator for generating PDFs, but in no way, shape or form was Linux an option due to the "does it run AutoCAD" requrement (fortunately AutoCAD is fully and legitima
It's going to be more true as Microsoft phases in the software-by-subscription model. The day IS coming where you have to pay yearly for Windows (whether or not there is an upgrade) or face deactivation. But hey, at least by then Microsoft will have finally implemented a de-activate feature!
That's worse vendor lock than "Shit, my Exchange info store won't mount, ESEUTIL and ISINTEG don't to shit, and Microsoft tells me it's time to start over. If only I had gone open source, then my IT department could bring in a developer and make sense of this 16GB binary blob I have here."
The turnitinbot is one of the worst-behaved crawlers I've ever seen. For a while I resorted to redirecting their requests to be fed spam-like files (you know, nonsense phrases). That bot repeats requests every couple of seconds, not a request a minute or every few minutes like well-behaved bots (e.g., googlebot, msnbot, slurp, etc.). There is NO need for it, plus why the hell are they crawling corporate sites anyhow? Go crawl myspace and livejournal, and stay the hell off of ecommerce sites, bastards.
Where can I sign up for that job? The RIAA can pay me to download everything from Kazaa, listen to tracks from beginning to end, and report to them which are real and which are bogus? How much would that job pay?
Meh. I'll stick to listening to classic rock stations, talk radio, and classical, and simply avoid getting exposed to new material as much as possible. Screw you, RIAA.
Staff attorneys (of which major labels have many) are not, and in all likelihood they have a bunch of paralegal interns doing the grunt work and the staff attorney probably just signs whatever paperwork they produce and shows up at the token court appearances for the few folks who bother to stand up against the tyrants.
Actually, if the newspaper staff themselves had ever submitted their URL to google for inclusion after Google had deployed their caching technology, Google should appeal this and countersue the paper for willful negligence, fraud, extortion, and anything else their legal team can dream up.
On top of removing and permanently banning them from the Google index.
Yet one more reason to vote with your wallet and choose products which are not HP. Carly may be history, but her legacy is still affecting the company's business practices.
Except that "warning" and "error" and other kinds of dialogs have historically offered user-selectible sounds. Are they disabling the Windows notification sounds (aside from the mandatory Microsoft Windows-brand Startup event sound) in Vista? It seems to me that if they are so damned bleeping concerned about "accessibility" (see the anti-ODF FUD here in Taxachusetts) then they should be keeping audible notifications around. Even more than that, it's a matter of convenience to the non-handicapped, so this can affect a majority of users.
By all means, if I have to run Vista, and I have a "warning sound" defined in my sound theme, PLAY THE DAMNED SOUND. If I have a sound tied to an event in my theme, then obviously I WANT a notification, and it is NOT up to you, MICROSOFT, to tell me that I can't have that sound. Maybe I'm running a process in one office and sitting in a nearby office, leaving the sound turned up for the "completed" notification dialog.
A normal yes/no prompt, or pages in a wizard? Sure, make the guideline no sound. However there should be exceptions. Take your own Windows Server or SBS as an example.
The DCPROMO wizard SHOULD play a sound (if the server has sound on board - more and more SERVER boards are including AC97 lately - even Supermicro) when Server or SBS has completed running the wizard. It'd be nice to not have to walk over and check the server every 5 minutes to see if the thing is done. Even though it's not a "warning" or "error" when completed, it'd be nice to get a nice warning or error notification when it's complete, because it's a job that takes a long time to complete (even on a four-way system it takes a while).
The guideline should be: "Think of your users needs first. If your target audience will dislike it or will not be able to work without confusion, you're doing it wrong. If they can figure it out AND it is convenient, you're doing it right."
Lastly: I hate wizards. Give me a multi-tabbed dialog box instead, where if I decide I need or want to change something on the first page, I can select that first tab directly without having to click back->back->back->back->back and then (half the time) have to complete the entire wizard over because the brain-dead developer clears all the tabs when you skip back (I've seen that before too). I especially hate ATI tuner drivers - why should I have to run through a wizard to change a codec setting or to change the audio line the tuner is connected to (a moot issue for me since I've switched to Linux anyhow. . . )?
You got where you are by competing and undercutting everyone else, even going to extents such as forcing your suppliers to fire Americans and offshore manufacturing, forcing them in cases to decrease product quality and/or create "budget" models to meet your pricing strategy, and you've pretty much driven other big-box discount stores out of business.
Now you get miffed when not only are you getting undercut, but you're being undercut by an honest player who isn't bullying the suppliers to the extent that you do?
Competition. You got where you are through competition, and now that Apple is beating you at the movie game and Target is rabidly nipping at your heels by offering similar pricing and better quality, you're crying wolf? WTF?
Apparently this has been around since at least 1995 and there are those lobbying for it to be included in the DSM-IV.
Wonderful. Is there any recent drug patent for treating Internet addiction?
I mean, now there are drugs for treating "social anxiety disorder" -- apparantly now being shy or introverted is a disorder in ther DSM-IV, right? And that disorder requires treatment by expensive prescription drugs (the R&D of which was probably paid for by your tax dollars to boot). That and other so-called "disorders" which suddenly become so prevalent in TV advertising make me wonder if there isn't a pharmaceutical company just around the corner who will be claiming to have the magic pill to cure "internet addiction."
Shy? No big deal. Life would suck if everyone were an extroverted loudmouth.
Depressed? Get over it. Stop sitting around inside in a dark room all day. Go hiking! Skiing! Swimming! Skydiving! Work out!
Addicted to the Internet? Put down the cheetos and mountain dew, go outside! Get out there and Live! Smell the air! Sniff a dog! (and yes, I shamelessly ripped off Kevin Smith's Mallrats on that last part)
Dude! If your Linux box is freezing, I think you overdid it with your CPU cooler. Sheesh!;)
I've seen Linux lock up as well, but it's generally been to PCI issues (such as the SB Live & SMP fiasco a few years ago), ATI's proprietary drivers, or attempting to run certain OpenGL apps with ATI cards.
It wasn't that people WANTED to re-elect Duhbya, but that the alternative is Mr. John "I don't own any SUVS, the family does" (but I just happen to drive any one of six of them every goddamned day" Kerry, self-proclaimed environmentalist who has spoken out against the cape wind project and new LPG depots, and who voted to support the war in Iraq and yet has never supported it. He has a forked tongue. He skips 60% or more of his meetings. At least with Duhbya, we know where that devil stands. It was a matter of the devil you know vs. the devil you don't know. He at least does what he says he will do.
It sucks when you resort not to voting FOR a candidate, but determining who is the lesser of two bad evils, vote AGAINST the one you ABSOLUTELY do not want in office. Having to choose between two cretins is a horrible situation and you have better chances of making the right decision at the craps table. Now, if the reform or libetarian candidates had even a prayer of winning, things would be much different.
We pretty much blew it in 1992 when we had an opportunity to elect Ross Perot into office. For better or for worse, he would have shaken things up, but one thing is for sure: NAFTA would not have happened, China would not have most favor trading partner status, and we'd still have something of a manufacturing base here. In other words, our economy would not suck, and we wouldn't have the illegal alien problem.
Right. Joe Sixpack won't stop using MSIE until his computer is so infested it takes 5 minutes to log in and his four-year-old daughter is getting innundated with pr0n popup ads, then after finding out what it costs to fully clean a machine (or wipe and reinstall, potentially losing data), only THEN will he listen and start using firefox.
The Exchange Connector from Ximian Evolution provides an OWA implementation, right? It may be low, but for outfits looking to migrate to OSS solutions where possible, or true interoperability, but are stuck with Exchange for the time being, it's one option. The connector is open source and should not be discounted as a code base, or if nothing else, a point of reference. So, the tens of thousands of man-hours you're referring to (reverse engineering) is not a necessity.
Doesn't affect me. Most of the music I buy is not compressed for FM. For pop that's true, but for classical, progressive rock, and some other genres, the artist will tell the folks to not compress it or fudge with the EQ curve for FM. That's one thing that attracts me to Pink Floyd's material - their focus was (is?) on the output, the end result, for better or for worse. Fortunately for them, their work sold kinda well. Their material is extremely popular, and a lot of people who like their music can't really describe why. It really comes down to a good recording, mixing, and mastering process, and although there is a lot going on, they don't go overboard. If they were to re-release their work in a 24-bit format then go and compress it for FM, I'd be PISSED, because it'd ruin their material. Personally, I'd love to get all of their work on pristine unopened vinyl discs (all the Pink Floyd material I have is on CD (and cassette, buried in a closet somewhere) - I was shortsighted and didn't buy their stuff on vinyl records in the '80s. My first CD in 1986 or 1987 was DSotM, replacing an extremely worn DSotM cassette).
Britney spears? Avril? Compress the hell out of it. I don't give a shit. Their material is over-processed to begin with with very little interesting going on musically, so compressing the dynamic range will only help.;)
A couple of points both for and against each format:
- CDs have a much, much higher dynamic range than vinyl. Compare CD's 90db or so to vinyl's 45db on a good turntable.
- CDs lack an infinitely variable volume level. At 16 bits of resolution, there are 65,536 possible volume levels (including silence), in distinct steps. Normally one would never notice, but the limitations of digital DO have a profound effect while processing. This is one of many reasons a studio will work with 24, 32, 48, or even more bits of resolution, even if eventually it will be downsampled to 16 bit audio. All of the processing/mixing will normally be done at a higher resolution. Incidentally, this is why many bands still record using analog equipment, and some even do all of their mixes on analog. AAD or ADD is almost invariably going to be better than DDD if you listen to music with a lot of texture and dynamic range.
- CDs have a hard limit for frequency response, with an immediate cutoff at 22050hz, whereas vinyl's frequency response extends past 25000hz with a very gradual rolloff. This should be taken into account by the recording or mastering engineer with the top end attenuated on a gradual slope. This problem used to be evident with very early CD pressings where the CD would sound "harsh" or "overly bright" compared to cassette or vinyl pressings, until the recording or mastering engineer rolled off the highs with a gradual curve. Of course, if you blasted your eardrums with headphones at 120db, you won't hear the difference anyhow because you probably can't hear much beyond 12000hz, plus it wouldn't be evident with most pop anyhow, mainly with classical, jazz, and progressive rock.
One problem Americans have is that the regular sedan is 200HP, the TDI is 100HP, but the TDI provides 177 ft. pounds of torque, only 30 less than the the 2.0T, and MORE than the 150HP Jetta 2.5. Moreover, while the diesels require maintainance, like any other vehicles, the engine is simpler which saves on maintainance and tune ups.
The problem is the torque curve, which affects acceleration - diesels are known for a strong but very narrow power curve. I realize great strides have been made in that arena, but has there been a diesel sportscar available to the public which can run the quarter in 12s or less, and 0-60mph/0-~100kph in 4.1 seconds or less?
Diesels may be wonderful for commuting, but AFAIK still not suitable for use in a sportscar. Ideally hybrids using diesel engines should come out, equipped with constant-variable transmissions to keep the engine at its torque peak, providing better acceleration than even big-cube gasoline engines can muster. Having owned and driven various sportscars ranging from the lowly RX-7 (first generation) to the ZR-1, I've gotten quite spoiled as each car has raised the peformance bar higher and higher to the point where my previous car has felt downright slow. I've been looking at the Lexus hybrid for my next daily driver (possibly next summer) but even that would be a huge decrease in performance.
I'm REALLY interested in hybrids, but think that hybrids should use diesel engines (then cheap biodiesel fuel would be more commercially viable) instead of gasoline engines, and the performance still isn't there.
Do thet say "license the movie today?" No. It's "Own Lion King on DVD today." "OWN Narnia on DVD today." "Own the original trilogy on DVD today."
Please stop parroting those idiots' (read idiots' as:..AAs') claims that content is merely "licensed." They know better, and as a consumer, you should know your rights as well.
They (the content producers themselves) re promoting the indisputable fact that you OWN the copy of that content. The only thing you CANNOT legally do with it is infringe on copyright law, aside from the exceptions provided for by the fair use clause.
If the content were a work for hire, it might be a different story, depending on the basis of the contract under which you had them create the content for you. No, DVDs are commodity goods, and when you buy it, you OWN it. Period.
the problem for Microsoft is that they are sold in a way that violates the licensing conditions.
Didn't the courts rule that Microsoft cannot use such methods to control the price of Windows, that OEM software cannot be restricted to bundling with machines? Oh yeah, they did, and that is not the goal of Genuine Advantage.
Key sharing? Already accomplished with Activation. If you install using the same key on too many machines, your OS will not activate. Period. Sure, you can hack and patch the machine, but installing patches, service packs, and so forth will become far more painful than it's worth compared to just shelling out the $130 or so for an OEM version of Windows.
By your logic: a counterfeit $100 bill is genuine because every aspect of it is genuine, except for the serial number and the fact that it is not an agent of the Federal Reserve which manufactured it. So, by right, everyone should accept that counterfeit $100 bill for all debts, including Uncle Sam.
Right? Same logic. . .
However
I disagree with Microsoft using this tactic though, because they are making it near impossible for me to use Linux to download patches to bring to client sites, and because they already have dominance in the market, the "piracy" is not hurting them in the slightest. It can be worked around, but it's not just click-click-click, download, burn to CD and take it to the site. I need to hunt for technet downloads or tweak the hell out of wine to finnagle MSIE to cooperate and actually run the genuine advantage BS with every change they make.
I think their real goal is to detect wine/linux out of fear of losing their monopoly, rather than to fight "piracy." Even if my tinfoil-hat theory is true though, it does not make "counterfeit Windows" any less counterfeit based on your faulty logic. By your logic, wine or crossover office are not "counterfeit windows" either, because to most normal applications, the environment looks and acts just like Windows.
If they were not the dominant force and if they were trying to compete honestly, I'd have more pity for them, but hell, they buck standards at every turn, are fighting the open document format and other industry standards at every turn to create and enforce vendor lock-in, PLUS they are patenting both prior art and obvious uses of technology just because they know the USPTO will rubber-stamp anything they apply for, so I disagree with Microsoft's actions on this. They used to unofficially encourage "piracy" because they knew that it would help to create a virtual monopoly on de-facto standards, and as soon as they did achieve monopoly standards and were convicted for abusing their effective monopoly they started treating paying customers like criminals, all due to a situation they themselves encouraged from the beginning. I really think their real goal is to detect wine/crossover office on *nix variants though.
Slashdot Mirror
Why is the submitter suggesting "conversion" to OSS (as if it were a religion)?
The key is to pick the right solution for solving a problem.
Windows is one option.
OS X is another.
And OSS (be it BSD or Linux) is yet another.
What is the basis of this "conversion?"
If those people have a working solution, and that solution is well-supported, then why change anything? It simply does not make sense to move from a working system to a new system without some actual requirement (business problem, technical problem, support requirements, etc.) to justify it.
As an example: Most of my clients are on homogeneous networks running Windows. It is what they are comfortable with. Their applications run on Windows, and their medical apps require Windows. When we first started doing work for one of them, their network was WIDE open on the network, it was peer-peer, and sharing files, printers, etc. was frightningly finicky. Their systems were rife with spyware, viruses, and so forth. The first thing we did was clean off viruses, spyware, rootkits, and so forth, and put them behind a proper firewall. They had a server they had purchased prior to our coming on board which was installed as a standalone server. We implemented active directory. They wanted to upgrade their systems and a LOT of their software was "unlicensed" (e.g., one set of Office disks used to install MS Office on all computers. We then centralized and secured their data on the server, made it easily accessible those who needed it, and otherwise locked things down.
Our next step after setting up active directory was to install Firefox and having them implement a policy where MSIE was disallowed except where business requirements (claim submissions, etc.) presented a technical requirement for MSIE, and have since installed Windows Defender. This solved their previously-recurring Spyware issue, and in that case OSS (Firefox) was the most inexpensive and best solution. That made sense; business and technical basis were used for that decision, not "ZOMG Microsoft is the debil, use OSS!"
Now, to resolve the Microsoft Office dilemma, we presented several options: Office, Office Pro, and Open Office and the costs involved (OEM pricing since OEM software legally CANNOT be tied to hardware based on several court rulings). The manager at the time was open to trying out OpenOffice. She tried it, decided to let us deploy it, and we were pleasantly surprised to discover that the extent of training required was telling the clerks "Write = Word, Calc = Excel, Impress = Powerpoint, and Base = Access" and they quickly (the first day) discovered OOo had features I didn't know they had. Now, prior to late OOo 1.9xx builds, I would never, ever have suggested OOo as a solution for ANYONE who had to exchange MS Office docs with anyone, but OOo 1.99/2.x works admirably well and it turned out to be a practical solution.
However there is another division of the company (under the same roof) where the scheduling macros one of the manager implemented in Excel would require a rewrite for OOo, so given the time to reimplement vs. the cost for Office seats, the more practical and less expensive solution is Microsoft's proprietary offering. So, they elected to continue using Microsoft Office, but since they were purchasing new computers anyhow, they just ensured that they purchased Microsoft Office for each PC.
In each case, we weighed the pros and cons with the purchasing managers and the president, and chose OSS where practical.
Now, I have several architectural/civil engineering firms as clients. One of them was in bad, bad shape and their servers were running on "pirated" Windows Enterprise licenses, for which they lacked even the install media, one single "license" of Acrobat Pro, and they had issues with Spyware. We suggested Firefox for the web browser, PDF creator for generating PDFs, but in no way, shape or form was Linux an option due to the "does it run AutoCAD" requrement (fortunately AutoCAD is fully and legitima
It's going to be more true as Microsoft phases in the software-by-subscription model. The day IS coming where you have to pay yearly for Windows (whether or not there is an upgrade) or face deactivation. But hey, at least by then Microsoft will have finally implemented a de-activate feature!
That's worse vendor lock than "Shit, my Exchange info store won't mount, ESEUTIL and ISINTEG don't to shit, and Microsoft tells me it's time to start over. If only I had gone open source, then my IT department could bring in a developer and make sense of this 16GB binary blob I have here."
The turnitinbot is one of the worst-behaved crawlers I've ever seen. For a while I resorted to redirecting their requests to be fed spam-like files (you know, nonsense phrases). That bot repeats requests every couple of seconds, not a request a minute or every few minutes like well-behaved bots (e.g., googlebot, msnbot, slurp, etc.). There is NO need for it, plus why the hell are they crawling corporate sites anyhow? Go crawl myspace and livejournal, and stay the hell off of ecommerce sites, bastards.
Where can I sign up for that job? The RIAA can pay me to download everything from Kazaa, listen to tracks from beginning to end, and report to them which are real and which are bogus? How much would that job pay?
Meh. I'll stick to listening to classic rock stations, talk radio, and classical, and simply avoid getting exposed to new material as much as possible. Screw you, RIAA.
Independent law firms are expensive.
Staff attorneys (of which major labels have many) are not, and in all likelihood they have a bunch of paralegal interns doing the grunt work and the staff attorney probably just signs whatever paperwork they produce and shows up at the token court appearances for the few folks who bother to stand up against the tyrants.
Actually, if the newspaper staff themselves had ever submitted their URL to google for inclusion after Google had deployed their caching technology, Google should appeal this and countersue the paper for willful negligence, fraud, extortion, and anything else their legal team can dream up.
On top of removing and permanently banning them from the Google index.
Yet one more reason to vote with your wallet and choose products which are not HP. Carly may be history, but her legacy is still affecting the company's business practices.
Except that "warning" and "error" and other kinds of dialogs have historically offered user-selectible sounds. Are they disabling the Windows notification sounds (aside from the mandatory Microsoft Windows-brand Startup event sound) in Vista? It seems to me that if they are so damned bleeping concerned about "accessibility" (see the anti-ODF FUD here in Taxachusetts) then they should be keeping audible notifications around. Even more than that, it's a matter of convenience to the non-handicapped, so this can affect a majority of users.
By all means, if I have to run Vista, and I have a "warning sound" defined in my sound theme, PLAY THE DAMNED SOUND. If I have a sound tied to an event in my theme, then obviously I WANT a notification, and it is NOT up to you, MICROSOFT, to tell me that I can't have that sound. Maybe I'm running a process in one office and sitting in a nearby office, leaving the sound turned up for the "completed" notification dialog.
A normal yes/no prompt, or pages in a wizard? Sure, make the guideline no sound. However there should be exceptions. Take your own Windows Server or SBS as an example.
The DCPROMO wizard SHOULD play a sound (if the server has sound on board - more and more SERVER boards are including AC97 lately - even Supermicro) when Server or SBS has completed running the wizard. It'd be nice to not have to walk over and check the server every 5 minutes to see if the thing is done. Even though it's not a "warning" or "error" when completed, it'd be nice to get a nice warning or error notification when it's complete, because it's a job that takes a long time to complete (even on a four-way system it takes a while).
The guideline should be: "Think of your users needs first. If your target audience will dislike it or will not be able to work without confusion, you're doing it wrong. If they can figure it out AND it is convenient, you're doing it right."
Lastly: I hate wizards. Give me a multi-tabbed dialog box instead, where if I decide I need or want to change something on the first page, I can select that first tab directly without having to click back->back->back->back->back and then (half the time) have to complete the entire wizard over because the brain-dead developer clears all the tabs when you skip back (I've seen that before too). I especially hate ATI tuner drivers - why should I have to run through a wizard to change a codec setting or to change the audio line the tuner is connected to (a moot issue for me since I've switched to Linux anyhow. . . )?
Competition.
You got where you are by competing and undercutting everyone else, even going to extents such as forcing your suppliers to fire Americans and offshore manufacturing, forcing them in cases to decrease product quality and/or create "budget" models to meet your pricing strategy, and you've pretty much driven other big-box discount stores out of business.
Now you get miffed when not only are you getting undercut, but you're being undercut by an honest player who isn't bullying the suppliers to the extent that you do?
Competition. You got where you are through competition, and now that Apple is beating you at the movie game and Target is rabidly nipping at your heels by offering similar pricing and better quality, you're crying wolf? WTF?
Competition. Sucks for you, but it's good for us.
If they disagree with how Google works, they should block googlebot, or at minimum, create a robots.txt
Wonderful. Is there any recent drug patent for treating Internet addiction?
I mean, now there are drugs for treating "social anxiety disorder" -- apparantly now being shy or introverted is a disorder in ther DSM-IV, right? And that disorder requires treatment by expensive prescription drugs (the R&D of which was probably paid for by your tax dollars to boot). That and other so-called "disorders" which suddenly become so prevalent in TV advertising make me wonder if there isn't a pharmaceutical company just around the corner who will be claiming to have the magic pill to cure "internet addiction."
Shy? No big deal. Life would suck if everyone were an extroverted loudmouth.
Depressed? Get over it. Stop sitting around inside in a dark room all day. Go hiking! Skiing! Swimming! Skydiving! Work out!
Addicted to the Internet? Put down the cheetos and mountain dew, go outside! Get out there and Live! Smell the air! Sniff a dog! (and yes, I shamelessly ripped off Kevin Smith's Mallrats on that last part)
Sorry, maybe I'm just cynical.
Dude! If your Linux box is freezing, I think you overdid it with your CPU cooler. Sheesh! ;)
I've seen Linux lock up as well, but it's generally been to PCI issues (such as the SB Live & SMP fiasco a few years ago), ATI's proprietary drivers, or attempting to run certain OpenGL apps with ATI cards.
It wasn't that people WANTED to re-elect Duhbya, but that the alternative is Mr. John "I don't own any SUVS, the family does" (but I just happen to drive any one of six of them every goddamned day" Kerry, self-proclaimed environmentalist who has spoken out against the cape wind project and new LPG depots, and who voted to support the war in Iraq and yet has never supported it. He has a forked tongue. He skips 60% or more of his meetings. At least with Duhbya, we know where that devil stands. It was a matter of the devil you know vs. the devil you don't know. He at least does what he says he will do.
It sucks when you resort not to voting FOR a candidate, but determining who is the lesser of two bad evils, vote AGAINST the one you ABSOLUTELY do not want in office. Having to choose between two cretins is a horrible situation and you have better chances of making the right decision at the craps table. Now, if the reform or libetarian candidates had even a prayer of winning, things would be much different.
We pretty much blew it in 1992 when we had an opportunity to elect Ross Perot into office. For better or for worse, he would have shaken things up, but one thing is for sure: NAFTA would not have happened, China would not have most favor trading partner status, and we'd still have something of a manufacturing base here. In other words, our economy would not suck, and we wouldn't have the illegal alien problem.
Right. Joe Sixpack won't stop using MSIE until his computer is so infested it takes 5 minutes to log in and his four-year-old daughter is getting innundated with pr0n popup ads, then after finding out what it costs to fully clean a machine (or wipe and reinstall, potentially losing data), only THEN will he listen and start using firefox.
Start offering your service in Hanover and Rockland please.
The Exchange Connector from Ximian Evolution provides an OWA implementation, right? It may be low, but for outfits looking to migrate to OSS solutions where possible, or true interoperability, but are stuck with Exchange for the time being, it's one option. The connector is open source and should not be discounted as a code base, or if nothing else, a point of reference. So, the tens of thousands of man-hours you're referring to (reverse engineering) is not a necessity.
Doesn't affect me. Most of the music I buy is not compressed for FM. For pop that's true, but for classical, progressive rock, and some other genres, the artist will tell the folks to not compress it or fudge with the EQ curve for FM. That's one thing that attracts me to Pink Floyd's material - their focus was (is?) on the output, the end result, for better or for worse. Fortunately for them, their work sold kinda well. Their material is extremely popular, and a lot of people who like their music can't really describe why. It really comes down to a good recording, mixing, and mastering process, and although there is a lot going on, they don't go overboard. If they were to re-release their work in a 24-bit format then go and compress it for FM, I'd be PISSED, because it'd ruin their material. Personally, I'd love to get all of their work on pristine unopened vinyl discs (all the Pink Floyd material I have is on CD (and cassette, buried in a closet somewhere) - I was shortsighted and didn't buy their stuff on vinyl records in the '80s. My first CD in 1986 or 1987 was DSotM, replacing an extremely worn DSotM cassette).
;)
Britney spears? Avril? Compress the hell out of it. I don't give a shit. Their material is over-processed to begin with with very little interesting going on musically, so compressing the dynamic range will only help.
A couple of points both for and against each format:
- CDs have a much, much higher dynamic range than vinyl. Compare CD's 90db or so to vinyl's 45db on a good turntable.
- CDs lack an infinitely variable volume level. At 16 bits of resolution, there are 65,536 possible volume levels (including silence), in distinct steps. Normally one would never notice, but the limitations of digital DO have a profound effect while processing. This is one of many reasons a studio will work with 24, 32, 48, or even more bits of resolution, even if eventually it will be downsampled to 16 bit audio. All of the processing/mixing will normally be done at a higher resolution. Incidentally, this is why many bands still record using analog equipment, and some even do all of their mixes on analog. AAD or ADD is almost invariably going to be better than DDD if you listen to music with a lot of texture and dynamic range.
- CDs have a hard limit for frequency response, with an immediate cutoff at 22050hz, whereas vinyl's frequency response extends past 25000hz with a very gradual rolloff. This should be taken into account by the recording or mastering engineer with the top end attenuated on a gradual slope. This problem used to be evident with very early CD pressings where the CD would sound "harsh" or "overly bright" compared to cassette or vinyl pressings, until the recording or mastering engineer rolled off the highs with a gradual curve. Of course, if you blasted your eardrums with headphones at 120db, you won't hear the difference anyhow because you probably can't hear much beyond 12000hz, plus it wouldn't be evident with most pop anyhow, mainly with classical, jazz, and progressive rock.
No one but communists who claim entitlement is arguing that content should be free.
The issue is that FAIR USE should not be artificially restricted.
You already have Copyright Law on your side. Stay the hell away from DRM.
Besides, do you think you're deterring the professional "pirates" in the slightest? (if you say yes, you're lying)
. . . and you can avoid >99% of car accidents by not turning on the engine, but then the car isn't very useful, is it.
Agreed, although I prefer a quiet exhaust. If tooling around down back roads, it's nice to not attract unwanted attention. :)
Watch the next DVD ad you see on TV. Seriously.
..AAs') claims that content is merely "licensed." They know better, and as a consumer, you should know your rights as well.
Do thet say "license the movie today?" No. It's "Own Lion King on DVD today." "OWN Narnia on DVD today." "Own the original trilogy on DVD today."
Please stop parroting those idiots' (read idiots' as:
They (the content producers themselves) re promoting the indisputable fact that you OWN the copy of that content. The only thing you CANNOT legally do with it is infringe on copyright law, aside from the exceptions provided for by the fair use clause.
If the content were a work for hire, it might be a different story, depending on the basis of the contract under which you had them create the content for you. No, DVDs are commodity goods, and when you buy it, you OWN it. Period.
$.02
Didn't the courts rule that Microsoft cannot use such methods to control the price of Windows, that OEM software cannot be restricted to bundling with machines? Oh yeah, they did, and that is not the goal of Genuine Advantage.
Key sharing? Already accomplished with Activation. If you install using the same key on too many machines, your OS will not activate. Period. Sure, you can hack and patch the machine, but installing patches, service packs, and so forth will become far more painful than it's worth compared to just shelling out the $130 or so for an OEM version of Windows.
By your logic: a counterfeit $100 bill is genuine because every aspect of it is genuine, except for the serial number and the fact that it is not an agent of the Federal Reserve which manufactured it. So, by right, everyone should accept that counterfeit $100 bill for all debts, including Uncle Sam.
Right? Same logic. . .
However
I disagree with Microsoft using this tactic though, because they are making it near impossible for me to use Linux to download patches to bring to client sites, and because they already have dominance in the market, the "piracy" is not hurting them in the slightest. It can be worked around, but it's not just click-click-click, download, burn to CD and take it to the site. I need to hunt for technet downloads or tweak the hell out of wine to finnagle MSIE to cooperate and actually run the genuine advantage BS with every change they make.
I think their real goal is to detect wine/linux out of fear of losing their monopoly, rather than to fight "piracy." Even if my tinfoil-hat theory is true though, it does not make "counterfeit Windows" any less counterfeit based on your faulty logic. By your logic, wine or crossover office are not "counterfeit windows" either, because to most normal applications, the environment looks and acts just like Windows.
If they were not the dominant force and if they were trying to compete honestly, I'd have more pity for them, but hell, they buck standards at every turn, are fighting the open document format and other industry standards at every turn to create and enforce vendor lock-in, PLUS they are patenting both prior art and obvious uses of technology just because they know the USPTO will rubber-stamp anything they apply for, so I disagree with Microsoft's actions on this. They used to unofficially encourage "piracy" because they knew that it would help to create a virtual monopoly on de-facto standards, and as soon as they did achieve monopoly standards and were convicted for abusing their effective monopoly they started treating paying customers like criminals, all due to a situation they themselves encouraged from the beginning. I really think their real goal is to detect wine/crossover office on *nix variants though.