Thats just silly. XP is not even related to 98, it is an NT based O/S that is lightyears ahead of Windows 9x operating systems. Windows 98 is running on DOS for christs sake.
I'm not concerned about privacy issues, I'll just encrypt all my dad before sending it up there. In fact it would be great if google provided an open source tool that handled the encryption for us both directions. (As long as its open source).
Knowing google, I'm sure they'll give us tons of space and bandwidth, which could make it extremely useful.
Someone remind me though, are there levels of security that are illegal to use? I'm talking laws restricting me encrypting data to a level that the NSA cannot easily crack. And should we worry that the mere act of encrypting our data is evidence to our guilt? Given proper precautions for plausible deniability, could I likely be jailed for not willfully decrypting my data?
It is true that they are currently paying radio stations to carry their shows. Something that is rather unheard of.
An interesting note is that this is bringing up alot of questions about campaign spending... I.E. Should we allow large Democratic organizations to fund Air America and not count that as campaign spending, since they are paying to have it on the air, just like a commercial.
You are of course right, I was incorrect in saying they are not 'trying'. Of course any company would like to turn a profit.
I am not biased against them, I do enjoy listening sometimes, but the unfortunate truth is they have no audience and can't get any advertisers, and they are being entirely funded by Democratic groups until the next election. As it is believed that it may help win an election for the Democrats if Air America stays on the air.
I'm really not sure why they can't get any listeners, as they aren't particularly more extreme to the left than some of the popular conservative shows are to the right. For whatever reason though, it is just the case that Liberal books and radio shows never sell, while conservative ones do. And the other side of the coin is that Liberal television and movies sell extremely well, while conservatives ones have trouble (Fox news is one exception here).
If I had to hazard a guess I would say that your typical liberal demographic is much younger than your typical conservative demographic, and the younger people in America are more inclined to the TV/Movie media whereas the older crowd sticks to the Radio/Book media. But in that case I'm not sure how I would explain the large number of successful left-leaning newspapers.... But maybe newspapers are just accepted across the board.
I know everyone is looking for some vast right-wing conspiricy, but to me it looks like the blocked pages had free streaming radio, or public forums. I can see cases where administrators may block streaming media for the purposes of saving bandwidth, and potentially public forums for a huge number of security and public relations reasons.
It just so happens the Air America lets you listen online for free (becuase they are not trying to turn a profit), and Rush Limbaugh does not. I'm not so certain theres any bias going on here.
At the worst, it seems like a case of stupid network rules, which happen to be the same as at my company. (No streaming media, no forums).
Do we have any metrics to compare this to Commercial software quality? I know thats a bit hard to answer, but I'm curious what this same tool has found when used on commercial code.
Maybe someone works for a company that used the tool on their code? Or some results have been published somewhere?
Yes the 19 billion represents Official Development Aid, but I was being a little liberal with my numbers and including Private Aid coming from the US as well as the substantial Foreign Direct Investment, which is about 200 billion going to developing countries.
To be fair though, We expect to get some financial return on the majority of that FDI.
Nearly $300 billion a year in foreign aid. All of it pissed away and probably actually hurt our efforts on the war on poverty. By comparison, NASA's budget is only $16 billion per year.
* Look, I can make completely unsubstantiated statements too! *
Ugh why would you want to buy replacements of those horrible earbuds? For 40 dollars the apple is charging you could get some semi-quality ones from Sony or Sennheiser.
Don't judge it too harshly based solely on your ignorance. (not intended as insult).
Not taken as an insult, as I certainly am ignorant of this operating system. I primarily use Linux and Windows. I agree with your comment about the GUI response, it seems the design of the rendering system is such that a little more cpu work is involved for simple tasks (i.e. moving a window) than is the case with other windowing systems. I heard once that the windowing system was based on postscript rendering... Is this really the case? If so, I can see how that could be very benefitial in matching screen to print, but could account for speed issues.
I figured out why it was moving so slowly... It seems FrontRow stays running all the time unless I forcefully quit it, and it'll hog 90% of the CPU time. I admit I'm still trying to figure out the model that is in use for exiting a program... I can't for the life of me figure out why the close button on a window doesn't exit the program, and what makes it any different than the minimize button... Seems to be different for each application.
I know we are all OOo fanboys around here, I certainly am.... But the statement seems legitimate, OOo functionality is comparable to Office 97 and previous editions.
I don't of course see a problem with this though. OOo is free, and 10 years ago office had effectively implemented all the important editing features I was looking for. So to have OOo do that, while being a bit more stable, is good by me.
It is true OOo does not contain any of these new 'group-centric' features or frameworks. I must say though that i'm not convinced as of yet that this direction is one that will hold. And I'm very certain that it is not being used by the majority of Office users, and mostly only in large corporations. I do enjoy some of these features in the newer versions of Office, the xml/xsl capabilities and sharepoint integration, the web-service integration, etc... But they are not hugely important yet.
For starters, Apple didn't hype anything. Second, the Apple products that were released, are IMHO far more important than any new ipod or tablet would have been, they deserved hype. All these Apple-Fan boys are just too stupid to realize the importance of the new Mac Mini products.
They symbolize Apple moving into Microsofts Media center territory, and are probably the most important announcment since the first iPod.
And Yes, I bought the core duo mac Mini the opening day. I've got it here at the house. I was impressed with how easily It hooked up to my HD Television, but must say that I'm disappointed at how crappy the software is. This is the first OSX machine i've owned, and I expected it to not be so painfully slow, given that they advertise a huge speed increase with these Intel chips. I also expected it to have basic functionality for keyboard shortcuts. Heck I couldn't even close an alert dialog or tab between the 'Yes/No' buttons without using the mouse.
Skype didn't break any laws, and no one (except/.ers) said they did. It's their software and if they want to intentionally limit their customer based they are more than welcome to do so.
The reason this issue is important is that it seems likely Intel went to Skype, and in some way coerced/bribed them to do this. This could be extremely strong evidence in helping AMD with their current lawsuit against Intel. Hence AMD issuing a subpoena to Skype, to retrieve information that will show whether or not Intel is to blame for this limitation.
It's silly to hear people saying AMD should sue Skype. AMD doesn't care about skype, nor are they trying to run a huge campaign of lawsuits. They are only interested in forcing Intel to stop their current tactics which have arguably kept AMD from massive success in the OEM market.
Well, I am curious if we can come up with examples of when Congressional Intervention into the free market has actually helped in the long run. I expect there are examples of both, but I generally feel that a free market always works itself out as long as monopoly laws are enforced.
On the contrary, an argument could be made that the reason companies are being forced to go overseas for labor is because of the union situation in the United States makes it extremely difficult to pay employees what they deserve. Companies are often locked into situations wherein they are paying double the average salary for a given job, and recieving half the work output from the individual.
Probably the best example of this lately would be to look at our failing American car manufacturers. Ford and GM are both on their way to bankruptcy.
But in my opinion, average Americans seem to often be lacking a 'global' view of things. Thinking that they will always be better off if they shut out everyone else. It is ironic that on many issues the Democratic Party is pushing for a global view, such as 'teaming up' with other countries in Iraq, and immigration. While at the same time bashing companies for getting work done in other countries.
What's the difference between us sending work to a country where labor is cheap, and us allowing mexican immigrants to do the work cheap in our own country? Either way the pay is going to someone who was willing to do the job cheaper than an American. It is odd that Republicans disagree with one, and Democrats with the other.
Pre-Flame-Notice: This isn't neccecarily my opinion, I'm just trying to offer a broader view to the conversation!
This bill seems almost as bad... Just in the opposite direction.
Theres no reason to have a generic law saying that this is always prohibited. If you own your network, it's yours, do whatever you want with it.
The issue was that the Telco's trying to do this do not in fact own their networks. They were subsidized by tax payer dollars, hence they have no right to enforce these fines. This is a very specific problem, and doesn't call for an arbitrary law restricting what you can do with your own network.
If some new company wants to start up and build a fancy network, and offer tiered service, then by all means let them do it. As long as they are doing it with their money and not tax payer money.
Not sure where the inalienable rights come in here, there is no mention of that in the constitution. The declaration of independence mentions the inalienable rights bestowed upon man by god, but that hardly seems to apply here.
Rather I assume you are refering to Article 1, Section 9, of the United States constitution. This is where 'the framers' said that we can not be held without charges being filed against us. It is a very simple, single sentence.
The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
You may notice though, that it clearly states "unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."
I would assume that the rare case(s) wherein someone is being held without trial would be attributed to the fact that they are an enemy on our soil posing a clear threat to the public safety. Of course neither of us have been told the details of the situation, so it's really impossible for us to decide if it actually would be a threat to the public safety.
That being said, You must try to remember that the leaders who are making these decisions were given power by the people, under the rules laid out in our constitution. This includes congressmen, presidents, judges, etc.
So while I appreciate that you fully disagree with some of these elected officials (as do I) you must realize that this constitution you speak of allows the people to elect whom ever they like, and in the case of Mr. Bush, they have elected him twice; perhaps not by a huge margin, but elected according to the rules in our constitution regardless.
Alert: Companies must ensure they do not use the evil open source software.
The use of this software will clearly open you up to legal attacks, hence the word 'open' in it's name.
Instead, We advise that companies use commercial and non-open technology including:
1. Blackberry
2. Microsoft Products
3. Mp3 and MPEG
4. JPEG and GIF
By using these products, you ensure that you will never be stuck in the middle of a patent dispute, and that your product will not be recalled, modified, or discontinued.
Yes, I've heard that this will likely be the case, and it is unfortunate. Although likely if you are purchasing this technology as an early adopter you will understand you may need some HDMI switching AV reciever, or the like.
Probably as HDMI (read: DRM) takes over, we'll see TV's shipping with a multitude of HDMI ports available, just as we saw with component inputs once they became popular.
Even more unfortunate is that we'll likely see all our analog inputs (and outputs) disappear relatively soon, since... ya know... Those l33t hax0rs are pwning teh MPAA with the Analog "Hole".
To be fair, this is not a bad business model, A good number of first tier VC's will happily fund a parasitic business model.
You'd be surprised at the number of companies that are funded and startup with nothing but liquidity to microsoft as their main objective. And many of them are successful.
Visio for instance, was funded and started purely to make a product that worked well in the MS Office suite, and as they had planned, microsoft bought them for a hefty price.
Similarly with MS Flight Simulator (the game).
Companies such as Symantec make products purely to keep your Windows machine working properly, they very solidly leech off of microsofts customers, as napster is doing. And it has worked reasonably well for them.
Slashdot Mirror
Hah. I have a vision of Nancy Reagan pushing a shopping cart of Ann Coulter books out of Borders book store.
Thats just silly. XP is not even related to 98, it is an NT based O/S that is lightyears ahead of Windows 9x operating systems. Windows 98 is running on DOS for christs sake.
I'm not concerned about privacy issues, I'll just encrypt all my dad before sending it up there. In fact it would be great if google provided an open source tool that handled the encryption for us both directions. (As long as its open source).
Knowing google, I'm sure they'll give us tons of space and bandwidth, which could make it extremely useful.
Someone remind me though, are there levels of security that are illegal to use? I'm talking laws restricting me encrypting data to a level that the NSA cannot easily crack. And should we worry that the mere act of encrypting our data is evidence to our guilt? Given proper precautions for plausible deniability, could I likely be jailed for not willfully decrypting my data?
It is true that they are currently paying radio stations to carry their shows. Something that is rather unheard of.
An interesting note is that this is bringing up alot of questions about campaign spending... I.E. Should we allow large Democratic organizations to fund Air America and not count that as campaign spending, since they are paying to have it on the air, just like a commercial.
AA is trying to ultimately turn a profit.
You are of course right, I was incorrect in saying they are not 'trying'. Of course any company would like to turn a profit.
I am not biased against them, I do enjoy listening sometimes, but the unfortunate truth is they have no audience and can't get any advertisers, and they are being entirely funded by Democratic groups until the next election. As it is believed that it may help win an election for the Democrats if Air America stays on the air.
I'm really not sure why they can't get any listeners, as they aren't particularly more extreme to the left than some of the popular conservative shows are to the right. For whatever reason though, it is just the case that Liberal books and radio shows never sell, while conservative ones do. And the other side of the coin is that Liberal television and movies sell extremely well, while conservatives ones have trouble (Fox news is one exception here).
If I had to hazard a guess I would say that your typical liberal demographic is much younger than your typical conservative demographic, and the younger people in America are more inclined to the TV/Movie media whereas the older crowd sticks to the Radio/Book media. But in that case I'm not sure how I would explain the large number of successful left-leaning newspapers.... But maybe newspapers are just accepted across the board.
I know everyone is looking for some vast right-wing conspiricy, but to me it looks like the blocked pages had free streaming radio, or public forums. I can see cases where administrators may block streaming media for the purposes of saving bandwidth, and potentially public forums for a huge number of security and public relations reasons.
It just so happens the Air America lets you listen online for free (becuase they are not trying to turn a profit), and Rush Limbaugh does not. I'm not so certain theres any bias going on here.
At the worst, it seems like a case of stupid network rules, which happen to be the same as at my company. (No streaming media, no forums).
Do we have any metrics to compare this to Commercial software quality? I know thats a bit hard to answer, but I'm curious what this same tool has found when used on commercial code.
Maybe someone works for a company that used the tool on their code? Or some results have been published somewhere?
Yes the 19 billion represents Official Development Aid, but I was being a little liberal with my numbers and including Private Aid coming from the US as well as the substantial Foreign Direct Investment, which is about 200 billion going to developing countries.
To be fair though, We expect to get some financial return on the majority of that FDI.
Thats a good idea. I think I might setup a box when I get home this evening.
Nearly $300 billion a year in foreign aid. All of it pissed away and probably actually hurt our efforts on the war on poverty. By comparison, NASA's budget is only $16 billion per year.
* Look, I can make completely unsubstantiated statements too! *
So I'm guessing next week we'll have the story about Intel overhyping their product release.
Thats a really good point. I didn't realize that but after some googling it appears its true.
Any good solutions for this?
So I could walk around town using my voip phone instead of a cell phone? Maybe just my PDA with a VOIP client? GoogleTalk for all local calls!? w00t!
Ugh why would you want to buy replacements of those horrible earbuds? For 40 dollars the apple is charging you could get some semi-quality ones from Sony or Sennheiser.
Don't judge it too harshly based solely on your ignorance. (not intended as insult).
Not taken as an insult, as I certainly am ignorant of this operating system. I primarily use Linux and Windows. I agree with your comment about the GUI response, it seems the design of the rendering system is such that a little more cpu work is involved for simple tasks (i.e. moving a window) than is the case with other windowing systems. I heard once that the windowing system was based on postscript rendering... Is this really the case? If so, I can see how that could be very benefitial in matching screen to print, but could account for speed issues.
I figured out why it was moving so slowly... It seems FrontRow stays running all the time unless I forcefully quit it, and it'll hog 90% of the CPU time. I admit I'm still trying to figure out the model that is in use for exiting a program... I can't for the life of me figure out why the close button on a window doesn't exit the program, and what makes it any different than the minimize button... Seems to be different for each application.
I know we are all OOo fanboys around here, I certainly am.... But the statement seems legitimate, OOo functionality is comparable to Office 97 and previous editions.
I don't of course see a problem with this though. OOo is free, and 10 years ago office had effectively implemented all the important editing features I was looking for. So to have OOo do that, while being a bit more stable, is good by me.
It is true OOo does not contain any of these new 'group-centric' features or frameworks. I must say though that i'm not convinced as of yet that this direction is one that will hold. And I'm very certain that it is not being used by the majority of Office users, and mostly only in large corporations. I do enjoy some of these features in the newer versions of Office, the xml/xsl capabilities and sharepoint integration, the web-service integration, etc... But they are not hugely important yet.
For starters, Apple didn't hype anything. Second, the Apple products that were released, are IMHO far more important than any new ipod or tablet would have been, they deserved hype. All these Apple-Fan boys are just too stupid to realize the importance of the new Mac Mini products.
They symbolize Apple moving into Microsofts Media center territory, and are probably the most important announcment since the first iPod.
And Yes, I bought the core duo mac Mini the opening day. I've got it here at the house. I was impressed with how easily It hooked up to my HD Television, but must say that I'm disappointed at how crappy the software is. This is the first OSX machine i've owned, and I expected it to not be so painfully slow, given that they advertise a huge speed increase with these Intel chips. I also expected it to have basic functionality for keyboard shortcuts. Heck I couldn't even close an alert dialog or tab between the 'Yes/No' buttons without using the mouse.
Skype didn't break any laws, and no one (except /.ers) said they did. It's their software and if they want to intentionally limit their customer based they are more than welcome to do so.
The reason this issue is important is that it seems likely Intel went to Skype, and in some way coerced/bribed them to do this. This could be extremely strong evidence in helping AMD with their current lawsuit against Intel. Hence AMD issuing a subpoena to Skype, to retrieve information that will show whether or not Intel is to blame for this limitation.
It's silly to hear people saying AMD should sue Skype. AMD doesn't care about skype, nor are they trying to run a huge campaign of lawsuits. They are only interested in forcing Intel to stop their current tactics which have arguably kept AMD from massive success in the OEM market.
Well, I am curious if we can come up with examples of when Congressional Intervention into the free market has actually helped in the long run. I expect there are examples of both, but I generally feel that a free market always works itself out as long as monopoly laws are enforced.
On the contrary, an argument could be made that the reason companies are being forced to go overseas for labor is because of the union situation in the United States makes it extremely difficult to pay employees what they deserve. Companies are often locked into situations wherein they are paying double the average salary for a given job, and recieving half the work output from the individual.
Probably the best example of this lately would be to look at our failing American car manufacturers. Ford and GM are both on their way to bankruptcy.
But in my opinion, average Americans seem to often be lacking a 'global' view of things. Thinking that they will always be better off if they shut out everyone else. It is ironic that on many issues the Democratic Party is pushing for a global view, such as 'teaming up' with other countries in Iraq, and immigration. While at the same time bashing companies for getting work done in other countries.
What's the difference between us sending work to a country where labor is cheap, and us allowing mexican immigrants to do the work cheap in our own country? Either way the pay is going to someone who was willing to do the job cheaper than an American. It is odd that Republicans disagree with one, and Democrats with the other.
Pre-Flame-Notice: This isn't neccecarily my opinion, I'm just trying to offer a broader view to the conversation!
This bill seems almost as bad... Just in the opposite direction.
Theres no reason to have a generic law saying that this is always prohibited. If you own your network, it's yours, do whatever you want with it.
The issue was that the Telco's trying to do this do not in fact own their networks. They were subsidized by tax payer dollars, hence they have no right to enforce these fines. This is a very specific problem, and doesn't call for an arbitrary law restricting what you can do with your own network.
If some new company wants to start up and build a fancy network, and offer tiered service, then by all means let them do it. As long as they are doing it with their money and not tax payer money.
Not sure where the inalienable rights come in here, there is no mention of that in the constitution. The declaration of independence mentions the inalienable rights bestowed upon man by god, but that hardly seems to apply here.
Rather I assume you are refering to Article 1, Section 9, of the United States constitution. This is where 'the framers' said that we can not be held without charges being filed against us. It is a very simple, single sentence.
The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
You may notice though, that it clearly states "unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."
I would assume that the rare case(s) wherein someone is being held without trial would be attributed to the fact that they are an enemy on our soil posing a clear threat to the public safety. Of course neither of us have been told the details of the situation, so it's really impossible for us to decide if it actually would be a threat to the public safety.
That being said, You must try to remember that the leaders who are making these decisions were given power by the people, under the rules laid out in our constitution. This includes congressmen, presidents, judges, etc.
So while I appreciate that you fully disagree with some of these elected officials (as do I) you must realize that this constitution you speak of allows the people to elect whom ever they like, and in the case of Mr. Bush, they have elected him twice; perhaps not by a huge margin, but elected according to the rules in our constitution regardless.
Alert: Companies must ensure they do not use the evil open source software.
The use of this software will clearly open you up to legal attacks, hence the word 'open' in it's name.
Instead, We advise that companies use commercial and non-open technology including:
1. Blackberry
2. Microsoft Products
3. Mp3 and MPEG
4. JPEG and GIF
By using these products, you ensure that you will never be stuck in the middle of a patent dispute, and that your product will not be recalled, modified, or discontinued.
Yes, I've heard that this will likely be the case, and it is unfortunate. Although likely if you are purchasing this technology as an early adopter you will understand you may need some HDMI switching AV reciever, or the like.
Probably as HDMI (read: DRM) takes over, we'll see TV's shipping with a multitude of HDMI ports available, just as we saw with component inputs once they became popular.
Even more unfortunate is that we'll likely see all our analog inputs (and outputs) disappear relatively soon, since... ya know... Those l33t hax0rs are pwning teh MPAA with the Analog "Hole".
To be fair, this is not a bad business model, A good number of first tier VC's will happily fund a parasitic business model.
You'd be surprised at the number of companies that are funded and startup with nothing but liquidity to microsoft as their main objective. And many of them are successful.
Visio for instance, was funded and started purely to make a product that worked well in the MS Office suite, and as they had planned, microsoft bought them for a hefty price.
Similarly with MS Flight Simulator (the game).
Companies such as Symantec make products purely to keep your Windows machine working properly, they very solidly leech off of microsofts customers, as napster is doing. And it has worked reasonably well for them.