Wait...are you advocating that the Government do something (semi)competent with their money?! Although, I guess it would just get contracted out to someone, and still run the chance of being insecure/buggy/overbudget/not on time...
Regardless, a third party company rolling their own DoD-approved secure ROMs for common Android phones sounds like a pretty good business plan (though I'm not sure how the licensing would play out)...
Seconding this, just because it's an interesting take on managing a company's needs...it'd probably still be a good idea to have a local box for login/email [if not using gmail] so you don't have to worry about lag over the WAN.
The cost benefit of doing something like this could be pretty big, especially if the small company is looking for a highly redundant, highly available, highly scalable solution, and they don't have anything in place already. If you built something similar in-house, you'd need a dedicated room with proper cooling (and possibly need it to be secured), racks, a UPS system, at least three servers (login/email [again, if not using gmail] on one box, storage on the 2nd box, web on another [especially if it's externally facing]), and a tape backup. This isn't factoring in any of the software needed to run it, any off-site backups (always a good idea), or any WAN requirements of on-site servers versus running almost everything in the cloud. Skimping on anything here means that you're going to have a ghetto setup, which is bad for everyone.
I'm wondering if the person asking the question has any idea what the client wants, though....why would you even consider thin clients if you've already put forth desktops/laptops as an option? It just seems like there's not a firm grip on what the client applications are going to be (or, if they do know what apps will be ran, that they don't have a firm grip on building out IT infrastructure.) Are the users ever going to be working from home? Are they only going to be using the web/word processors/console apps all day long, which would mean thin clients could be an okay solution? Do they need a lot of cheap computing power at their desk, but no need for mobility?
If you're doing email in-house, and using voip...as terrible as I feel about suggesting it, Microsoft Exchange and OCS tie in together rather nicely, and could handle your VoIP needs. Unfortunately, I don't have experience setting these products up versus setting up a free OSS alternative (asterisk/jabber), so I can't say which would be easier to build/support.
Regardless, the first thing to do is find out what the heck your client will be doing with their hardware, if they ever want to expand, and what your budget is. Then you can choose the right hardware for the job. Otherwise, you're just asking a question that's way too generic, and could be solved in a myriad of ways.
No. That's why there's DVI-A and DVI-D. DVI-A has no support for HDCP (as it is analogue.) DVI-D does (all digital..) If you're using a DVI to HDMI adapter, you can transmit the signal as much as you want, regardless of if it has HDCP or not....but if you don't do proper HDCP handshaking at some point (especially if you're going from DVI-A to HDMI), you end up with a useless signal (which generally will result in an error message on your display.)
oy. Seriously...if I were a developer that was considering writing an app that could be construed as "killer", the #1 turnoff would be Apple's ability to cannibalize my work.
What recourse, if any, would there be if Apple decided to yank my $XX app off the store, only to have the same functionality trumpeted in a new firmware release? (like they already have done)
Futhermore, Apple chooses when and where to enforce their store rules. Google is allowed to break rules. Would a small development firm be so lucky?
There just isn't enough incentive or security to develop something much more useful than a game, ringtone, or eggtimer.
Seriously. Who pays $1,900 to recover "all of his music and all of the photos that his family has taken of their two year old son"?!
From how it's worded in the article, this isn't information that would make or break daily life. Maybe if the music was one-of-a-kind stuff, or if the pictures were of a dead family member, and said pictures have only been stored on this one hard drive - that might justify the expense.
More than likely, this guy only had run-of-the-mill mp3's (that could either be re-downloaded or re-ripped from the source), and all the important pictures have probably been sent to family members, friends, and/or uploaded to all the social networking websites you can think of. I've been through data losses like this (in that I lost a boatload of disposable media) more times than I'd like to admit, but I could never see my personal, non-work-related data ever being worth $1,900.
Yeah, it is a little inane to be so upset over something so small either way (for or against it), but - the developers broke a huge cardinal rule when it comes to supporting a user base. They didn't announce this "feature", and they have no way to turn said "feature" off.
How is this something beneficial to your end-user? Especially considering the typical end-user for pidgin is going to be (best case scenario) at least a little picky about the software they use.
meh. like I saw in one of the other comments - it's about time for a fork. imo, gaim 1.5 was the best, and it's been downhill since then, and nary a multi-platform open source competitor in sight.
Just playing Devil's Advocate..but...if (insert flavour here) Linux were to be pre-installed from the factory on as many PCs as Vista was, would those PCs sell more? And...would the people that bought those PCs be saying, "I hate Linux! I want XP back!"
What's more, how would that affect the support infrastructure Linux has in place for end-users?
If you really want to blow your mind, try typing in:
man woman
back on topic...nvidia pdf from september of 2003 explaining the differences. Yeah, old, but it's the only document on nvidia's website that I could find that would explain the differences.
(After writing this post, I feel the need to assert that I'm not a couch potato! The magic of TiVo lets me save the good stuff for saturday nights.)
Not a couch potato, but you're watching TV on a Saturday night?! Go out and impress the opposite sex with your TV knowledge and save the watching for a weekday!
Speaker manufacturers are to blame here. If it wasn't for my nice set of speakers, I never would have had my first taste of illegally downloaded music. This is much like a portal drug, leading to unspeakably worse vices - software piracy, porno piracy, and dare I say...downloading ROMs and emulators from long-dead game systems.
I'm ashamed it's taken me this long to realize it...but I've got an addiction to music. I'm going to go find help, now.:(
The reason why they need to stay vigilant is two-fold...it allows the community to take down blatant violations of the GPL, and, in this case, that source code could benefit the community.
I don't know specifically if the asus hardware this module interfaces with can be found on any other computer, but even if it isn't, having this module for use with distros other than the bundled one would obviously be beneficial to the EeePC owners out there that want to toy around with it. It just boils down to going after a company to build a better community - had they followed the rules of their license agreement, this wouldn't be an issue.
Seriously, though. While I think this is being blown pretty far out of proportion, it definitely is worth shaking your head at and saying, "Sony. You're a bunch of fatheads." I believe that the PS3 lineup is too confusing for your average consumer now.
Prior to having no less than 3 different hardware revisions in the US/EU markets, Sony could boast about not having (too) confusing of a hardware lineup when compared to Microsoft. However, with the oldschool 60 gigs, the new 80 gigs, and the forthcoming 40gigs, you have to figure out if you're getting hardware emulation, software emulation, or no emulation...I'm betting this isn't something that's being clearly labeled on the box as a "feature", either.
When little Jimmy Snotnose gets his way this X-mas, and his parents decide to cheap out and get him the 40gig PS3, he'll probably have one or two PS3 games, then a whole plethora of PS2 games...now...we have had the marketing of "Play your PS2 games on the PS3!" crammed down our throats since the console's inception. How are they going to do a complete 180 and say, "You can still do that! Just pay $100 more!" without confusing the hell out of their target holdout market? It just isn't going to be pretty.
On top of that, I was personally looking forward to picking up a cheapo PS3...not anymore. It's bad enough that the hardware emulation is going away.
OH! One last thing...what happens when the rumble controllers come out for the PS3? No one has really gone down that foxhole yet...imagine having to replace at least two controllers at $49.99 a pop.
I'd agree, except you need to realize something about the Entertainment Industry.
There are a good amount of people out there that realize they don't need an iPod to make it through the day. However, would you like to be the call center rep that gets Suzie Soccerwench on the line when she finds out the only defense she has against a van full of screaming brats has been incorrectly identified as stolen, and will need to be shipped off to Apple? The indignation and malice that these harpies can muster is practically unparalleled in the natural world.
(Background: I've worked in a cable company call center before. Telling someone, "Yes, you are absolutely correct. You will not be able to watch TV until our cable technician gets out there to fix it." usually doesn't end so well. Compare this to a 2-3 day shipping turn-around time if the bricked iPod does, indeed, need shipped back to Apple.)
But he does break down the total number allegedly violated - 235 - into categories. He says that the Linux kernel - the deepest layer of the free operating system, which interacts most directly with the computer hardware - violates 42 Microsoft patents. The Linux graphical user interfaces - essentially, the way design elements like menus and toolbars are set up - run afoul of another 65, he claims. The Open Office suite of programs, which is analogous to Microsoft Office, infringes 45 more. E-mail programs infringe 15, while other assorted FOSS programs allegedly transgress 68.
I'm calling a repeat, but with less information than the original.
And as for MS supposedly scaring off customers of FOSS...it's possible. MS certainly has better brand recognition than the likes of SCO. However, with the quick (and loud) response of the FOSS community basically calling MS out, there's going to have to be more than the normal line of, "Well hey...you Linux guys...we think you should pay us for something that has been free ever since it was introduced to you. Something that we have had next to no involvement in (unless you want to believe conspiracy theories that we injected the patented code in to these projects in the first place)."
I think it's best to be abrasively blunt in a situation like this.
If you did not misstate your question, and are, indeed, considering illegally installing software in a business environment, then you should be fired even before anyone has the chance to find out if illegal software was installed or not.
If you really meant to ask something more along the lines of, "My employer is asking me to illegally install software. What is the best way to deal with this, while still keeping myself on solid legal ground?", then it sounds like you already have some pretty sound advice from the other replies to the thread...
You just can't mess with legality in a business environment. There is too much of a chance to get caught, and then get all the blame laid squarely at your feet. It might be hard to picture yourself without a job, or going so far as to report your employer to the proper authorities, but it's better than being nailed for someone else's mistake. Just make sure you document it all to cover yourself.
At the Large Corporate ISP of Doom that I work at, we actually do enforce the AUP, and I regularly get calls from Granny-I-Don't-Know-How-To-Right-Click saying (in a not-so-concise manner), "Your level 1 rep told me something about my computer has a virus and was sending out spam? But I only play Pogo! How could I get a virus?!"
I then need to go through the whole song and dance about "Yes, I understand you've not got the slightest idea on how to operate a computer. No, I'm not going to sit with you for an hour while you try to figure out what a virus is. Yes, you should power off or unhook your computer until you can get it fixed. No, don't unhook your modem because -click!-...that's what gives you a dial tone through the Digital Phone service...."
I'd like to argue the point about the target audience for something like Beryl...ever try to get it running on Gentoo?
Once you get Beryl up and running to the best of its ability on your flavour of choice (which isn't as bad as people are making it sound - it's rather usable considering all that it does), and make sure that other things play nice (like 3d games), let me know if you still think it's for people that are slaves to Windows.
Since that's out of the way, seriously. WTF is up with this article? The title says it's a review of Beryl, but the summary does nothing but misspell Beryl, and bash on Feisty's network manager & support for a specific wireless card. How the hell did this even get on the main page with a full summary? I want a refund!!
Actually, with the newest rash of processors released by AMD, they've been taking a huge step back.
If I'm not mistaken, every new processor they've released has been based on their older 90nm cores. They've all but abandoned their 65nm cores that also happen to have the 65W TDP.
I really don't know why AMD is taking a step back when they supposedly have a smaller process that they have proven they can use, especially when these processors would technically be cheaper to produce, and run cooler.
psh! A "superhacker" wouldn't politely ask for gas money until next payday...he'd steal her credit card info, and install spyware on her computer! That is why they can't get dates.;D
Therefore I would have to pass those tractors and I would frequently exceed the posted speed limit in an attempt to safely pass.
I realize there was a lot left out with my original argument, so hopefully I can clarify it...although one quick quip before I dive in; You can't pass a tractor that's doing 15mph when your car is limited at 85mph?;D
If this contest does produce a car that can hit 100mpg, and can satisfy the needs of at least 70% of the people out there, then I'm hoping the technology would become de facto for the industry. Around 30 years ago, you wouldn't have heard of fuel injection...now every car on the road has that technology. If 100mpg technology is made to be that simple to implement, or shown to have a high enough demand, then there shouldn't be any reason to keep it out of the majority of cars manufactured.
This would then (I'm assuming every auto manufacturer would adopt this technology, or similar technology so that they can stay competitive) lead to most of the cars on the road being limited by whatever negative point 100mpg technology comes with.
I'm sure that with as many contestants as the contest will draw, there's going to be a wide range of concepts to fill the various niches. For example the Tesla Roadster is a 100% electric car that claims to get 135mpg, and does 0 to 60 in 4 seconds. I'm being a very big pessimist when I start spouting rhetoric about how cars should be speed capped to better conserve gas, when in reality, the efficient car issue is probably going to be relatively easy to solve.
You'd be correct with the whole "burlap sack" argument except for one thing - it's not illegal (well..obviously within reason) to dress however you wish. If you want to wear nipple pasties, then so be it.
It is illegal to speed. That in and of itself isn't news to anyone...we've been getting speeding tickets for years.
There is something you need to consider, though. The highest speed limit I've ever heard of in the USA is 75mph. You know that car manufacturers know this. You also can safely assume that the speed limit isn't going to increase any time soon, due to a multitude of safety and environmental reasons. Why, then, do car manufacturers deem it necessary to make it so that every car they produce can AT LEAST hit 90mph, if not more?
For example...I've got what I would consider an econobox ('04 Hyundai Elantra hatchback with a manual transmission) - it's a cheap car that gets me from point A to point B with relatively good gas mileage. Why would I want to go fast in this car? How fast could I go if I did want to go fast?
The answer to the first question is because I love the feeling of going fast. It's a huge rush when I can accelerate quickly, and I can maintain a high speed.
For the second question? My little econobox can hit about 123mph.
There's no need for this to be the standard in cars distributed to the general public. If the car manufacturers want to make cars that go over 100mph, keep it to the realm of muscle cars that manage to get 15mpg. I'd much rather have an econobox that has a top speed of 80mph (just so I can accelerate around the people not actually driving the speed limit), gets 100mpg, and is relatively cheap to purchase and maintain. And if that becomes the standard from all manufacturers, as opposed to the beefy cars we have, then people will just have to deal with it, or pay the extra money for a car with some kick - which is completely fine by me.
I know this is probably a chicken or the egg kind of question, but here goes.
I would like to know if the 20GB PS3 is discontinued.
Now that my (one and only) question is out of the way..let me explain why I'm asking a redundant question.
Disclaimer: The rest of this comment is purely my own paranoid speculation on if Sony actually pulled the plug on the 20GB PS3, which is why almost every retailer you go to has not had stock of this model recently. Any questions posed are generally for the sake of argument. Please turn off all pagers, cell phones, and babies for the duration of this comment. Thanks!
No matter where I go, the 20GB model just isn't in stock. Amazon doesn't have it. Best buy (obviously) doesn't have it. Gamestop (and any derivative store) doesn't have it, and haven't had it for some time. It sounds like Sony's official stance is "The retailers don't have a demand for the 20GB model"..if that's the case, then why are the 60GB models still sitting in the store?
For instance, I was in an EB Games, perusing their wares when I heard a kid (not any older than 10) say "Yeah, the PS3 is awesome! and the 20GB model is even cheaper than the 60GB version!" (I paraphrased that one a bit, but it gets the point across.) I'm a little biased towards this particular store, as my significant other works there. However...they haven't had a 20GB PS3 in stock for quite some time. I'd say that there's an obvious demand for the system, and especially if little kids can be talking about the financial differences between the 20GB and 60GB models - I know it's not an end-all for the conversation, but kids are obviously going to be a deciding factor if Mom & Pop are looking to buy a system.
The point is that if there are more PS3 systems pushed out to the public, more people will buy games for the PS3. The more people that buy games, the more games will inevitably get traded in, which is how the Gamestop business model thrives. It would be in Gamestop's best interest to do whatever is necessary to foster this business model. Personally, if I purchased the 20GB model, I'd spend that extra $100 on games/acessories. If the game sucked, I'd trade it back in (and get ripped off in the process;p), and get something else with my store credit.
I'm not claiming to know how Gamestop is choosing to stock their stores, and I realize that this same business model wouldn't work for Best Buy. It IS, however, a huge coincidence that all of the major retailers just decided to drop the 20GB model, all around the same time.
That's the point, though... robots.txt is just a gentle suggestion, not an end-all to keep your website from being crawled.
To counter you devil's advocacy with my own, what if the said website wasn't crawled, but instead made the rounds on all of the social linking websites. You could then search for that website via any one of the articles/public bookmarks - on top of any sort of slashdot/digg effect that could possibly melt the servers that the website is hosted on.
I think it was best said by an earlier comment...if she really didn't want the whole internet to see the website, then she should have either password protected it, or used some other form of protection to only make it accessible to the select few people she wanted to see it.
Probably a really good analogy is if she were a stripper (hopefully a good looking one). She gets on stage and only wants specific people to look at her...if she catches one of the non-privileged customers looking at her, she has the bouncer go after them. Now..when you think about it, it makes no damn sense. She's in a strip club. People are going to look. If she doesn't want people to look, she should probably just be a call-girl, or something with a bit more privacy.
I agree. It's like a poker bluff. Viacom wants to make Google fold, just so they can have their way...because if Google takes Viacom up on this, and loses, Viacom is going to get a nice amount of prize money, along with legal precedent to protect their media.
Just making a deal for distribution rights is technically the "sane" choice in all of this...although, I'm assuming that the licensing fees are about as sane as what they want to turn Internet Radio licensing in to....
Slashdot Mirror
Wait...are you advocating that the Government do something (semi)competent with their money?! Although, I guess it would just get contracted out to someone, and still run the chance of being insecure/buggy/overbudget/not on time...
....brb, off to become a patent troll.
Regardless, a third party company rolling their own DoD-approved secure ROMs for common Android phones sounds like a pretty good business plan (though I'm not sure how the licensing would play out)...
Seconding this, just because it's an interesting take on managing a company's needs...it'd probably still be a good idea to have a local box for login/email [if not using gmail] so you don't have to worry about lag over the WAN.
The cost benefit of doing something like this could be pretty big, especially if the small company is looking for a highly redundant, highly available, highly scalable solution, and they don't have anything in place already. If you built something similar in-house, you'd need a dedicated room with proper cooling (and possibly need it to be secured), racks, a UPS system, at least three servers (login/email [again, if not using gmail] on one box, storage on the 2nd box, web on another [especially if it's externally facing]), and a tape backup. This isn't factoring in any of the software needed to run it, any off-site backups (always a good idea), or any WAN requirements of on-site servers versus running almost everything in the cloud. Skimping on anything here means that you're going to have a ghetto setup, which is bad for everyone.
I'm wondering if the person asking the question has any idea what the client wants, though....why would you even consider thin clients if you've already put forth desktops/laptops as an option? It just seems like there's not a firm grip on what the client applications are going to be (or, if they do know what apps will be ran, that they don't have a firm grip on building out IT infrastructure.) Are the users ever going to be working from home? Are they only going to be using the web/word processors/console apps all day long, which would mean thin clients could be an okay solution? Do they need a lot of cheap computing power at their desk, but no need for mobility?
If you're doing email in-house, and using voip...as terrible as I feel about suggesting it, Microsoft Exchange and OCS tie in together rather nicely, and could handle your VoIP needs. Unfortunately, I don't have experience setting these products up versus setting up a free OSS alternative (asterisk/jabber), so I can't say which would be easier to build/support.
Regardless, the first thing to do is find out what the heck your client will be doing with their hardware, if they ever want to expand, and what your budget is. Then you can choose the right hardware for the job. Otherwise, you're just asking a question that's way too generic, and could be solved in a myriad of ways.
No. That's why there's DVI-A and DVI-D. DVI-A has no support for HDCP (as it is analogue.) DVI-D does (all digital..) If you're using a DVI to HDMI adapter, you can transmit the signal as much as you want, regardless of if it has HDCP or not....but if you don't do proper HDCP handshaking at some point (especially if you're going from DVI-A to HDMI), you end up with a useless signal (which generally will result in an error message on your display.)
oy. Seriously...if I were a developer that was considering writing an app that could be construed as "killer", the #1 turnoff would be Apple's ability to cannibalize my work.
What recourse, if any, would there be if Apple decided to yank my $XX app off the store, only to have the same functionality trumpeted in a new firmware release? (like they already have done)
Futhermore, Apple chooses when and where to enforce their store rules. Google is allowed to break rules. Would a small development firm be so lucky?
There just isn't enough incentive or security to develop something much more useful than a game, ringtone, or eggtimer.
Make one of the beefier laptops a car pc - any additional parts you might need, how-to's, and a pretty decent community can be found at mp3car.com.
Having GPS, wifi, and a way to play media in the car? awesome times.
Seriously. Who pays $1,900 to recover "all of his music and all of the photos that his family has taken of their two year old son"?!
From how it's worded in the article, this isn't information that would make or break daily life. Maybe if the music was one-of-a-kind stuff, or if the pictures were of a dead family member, and said pictures have only been stored on this one hard drive - that might justify the expense.
More than likely, this guy only had run-of-the-mill mp3's (that could either be re-downloaded or re-ripped from the source), and all the important pictures have probably been sent to family members, friends, and/or uploaded to all the social networking websites you can think of. I've been through data losses like this (in that I lost a boatload of disposable media) more times than I'd like to admit, but I could never see my personal, non-work-related data ever being worth $1,900.
Yeah, it is a little inane to be so upset over something so small either way (for or against it), but - the developers broke a huge cardinal rule when it comes to supporting a user base. They didn't announce this "feature", and they have no way to turn said "feature" off. How is this something beneficial to your end-user? Especially considering the typical end-user for pidgin is going to be (best case scenario) at least a little picky about the software they use. meh. like I saw in one of the other comments - it's about time for a fork. imo, gaim 1.5 was the best, and it's been downhill since then, and nary a multi-platform open source competitor in sight.
Just playing Devil's Advocate..but...if (insert flavour here) Linux were to be pre-installed from the factory on as many PCs as Vista was, would those PCs sell more? And...would the people that bought those PCs be saying, "I hate Linux! I want XP back!"
What's more, how would that affect the support infrastructure Linux has in place for end-users?
back on topic...nvidia pdf from september of 2003 explaining the differences. Yeah, old, but it's the only document on nvidia's website that I could find that would explain the differences.
Not a couch potato, but you're watching TV on a Saturday night?! Go out and impress the opposite sex with your TV knowledge and save the watching for a weekday!
No, no, no, no! You've got it all wrong!
:(
Speaker manufacturers are to blame here. If it wasn't for my nice set of speakers, I never would have had my first taste of illegally downloaded music. This is much like a portal drug, leading to unspeakably worse vices - software piracy, porno piracy, and dare I say...downloading ROMs and emulators from long-dead game systems.
I'm ashamed it's taken me this long to realize it...but I've got an addiction to music. I'm going to go find help, now.
The reason why they need to stay vigilant is two-fold...it allows the community to take down blatant violations of the GPL, and, in this case, that source code could benefit the community.
I don't know specifically if the asus hardware this module interfaces with can be found on any other computer, but even if it isn't, having this module for use with distros other than the bundled one would obviously be beneficial to the EeePC owners out there that want to toy around with it. It just boils down to going after a company to build a better community - had they followed the rules of their license agreement, this wouldn't be an issue.
WHY HAST THOU FORSAKEN ME, SONY?!
Seriously, though. While I think this is being blown pretty far out of proportion, it definitely is worth shaking your head at and saying, "Sony. You're a bunch of fatheads." I believe that the PS3 lineup is too confusing for your average consumer now.
Prior to having no less than 3 different hardware revisions in the US/EU markets, Sony could boast about not having (too) confusing of a hardware lineup when compared to Microsoft. However, with the oldschool 60 gigs, the new 80 gigs, and the forthcoming 40gigs, you have to figure out if you're getting hardware emulation, software emulation, or no emulation...I'm betting this isn't something that's being clearly labeled on the box as a "feature", either.
When little Jimmy Snotnose gets his way this X-mas, and his parents decide to cheap out and get him the 40gig PS3, he'll probably have one or two PS3 games, then a whole plethora of PS2 games...now...we have had the marketing of "Play your PS2 games on the PS3!" crammed down our throats since the console's inception. How are they going to do a complete 180 and say, "You can still do that! Just pay $100 more!" without confusing the hell out of their target holdout market? It just isn't going to be pretty.
On top of that, I was personally looking forward to picking up a cheapo PS3...not anymore. It's bad enough that the hardware emulation is going away.
OH! One last thing...what happens when the rumble controllers come out for the PS3? No one has really gone down that foxhole yet...imagine having to replace at least two controllers at $49.99 a pop.
I'd agree, except you need to realize something about the Entertainment Industry.
There are a good amount of people out there that realize they don't need an iPod to make it through the day. However, would you like to be the call center rep that gets Suzie Soccerwench on the line when she finds out the only defense she has against a van full of screaming brats has been incorrectly identified as stolen, and will need to be shipped off to Apple? The indignation and malice that these harpies can muster is practically unparalleled in the natural world.
(Background: I've worked in a cable company call center before. Telling someone, "Yes, you are absolutely correct. You will not be able to watch TV until our cable technician gets out there to fix it." usually doesn't end so well. Compare this to a 2-3 day shipping turn-around time if the bricked iPod does, indeed, need shipped back to Apple.)
I'm calling a repeat, but with less information than the original.
And as for MS supposedly scaring off customers of FOSS...it's possible. MS certainly has better brand recognition than the likes of SCO. However, with the quick (and loud) response of the FOSS community basically calling MS out, there's going to have to be more than the normal line of, "Well hey...you Linux guys...we think you should pay us for something that has been free ever since it was introduced to you. Something that we have had next to no involvement in (unless you want to believe conspiracy theories that we injected the patented code in to these projects in the first place)."
I think it's best to be abrasively blunt in a situation like this.
If you did not misstate your question, and are, indeed, considering illegally installing software in a business environment, then you should be fired even before anyone has the chance to find out if illegal software was installed or not.
If you really meant to ask something more along the lines of, "My employer is asking me to illegally install software. What is the best way to deal with this, while still keeping myself on solid legal ground?", then it sounds like you already have some pretty sound advice from the other replies to the thread...
You just can't mess with legality in a business environment. There is too much of a chance to get caught, and then get all the blame laid squarely at your feet. It might be hard to picture yourself without a job, or going so far as to report your employer to the proper authorities, but it's better than being nailed for someone else's mistake. Just make sure you document it all to cover yourself.
At the Large Corporate ISP of Doom that I work at, we actually do enforce the AUP, and I regularly get calls from Granny-I-Don't-Know-How-To-Right-Click saying (in a not-so-concise manner), "Your level 1 rep told me something about my computer has a virus and was sending out spam? But I only play Pogo! How could I get a virus?!"
...that's what gives you a dial tone through the Digital Phone service...."
I then need to go through the whole song and dance about "Yes, I understand you've not got the slightest idea on how to operate a computer. No, I'm not going to sit with you for an hour while you try to figure out what a virus is. Yes, you should power off or unhook your computer until you can get it fixed. No, don't unhook your modem because -click!-
I'd like to argue the point about the target audience for something like Beryl...ever try to get it running on Gentoo?
Once you get Beryl up and running to the best of its ability on your flavour of choice (which isn't as bad as people are making it sound - it's rather usable considering all that it does), and make sure that other things play nice (like 3d games), let me know if you still think it's for people that are slaves to Windows.
Since that's out of the way, seriously. WTF is up with this article? The title says it's a review of Beryl, but the summary does nothing but misspell Beryl, and bash on Feisty's network manager & support for a specific wireless card. How the hell did this even get on the main page with a full summary? I want a refund!!
Actually, with the newest rash of processors released by AMD, they've been taking a huge step back.
If I'm not mistaken, every new processor they've released has been based on their older 90nm cores. They've all but abandoned their 65nm cores that also happen to have the 65W TDP.
I really don't know why AMD is taking a step back when they supposedly have a smaller process that they have proven they can use, especially when these processors would technically be cheaper to produce, and run cooler.
psh! A "superhacker" wouldn't politely ask for gas money until next payday...he'd steal her credit card info, and install spyware on her computer! ;D
That is why they can't get dates.
frequently exceed the posted speed limit in an attempt to safely pass.
I realize there was a lot left out with my original argument, so hopefully I can clarify it...although one quick quip before I dive in; You can't pass a tractor that's doing 15mph when your car is limited at 85mph?
If this contest does produce a car that can hit 100mpg, and can satisfy the needs of at least 70% of the people out there, then I'm hoping the technology would become de facto for the industry. Around 30 years ago, you wouldn't have heard of fuel injection...now every car on the road has that technology. If 100mpg technology is made to be that simple to implement, or shown to have a high enough demand, then there shouldn't be any reason to keep it out of the majority of cars manufactured.
This would then (I'm assuming every auto manufacturer would adopt this technology, or similar technology so that they can stay competitive) lead to most of the cars on the road being limited by whatever negative point 100mpg technology comes with.
I'm sure that with as many contestants as the contest will draw, there's going to be a wide range of concepts to fill the various niches. For example the Tesla Roadster is a 100% electric car that claims to get 135mpg, and does 0 to 60 in 4 seconds. I'm being a very big pessimist when I start spouting rhetoric about how cars should be speed capped to better conserve gas, when in reality, the efficient car issue is probably going to be relatively easy to solve.
You'd be correct with the whole "burlap sack" argument except for one thing - it's not illegal (well..obviously within reason) to dress however you wish. If you want to wear nipple pasties, then so be it.
It is illegal to speed. That in and of itself isn't news to anyone...we've been getting speeding tickets for years.
There is something you need to consider, though. The highest speed limit I've ever heard of in the USA is 75mph. You know that car manufacturers know this. You also can safely assume that the speed limit isn't going to increase any time soon, due to a multitude of safety and environmental reasons. Why, then, do car manufacturers deem it necessary to make it so that every car they produce can AT LEAST hit 90mph, if not more?
For example...I've got what I would consider an econobox ('04 Hyundai Elantra hatchback with a manual transmission) - it's a cheap car that gets me from point A to point B with relatively good gas mileage. Why would I want to go fast in this car? How fast could I go if I did want to go fast?
The answer to the first question is because I love the feeling of going fast. It's a huge rush when I can accelerate quickly, and I can maintain a high speed.
For the second question? My little econobox can hit about 123mph.
There's no need for this to be the standard in cars distributed to the general public. If the car manufacturers want to make cars that go over 100mph, keep it to the realm of muscle cars that manage to get 15mpg. I'd much rather have an econobox that has a top speed of 80mph (just so I can accelerate around the people not actually driving the speed limit), gets 100mpg, and is relatively cheap to purchase and maintain. And if that becomes the standard from all manufacturers, as opposed to the beefy cars we have, then people will just have to deal with it, or pay the extra money for a car with some kick - which is completely fine by me.
I know this is probably a chicken or the egg kind of question, but here goes.
;p), and get something else with my store credit.
I would like to know if the 20GB PS3 is discontinued.
Now that my (one and only) question is out of the way..let me explain why I'm asking a redundant question.
Disclaimer: The rest of this comment is purely my own paranoid speculation on if Sony actually pulled the plug on the 20GB PS3, which is why almost every retailer you go to has not had stock of this model recently. Any questions posed are generally for the sake of argument. Please turn off all pagers, cell phones, and babies for the duration of this comment. Thanks!
No matter where I go, the 20GB model just isn't in stock. Amazon doesn't have it. Best buy (obviously) doesn't have it. Gamestop (and any derivative store) doesn't have it, and haven't had it for some time. It sounds like Sony's official stance is "The retailers don't have a demand for the 20GB model"..if that's the case, then why are the 60GB models still sitting in the store?
For instance, I was in an EB Games, perusing their wares when I heard a kid (not any older than 10) say "Yeah, the PS3 is awesome! and the 20GB model is even cheaper than the 60GB version!" (I paraphrased that one a bit, but it gets the point across.) I'm a little biased towards this particular store, as my significant other works there. However...they haven't had a 20GB PS3 in stock for quite some time. I'd say that there's an obvious demand for the system, and especially if little kids can be talking about the financial differences between the 20GB and 60GB models - I know it's not an end-all for the conversation, but kids are obviously going to be a deciding factor if Mom & Pop are looking to buy a system.
The point is that if there are more PS3 systems pushed out to the public, more people will buy games for the PS3. The more people that buy games, the more games will inevitably get traded in, which is how the Gamestop business model thrives. It would be in Gamestop's best interest to do whatever is necessary to foster this business model. Personally, if I purchased the 20GB model, I'd spend that extra $100 on games/acessories. If the game sucked, I'd trade it back in (and get ripped off in the process
I'm not claiming to know how Gamestop is choosing to stock their stores, and I realize that this same business model wouldn't work for Best Buy. It IS, however, a huge coincidence that all of the major retailers just decided to drop the 20GB model, all around the same time.
That's the point, though... robots.txt is just a gentle suggestion, not an end-all to keep your website from being crawled.
To counter you devil's advocacy with my own, what if the said website wasn't crawled, but instead made the rounds on all of the social linking websites. You could then search for that website via any one of the articles/public bookmarks - on top of any sort of slashdot/digg effect that could possibly melt the servers that the website is hosted on.
I think it was best said by an earlier comment...if she really didn't want the whole internet to see the website, then she should have either password protected it, or used some other form of protection to only make it accessible to the select few people she wanted to see it.
Probably a really good analogy is if she were a stripper (hopefully a good looking one). She gets on stage and only wants specific people to look at her...if she catches one of the non-privileged customers looking at her, she has the bouncer go after them. Now..when you think about it, it makes no damn sense. She's in a strip club. People are going to look. If she doesn't want people to look, she should probably just be a call-girl, or something with a bit more privacy.
I agree. It's like a poker bluff. Viacom wants to make Google fold, just so they can have their way...because if Google takes Viacom up on this, and loses, Viacom is going to get a nice amount of prize money, along with legal precedent to protect their media.
Just making a deal for distribution rights is technically the "sane" choice in all of this...although, I'm assuming that the licensing fees are about as sane as what they want to turn Internet Radio licensing in to....