I use my real name on Slashdot, strange as it may appear to some. I've used nicknames elsewhere, but I rarely if ever hide myself, someone could easily find my real name from those common nicks I use.
Pretty much the same here. My nick is derived from the name I go by - Austin - and my suffix - IV. I've been using the same nick for at least 8 years. Anyone who wanted to search the web for my nickname could probably find my last name, e-mail address, home town, where I went to high school, where I go to college, who I've dated, what I look like - just about anything there is to know about me.
Point is, just because someone like iminplaya posts consistently from the same nickname, they're not much less anonymous than someone who posts as Anonymous Coward.
Its about me deciding how my child will be educated. I have a *right* to intervene on my childs education if i disagree with a particular book they are being forced to read, or are going to be taught from. A movie, or yes, even software decisions that i have moral issues with..
While i do agree choosing an OS isnt covered by the first amendment, i also never said it was. This is about the nonsence the "state" feeds my child, which i DO get to influence and have direct input over as a parent and taxpayer/voter. ( and i get complain when its wrong, like in this case )
You're ignoring the point. You claimed the district had no right to recommend this office suite. As a parent, you have a right to intervene on your child's education, and you have a right to voice your opinion on what the school's curriculum should involve, but you do not have a right to dictate the school's curriculum. For example, when a school teaches Mark Twain's "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn", there are often complaints from parents that the book is racist, and they have a right to keep their kids from reading it - they do not, however, have the right to keep the book from being taught.
If you don't want your child to use the recommended office suite, that's your prerogative, but in order to function schools have to make decisions on what will be the standard textbooks, calculators, software, etc. If you refuse to comply with the standards for whatever reason, you are responsible for dealing with the alternatives.
As far as the first amendment comment - I frequently hear people on slashdot talk like people are obligated to bend over backwards to accommodate their choice in software. They think hardware vendors should be required to provide open source drivers, software vendors should be required to release Linux versions, and the other companies or organizations they deal with should be required to accommodate their choice of software. While I wish it weren't the case, Microsoft products are the de facto standard, and if you choose not to use their products you're responsible for making sure you can interact with the rest of the world - they don't have to bow to you.
Unless the class is "how to use office 2007" and an elective, they have NO right to dictate this, [...]( even if you can get educational versions for 25 bucks )
Bullshit. I'm certainly no fan of Microsoft - I won't touch their products whenever I can avoid it - but I think its ridiculous when people talk about their right to choose an operating system (or office suite) like it's protected by the first amendment.
When I was in high school, I was told what text books I needed (most were available to rent from the school for a reasonable price), what kinds of pens and pencils I was allowed to use, what kind of binders or folders were acceptable, what kind of calculator I had to have, and the list goes on. They also had a contract with Coca-Cola and weren't allowed to sell Pepsi products in district buildings or at school functions.
Now, when I was in high school, the district didn't require students have home computers, and the library was available for those who didn't. But if a district can require every student to own a computer, an office suite they can get for $25 is just another school supply. When I was in high school, we were told to use a TI-83 calculator. Some kids opted for other graphing calculators, but they didn't get to waste the teachers time if they didn't know how to use a feature. Likewise, I'm sure there will be a few tech-savvy students who get by with their own choice of office suite, but it's unfair to the teacher and the rest of the class to occupy the teachers time with software incompatibilities because you're too obtuse to buy the recommended software.
I do think this is a poor decision on the school's part. I think it's a wasteful expenditure when OpenOffice.org is available for free and will do everything a high school student writing a report could possibly need. I personally don't like that they're supporting Microsoft, but be realistic - a set of software is no different than any other school supply. The district may have certain obligations with respect to what expenses they can place on their students, but otherwise they can choose a software suite just like they can choose a calculator or a certain textbook.
I generally ignore ACs, because often the ACs are complete trolls. If they happen to get modded up into the range of posts that are viewable to me, I read them and sometimes respond.
But ACs aren't the extent of anonymity on Slashdot. You go by the nickname iminplaya. I assume that's not your real name. All I know about you is that you have 6,309 posts on slashdot, I can easily find the last 24 if I'd like, and somehow after 6,309 posts you've managed to avoid getting a karma bonus.
The same is pretty much true with me. Even though I seem to be the only 'AusIV' on the web, I still have a great deal of anonymity. Someone who knows me might be able to track what I say (and I keep that in mind), but I still have the wiggle room to say what I want on the web without being concerned it's going to piss them off and they're going to hunt me down in real life.
When I first got my iPod, I thought this would be a pretty good theft deterrent for iPods.
Background:
iPods are linked to specific iTunes Music Libraries. If you want to move it to a different computer, you have to wipe it clean and link it to the library on the new computer.
I thought, hey, why not take it one step further. If you're already linking your iPod to a specific music library, why not have iTunes register the iPod's serial number with Apple. Then, if your iPod gets stolen, you can use iTunes on the same computer (or jump through some extra hoops if you no longer have said computer) to report it stolen to Apple. Then, if anyone tries to link the iPod to their iTunes Music Libary, Apple can find out who (or at least an IP address) is in possession of the stolen iPod.
Granted, now I use Amarok to manage my iPod, so there are plenty of ways around it, but I imagine a few thieves could get busted this way.
Until the University gives the RIAA a name, all the RIAA has is an IP. I'd think the worst they could do is sue the school for the names of students associated with an IP address, then they'd have to send letters of notification to the students.
It is more likely they looked at previous (MS) antitrust settlements and decided that an anti-competitive strategy was an attractive move for execs and shareholders alike.
But in the case of Intel vs AMD that only works if they can completely squeeze out the competition. Microsoft was able to lock people into MS products by making users dependent on software on file formats only available on Windows. Once they did that, they could charge as much as they wanted and didn't have to be very innovative because people were stuck with them anyway. Rival companies could come and go, but even if they had a better product they had to overcome vendor lock in.
It doesn't work the same way for Intel. Unless they can completely bankrupt AMD, they're not going to get to the point where they're able to become complacent. Unless I'm missing something, Intel doesn't have the mechanisms to lock users in to their processors. I'm using a Core 2 Duo now, but in a year I could buy a computer with an AMD processor without even noticing a change.
Now, I don't know if AMD is in such a miserable state they might actually get wiped out by this, but unless that's the case Intel isn't going to benefit much from this.
I however, did not do any tuning other than the requirements to get things going. In this particular instance its quiet possible that the linux machine could have been made to perform better. But, most people who 'use a desktop computer' don't tune. I stopped tuning the OS when I hit puberty, you probably will too.
I'm not sure what you mean by tune. I installed Kubuntu from the desktop CD, installed MythTV, associated plugins and applications from the repositories, and followed some instructions to compile drivers for one of my TV tuners and for my Infra Red receiver. I didn't really do anything to tweak performance - I didn't need to.
I'm not trying to claim that this is something the average user would find easy to do, my only point was that Linux is quite capable of handling several fairly intensive tasks and still be a usable desktop, and it doesn't require any fine tuning on the part of the end user.
I would avoid phrases like that if you are going to compare and embedded application to a desktop.
And I would avoid correcting people when you don't know what you're talking about.
MythTV is not an embedded application, it's a software application that runs on a general purpose PC. I, like the GP, have a desktop computer that runs MythTV. It can record two channels at once while flagging commercials or transcoding a third TV show while I use it as a desktop or watch a fourth TV show. The audio doesn't skip nor does the desktop feel slow (as the GGP suggested) until I'm functioning at 100% CPU, which is fairly rare.
The RIAA doesn't have a track record of playing fair in their suits. They've sued people using very little evidence, and have persisted in their cases, often driving innocent people to settle to avoid legal fees.
I'm currently attending one of the schools on the list (not surprising, considering the rampant amount of file sharing that goes on there). I haven't shared music online since the ninth-circuit court of appeals handed down the Napster decision, but if I'm targeted with one of those letters, I suspect my parents will encourage me to pay up rather than face the stress and legal costs of fighting it.
If they send 20 letters to random college students, they'd probably get 15 settlements and 5 court cases - they would then drag out the 5 court cases as long as possible to drive up the legal costs for the defendants in hopes of reaching a settlement. Once it becomes clear they won't reach a settlement and have very little hope of winning their case, they'll ask to dismiss with prejudice so they can avoid paying the legal fees of the defendant. Of all of the 20 original letters, they probably got $45,000 from the 15 who settled right away, and another $30,000 or so from those who settled after going to court - a pretty good haul for random letters.
The reason I vilify the RIAA is not that they are enforcing their copyright, but because their approach does not necessarily target the guilty, and the innocent have almost as much incentive to settle as the guilty. They can rake in the cash by making it more costly to fight a bogus case than to settle, and it's very rare that they're made to pay legal fees. Now, if they were collecting as much evidence as possible and verifying it before pursuing settlements, you wouldn't hear me complain, but their tactics have been much less admirable.
I've loaned the book to my dad already, or I'd find a direct quote. I found it amusing when Bill Weasley was talking about the goblin sense of ownership - the creator of an item is the only true owner, and if they sell it to someone, it's merely a "lease" and the item should be returned to the goblins when the leasee dies or has no further use for the item.
I've found that lots of people don't seem to know how universities manage their connections. Now, I'm not certain that this is how KU handles connections, but I know of a few universities that use similar systems.
At my school, when you first plug a computer into the campus network, it uses a proxy to force you to a "keyhole" page, where you must log in with a campus username and password. The school pairs your login information with your mac address. You can have multiple computers and multiple mac addresses registered, but they're all linked to your login information. If you get your connection taken away, they not only bock the mac address the offense came from, but also block any other mac address associated with the offending user, and prohibit the offending user from registering another mac address. Now, at my school, you typically have to go to the IT office and apologize to get your connection turned back on - nothing nearly as draconian as what KU is putting into place - but I would be very surprised if other people in the room are unaffected.
Think about it this way. In a bookstore or grocery the company is negligent if they put the wrong price on something and then let it be sold as such.
I've worked in both bookstores and grocery stores. In the grocery store, if a customer informed us of an item that rang up differently than advertised, the item was free, whether the error was in the customer's favor or the store's (and the system was corrected within minutes of the mistake). The thing is, customers couldn't go back to get more of whatever item was incorrectly priced and expect the same deal.
There are a lot of intelligent people who would be willing to do it legally for far cheaper prices than the black market will pay to do it illegally.
Reminds me of the piracy debate. I've long said that part of the problem with piracy is that the pirates offer better (less restrictive) products than the original media producers, and that the media producers might see a boost in sales if they started selling unrestricted products more equivalent to what you can get from a pirate. Personally, I prefer to get my media DRM free, but I've been known to circumvent DRM for private use.
Of course, some pirates are just looking for a free lunch, but I suspect some would rather buy their media legitimately if they could do so without the inane restrictions.
I agree. While it would be nice to find a phone that's just a phone, I'm reasonably happy with my Motorola Razr V3. It has a camera and bluetooth, yet it lasts longer on a charge than my first Samsung cell phone, which was just a phone.
Now, the RAZR may not be the cheapest phone on the market, (I actually use the bluetooth and occasionally the camera, so I found it to be worth the upgrade cost), but whatever the freebie is that the provider gives you when you sign up should be straightforward enough to just use as a phone, and if you plug it in every three or four days you shouldn't have a problem with respect to battery life. And since it's given to you as a part of the plan, it will probably end up being cheaper than going out and finding a cell phone that is just a phone.
Linux has nothing to do with it, because it's just a kernel. Kernels don't have anything to do with office packages.
If what you mean is a GNU/Linux distribution ( a posix-style free software OS)[...]
Semantics. When you talk about Linux on the desktop, it's generally assumed that you're talking about a GNU Linux distribution. Regardless, the Linux kernel does have to do with office packages when using the Linux kernel inherently means a specific office suite is unavailable. The kernel may be capable of running it, but the required API's are unavailable with that kernel.
Sorry, I know it's not technically correct to refer to a GNU/Linux based desktop system simply as "Linux", but you'll get just as far banging your head against a wall as suggesting "Linux is just a kernel", when the person's intent is quite clear.
The point of these lawsuits isn't to recover "damages". It's to frighten the rest of the country into acting the way they want them to.
But if they're paying out huge legal fees, it's more likely people will spend more in opposition to the RIAA rather than settling. While losing $68K isn't going to kill the RIAA, it certainly sets a bad precedent for them.
What is this magical, mystical time period you're talking about where making a solid OS was a successful MS priority?
I knew somebody was going to point that out. I don't really think Microsoft was ever as focused as they should have been on making a solid OS, even when that was their only goal. In more recent years, I've been wondering why on Earth MS is trying to compete in a certain field.
MSN was the beginning of Microsoft over-expanding. Then trying to compete with Google in search has always struck me as ridiculous - Microsoft has very little to gain by running a search engine, and I've never understood why they feel it necessary to compete in that field.
Then there's the browser wars. Rather than comply with standards, Microsoft tried to set their own standards and dominate the market with them. Admittedly, if MS had been able to maintain its position as the de facto standard in web browsing, and stray far enough from established standards, they could have sold Windows to people because it was the only OS that supported the only browser that displayed pages on the internet properly, but this is exactly the problem - rather than try and create a solid OS, they've looked for ways to lock customers into Windows.
The Zune is another example. Microsoft saw Apple being successful with the iPod. I have no idea why they created the Zune. I don't know if they expected it to be profitable, or if they simply wanted to stick it to Apple, but it's clearly been far from successful.
In short, you're right - MS has never focused enough on making a good OS. I'm just thinking that if they don't narrow their focus in the near future, they're going to keep losing ground in all of their markets.
This strikes me as somewhat different than breaking AACS, FairPlay, or CSS. If you bought something restricted by one of those formats, it's plausible you want to remove the DRM so you can play it on a platform that is technically capable of playing it, and restricted solely by the DRM. You've paid for the media, and you want to play it on another platform.
The difference with the Zune's DRM is that it effectively allows music "rentals" through WiFi sharing. People can "squirt" each other a song then remove the DRM, effectively getting the song for free. Not much different than pirating off of p2p networks, but it does mean Microsoft has created an incredibly effective piracy device.
For the rest, I agree. Microsoft has tried to over expand, making itself irrelevant in quite a few markets. In the process, they've half-assed their position in their original market, alienating a lot of customers. I've had several more technical friends switch to Linux, and less technical friends switch to Macs in the time since MS has started focusing more on running everything than making a solid OS. Microsoft needs to seriously reconsider their priorities if they want to avoid becoming irrelevant in all of their markets.
Tivo sold you that box at cost or less, with the intent of selling you a service to make up the difference. They're not in the business of selling PC's, they're in the business of selling their service. Now, if they were required to allow you to modify the operating system, you'd be paying a fair amount more for that Tivo, as they would have to recoup the costs of people buying them just to use them as PCs. TiVo is within their right as a hardware vendor and a GPL2 distributor to limit the uses of their hardware.
Now, some people like to slam Tivo for circumventing the GPL, but from what I understand of Torvald's licensing intentions they're not offending him. Torvalds wanted a license that would require modifications of the kernel be given to him so they could be incorporated back into the main kernel - TiVo does this. While I can't point to any specific situations in which TiVo code has been incorporated into the kernel, it's possible that TiVo has contributed to the kernel, even if you can't put any kernel you want on the TiVo hardware.
Realistically, if TiVo ever becomes unable to use the Linux Kernel because it falls under the GPL 3, they'll switch to a BSD based system and stop making upstream contributions. I don't mind Tivoisation. It allows vendors to use software on their hardware without having to reinvent the wheel, keep the prices on their hardware low by passing some of the cost onto their service, but still requires them to contribute to the kernel. If you block TiVoisation, you force vendors to use other licenses and we all lose their contributions to the software.
So what's wrong with having one distro, with a user dialog during installation asking what look/feel the user would like?? Or even better, allowing the user to select the look and feel they'd like at any time with a control panel, instead of having to wipe their computer and reinstall??
Look and feel doesn't even brush the surface of the differences between distros. Some are intended to be lightweight, bare necessities and serve one purpose. Others are intended to have every possible piece of hardware work out of the box. Some people want to control every driver and application on their system, and compile them with flags for their processor, others just want to have their programs delivered in a few seconds.
While I agree that from a marketing standpoint, it is difficult for a new user to choose a distro (I spent months downloading Live CDs and testing things out before I settled on Ubuntu), I think the variety is one of Linux's greatest attributes. If you want to run a media center, you can download a CD and install a distro with MythTV ready to go. If you want a complete desktop, you can get a CD and have all your basic applications ready to go, with others just a few clicks away. If you just want to run a web server, you can run your system without any unnecessary components.
Different distributions serve drastically different purposes and have very different philosophies. Trying to meet everyone's needs with one distro would be disastrous.
I agree. I've never understood why broadband works the way it does. You're given a limit to how much data you can transfer per second. It doesn't matter whether you're using your full bandwidth every second of the month, or use ten percent of your full bandwidth a few times a month you pay the same price.
Now, your broadband provider pays the same cost to transfer 1 kb whether you're downloading a web page or a movie - you just get a lot more bits with a movie. It's never made since to me that someone who transfers 20 GB using p2p a month pays the same as someone who transfers 20 MB a month checking their e-mail just because they're capable of getting their bits at the same speed.
It also doesn't make sense to me that the broadband providers think it would be more profitable to make a distinction between http traffic, p2p traffic, legitimate video downloading traffic, gaming traffic, etc. Aside from the fact that this would require some infrastructure changes to filter the different packets, a bit is a bit, and while some activities transfer more bits, each bit costs the same to transfer. If they charged for the bandwidth you actually use instead of the bandwidth you're capable of using, it's fairer to the consumer - they pay for what they get, rather than what they could get - and it's more profitable for them - they can adjust bandwidth costs according to what a bit costs to transfer.
I also don't understand this desire to charge people to connect to their network, even if they're already paying t connect to other networks. I pay my cable company to be connected to the entire internet - not just other sites hosted on their network. If it's expensive for them to connect me to other networks, that price should be reflected in the price I pay as a customer, not the price paid by the people I'm already paying to connect to.
That only applies to pressed BluRay discs. If you're burning them on a PC, you can do it without encryption, otherwise there would be no point in BluRay drives in computers, short of archival discs (and I don't trust optical discs for archiving important data).
To start, I'm no fan of Media Defender, or the **AA, but none of the accusations here made sense to me in the first place.
First, there was supposed to be a program that scanned your computer for "copyrighted media", when the majority of media on any computer is copyrighted. Just because I have a copy of some album or a movie does not make it illegal. Music can be legally ripped to your computer from CDs, and movies can be downloaded through services like iTunes (generally with DRM) or recorded when they show on TV using a TV tuner. They have no case whatsoever simply proving the possession of a copyrighted work.
Second, they were supposed to be offering free movie downloads. I have yet to hear one person (even on Slashdot) who actually saw this site before it was taken down, I have yet to hear from one person who downloaded the software, and I certainly have not heard from anybody who claims to have downloaded a movie from them. A website that claims to offer free movies but doesn't breaks no laws (except maybe false advertising), but doesn't make much sense either. If the spyware had actually existed, Media defender could have been busted by anti-spyware laws, and if they had actually been distributing movies, they would likely have been in trouble with the MPAA.
Everyone here on slashdot is quick to say Media defender must be lying, but aside from screenshots taken by people out to get Media Defender, I have yet to see anything to suggest the site did anything remotely related to allowing people to download copyrighted movies.
The accusations I'm hearing don't quite make sense. Granted, it wouldn't be the first time Media defender or the **AA did something illogical, but it seems to me that the pieces fit together better if you look at this as a framing than if you take it at face value.
Slashdot Mirror
Pretty much the same here. My nick is derived from the name I go by - Austin - and my suffix - IV. I've been using the same nick for at least 8 years. Anyone who wanted to search the web for my nickname could probably find my last name, e-mail address, home town, where I went to high school, where I go to college, who I've dated, what I look like - just about anything there is to know about me.
Point is, just because someone like iminplaya posts consistently from the same nickname, they're not much less anonymous than someone who posts as Anonymous Coward.
You're ignoring the point. You claimed the district had no right to recommend this office suite. As a parent, you have a right to intervene on your child's education, and you have a right to voice your opinion on what the school's curriculum should involve, but you do not have a right to dictate the school's curriculum. For example, when a school teaches Mark Twain's "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn", there are often complaints from parents that the book is racist, and they have a right to keep their kids from reading it - they do not, however, have the right to keep the book from being taught.
If you don't want your child to use the recommended office suite, that's your prerogative, but in order to function schools have to make decisions on what will be the standard textbooks, calculators, software, etc. If you refuse to comply with the standards for whatever reason, you are responsible for dealing with the alternatives.
As far as the first amendment comment - I frequently hear people on slashdot talk like people are obligated to bend over backwards to accommodate their choice in software. They think hardware vendors should be required to provide open source drivers, software vendors should be required to release Linux versions, and the other companies or organizations they deal with should be required to accommodate their choice of software. While I wish it weren't the case, Microsoft products are the de facto standard, and if you choose not to use their products you're responsible for making sure you can interact with the rest of the world - they don't have to bow to you.
Bullshit. I'm certainly no fan of Microsoft - I won't touch their products whenever I can avoid it - but I think its ridiculous when people talk about their right to choose an operating system (or office suite) like it's protected by the first amendment.
When I was in high school, I was told what text books I needed (most were available to rent from the school for a reasonable price), what kinds of pens and pencils I was allowed to use, what kind of binders or folders were acceptable, what kind of calculator I had to have, and the list goes on. They also had a contract with Coca-Cola and weren't allowed to sell Pepsi products in district buildings or at school functions.
Now, when I was in high school, the district didn't require students have home computers, and the library was available for those who didn't. But if a district can require every student to own a computer, an office suite they can get for $25 is just another school supply. When I was in high school, we were told to use a TI-83 calculator. Some kids opted for other graphing calculators, but they didn't get to waste the teachers time if they didn't know how to use a feature. Likewise, I'm sure there will be a few tech-savvy students who get by with their own choice of office suite, but it's unfair to the teacher and the rest of the class to occupy the teachers time with software incompatibilities because you're too obtuse to buy the recommended software.
I do think this is a poor decision on the school's part. I think it's a wasteful expenditure when OpenOffice.org is available for free and will do everything a high school student writing a report could possibly need. I personally don't like that they're supporting Microsoft, but be realistic - a set of software is no different than any other school supply. The district may have certain obligations with respect to what expenses they can place on their students, but otherwise they can choose a software suite just like they can choose a calculator or a certain textbook.
Deal with it.
It's worth noting that the windows Ext driver only supports Ext2, which means no journaling.
But ACs aren't the extent of anonymity on Slashdot. You go by the nickname iminplaya. I assume that's not your real name. All I know about you is that you have 6,309 posts on slashdot, I can easily find the last 24 if I'd like, and somehow after 6,309 posts you've managed to avoid getting a karma bonus.
The same is pretty much true with me. Even though I seem to be the only 'AusIV' on the web, I still have a great deal of anonymity. Someone who knows me might be able to track what I say (and I keep that in mind), but I still have the wiggle room to say what I want on the web without being concerned it's going to piss them off and they're going to hunt me down in real life.
Background:
iPods are linked to specific iTunes Music Libraries. If you want to move it to a different computer, you have to wipe it clean and link it to the library on the new computer.
I thought, hey, why not take it one step further. If you're already linking your iPod to a specific music library, why not have iTunes register the iPod's serial number with Apple. Then, if your iPod gets stolen, you can use iTunes on the same computer (or jump through some extra hoops if you no longer have said computer) to report it stolen to Apple. Then, if anyone tries to link the iPod to their iTunes Music Libary, Apple can find out who (or at least an IP address) is in possession of the stolen iPod.
Granted, now I use Amarok to manage my iPod, so there are plenty of ways around it, but I imagine a few thieves could get busted this way.
Until the University gives the RIAA a name, all the RIAA has is an IP. I'd think the worst they could do is sue the school for the names of students associated with an IP address, then they'd have to send letters of notification to the students.
But in the case of Intel vs AMD that only works if they can completely squeeze out the competition. Microsoft was able to lock people into MS products by making users dependent on software on file formats only available on Windows. Once they did that, they could charge as much as they wanted and didn't have to be very innovative because people were stuck with them anyway. Rival companies could come and go, but even if they had a better product they had to overcome vendor lock in.
It doesn't work the same way for Intel. Unless they can completely bankrupt AMD, they're not going to get to the point where they're able to become complacent. Unless I'm missing something, Intel doesn't have the mechanisms to lock users in to their processors. I'm using a Core 2 Duo now, but in a year I could buy a computer with an AMD processor without even noticing a change.
Now, I don't know if AMD is in such a miserable state they might actually get wiped out by this, but unless that's the case Intel isn't going to benefit much from this.
I'm not sure what you mean by tune. I installed Kubuntu from the desktop CD, installed MythTV, associated plugins and applications from the repositories, and followed some instructions to compile drivers for one of my TV tuners and for my Infra Red receiver. I didn't really do anything to tweak performance - I didn't need to.
I'm not trying to claim that this is something the average user would find easy to do, my only point was that Linux is quite capable of handling several fairly intensive tasks and still be a usable desktop, and it doesn't require any fine tuning on the part of the end user.
And I would avoid correcting people when you don't know what you're talking about.
MythTV is not an embedded application, it's a software application that runs on a general purpose PC. I, like the GP, have a desktop computer that runs MythTV. It can record two channels at once while flagging commercials or transcoding a third TV show while I use it as a desktop or watch a fourth TV show. The audio doesn't skip nor does the desktop feel slow (as the GGP suggested) until I'm functioning at 100% CPU, which is fairly rare.
Not quite. The RIAA has a right to sue anyone against whom they have evidence suggesting copyright infringement against one of their members. In the past, they've sued someone who didn't own a computer, continued suits knowing their target was not responsible, and deliberately target people who would be least able to defend themselves.
The RIAA doesn't have a track record of playing fair in their suits. They've sued people using very little evidence, and have persisted in their cases, often driving innocent people to settle to avoid legal fees.
I'm currently attending one of the schools on the list (not surprising, considering the rampant amount of file sharing that goes on there). I haven't shared music online since the ninth-circuit court of appeals handed down the Napster decision, but if I'm targeted with one of those letters, I suspect my parents will encourage me to pay up rather than face the stress and legal costs of fighting it.
If they send 20 letters to random college students, they'd probably get 15 settlements and 5 court cases - they would then drag out the 5 court cases as long as possible to drive up the legal costs for the defendants in hopes of reaching a settlement. Once it becomes clear they won't reach a settlement and have very little hope of winning their case, they'll ask to dismiss with prejudice so they can avoid paying the legal fees of the defendant. Of all of the 20 original letters, they probably got $45,000 from the 15 who settled right away, and another $30,000 or so from those who settled after going to court - a pretty good haul for random letters.
The reason I vilify the RIAA is not that they are enforcing their copyright, but because their approach does not necessarily target the guilty, and the innocent have almost as much incentive to settle as the guilty. They can rake in the cash by making it more costly to fight a bogus case than to settle, and it's very rare that they're made to pay legal fees. Now, if they were collecting as much evidence as possible and verifying it before pursuing settlements, you wouldn't hear me complain, but their tactics have been much less admirable.
Remind you of anyone?
At my school, when you first plug a computer into the campus network, it uses a proxy to force you to a "keyhole" page, where you must log in with a campus username and password. The school pairs your login information with your mac address. You can have multiple computers and multiple mac addresses registered, but they're all linked to your login information. If you get your connection taken away, they not only bock the mac address the offense came from, but also block any other mac address associated with the offending user, and prohibit the offending user from registering another mac address. Now, at my school, you typically have to go to the IT office and apologize to get your connection turned back on - nothing nearly as draconian as what KU is putting into place - but I would be very surprised if other people in the room are unaffected.
Reminds me of the piracy debate. I've long said that part of the problem with piracy is that the pirates offer better (less restrictive) products than the original media producers, and that the media producers might see a boost in sales if they started selling unrestricted products more equivalent to what you can get from a pirate. Personally, I prefer to get my media DRM free, but I've been known to circumvent DRM for private use.
Of course, some pirates are just looking for a free lunch, but I suspect some would rather buy their media legitimately if they could do so without the inane restrictions.
Now, the RAZR may not be the cheapest phone on the market, (I actually use the bluetooth and occasionally the camera, so I found it to be worth the upgrade cost), but whatever the freebie is that the provider gives you when you sign up should be straightforward enough to just use as a phone, and if you plug it in every three or four days you shouldn't have a problem with respect to battery life. And since it's given to you as a part of the plan, it will probably end up being cheaper than going out and finding a cell phone that is just a phone.
Semantics. When you talk about Linux on the desktop, it's generally assumed that you're talking about a GNU Linux distribution. Regardless, the Linux kernel does have to do with office packages when using the Linux kernel inherently means a specific office suite is unavailable. The kernel may be capable of running it, but the required API's are unavailable with that kernel.
Sorry, I know it's not technically correct to refer to a GNU/Linux based desktop system simply as "Linux", but you'll get just as far banging your head against a wall as suggesting "Linux is just a kernel", when the person's intent is quite clear.
But if they're paying out huge legal fees, it's more likely people will spend more in opposition to the RIAA rather than settling. While losing $68K isn't going to kill the RIAA, it certainly sets a bad precedent for them.
I knew somebody was going to point that out. I don't really think Microsoft was ever as focused as they should have been on making a solid OS, even when that was their only goal. In more recent years, I've been wondering why on Earth MS is trying to compete in a certain field.
MSN was the beginning of Microsoft over-expanding. Then trying to compete with Google in search has always struck me as ridiculous - Microsoft has very little to gain by running a search engine, and I've never understood why they feel it necessary to compete in that field.
Then there's the browser wars. Rather than comply with standards, Microsoft tried to set their own standards and dominate the market with them. Admittedly, if MS had been able to maintain its position as the de facto standard in web browsing, and stray far enough from established standards, they could have sold Windows to people because it was the only OS that supported the only browser that displayed pages on the internet properly, but this is exactly the problem - rather than try and create a solid OS, they've looked for ways to lock customers into Windows.
The Zune is another example. Microsoft saw Apple being successful with the iPod. I have no idea why they created the Zune. I don't know if they expected it to be profitable, or if they simply wanted to stick it to Apple, but it's clearly been far from successful.
In short, you're right - MS has never focused enough on making a good OS. I'm just thinking that if they don't narrow their focus in the near future, they're going to keep losing ground in all of their markets.
The difference with the Zune's DRM is that it effectively allows music "rentals" through WiFi sharing. People can "squirt" each other a song then remove the DRM, effectively getting the song for free. Not much different than pirating off of p2p networks, but it does mean Microsoft has created an incredibly effective piracy device.
For the rest, I agree. Microsoft has tried to over expand, making itself irrelevant in quite a few markets. In the process, they've half-assed their position in their original market, alienating a lot of customers. I've had several more technical friends switch to Linux, and less technical friends switch to Macs in the time since MS has started focusing more on running everything than making a solid OS. Microsoft needs to seriously reconsider their priorities if they want to avoid becoming irrelevant in all of their markets.
Now, some people like to slam Tivo for circumventing the GPL, but from what I understand of Torvald's licensing intentions they're not offending him. Torvalds wanted a license that would require modifications of the kernel be given to him so they could be incorporated back into the main kernel - TiVo does this. While I can't point to any specific situations in which TiVo code has been incorporated into the kernel, it's possible that TiVo has contributed to the kernel, even if you can't put any kernel you want on the TiVo hardware.
Realistically, if TiVo ever becomes unable to use the Linux Kernel because it falls under the GPL 3, they'll switch to a BSD based system and stop making upstream contributions. I don't mind Tivoisation. It allows vendors to use software on their hardware without having to reinvent the wheel, keep the prices on their hardware low by passing some of the cost onto their service, but still requires them to contribute to the kernel. If you block TiVoisation, you force vendors to use other licenses and we all lose their contributions to the software.
Look and feel doesn't even brush the surface of the differences between distros. Some are intended to be lightweight, bare necessities and serve one purpose. Others are intended to have every possible piece of hardware work out of the box. Some people want to control every driver and application on their system, and compile them with flags for their processor, others just want to have their programs delivered in a few seconds.
While I agree that from a marketing standpoint, it is difficult for a new user to choose a distro (I spent months downloading Live CDs and testing things out before I settled on Ubuntu), I think the variety is one of Linux's greatest attributes. If you want to run a media center, you can download a CD and install a distro with MythTV ready to go. If you want a complete desktop, you can get a CD and have all your basic applications ready to go, with others just a few clicks away. If you just want to run a web server, you can run your system without any unnecessary components.
Different distributions serve drastically different purposes and have very different philosophies. Trying to meet everyone's needs with one distro would be disastrous.
Now, your broadband provider pays the same cost to transfer 1 kb whether you're downloading a web page or a movie - you just get a lot more bits with a movie. It's never made since to me that someone who transfers 20 GB using p2p a month pays the same as someone who transfers 20 MB a month checking their e-mail just because they're capable of getting their bits at the same speed.
It also doesn't make sense to me that the broadband providers think it would be more profitable to make a distinction between http traffic, p2p traffic, legitimate video downloading traffic, gaming traffic, etc. Aside from the fact that this would require some infrastructure changes to filter the different packets, a bit is a bit, and while some activities transfer more bits, each bit costs the same to transfer. If they charged for the bandwidth you actually use instead of the bandwidth you're capable of using, it's fairer to the consumer - they pay for what they get, rather than what they could get - and it's more profitable for them - they can adjust bandwidth costs according to what a bit costs to transfer.
I also don't understand this desire to charge people to connect to their network, even if they're already paying t connect to other networks. I pay my cable company to be connected to the entire internet - not just other sites hosted on their network. If it's expensive for them to connect me to other networks, that price should be reflected in the price I pay as a customer, not the price paid by the people I'm already paying to connect to.
That only applies to pressed BluRay discs. If you're burning them on a PC, you can do it without encryption, otherwise there would be no point in BluRay drives in computers, short of archival discs (and I don't trust optical discs for archiving important data).
First, there was supposed to be a program that scanned your computer for "copyrighted media", when the majority of media on any computer is copyrighted. Just because I have a copy of some album or a movie does not make it illegal. Music can be legally ripped to your computer from CDs, and movies can be downloaded through services like iTunes (generally with DRM) or recorded when they show on TV using a TV tuner. They have no case whatsoever simply proving the possession of a copyrighted work.
Second, they were supposed to be offering free movie downloads. I have yet to hear one person (even on Slashdot) who actually saw this site before it was taken down, I have yet to hear from one person who downloaded the software, and I certainly have not heard from anybody who claims to have downloaded a movie from them. A website that claims to offer free movies but doesn't breaks no laws (except maybe false advertising), but doesn't make much sense either. If the spyware had actually existed, Media defender could have been busted by anti-spyware laws, and if they had actually been distributing movies, they would likely have been in trouble with the MPAA.
Everyone here on slashdot is quick to say Media defender must be lying, but aside from screenshots taken by people out to get Media Defender, I have yet to see anything to suggest the site did anything remotely related to allowing people to download copyrighted movies.
The accusations I'm hearing don't quite make sense. Granted, it wouldn't be the first time Media defender or the **AA did something illogical, but it seems to me that the pieces fit together better if you look at this as a framing than if you take it at face value.