I'm going to take the very unpopular position on this one, not just for fun, but because I've decided I thoroughly believe it. The fact that its fun to tell people to their faces is beside the point.
CmdrTaco just told everyone "No matter what you believe, get out and vote tomorrow." WHY?
I'm sick of all these people making so-called 'public service' pleas for everyone to get out and vote, regardless of who you vote for! Screw that! If you don't agree with me, I don't want your sorry ass voting. Don't vote. Stay home!
I don't care if the representative I pick gets one vote or a million, just as long as he/she wins. All of the non-partisan encouragers can shut the hell up. If all the other sheeple are perfectly content to sit on their butts on November 7th (or whatever day your country holds elections), I say let 'em!
I want my opinions, ideas, and views overrepresented in our government because I think they're better than any known alternatives. I'd drop them in a minute and adopt some other ideas if I didn't think mine were the best. If you think about it, unless you've got "not-invented-here" syndrome, you would do the same with yours, too. Since I think my political views are the best, I'm perfectly willing to drop the air of neutrality to say "If you don't agree, stay home!" because that's the only way my views get overrepresented in government. Overrepresentation is exactly what I want!
So let's all stop playing this silly game. Leave it up to the partisans to motivate their voters. That's what political parties are for! To hell with this whiny "go vote no matter who you vote for" civic duty crap. It's your RIGHT, not your obligation, just like it's your right to sit home and eat nachos with beans and cheese and hot salsa instead of going all the way across the neighborhood to cast a vote that you believe in so little that you have to be encouraged to cast it.
Stay home! I'll make political decisions for you when I cast my vote.
Torn apart by the Supreme Court? No, not if George W. Bush gets to appoint 3-4 "pro-business" leaning justices instead of someone else getting the chance to appoint "pro-freedom" leaning justices.
Let's see, George Bush gets to appoint "pro-business" justices, or Al Gore gets to appoint "pro-government" justices, *ahem* carnivore *ahem*. Hmmm, which would I prefer.
I didn't necessarily mean Gore. We need to consider ALL the options, but be realistic about the odds involved. But in reality your characterization as "pro-government" is probably more correct than the phrase I used.
Even after all of this, I'm still confident that the DMCA will be torn apart by the Supreme Court. I only find it disturbing that our President and Congress have so poor an understanding of the Constitution that they could allow something like this to become law in the first place.
Torn apart by the Supreme Court? No, not if George W. Bush gets to appoint 3-4 "pro-business" leaning justices instead of someone else getting the chance to appoint "pro-freedom" leaning justices.
It is now 8 days before election day. Do we risk a Bush presidency or take the lesser of two evils? A very, very difficult choice if you ask me.
Everything boils down to politics and political power. Even the Supreme Court, in the long run.
It seems to me that the two majors have their priorities wrong, and the likelihood of another candidate winning THIS election is zero. The problem is that I want my one and only priority heeded NOW, not four, eight, or twelve years from now!
That's why the two party system will endure for the foreseeable future. As long as we're conditioned for instant gratification, we won't vote third party en masse, and things won't change.
For the record, my one priority is paying down the debt before cutting taxes, and no, I'm not willing to take the chance that someone diametrically opposed to that position will win by one vote in my state, so I'm going with the one major candidate whose position is most like my own. I'm voting Gore.
OK, I lied. I have two issues I vote for. I'm also very strongly pro-choice.
He said "I'd hate to end on a negative (I'll use the Intel740 for that later)"
What the heck was he talking about?
He never came back to the i740 issue.
Was he talking about the mediocre performance for dirt-cheap price? Was he talking about the immense headaches suffered by those who installed them in VIA or SIS chipset boards?
Sure the board took me 14 hours to get running with my VIA MVP3 based FIC 503+ board 3 years ago, and another 10 hours yesterday to get it running correctly with my new VIA KT133 based Abit KT7-RAID board, but the card cost me $38 years ago when the ATI Expert series were going for over $100. Yeah, I didn't get quite the performance of the TNT, much less the TNT2, but the image quality is still excellent, and it'll do until Xmas when I get a Geforce MX based card. (Good performance, very reasonable price at under $150 street.)
Why did I post this? Well, I remember those days, and remember the extraordinary prices that have always been charged for the hot video cards of the day. And remeniscing about the "good ole days" is kind of fun... And I want to make sure, for anyone who scrounges up old hardware and didn't know, DON'T try to install an i740 board in a VIA or SIS based motherboard unless you have no other choice!
I worked for a small shop that used 'ghost'
extensivly. We also had OEM preload disks that we customized so that windows install was totally non-interactive. The bulk of the time was spent by the CD copying the CAB files to the harddrive. So what we did is once our preload disk copied all it's cab files and its about to reboot we stop it there and clone the disk. Now turn the machine back on and the harddrive boots into the scripted windows installer. After the OEM audit stage the machine is shutdown awaiting for the customer to turn it on for the first time and enter their license info. Is there anything wrong with this?
Not from my point of view. I could understand if MS was pissed off because shops where cloning disks that allready have been registered. Otherwise what's their problem?
I don't think there's anything wrong with doing that, but you can't do it like that anymore. There may be other ways, but that one won't work.
Microsoft has changed the order of a Windows intall to prevent what you were doing. The later install routines won't even start copying the.CAB files until after you've entered the license number and registration information.
I don't know where the cutoff is, but I'm pretty sure it started somewhere around Win 98 SE.
Before we all rush out to buy this admittedly very cool interpretation of a PalmOS device, keep in mind that the Clie uses a Sony Memory Stick for the expansion. Although Sony Memory Sticks available in both "normal" and "Magic Gate" versions now, I can forsee a future where the "normal" version just isn't available. Sony controls the format completely, and can dictate what the supply will be.
What a "Magic Gate", you ask? SDMI compliant memory chips for digital content management. That's right, if you use Sony's products you put them in control over your fair use rights. Maybe not today, but certainly within the foreseeable future.
This is why EVERYONE should be telling EVERYONE they know to use ONLY industry standard, open memory formats such as Compact Flash (CF) and SmartMedia. I wish I knew who contolled these formats, and to what degree they can influence the market, but I don't. But what I do know is that there are many manufacturers of both CF and SmartMedia, so I don't forsee an SDMI takeover on that front.
If it bothers you that much btw, then just buy two identical drives and hang them of a RAID controller in RAID-0. It'll speed up drastically. And after all, that was all you wanted.
But again, it's expensive. (But I'm planning on doing it anyway, but then in RAID-1, to get redundancy)
RAID 0 or 1 isn't even all that expensive. You can find an ASUS PCI RAID controller board online for $45. (I used the bottomdollar price engine.) Furthermore, ASUS and ABIT, among others, are starting to incorporate RAID levels 0, 1 and 0+1 into the controllers on the motherboard. I've seen the new RAID capable motherboards out there with VIA's KT133 chipset for under $200.
I wander what happpens when amd and intel gives out a 64 bit chip each. Will windows be out for each processors?
If not one of them is surly gonna beat the crap out of the other and we suddenly have monopoly on CPU's again.
I know at least that if they're not compatible i'll go for Intel as a standard.
Does anyone have any info regaring this issue?
Picking "Intel as a standard" is a rather strange thing to do in this situation, as the AMD chip is expected to run all your current software natively, while the Intel will have to do tricks to make it run.
This is a big reason why the Intel chip is targeted at server markets; to give the much broader desktop software markets more time to mature and adapt to their programs to Intel's radical change. The AMD, on the other hand, should run x86 code natively faster than any other x86 chip, and could be scaled down from servers to desktop systems any time AMD wants to pound on Intel.
Gives a little more meaning to the code name "SledgeHammer", doesn't it?
I don't understand why Intel and AMD don't start to work on non x86 based processors. The pentium IIIs and athlons already have far too much code to keep them backwards compatible. As far as software goes, Microsoft has already abandoned DOS totally, so why keep the processor architecture to run DOS.
Intel has done just this. It's called Itanium. Haven't you read a thing about it yet?
Itanium is NOT an X86 processor. That's also a big part of why Intel keeps telling us that it's for the server market, not the desktop.
To your other point, it is quite different than your example of posting Nazi propaganda with my name on it. That example consists of an entirely forged post with someone else's name on it. And, no, I would most definately be unhappy about that. However, what deja.com is doing is not so much making up posts with your name on it, but taking your posts, and adding links to products in effort to expand the readers' options (at least that's what I got from their response). I'm not saying that I would necessarily like that... but it's not like they are going to put links to Nazi propaganda into my posts about great/horrible the latest AMD processor is, etc.
Eric
Eric, what if the company that makes the product they link to is morally reprehensible to me?
For example, what if I'm a Wiccan and Deja inserts a link into MY posting that recommends a modem made by a private Christian Fundamentalist company? What if I'm gay and they insert a link to the Boy Scouts when we're discussing childrens organizations? What if I'm a flaming leftie liberal discussing politics and they link my posting to the RNC? Should I have to POSITIVELY ASSERT an objection to a practice I wouldn't have even know about if it weren't for sharp eyes posting on/.?
I have the right NOT to have my words used to tacitly endorse products or philosophies I don't agree with. We shouldn't be forced to OPT-OUT of having our words co-opted by Deja!
By clicking the pretty widgets, the browser user is giving commands to a server to deliver specific content. The client is literally executing programs on the server to trigger this delivery. The fact that the client program's end users don't usually realize this doesn't change this fact.
If we want to use the GPL to pry open web site back end code, what we need is a license clause that specifies that the source code must be made available not only based on receipt of the binaries, but also based on the execution of the code, whether locally or remotely. Whether the server is using a script, HTML, binary code, or other methods won't matter then.
The real question is whether a good enough GPL code library will exist to persuade developers to include the "viral" GPL code in their development efforts. If the available GPL code isn't relevant, useful, or non-obvious, web site developers will avoid containing it, as it certainly will involve extra effort to make the source available to Joe Surfer.
If such an execution clause is included in the GPL that attempts to cover all GPL software, expect a mad rush toward BSD-style licenses.
I'm in the middle on this one. I think it's probably a good idea to try to pry open the back ends of as many web sites as possible now, before closed-source, secret code becomes any more encrusted. But I don't think many people will like the idea much.
It used to be that "view source" would let you see what was in the back office, as almost all pages were pretty static. But with dynamic content generation, it's pretty obvious the landscape has changed a lot. It's also becoming increasingly obvious that what runs on the server is much more important than what runs on the client, and will become even more so as time goes on.
First of all, I think it's horridly bad practice that slashdot will include the first paragaph of the article linked as the entire summary - it should be an actual summary, not just a copy of the article.
The article linked to was written very close to "newspaper-style", a common journalistic technique where the article starts with a summary and continues from there, adding further details along the way.
"Newspaper-style" was originally created so that "dead-tree edition" editors could cut off any given story at the end of almost any paragraph and still have a complete, coherent article that fit in the available column space. It's very difficult to write in this style at first, but becomes much easier with practice.
Look carefully at any sports story in your local newspaper (especially coverage of a game or event, not commentary) and you're sure to find an excellent example of this type of writing.
This article doesn't strictly conform to that style, but it's close. And in that regard, I would say it's not only fair, but completely appropriate for the submitter to simply include the first paragraph of the article linked. Anything else would be extra work that might completely distort the original author's work.
No need to be so quick to complain. Submitting first paragraphs can be a very good practice.
For those of us who would like to continue overclocking our chips, Tom's Hardware already has a guide to set your silicon to whatever speed you prefer.
This link will show you how: http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/00q3/000711/inde x.html
Definitely looks like it was assembled from parts of a mid-'60s Chevrolet Corvair. Body: Fiberglass® Mid-Engine: 400hp 327ci 4 Bolt Main Rear Suspension: Saginau[sic] trans-axle with Air Bags Brakes:8" Rear Drum, 9" Disc Front Vented Rotors, Tilton Brake & Clutch Additional Features: 18" McCulla[sic] retractable pneumatic saw blades. U.S. Navy PX18 periscope. Airtronics remote control homing pigeon. Pneumatic auto jacks for jumping. Corvairs were powered with Air-cooled flat 6 engines. None of them used a 327 c.i. V8. This was not built from a Corvair. Perhaps a Corvette, but not a Corvair.
Whatever you do, be sure to specify that you need a worldwide usage compatible handset. The US GSM frequencies are different from those used in other parts of the world, and the 99.9% of the Omnipoint handsets sold in the US use "worldwide" GSM technology, but US frequencies.
Omnipoint is using misleading advertising at best by implying that any phone you buy from them will be useful anywhere. Unless you specify, and pay extra (a lot extra) you'll get a phone that only works in the US.
It will probably be better yet to rent your GSM handset in the countries you visit.
The worst part is that most Omnipoint salesdroids don't know these facts.
Even though it's clearly labeled as a "1st post" doesn't mean that it's any less annoying, nor does it mean that it isn't a theft of the recipient's resources, (in this case, time, bandwidth and mod points) nor does it mean that it isn't an unwanted burden on the internet itself.
If the spammers comply, I'll set up all my resources to filter this out not just at the user level, but I'll also set up my systems not to pass *any* traffic of this type. The few spammers stupid enough to believe this system will work will get angry and try to rally the public in a crusade against those "internet censors" who won't forward their spam traffic to their victims, and they'll probably join the even more unlawful spammers who ignore the law in the first place.
Then we'll be back where we started, trying to shut *ALL* spam off at the source, just as CAUCE currently advocates. I'm not a director or executive, just a supporter/member, so I'm not speaking officially on behalf of CAUCE.
Don't see this "ADV:-tagging" as a loss or a victory, but instead another twist in the road to a spam-free internet. It's taking longer than I'd hoped, but we'll get there.
Although the other methods are sound, writing to Best Buy and Circuit City is bound to be useless.
They sell music, and large portions of their marketing budgets are underwritten by the record companies. These stores will cooperate with the music labels when it is profitable to them.
Ever wonder why crap like "Macarena" and "Blue" became so popular? Endcaps, baby, endcaps. The stores don't choose what to put at the end of each music aisle. Record companies PAY for that space, and dearly.
These stores DO ignore the record companies now and then, when it is profitable for them. That's why Best Buy was the first national retailer carrying the Rio. They knew the product would be smashingly successful, and the profits to gain were certain to outweigh the losses due to pissing off the record companies.
Keep in mind that the MAJOR reason why other national retailers didn't support DIVX is NOT because the format was crap, it was because Circuit City owned it and invested a fortune in it. Best Buy and others didn't want their major competitor to profit every time they made a sale.
Re:This is sad, but I think we all saw it coming
on
RIAA Sues MP3.com
·
· Score: 1
>>I'm convinced that YOU don't get it. Not even close
>Odd, since I agree with you about 95%. Much more so than other slashdotters.
The whole point of pirating MP3s and bothering to grab them off the net is NOT so much to circumvent paying fair prices for music. Giant hard drives and CDR drives aren't so much for that either. What I think it's really about is *fair* prices, with the price of an indie CD not inflated by monster-mega advance payments made to the most popular artists like it is now...
But even that is a lesser shade to the *true* desire of everyone: to have near-instantaneous access to anything we feel like hearing, at any time, without having to stand around the CD stores wondering just how many good songs you're gonna get when you plunk down your fifteen bucks.
Over the years, I've bought thousands of records, tapes and CDs, and I can honestly say I've been satisfied that I got a fair exchange for my money only about 10% of the time. That's the real reason why people are rebelling against the exchange model currently in place: having "good" music is an almost immeasurable value in people's lives, yet the RIAA and the record companies have made so little effort to see that we get it when we try to.
Not to mention what record company playlists have done to all my favorite indie stations over the years... Hell, they even convinced a lot of college radio stations to go with playlist formats for large blocks of their programming time in the interest of "helping the DJ's learn what the real broadcast world is like." I know, I was one of those DJs at a college station when it was being RIAA-raped.
The change imposed by the MP3 format is tremendous and efforts to stop it are useless. The only solution is to go around.
One last point: it is MP3, along with progressive music stores that let you listen before you buy, and reusability of CDs (allowing used CDs that you can also listen to before buying) that has led us all away from mega-pop, mega-rock, and the like.
I see one other possibility. People just might forget about paying for recorded music altogether. Artists would still make the music, motivated by the love of sharing one's expression, and many could make a living doing live shows and merchandising. The RIAA and all the record companies would simply fade into oblivion. If you think about it carefully, do you really think that would be so bad? I'm not sure, but I don't think so.
Re:This is sad, but I think we all saw it coming
on
RIAA Sues MP3.com
·
· Score: 1
The only people who Don't Get It are the people who pirate MP3's. It is THESE people who are anti-technology and are preventing large scale online distribution from really happening. With the massive number of 31337 mp3 warez d000dz on the internet who insist on stealing music instead of paying for it, the RIAA realizes that it is suicide to put its property into small, easily transferred, unencrypted files and depend on the trust of the consumers for compensation. Because of all of the people who steal music by pirating MP3's, the RIAA realized that money cannot be made from this method. So they are currently investigating proprietary, closed methods of online music distribution. So to people who pirate MP3's: thanks. You already cost on an open music standard, and if you keep it up, you will cost us online distribution altogether.
I'm convinced that YOU don't get it. Not even close.
The current situation of the RIAA going after MP3 enthusiasts is like "rank and file" muzzle loader armies going after nests of rabid guerilla machine-gunners. Except the machine gunners outnumber the muzzle loaders by about 10,000 to 1 or so.
Technology has changed the landscape in much the same fashion as machine guns have changed warfare. The RIAA needs to wake up and realize that they can no longer succeed in spoon feeding us overpriced CDs while paying so-called artists like Michael Jackson millions for "music" he hasn't even created yet.
The RIAA has to adapt and change to a new landscape that has shifted like quicksand under their feet. They cannot put the genie back into the bottle, and need to stop wasting their resources in trying. They cannot simply throw more manpower at the machine gun nests, or they'll get mowed down and forgotten by history. Not in court, of course, but certainly on the balance sheet in legal fees, and in the stores in lost revenue!
I can't tell how they're going to succeed in making money in the future, but I have at least one viable concept: would you pay ~$10-20 per month to have unlimited access to their entire library of recorded music, without restriction or limits, in your home, in your car, and by wireless walkman, even if you knew their hardware was secure and you couldn't copy it off digitally onto something else (to prevent people from "sharing" a subscription)? I know I would!
This is but one idea that would do an end run around the machine gun nest of illegal MP3 distribution, yet still provide a fair trade of money for product for them and the artists. (I envision a micropayment system for the artists could be set up, to pay them for every time their songs are accessed.)
DAMN! This is super-ultra important. I lose all my unvested options at the end of the month. The options have a strike price of $17/share. The current value of the stock we'll call $47/share. Are you saying that I can outright buy these unvested options at $17/apiece? How do I do this?!!?!
Sorry, you cannot purchase your unvested options. Unvested means that you, in effect, have no current interest in the options, only that you will gain interest in them if certain conditions are met. One of those conditions is usually passage of a certain amount of time. If you lose your options before the vesting conditions are met, you're just plain screwed.
Gates often stated that it was his not his intention to run Microsoft forever. Ballmer is easily mean enough and nasty enough to bring Microsoft into the twenty-first century.
I don't mean this as a flame, but over the years, Bill has mellowed from someone who can get things done into "Tweedledee".
Now he's being replaced by Tweedle-You-WILL-get-that-goddamned-module-up-and- running-or-you're-fired-and-I- don't-give-a-shit-if-you-have-to-stay-up-all-f**ki ng-night-to-do-it!-dum.
It's obvious that for the past several years, Ballmer has been the asshole behind the stink that is Microsoft, anyway.
(And by that, I mean he's been the guy to make sure company goals are being pursued as vigorously as possible. Now if we could only convince them that *stability* and *security* are valid company goals along with a unified, friendly, consistent user interface.)
And BTW, I think that almost every successful BIG company has one of these...
I love those little nitrogen widgets they put in them. It is nitrogen that makes the 'small bubbles' required for the creamy head and the downward flow (as the article points out, the bubbles must be less than than 0.05 mm for this).
But the widgets themselves are a truly cool piece of engineering. They hold the nitrogen under pressure until the can is opened and then inject the gas into the beer through a hole so small it almost has to have been drilled by a laser.
I don't think that the little widgets actually hold the nitrogen in them throughout the shipping process. Without knowing the manufacturing details, it would make more sense that they put them in there with nitrogen in them, but they're frozen at the time of insertion. The can filling and capping process is done immediately afterward, very quickly. The hole is always there, and it cannot hold the nitrogen in the device during transit.
Then nitrogen then thaws, pressurizing the can to a rather high equilibrium point and Guiness absorbs virtually all the nitrogen during shipping.
When you open it, the pressure at the can's pop-top drops almost instantaneously, while the widget's tiny hole prevents the pressure from dropping as rapidly. The relative imbalance of pressures creates a brief but very energetic internal fountain of Guiness in the bottom of the can! The shearing forces of Guiness rubbing up against itself then releases much of the trapped gasses in the Guiness in dramatic fashion. This is why the foam up best when you crack the top quickly rather than breaking the seal slowly.
I sacrificed a particularly noble can of Guiness to test this theory once by chopping it open with a very large thin-bladed adze and my observation was that the device was literally squirting Guiness and not venting gas.
A very, very costly experiment indeed, but I had to find out what was going on in the magic can!
Slashdot Mirror
CmdrTaco just told everyone "No matter what you believe, get out and vote tomorrow." WHY?
I'm sick of all these people making so-called 'public service' pleas for everyone to get out and vote, regardless of who you vote for! Screw that! If you don't agree with me, I don't want your sorry ass voting. Don't vote. Stay home!
I don't care if the representative I pick gets one vote or a million, just as long as he/she wins. All of the non-partisan encouragers can shut the hell up. If all the other sheeple are perfectly content to sit on their butts on November 7th (or whatever day your country holds elections), I say let 'em! I want my opinions, ideas, and views overrepresented in our government because I think they're better than any known alternatives. I'd drop them in a minute and adopt some other ideas if I didn't think mine were the best. If you think about it, unless you've got "not-invented-here" syndrome, you would do the same with yours, too. Since I think my political views are the best, I'm perfectly willing to drop the air of neutrality to say "If you don't agree, stay home!" because that's the only way my views get overrepresented in government. Overrepresentation is exactly what I want!
So let's all stop playing this silly game. Leave it up to the partisans to motivate their voters. That's what political parties are for! To hell with this whiny "go vote no matter who you vote for" civic duty crap. It's your RIGHT, not your obligation, just like it's your right to sit home and eat nachos with beans and cheese and hot salsa instead of going all the way across the neighborhood to cast a vote that you believe in so little that you have to be encouraged to cast it.
Stay home! I'll make political decisions for you when I cast my vote.
Let's see, George Bush gets to appoint "pro-business" justices, or Al Gore gets to appoint "pro-government" justices, *ahem* carnivore *ahem*. Hmmm, which would I prefer.
I didn't necessarily mean Gore. We need to consider ALL the options, but be realistic about the odds involved. But in reality your characterization as "pro-government" is probably more correct than the phrase I used.
Thanks.
Torn apart by the Supreme Court? No, not if George W. Bush gets to appoint 3-4 "pro-business" leaning justices instead of someone else getting the chance to appoint "pro-freedom" leaning justices.
It is now 8 days before election day. Do we risk a Bush presidency or take the lesser of two evils? A very, very difficult choice if you ask me.
Everything boils down to politics and political power. Even the Supreme Court, in the long run.
That's why the two party system will endure for the foreseeable future. As long as we're conditioned for instant gratification, we won't vote third party en masse, and things won't change.
For the record, my one priority is paying down the debt before cutting taxes, and no, I'm not willing to take the chance that someone diametrically opposed to that position will win by one vote in my state, so I'm going with the one major candidate whose position is most like my own. I'm voting Gore.
OK, I lied. I have two issues I vote for. I'm also very strongly pro-choice.
Bite my shiny metal ass!
What the heck was he talking about?
He never came back to the i740 issue.
Was he talking about the mediocre performance for dirt-cheap price? Was he talking about the immense headaches suffered by those who installed them in VIA or SIS chipset boards?
Sure the board took me 14 hours to get running with my VIA MVP3 based FIC 503+ board 3 years ago, and another 10 hours yesterday to get it running correctly with my new VIA KT133 based Abit KT7-RAID board, but the card cost me $38 years ago when the ATI Expert series were going for over $100. Yeah, I didn't get quite the performance of the TNT, much less the TNT2, but the image quality is still excellent, and it'll do until Xmas when I get a Geforce MX based card. (Good performance, very reasonable price at under $150 street.)
Why did I post this? Well, I remember those days, and remember the extraordinary prices that have always been charged for the hot video cards of the day. And remeniscing about the "good ole days" is kind of fun... And I want to make sure, for anyone who scrounges up old hardware and didn't know, DON'T try to install an i740 board in a VIA or SIS based motherboard unless you have no other choice!
Not from my point of view. I could understand if MS was pissed off because shops where cloning disks that allready have been registered. Otherwise what's their problem?
I don't think there's anything wrong with doing that, but you can't do it like that anymore. There may be other ways, but that one won't work.
Microsoft has changed the order of a Windows intall to prevent what you were doing. The later install routines won't even start copying the .CAB files until after you've entered the license number and registration information.
I don't know where the cutoff is, but I'm pretty sure it started somewhere around Win 98 SE.
What a "Magic Gate", you ask? SDMI compliant memory chips for digital content management. That's right, if you use Sony's products you put them in control over your fair use rights. Maybe not today, but certainly within the foreseeable future.
This is why EVERYONE should be telling EVERYONE they know to use ONLY industry standard, open memory formats such as Compact Flash (CF) and SmartMedia. I wish I knew who contolled these formats, and to what degree they can influence the market, but I don't. But what I do know is that there are many manufacturers of both CF and SmartMedia, so I don't forsee an SDMI takeover on that front.
Sorry about my error, that $45 RAID card is an ABIT Hot Rod 100, not an ASUS.
RAID 0 or 1 isn't even all that expensive. You can find an ASUS PCI RAID controller board online for $45. (I used the bottomdollar price engine.) Furthermore, ASUS and ABIT, among others, are starting to incorporate RAID levels 0, 1 and 0+1 into the controllers on the motherboard. I've seen the new RAID capable motherboards out there with VIA's KT133 chipset for under $200.
Picking "Intel as a standard" is a rather strange thing to do in this situation, as the AMD chip is expected to run all your current software natively, while the Intel will have to do tricks to make it run.
This is a big reason why the Intel chip is targeted at server markets; to give the much broader desktop software markets more time to mature and adapt to their programs to Intel's radical change. The AMD, on the other hand, should run x86 code natively faster than any other x86 chip, and could be scaled down from servers to desktop systems any time AMD wants to pound on Intel.
Gives a little more meaning to the code name "SledgeHammer", doesn't it?
Intel has done just this. It's called Itanium. Haven't you read a thing about it yet?
Itanium is NOT an X86 processor. That's also a big part of why Intel keeps telling us that it's for the server market, not the desktop.
Eric
Eric, what if the company that makes the product they link to is morally reprehensible to me?
For example, what if I'm a Wiccan and Deja inserts a link into MY posting that recommends a modem made by a private Christian Fundamentalist company? What if I'm gay and they insert a link to the Boy Scouts when we're discussing childrens organizations? What if I'm a flaming leftie liberal discussing politics and they link my posting to the RNC? Should I have to POSITIVELY ASSERT an objection to a practice I wouldn't have even know about if it weren't for sharp eyes posting on /.?
I have the right NOT to have my words used to tacitly endorse products or philosophies I don't agree with. We shouldn't be forced to OPT-OUT of having our words co-opted by Deja!
If we want to use the GPL to pry open web site back end code, what we need is a license clause that specifies that the source code must be made available not only based on receipt of the binaries, but also based on the execution of the code, whether locally or remotely. Whether the server is using a script, HTML, binary code, or other methods won't matter then.
The real question is whether a good enough GPL code library will exist to persuade developers to include the "viral" GPL code in their development efforts. If the available GPL code isn't relevant, useful, or non-obvious, web site developers will avoid containing it, as it certainly will involve extra effort to make the source available to Joe Surfer.
If such an execution clause is included in the GPL that attempts to cover all GPL software, expect a mad rush toward BSD-style licenses.
I'm in the middle on this one. I think it's probably a good idea to try to pry open the back ends of as many web sites as possible now, before closed-source, secret code becomes any more encrusted. But I don't think many people will like the idea much.
It used to be that "view source" would let you see what was in the back office, as almost all pages were pretty static. But with dynamic content generation, it's pretty obvious the landscape has changed a lot. It's also becoming increasingly obvious that what runs on the server is much more important than what runs on the client, and will become even more so as time goes on.
The article linked to was written very close to "newspaper-style", a common journalistic technique where the article starts with a summary and continues from there, adding further details along the way.
"Newspaper-style" was originally created so that "dead-tree edition" editors could cut off any given story at the end of almost any paragraph and still have a complete, coherent article that fit in the available column space. It's very difficult to write in this style at first, but becomes much easier with practice.
Look carefully at any sports story in your local newspaper (especially coverage of a game or event, not commentary) and you're sure to find an excellent example of this type of writing.
This article doesn't strictly conform to that style, but it's close. And in that regard, I would say it's not only fair, but completely appropriate for the submitter to simply include the first paragraph of the article linked. Anything else would be extra work that might completely distort the original author's work.
No need to be so quick to complain. Submitting first paragraphs can be a very good practice.
For those of us who would like to continue overclocking our chips, Tom's Hardware already has a guide to set your silicon to whatever speed you prefer.
e x.html
This link will show you how:
http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/00q3/000711/ind
Definitely looks like it was assembled from parts of a mid-'60s Chevrolet Corvair. Body: Fiberglass® Mid-Engine: 400hp 327ci 4 Bolt Main Rear Suspension: Saginau[sic] trans-axle with Air Bags Brakes:8" Rear Drum, 9" Disc Front Vented Rotors, Tilton Brake & Clutch Additional Features: 18" McCulla[sic] retractable pneumatic saw blades. U.S. Navy PX18 periscope. Airtronics remote control homing pigeon. Pneumatic auto jacks for jumping. Corvairs were powered with Air-cooled flat 6 engines. None of them used a 327 c.i. V8. This was not built from a Corvair. Perhaps a Corvette, but not a Corvair.
Omnipoint is using misleading advertising at best by implying that any phone you buy from them will be useful anywhere. Unless you specify, and pay extra (a lot extra) you'll get a phone that only works in the US.
It will probably be better yet to rent your GSM handset in the countries you visit.
The worst part is that most Omnipoint salesdroids don't know these facts.
FIRST POST! FIRST POST! FIRST POST!
Even though it's clearly labeled as a "1st post" doesn't mean that it's any less annoying, nor does it mean that it isn't a theft of the recipient's resources, (in this case, time, bandwidth and mod points) nor does it mean that it isn't an unwanted burden on the internet itself.
If the spammers comply, I'll set up all my resources to filter this out not just at the user level, but I'll also set up my systems not to pass *any* traffic of this type. The few spammers stupid enough to believe this system will work will get angry and try to rally the public in a crusade against those "internet censors" who won't forward their spam traffic to their victims, and they'll probably join the even more unlawful spammers who ignore the law in the first place.
Then we'll be back where we started, trying to shut *ALL* spam off at the source, just as CAUCE currently advocates. I'm not a director or executive, just a supporter/member, so I'm not speaking officially on behalf of CAUCE.
Don't see this "ADV:-tagging" as a loss or a victory, but instead another twist in the road to a spam-free internet. It's taking longer than I'd hoped, but we'll get there.
www.cauce.org
Join.
Although the other methods are sound, writing to Best Buy and Circuit City is bound to be useless.
They sell music, and large portions of their marketing budgets are underwritten by the record companies. These stores will cooperate with the music labels when it is profitable to them.
Ever wonder why crap like "Macarena" and "Blue" became so popular? Endcaps, baby, endcaps. The stores don't choose what to put at the end of each music aisle. Record companies PAY for that space, and dearly.
These stores DO ignore the record companies now and then, when it is profitable for them. That's why Best Buy was the first national retailer carrying the Rio. They knew the product would be smashingly successful, and the profits to gain were certain to outweigh the losses due to pissing off the record companies.
Keep in mind that the MAJOR reason why other national retailers didn't support DIVX is NOT because the format was crap, it was because Circuit City owned it and invested a fortune in it. Best Buy and others didn't want their major competitor to profit every time they made a sale.
>Odd, since I agree with you about 95%. Much more so than other slashdotters.
The whole point of pirating MP3s and bothering to grab them off the net is NOT so much to circumvent paying fair prices for music. Giant hard drives and CDR drives aren't so much for that either. What I think it's really about is *fair* prices, with the price of an indie CD not inflated by monster-mega advance payments made to the most popular artists like it is now...
But even that is a lesser shade to the *true* desire of everyone: to have near-instantaneous access to anything we feel like hearing, at any time, without having to stand around the CD stores wondering just how many good songs you're gonna get when you plunk down your fifteen bucks.
Over the years, I've bought thousands of records, tapes and CDs, and I can honestly say I've been satisfied that I got a fair exchange for my money only about 10% of the time. That's the real reason why people are rebelling against the exchange model currently in place: having "good" music is an almost immeasurable value in people's lives, yet the RIAA and the record companies have made so little effort to see that we get it when we try to.
Not to mention what record company playlists have done to all my favorite indie stations over the years... Hell, they even convinced a lot of college radio stations to go with playlist formats for large blocks of their programming time in the interest of "helping the DJ's learn what the real broadcast world is like." I know, I was one of those DJs at a college station when it was being RIAA-raped.
The change imposed by the MP3 format is tremendous and efforts to stop it are useless. The only solution is to go around.
One last point: it is MP3, along with progressive music stores that let you listen before you buy, and reusability of CDs (allowing used CDs that you can also listen to before buying) that has led us all away from mega-pop, mega-rock, and the like.
I see one other possibility. People just might forget about paying for recorded music altogether. Artists would still make the music, motivated by the love of sharing one's expression, and many could make a living doing live shows and merchandising. The RIAA and all the record companies would simply fade into oblivion. If you think about it carefully, do you really think that would be so bad? I'm not sure, but I don't think so.
I'm convinced that YOU don't get it. Not even close.
The current situation of the RIAA going after MP3 enthusiasts is like "rank and file" muzzle loader armies going after nests of rabid guerilla machine-gunners. Except the machine gunners outnumber the muzzle loaders by about 10,000 to 1 or so.
Technology has changed the landscape in much the same fashion as machine guns have changed warfare. The RIAA needs to wake up and realize that they can no longer succeed in spoon feeding us overpriced CDs while paying so-called artists like Michael Jackson millions for "music" he hasn't even created yet.
The RIAA has to adapt and change to a new landscape that has shifted like quicksand under their feet. They cannot put the genie back into the bottle, and need to stop wasting their resources in trying. They cannot simply throw more manpower at the machine gun nests, or they'll get mowed down and forgotten by history. Not in court, of course, but certainly on the balance sheet in legal fees, and in the stores in lost revenue!
I can't tell how they're going to succeed in making money in the future, but I have at least one viable concept: would you pay ~$10-20 per month to have unlimited access to their entire library of recorded music, without restriction or limits, in your home, in your car, and by wireless walkman, even if you knew their hardware was secure and you couldn't copy it off digitally onto something else (to prevent people from "sharing" a subscription)? I know I would!
This is but one idea that would do an end run around the machine gun nest of illegal MP3 distribution, yet still provide a fair trade of money for product for them and the artists. (I envision a micropayment system for the artists could be set up, to pay them for every time their songs are accessed.)
Sorry, you cannot purchase your unvested options. Unvested means that you, in effect, have no current interest in the options, only that you will gain interest in them if certain conditions are met. One of those conditions is usually passage of a certain amount of time. If you lose your options before the vesting conditions are met, you're just plain screwed.
Gates often stated that it was his not his intention to run Microsoft forever. Ballmer is easily mean enough and nasty enough to bring Microsoft into the twenty-first century.
- running-or-you're-fired-and-I- don't-give-a-shit-if-you-have-to-stay-up-all-f**ki ng-night-to-do-it!-dum.
I don't mean this as a flame, but over the years, Bill has mellowed from someone who can get things done into "Tweedledee".
Now he's being replaced by Tweedle-You-WILL-get-that-goddamned-module-up-and
It's obvious that for the past several years, Ballmer has been the asshole behind the stink that is Microsoft, anyway.
(And by that, I mean he's been the guy to make sure company goals are being pursued as vigorously as possible. Now if we could only convince them that *stability* and *security* are valid company goals along with a unified, friendly, consistent user interface.)
And BTW, I think that almost every successful BIG company has one of these...
I love those little nitrogen widgets they put in them. It is nitrogen that makes the 'small bubbles' required for the creamy head and the downward flow (as the article points out, the bubbles must be less than than 0.05 mm for this).
But the widgets themselves are a truly cool piece of engineering. They hold the nitrogen under pressure until the can is opened and then inject the gas into the beer through a hole so small it almost has to have been drilled by a laser.
I don't think that the little widgets actually hold the nitrogen in them throughout the shipping process. Without knowing the manufacturing details, it would make more sense that they put them in there with nitrogen in them, but they're frozen at the time of insertion. The can filling and capping process is done immediately afterward, very quickly. The hole is always there, and it cannot hold the nitrogen in the device during transit.
Then nitrogen then thaws, pressurizing the can to a rather high equilibrium point and Guiness absorbs virtually all the nitrogen during shipping.
When you open it, the pressure at the can's pop-top drops almost instantaneously, while the widget's tiny hole prevents the pressure from dropping as rapidly. The relative imbalance of pressures creates a brief but very energetic internal fountain of Guiness in the bottom of the can! The shearing forces of Guiness rubbing up against itself then releases much of the trapped gasses in the Guiness in dramatic fashion. This is why the foam up best when you crack the top quickly rather than breaking the seal slowly.
I sacrificed a particularly noble can of Guiness to test this theory once by chopping it open with a very large thin-bladed adze and my observation was that the device was literally squirting Guiness and not venting gas.
A very, very costly experiment indeed, but I had to find out what was going on in the magic can!