I am willing to concede that Gentoo is not the easiest Linux build to install. The last time I attempted to use a LiveCD frontend install, the frontend kept screwing-up on me [because I had failed to do an md5checksum on the file]. Upon [partially] realizing this, I went for a command-line install, which I screwed up a few times before getting it right. All of this was because I thought I could just type whatever was in the manual, with no regard for the comments and tips written with them. THAT is how you screw-up a Gentoo install. What users (especially the author) need to understand is that Gentoo is not meant to be user-friendly. It is meant to be functional and insanely customizable. The way it is set-up now, you install a stage 3 tarball and bootstrap backward to get your customization options. You can complain all day and night about how it takes forever to compile, and that by the time you emerge one package in portage, you have to emerge another; It's all pointless bitching and moaning. Problems come when people start messing with.config files and emerging unstable programs because they don't know any better. I have 4 different kernel versions for my desktop, and I could use each one of them without ever having any difficulties in my work. There is no need to "emerge -uDNav world" every day... it is a conscious decision to irritate the hell out of yourself. If I can run 2.6.14-r3 without any problems, you can go without using portage every day. If you want user-friendly, install Windows; It'll manage your virtual RAM for you, and practically do everything except run your anti-virus program!
Or did TFA have absolutely no rational explanation for why Apple is better?
iPod, Apple's iTunes software, and the iTunes Music Store work so well together that users can just relax and enjoy the music.
iTunes works just fine with Windows, too. My sister hasn't had any trouble whatsoever with the software/hardware using a Windows PC.
It can handle all the common files Windows uses, can network with Windows machines, and can use all of the common Windows printers, scanners, keyboards and mice... Mac users can choose among thousands of third-party programs, including multiple Web browsers, word processors and email programs.
None of this has anything to do with Mac vs MS. It deals with drivers, program portability, and USB. What this guy hasn't realized is that there hasn't been any "Windows choice advantage" for years, and that most people know that. Windows is what most people know, therefore they continue to use it. Just because you bought an iPod doesn't mean you need to jump-ship and pay an extra thou to get an iMac. This article is simply a plug for Apple products... and I sure as hell wouldn't count Running Windows in the 'Mac Benefits' column if I were the writer.
Actually, there is no presumption of privacy without protecting yourself. Lets say that you don't have a fence around your yard; whatever happens to persons in that yard is therefore your responsibility, because there is no restriction to trespassing. If the person destroys your property, they are liable. Conversely, if they slip on your front doorstep and break their neck, you are liable because they are technically not trespassing. No harm, no foul on either party. Why should computer systems be any different? If you make the mistake or choice not to protect your system from user-level access and harm, then you are responsible for any breach of security provided that the user does not destroy any of the information stored. However, the real issue is revealing national secrets (supposedly). Because the federal government has been caught with their pants down, they have to make a good show to cover-up their incompetence. He would be prosecuted similarly in the UK, and it is simply a show of good-faith toward the US to let him be prosecuted there.
It is time to admit what many security professional already know: We as security professional are drastically failing ourselves, our community and the people we are meant to protect. Too many of our security layers of defense are broken.
Most of the listed issues are a result of user stupidity. Clicking on banner ads, links in e-mails, porn sites, etc. The real failure lies in user ignorance/stupidity and company infrastructure. The reason we hear so much about identity theft is simply that companies comply with only the minimum standards for encryption and user information security. For this, it is the responsibility of the company to go above and beyond what the government requires, and provide security which might at least pose a challenge to hackers. The best solution for IT professionals is to inform users of the risks posed by their internet usage, and to urge the higher-ups that a more robust security plan helps to foster a sense of trust in customers (maybe they'll buy that). However, I do not feel that it is solely the fault of IT departments for security breaches. To paraphrase Drew McDermott: Artificial Intelligence is no match for Natural Stupidity.
It's all in the title of the article... The white blood cells "recognize specific patterns on the cancer cell surface", and flag/attack them as they would any other foreign body. Biology wasn't my strong-suit either, but I would venture a guess that by knowing what sort of mechanism would lead to the white blood cells identifying cancerous/precancerous cells as a risk, the response could be adapted to work similarly (if not identically) in humans. Cancer is not a by-product of evolution, it is a result of malfunctioning cells which replicate uncontrollably. This is generally not a product of 'evolution' as you and I would think of it, but by some sort of damage to the cell which caused it to malfunction. It isn't so much a "death trigger" as replicating without purpose; when you no longer need skin cells at a certain location, and some mutated cell keeps replicating malfunctioning cells, you've got cancer. If your immune system cannot recognize something as a threat, it cannot respond to it, which appears to be the current predicament with cancer in humans.
Temporary Solution. Your comments are, once again, a wonderful example of avoiding the actual problem we face. Cars designed for ethanol blends will work fine, but that is because they are made of (more expensive) corrosion-resistant parts. Damage will still be done when sediments are dissolved/stripped-off from the gas tank's interior during the change to an ethanol blend. It doesn't get much more efficient than riding your bike. Who knows... you might even get a tan.
As much as this seems like a cool idea, the article fails to back it up with any rational explanation for a 3D web. The only feasible use of 3D would be interactivity, therefore drastically limiting the consumer base. To most, the internet is a tool; A means of communication. Adding a third dimension to many aspects would only serve to exponentially increase the amount of information transferred and stored to maintain such an environment, while adding a new depth (pun intended) to already interactive applications which may or many not benefit from such a change. As much as the ASF may think 3D will revolutionize the way people communicate via the internet, it will likely only apply to a select few (not unlike the "august group" from the article).
but I'm not sure that ethanol is the solution. It is a short-term fix for a long-term problem. Removing the tariff on ethanol made with sugar is sensible, because it produces more energy per unit during combustion. Gasoline is corrosive, as is ethanol. Therefore, by putting it in a car engine, we are shortening the life-span of the car's engine. It would make a great deal of sense to have a more energy-efficient fuel in that car so that you get more 'bang for your buck'. I think what really needs to be addressed in the government, though, is the future of transportation/fuel sources in america. This isn't a battle over obscene profits for oil companies or getting a tariff removed, it's the realization that our fuel source for the past 100 years or so is not unlimited, and that the countries that hold large reserves of oil can (and will) leverage their position against us. Political grand-standing has focused most americans on ineffective issues, and it will likely be left to the states. Recognize that this problem will not ultimately be solved by saving 53 cents-per-gallon on ethanol, but by finding efficient alternative fuel sources and having the public embrace the change.
It strikes me as odd that we have a government agency devoted solely to pay other people to make their own sci-fi wet-dreams become reality. From what I've read in the news, there is nothing new or innovative about DARPA. It manages and directs selected basic and applied research and development projects. So... you pay other people to make the stuff you saw in Spiderman 2. I think that such projects create a great opportunity for colleges and universities, but I don't really understand the principle of "a complete acceptance of failure if the payoff of success [is] high enough" to use insects to do our spying for us. DARPA was created to keep the U.S. on the cutting-edge of technology, but they appear to be off the deep-end of technology instead.
Black is actually the absorption of all colors in the visible spectrum, while white is the reflection. The opposite rules are in effect for pastel color mixtures (e.g. crayons). I believe the problem would lie in not distorting the space behind the "cloaked" object relative to the observer. Light would simply have a zero-angle refraction off the surface.From the theoretical description, I think that the Predator movies would be a somewhat accurate representation of how the technology would ideally work. From the article, it appears that it would only work in specific lighting conditions, i.e. basic backgrounds. If you're in a gray room looking at something "cloaked" by the superlens, you actually see the light from the rest of the room, while likely being able to detect the cloaked object by positioning it at such an angle that the light refracts differently at some point behind the object. In my non-expert opinion, the only way to truly hide the object from the observer would be to have some sort of system for detecting where the observer is looking, and having the superlens absorb the light in the direct center of the observer's view, while refracting all light around it to represent the backdrop it visually blocks. No Romulan cloaking devices any time soon, but it might be useful as a sort of camouflage...
I believe the point they are trying to make is that Microsoft is an unfair competitor because it is setting the default to another business within the corporation. The browser automatically brings you to another source of revinue for the same company who gives you IE. Mozilla and Google are completely independent companies, therefore Google pays to be the default search engine on Firefox. This is the same basic reason AT&T was broken-up, except AT&T was installing 3rd party equipment. Microsoft on whole is not a natural monopoly. Whereas they hold an (arguably) natural monopoly on the OS market, they also hold a diverse array of other business groups. Would you prefer a default Xbox360 wallpaper on start-up?
Is the kind invented buy a guy whose only experience is in business and real estate law... This guy was a lawyer for Enron, for christ sake. I understand the need to shield the american people from their own perverse curiosity and stupidity, but we apparently gave up the right to defend our constitutional rights during the process. The Conservative Christian movement has become a disproportionally powerful force in shaping law in the US, making an issue of 3rd trimester abortions, gay marriage, etc. This is just another cheap parlor trick to instill 'morality' in all US citizens whether we think we need it or not. For the first and third suggested new crimes: It is not the duty of the webmaster to warn/advise visitors of explicit material, it is the duty of the visitor to avoid such content and discontinue their viewing if such material is encountered. For the second suggested new crime: The burden of keeping misleadingly/deceptively explicit material from showing up in a search should be the responsibility of the company maintaining and organizing the search engine, as they are the one who makes the material readily available to the user.
You can't protest the loss of your constitutional rights after you lose that 1st Amendment right...
virtualization is great (in theory), but will MS be offering write support for it's archaic and flawed NTFS without sacrificing transfer speed? What about ReiserFS and ext3FS support? Instead of converting completely to Linux, companies will pay for the Windows license, use whatever they want inside the shell, and the information therein is (presumably) accessible to Windows users. I'm going to venture a guess and say that MS is performing triage, advertising software (which VMware already sells) that will help your company have a smooth transition into Linux. In the past, VMware had trouble with kernel upgrades, which will likely be the case with MS as well. In the end, why switch to an OS where you don't have to worry about adware/spyware utilities that suck up system resources, an idle process that steals resources, or patches that leave you with your pants down? You can run it from inside the OS that gives you that warm, fuzzy feeling and has that familiar loading chime.
In my opinion, Dell has sacrificed manufacturing quality and support for greater profit margins. The cost-outs of Indian tech support and price deals from Intel seem great on paper, but you can put a lot on paper that doesn't work in reality. It doesn't help that average consumer is beginning to realize that clock speed can be deceiving. AMD has been successful because of a combination of improving old designs (recycling technology) and innovative designs for new processors. If Intel could do the same with their cores, we probably wouldn't have an article to write about.
Obviously, my point has been overlooked. What I am trying to say is: Ubuntu has failed to differentiate itself from any other distro. People know there are a plethora of distributions out there, but those distributions completely fail to state their most basic purpose.
But there is no real reason for them to. I use Ubuntu because, for me, Ubuntu gives me the most of what I want and use with the minumum of what I dislike.
If you're running Red Hat because of the Oracle support, then Ubuntu isn't a good choice for you... yet.
It all comes down to individual choices based on their desires and dislikes.
How is your average convert going to make these choices, without any real information to guide them? You might talk about your likes and dislikes, but that is because you know about other distributions. New users aren't going to install 5 distros just to figure out which one they like. They're going to go with one, and probably stick with it whether they love it or hate it, because they don't know any better. They need functionality, and many distro sites are devoid of any such information. Their own website skims over what most intelligent users would find to be the most vital information, instead focusing on features that many users could install third-party or easily hack-together with a little googling. I'm a sucker for pain and suffering, so I use Gentoo. Everyone knows (or thinks) its a pain-in-the-ass to build, but runs like a dream once you actually have a functioning kernel and don't do anything stupid. Portage is sweet, I can use virtually any FS I like, there's experimental support for lots of crazy stuff... Why can't there be a little page like this for every distro? Otherwise, the only difference between your distro and the other guy's is that it has a caramel-colored theme and a different name.
When did techies decide that the GUI was the most important aspect of an OS? What keeps us from identifying the benefits of the 2.6.15-r6 kernel (such as SATA RAID support)? We need to stop identifying the pecking-order by how slick an interface looks. I'm sure some people are tingling with anticipation that they'll have "caramel colored theme", but it would be more useful to detail the benefits of switching. Even on the Ubuntu site, the seem to be more focused on a Graphical Shutdown for a "more professional and user friendly feel overall". If you're trying to reinvent Windows, go right ahead. If you want a streamlined, efficient, and powerful OS that will appeal to converts and linux zealots alike, start pushing something other than Gnome's 'Windows XP feel'. Those of us that know linux know there are many GUIs out there for our enjoyment, and regurgitating old news about an interface that is independent of your distro doesn't pique my interest. People need something to differentiate Ubuntu from every other distro out there. I can put Gnome on my linux box, but that doesn't make Gentoo into Ubuntu. Let people know why they should opt for Ubuntu instead of RedHat or YellowDog...
The way current copy protection works on DVDs is actually quite simple. While the DVD is burning, bad sectors of data are written to the disc. Your computer attempts to read those bad sectors and freaks-out, thus preventing you from watching the DVD on your computer. Conventional DVD players just skip the bad sectors and continue reading from the disc. Burning the data to DVD would work exactly the same as it currently does, except you would actually be writing small bad sectors into the DVD, preventing you from copying that DVD. Therefore, the only protection needed would be some sort of DRM or encryption for the downloaded data so that users can only burn 1 DVD (using some sort of proprietary software, possibly), and can't send the download to others. Of course, you can/i? circumvent all of this by using transcode or analog video streaming... but most people aren't going to go through this trouble for their porn. The porn industry has been successful because they know people will pirate their products, but they aren't necessarily looking to collect the profit that is 'rightfully theirs', they're looking to make a certain amount or percentage of profit per video they film. If you make back even 10 times what you spent to film, what's the point of spending more money to squeeze another 5% profit out of the pirates?
I think it would be premature to say that either Blu-Ray or HD-DVD is going to be a major player in the market. When the PS2 was released, DVD technology was readily available, and DVDs were a vast improvement over VHS without an exorbitant price difference in media. Both Blu-Ray and HD-DVD seem to be targeted toward the high-tech high-dollar crowd. Buying a new TV is a likely scenario for anyone trailblazing into this new media, and very few people might be willing to do that when they bought a HDTV set a only few years ago. Also, if the PS2 is any indicator of Sony's attention to media detail, the blu-ray player in the PS3 will be a poor substitute for a real Blu-Ray player. If either of the two technologies are to catch-on to the mainstream, either players and media will have to be competetively priced with current DVD technology, or many people will be buying new television sets. Both of these options seem to coincide with either technology taking many years to become dominant, which is paradodical, considering that you need a large portion of people to adopt a technology before it becomes dominant. Maybe companies such as LG will save us the hastle with the creation of a joint Blu-Ray/HD-DVD player.
It confuses (but does not surprise) me that the FCC has turned into what it is today. 25 years ago, the FCC was there to allow an equal opportunity for all voices to be heard. They promoted diversified holdings of news publications and broadcasting stations. Most of this media is now concentrated in the hands of 7 or so major companies. Who would have though that having a multitude of voices heard would mean the revealing of scandal, criticism of the government, and questioning of special interests. If the FCC is so concerned with keeping the airwaves clean for the populous, they could start by revoking Pat Robertson's non-profit status for the Christian Broadcasting Network. The personal views of an individual shouldn't influence the job they are trusted and expected to perform. If they have a conflict of interest, they should resign. DRM is a fact, and its future will be determined by the companies who implement it and the users who will accept it. In the mean time, our friends at the FCC should realize that citizens don't pay taxes with the intention of it being used for them to shoot-the-$hit about DRM.
The reason people are snubbed on the help channels isn't simply because they haven't RTFM. If you know NOTHING about what you were trying to do, then you don't know enough to ask the right questions. You learn through trial and error. *I will use Gentoo as an example of a steep learning curve for MS junkies* Whereas some distros (mandrake, ubuntu, or most any frontend install) coddle the user with a simple and effective interface, the only way to learn how to do a stage 1 install of gentoo is to screw-up a few times and read the manual word-for-word. Former windows users (such as myself) are pre-conditioned to skim through 'help' for the information we need. If you do that with the gentoo handbook, just entering lines of code, you're gonna break something. Most linux gurus take the POV that if you don't know how to use it, you shouldn't be using it. Users take issue with that because they want to use a program or tool, when in reality they might be better off using something more simple or avoid it altogether. We expect others to RTFM, try it, break it, google it, and ask their friends before bothering us because they'll get more out of finding the solution than they would if they were handed the solution.
Regardless of the dangers inherent in driving while using a cell phone, the law doesn't seem to be realistically enforceable. Is a cop going to pull-up beside my car on the highway and check to see whether I have a cell phone glued to my ear? It seems to me that this is just another way for politicans to piss away tax dollars to pass 'feel-good' legislation which does absolutely nothing for the state.
It's like wearing seatbelts. Yes, it's a good idea to follow the law, but the only way someone is going to know is if there's a checkpoint (in which case, buckle your seatbelt while you're waiting in line), or you pull a Superman through your front windshield. Regardless of the risks of not following a law, some people are going to disobey it. In the case of cell phones, use while driving is a risk to the user and also those driving nearby, but individual responsibility (not a useless law) is what determines whether a person chooses to drive while on the phone.
I think this boils-down to the issue of cost vs effectiveness. It may be a great and novel technology that we're developing, but sometimes it's a lot cheaper to just let the vehicle be destroyed (not that I think we should sacrifice our soldiers). If we could prevent all deaths (not injuries) of soldiers by equipping them with a suit that costs $10 million, (and with 2,000 dead in Iraq) that would cost $20 billion. At what point does it become absurd to protect a target? (Excluding the intangibles of human worth)
I understand the problems with updating servers that you point-out. To compare to Linux: you've got your portage tree updates. You don't have to sync every single day and do world updates, but you can if you want. You have options! With this method, you could select which patches you want to implement on a case-by-case basis. When I was working IT a few years back, we NEVER installed Windows Service Packs because of all the known issues with them. If you could break them up into individual patches, you could test them in a contained environment to see what played well with your system and what didn't, then implement your own 'service packs' based on your department's needs/preferences. MS would be smart to realize that they are beginning to make a product that is too large and diverse for them to maintain within a reasonable time frame, and that other groups will eventually capitalize on this by creating their own patches (IE 7, for example). If they would consider moving from their set monthly update scheme, more companies might be willing to upgrade their PCs (from 2000 to XP, let's say). No matter how functional, diverse, or inventive your product is, it isn't worth a penny if you can't fix it when it breaks.
Slashdot Mirror
I am willing to concede that Gentoo is not the easiest Linux build to install. The last time I attempted to use a LiveCD frontend install, the frontend kept screwing-up on me [because I had failed to do an md5checksum on the file]. Upon [partially] realizing this, I went for a command-line install, which I screwed up a few times before getting it right. All of this was because I thought I could just type whatever was in the manual, with no regard for the comments and tips written with them. THAT is how you screw-up a Gentoo install. What users (especially the author) need to understand is that Gentoo is not meant to be user-friendly. It is meant to be functional and insanely customizable. The way it is set-up now, you install a stage 3 tarball and bootstrap backward to get your customization options. You can complain all day and night about how it takes forever to compile, and that by the time you emerge one package in portage, you have to emerge another; It's all pointless bitching and moaning. Problems come when people start messing with .config files and emerging unstable programs because they don't know any better. I have 4 different kernel versions for my desktop, and I could use each one of them without ever having any difficulties in my work. There is no need to "emerge -uDNav world" every day... it is a conscious decision to irritate the hell out of yourself. If I can run 2.6.14-r3 without any problems, you can go without using portage every day. If you want user-friendly, install Windows; It'll manage your virtual RAM for you, and practically do everything except run your anti-virus program!
shows that 83% of all statistics are made-up on the spot
Actually, there is no presumption of privacy without protecting yourself. Lets say that you don't have a fence around your yard; whatever happens to persons in that yard is therefore your responsibility, because there is no restriction to trespassing. If the person destroys your property, they are liable. Conversely, if they slip on your front doorstep and break their neck, you are liable because they are technically not trespassing. No harm, no foul on either party. Why should computer systems be any different? If you make the mistake or choice not to protect your system from user-level access and harm, then you are responsible for any breach of security provided that the user does not destroy any of the information stored. However, the real issue is revealing national secrets (supposedly). Because the federal government has been caught with their pants down, they have to make a good show to cover-up their incompetence. He would be prosecuted similarly in the UK, and it is simply a show of good-faith toward the US to let him be prosecuted there.
It's all in the title of the article... The white blood cells "recognize specific patterns on the cancer cell surface", and flag/attack them as they would any other foreign body. Biology wasn't my strong-suit either, but I would venture a guess that by knowing what sort of mechanism would lead to the white blood cells identifying cancerous/precancerous cells as a risk, the response could be adapted to work similarly (if not identically) in humans. Cancer is not a by-product of evolution, it is a result of malfunctioning cells which replicate uncontrollably. This is generally not a product of 'evolution' as you and I would think of it, but by some sort of damage to the cell which caused it to malfunction. It isn't so much a "death trigger" as replicating without purpose; when you no longer need skin cells at a certain location, and some mutated cell keeps replicating malfunctioning cells, you've got cancer. If your immune system cannot recognize something as a threat, it cannot respond to it, which appears to be the current predicament with cancer in humans.
Temporary Solution . Your comments are, once again, a wonderful example of avoiding the actual problem we face. Cars designed for ethanol blends will work fine, but that is because they are made of (more expensive) corrosion-resistant parts. Damage will still be done when sediments are dissolved/stripped-off from the gas tank's interior during the change to an ethanol blend. It doesn't get much more efficient than riding your bike. Who knows... you might even get a tan.
As much as this seems like a cool idea, the article fails to back it up with any rational explanation for a 3D web. The only feasible use of 3D would be interactivity, therefore drastically limiting the consumer base. To most, the internet is a tool; A means of communication. Adding a third dimension to many aspects would only serve to exponentially increase the amount of information transferred and stored to maintain such an environment, while adding a new depth (pun intended) to already interactive applications which may or many not benefit from such a change. As much as the ASF may think 3D will revolutionize the way people communicate via the internet, it will likely only apply to a select few (not unlike the "august group" from the article).
but I'm not sure that ethanol is the solution. It is a short-term fix for a long-term problem. Removing the tariff on ethanol made with sugar is sensible, because it produces more energy per unit during combustion. Gasoline is corrosive, as is ethanol. Therefore, by putting it in a car engine, we are shortening the life-span of the car's engine. It would make a great deal of sense to have a more energy-efficient fuel in that car so that you get more 'bang for your buck'. I think what really needs to be addressed in the government, though, is the future of transportation/fuel sources in america. This isn't a battle over obscene profits for oil companies or getting a tariff removed, it's the realization that our fuel source for the past 100 years or so is not unlimited, and that the countries that hold large reserves of oil can (and will) leverage their position against us. Political grand-standing has focused most americans on ineffective issues, and it will likely be left to the states. Recognize that this problem will not ultimately be solved by saving 53 cents-per-gallon on ethanol, but by finding efficient alternative fuel sources and having the public embrace the change.
It strikes me as odd that we have a government agency devoted solely to pay other people to make their own sci-fi wet-dreams become reality. From what I've read in the news, there is nothing new or innovative about DARPA. It manages and directs selected basic and applied research and development projects. So... you pay other people to make the stuff you saw in Spiderman 2. I think that such projects create a great opportunity for colleges and universities, but I don't really understand the principle of "a complete acceptance of failure if the payoff of success [is] high enough" to use insects to do our spying for us. DARPA was created to keep the U.S. on the cutting-edge of technology, but they appear to be off the deep-end of technology instead.
Black is actually the absorption of all colors in the visible spectrum, while white is the reflection. The opposite rules are in effect for pastel color mixtures (e.g. crayons). I believe the problem would lie in not distorting the space behind the "cloaked" object relative to the observer. Light would simply have a zero-angle refraction off the surface.From the theoretical description, I think that the Predator movies would be a somewhat accurate representation of how the technology would ideally work. From the article, it appears that it would only work in specific lighting conditions, i.e. basic backgrounds. If you're in a gray room looking at something "cloaked" by the superlens, you actually see the light from the rest of the room, while likely being able to detect the cloaked object by positioning it at such an angle that the light refracts differently at some point behind the object. In my non-expert opinion, the only way to truly hide the object from the observer would be to have some sort of system for detecting where the observer is looking, and having the superlens absorb the light in the direct center of the observer's view, while refracting all light around it to represent the backdrop it visually blocks. No Romulan cloaking devices any time soon, but it might be useful as a sort of camouflage...
I believe the point they are trying to make is that Microsoft is an unfair competitor because it is setting the default to another business within the corporation. The browser automatically brings you to another source of revinue for the same company who gives you IE. Mozilla and Google are completely independent companies, therefore Google pays to be the default search engine on Firefox. This is the same basic reason AT&T was broken-up, except AT&T was installing 3rd party equipment. Microsoft on whole is not a natural monopoly. Whereas they hold an (arguably) natural monopoly on the OS market, they also hold a diverse array of other business groups. Would you prefer a default Xbox360 wallpaper on start-up?
virtualization is great (in theory), but will MS be offering write support for it's archaic and flawed NTFS without sacrificing transfer speed? What about ReiserFS and ext3FS support? Instead of converting completely to Linux, companies will pay for the Windows license, use whatever they want inside the shell, and the information therein is (presumably) accessible to Windows users. I'm going to venture a guess and say that MS is performing triage, advertising software (which VMware already sells) that will help your company have a smooth transition into Linux. In the past, VMware had trouble with kernel upgrades, which will likely be the case with MS as well. In the end, why switch to an OS where you don't have to worry about adware/spyware utilities that suck up system resources, an idle process that steals resources, or patches that leave you with your pants down? You can run it from inside the OS that gives you that warm, fuzzy feeling and has that familiar loading chime.
In my opinion, Dell has sacrificed manufacturing quality and support for greater profit margins. The cost-outs of Indian tech support and price deals from Intel seem great on paper, but you can put a lot on paper that doesn't work in reality. It doesn't help that average consumer is beginning to realize that clock speed can be deceiving. AMD has been successful because of a combination of improving old designs (recycling technology) and innovative designs for new processors. If Intel could do the same with their cores, we probably wouldn't have an article to write about.
I'll tell you when your rights are being violated.
When did techies decide that the GUI was the most important aspect of an OS? What keeps us from identifying the benefits of the 2.6.15-r6 kernel (such as SATA RAID support)? We need to stop identifying the pecking-order by how slick an interface looks. I'm sure some people are tingling with anticipation that they'll have "caramel colored theme", but it would be more useful to detail the benefits of switching. Even on the Ubuntu site, the seem to be more focused on a Graphical Shutdown for a "more professional and user friendly feel overall". If you're trying to reinvent Windows, go right ahead. If you want a streamlined, efficient, and powerful OS that will appeal to converts and linux zealots alike, start pushing something other than Gnome's 'Windows XP feel'. Those of us that know linux know there are many GUIs out there for our enjoyment, and regurgitating old news about an interface that is independent of your distro doesn't pique my interest. People need something to differentiate Ubuntu from every other distro out there. I can put Gnome on my linux box, but that doesn't make Gentoo into Ubuntu. Let people know why they should opt for Ubuntu instead of RedHat or YellowDog...
The way current copy protection works on DVDs is actually quite simple. While the DVD is burning, bad sectors of data are written to the disc. Your computer attempts to read those bad sectors and freaks-out, thus preventing you from watching the DVD on your computer. Conventional DVD players just skip the bad sectors and continue reading from the disc. Burning the data to DVD would work exactly the same as it currently does, except you would actually be writing small bad sectors into the DVD, preventing you from copying that DVD. Therefore, the only protection needed would be some sort of DRM or encryption for the downloaded data so that users can only burn 1 DVD (using some sort of proprietary software, possibly), and can't send the download to others. Of course, you can/i? circumvent all of this by using transcode or analog video streaming... but most people aren't going to go through this trouble for their porn. The porn industry has been successful because they know people will pirate their products, but they aren't necessarily looking to collect the profit that is 'rightfully theirs', they're looking to make a certain amount or percentage of profit per video they film. If you make back even 10 times what you spent to film, what's the point of spending more money to squeeze another 5% profit out of the pirates?
I think it would be premature to say that either Blu-Ray or HD-DVD is going to be a major player in the market. When the PS2 was released, DVD technology was readily available, and DVDs were a vast improvement over VHS without an exorbitant price difference in media. Both Blu-Ray and HD-DVD seem to be targeted toward the high-tech high-dollar crowd. Buying a new TV is a likely scenario for anyone trailblazing into this new media, and very few people might be willing to do that when they bought a HDTV set a only few years ago. Also, if the PS2 is any indicator of Sony's attention to media detail, the blu-ray player in the PS3 will be a poor substitute for a real Blu-Ray player. If either of the two technologies are to catch-on to the mainstream, either players and media will have to be competetively priced with current DVD technology, or many people will be buying new television sets. Both of these options seem to coincide with either technology taking many years to become dominant, which is paradodical, considering that you need a large portion of people to adopt a technology before it becomes dominant. Maybe companies such as LG will save us the hastle with the creation of a joint Blu-Ray/HD-DVD player.
It confuses (but does not surprise) me that the FCC has turned into what it is today. 25 years ago, the FCC was there to allow an equal opportunity for all voices to be heard. They promoted diversified holdings of news publications and broadcasting stations. Most of this media is now concentrated in the hands of 7 or so major companies. Who would have though that having a multitude of voices heard would mean the revealing of scandal, criticism of the government, and questioning of special interests. If the FCC is so concerned with keeping the airwaves clean for the populous, they could start by revoking Pat Robertson's non-profit status for the Christian Broadcasting Network. The personal views of an individual shouldn't influence the job they are trusted and expected to perform. If they have a conflict of interest, they should resign. DRM is a fact, and its future will be determined by the companies who implement it and the users who will accept it. In the mean time, our friends at the FCC should realize that citizens don't pay taxes with the intention of it being used for them to shoot-the-$hit about DRM.
The reason people are snubbed on the help channels isn't simply because they haven't RTFM. If you know NOTHING about what you were trying to do, then you don't know enough to ask the right questions. You learn through trial and error. *I will use Gentoo as an example of a steep learning curve for MS junkies* Whereas some distros (mandrake, ubuntu, or most any frontend install) coddle the user with a simple and effective interface, the only way to learn how to do a stage 1 install of gentoo is to screw-up a few times and read the manual word-for-word. Former windows users (such as myself) are pre-conditioned to skim through 'help' for the information we need. If you do that with the gentoo handbook, just entering lines of code, you're gonna break something. Most linux gurus take the POV that if you don't know how to use it, you shouldn't be using it. Users take issue with that because they want to use a program or tool, when in reality they might be better off using something more simple or avoid it altogether. We expect others to RTFM, try it, break it, google it, and ask their friends before bothering us because they'll get more out of finding the solution than they would if they were handed the solution.
Regardless of the dangers inherent in driving while using a cell phone, the law doesn't seem to be realistically enforceable. Is a cop going to pull-up beside my car on the highway and check to see whether I have a cell phone glued to my ear? It seems to me that this is just another way for politicans to piss away tax dollars to pass 'feel-good' legislation which does absolutely nothing for the state. It's like wearing seatbelts. Yes, it's a good idea to follow the law, but the only way someone is going to know is if there's a checkpoint (in which case, buckle your seatbelt while you're waiting in line), or you pull a Superman through your front windshield. Regardless of the risks of not following a law, some people are going to disobey it. In the case of cell phones, use while driving is a risk to the user and also those driving nearby, but individual responsibility (not a useless law) is what determines whether a person chooses to drive while on the phone.
I think this boils-down to the issue of cost vs effectiveness. It may be a great and novel technology that we're developing, but sometimes it's a lot cheaper to just let the vehicle be destroyed (not that I think we should sacrifice our soldiers). If we could prevent all deaths (not injuries) of soldiers by equipping them with a suit that costs $10 million, (and with 2,000 dead in Iraq) that would cost $20 billion. At what point does it become absurd to protect a target? (Excluding the intangibles of human worth)
I understand the problems with updating servers that you point-out. To compare to Linux: you've got your portage tree updates. You don't have to sync every single day and do world updates, but you can if you want. You have options! With this method, you could select which patches you want to implement on a case-by-case basis. When I was working IT a few years back, we NEVER installed Windows Service Packs because of all the known issues with them. If you could break them up into individual patches, you could test them in a contained environment to see what played well with your system and what didn't, then implement your own 'service packs' based on your department's needs/preferences. MS would be smart to realize that they are beginning to make a product that is too large and diverse for them to maintain within a reasonable time frame, and that other groups will eventually capitalize on this by creating their own patches (IE 7, for example). If they would consider moving from their set monthly update scheme, more companies might be willing to upgrade their PCs (from 2000 to XP, let's say). No matter how functional, diverse, or inventive your product is, it isn't worth a penny if you can't fix it when it breaks.