Not too long ago I spent a lot of time trying to pick out a track on iTunes. After quite a lot of my time invested, I went to buy the track I picked out, only to find that the only way to get it was to buy the whole album.
I can see artists holding out for other reasons, but am I missing something on the "whole" album thing? I mean, if they want people to purchase the whole album, it must be just a bit in a database that Apple needs to flip...and boom, you are screwed if, like me, you just want that one track.
I find it odd that all was quite on the western front, and all of the sudden the domestic wire tapping issue & AT&T blows up in their faces...and right in the middle of it they bust a bunch of Jamaican pot heads in Florida for being terrorist. And then all of the sudden, they start busting a few more "cells," and they always tag on, "and they were caught by monitoring the Internet or by wire tapping."...as if it is some sort of subtle advertising campaign. I mean, really, in any other type of incident, they probably wouldn't even release how they were caught for months, if at all (yeah, why not tip off the terrorist to quit using the phones or the Net). But it is almost as if we are watching some infomericals from some PR firm, not to scare the "terrorist," but to condition us and make us pro-monitoring.
That all was quite on the western front, and all of the sudden the domestic wire tapping issue & AT&T blows up in their faces...and right in the middle of it they bust a bunch of Jamaican pot heads in Florida for being terrorist. And then all of the sudden, they start busting a few more "cells," and they always tag on, "and they were caught by monitoring the Internet or by wire tapping."...as if it is some sort of subtle advertising campaign. I mean, really, in any other type of incident, they probably wouldn't even release how they were caught for months, if at all (yeah, why not tip off the terrorist to quit using the Net). But it is almost as if we are watching some infomericals from some PR firm, not to scare the "terrorist," but to condition us.
If that is the case, then it would have been about 28% if Carter was still in office.
Ummm, but wikipedia shows this:
-=-=
During the Reagan presidency, the inflation rate dropped from 13.6% in 1980 (President Carter's final year in office) to 4.1% by 1988
-=-=-
Now Reagan still screwed us, saying he wanted less government, but creating a huge deficit. It is just that, the defecit comes out of our children's pockets, so nobody felt it at the time. Taking money out of your pocket = BAD. Taking money out of your children's pocket = GOOD.
It's the trust and accountability we have in companies that keeps this from happening in general.
Yeah, I know someone who swears that there is a camera in the remote sensor on cable TV boxes.
While I figure it would take all of a day before someone figures out that the boxes have a camera in them, my main argument to him rested in the fact of what would happen to a company if it turned out every cable box they made had a camera in it.
You know what, I think it goes beyond just having a bankrupt company and stock worth less than the price of some SCO stock (if that's mathmatically possible)...I think people would hunt down the upper management of the company and kill them.
I'm old enough to remember how, under Carter, interest rates were sky high (and at the time, while I don't remember it, the deficit was also fairly low).
When Reagan came in, he really got interest rates down, but he started borrowing money like crazy and the deficit went way, way, way up.
At the time, everyone except the people living off of interest were very happy with Reagan because of the drop of double-digit interest rates into the single digits.
But the deal is, because nobody felt the borrowing at the time, it seemed like he was fantastic when compared to Carter (and he actually was in some areas, but not this one!).
People are so short sighted that most can't see past tomorrow.
I guess we should eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow our children, their children, and our children's children are going to be freaking paying for it!
Myself, I usually vote Libertarian when I have the choice, because for some reason I, as well as a handful of other people, have the ability to see that both the Republicans and the Democrats are screwing us over.
at work...
It is a variation of something like a drinking game only it doesn't involve drinking.
It works like this. Every time you hear someone mention the words "mailbox money" in the same sentence as wireless Internet, you must immediately pull out a knife and jab them in the stomach. Then, as fast as you can, you must find the closest available dumpster and throw the body in it.
And hey, it is actually a lot more fun that it sounds.
(To stay somewhat on topic, at least the people in India aren't going to be trying to make a profit off of what they are doing).
Transporter_ii
I wish them luck. In my opinion, using wi-fi for this application is really pushing a technology way past what it was actually designed for. There are so many points of failure and a lot of equipment that comes so close to working perfectly...yet fails for unknown reasons. There are issues with bandwidth and interference from the limited channels (maybe over there with no FCC, they can one-up us on that one?).
I was talking to someone who has also deployed wi-fi just the other day. His honest opinion of his equipment was that the companies selling wi-fi seem to be more interested in selling a lot of equipment than they were in spending the time to develop solid equipment that actually worked and worked solidly.
Of course, I smell MESH networks, and nothing sounds cooler than a wireless MESH network...but in my experience, there is also a lot hype there that also falls flat when you actually try and deploy it.
Of course, some of our problems have resulted in some crappy boards we were sold, but even if they were working 100%, I'm still less than impressed with wi-fi on a large scale like that.
http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0615,ferguson,728
Since 2003, the NYPD has been filming protesters at political demonstrations, regardless of whether anything illegal's going on. City lawyers were in court last month defending the practice, arguing that what happens in public view is fair game.
But police evidently aren't so keen on surveillance when the cameras are turned on them--particularly when those cameras show them abusing free-street-parking privileges.
Transporter_ii
wikipedia: A police state is a state in which the government maintains strict control over the population, particularly through suspension of civil rights...
One of the things I really appreciate about the founders is that they gave us equality under the law (if we could keep it, and apparently we couldn't).
One of my personal definitions of a police state, is when the police can do things that are illegal for "normal people" to do...because they are above the law.
Well, they want to photograph us, video tape us, monitor our every move, but they however, not only expect their privacy...they freaking get it by force of law and a jack boot for those that still don't "get it."
Since 2003, the NYPD has been filming protesters at political demonstrations, regardless of whether anything illegal's going on. City lawyers were in court last month defending the practice, arguing that what happens in public view is fair game.
But police evidently aren't so keen on surveillance when the cameras are turned on them--particularly when those cameras show them abusing free-street-parking privileges.
when people think they are above the law. Bush certainly thinks he is above the law, but you have to be careful how you point that out, or you get modded down around here.
Seriously, Bush signs bills into law, but then he goes to his little books and writes in a little exemption to the law for himself, as He sees fit. It doesn't matter what Congress or the courts say, Bush has a little book to write in, and he isn't afraid to do so. He has shown little regard for the rule of law, but he can get away with it because he has the support of all that is holy and moral in America, the churches.
As the police state writes laws that put themselves above the law, I think you are right, they looked straight to the top for their inspiration.
For example, they want to monitor and video tape our every move, but they are above the law:
Watching the Detectives The NYPD wants to take your picture--but beware of turning your lens on the cops by Sarah Ferguson April 10th, 2006 5:30 PM
NYPD on filming protests: No harm, no foul by Jarrett Murphy
Since 2003, the NYPD has been filming protesters at political demonstrations, regardless of whether anything illegal's going on. City lawyers were in court last month defending the practice, arguing that what happens in public view is fair game.
But police evidently aren't so keen on surveillance when the cameras are turned on them--particularly when those cameras show them abusing free-street-parking privileges....
wikipedia: A police state is a state in which the government maintains strict control over the population, particularly through suspension of civil rights...
One of the things I really appreciate about the founders is that they gave us equality under the law (if we could keep it, and apparently we couldn't).
One of my personal definitions of a police state, is when the police can do things that are illegal for "normal people" to do...because they are above the law.
Well, they want to photograph us, video tape us, monitor our every move, but they however, not only expect their privacy...they freaking get it by force of law and a jack boot for those that still don't "get it."
Since 2003, the NYPD has been filming protesters at political demonstrations, regardless of whether anything illegal's going on. City lawyers were in court last month defending the practice, arguing that what happens in public view is fair game.
But police evidently aren't so keen on surveillance when the cameras are turned on them--particularly when those cameras show them abusing free-street-parking privileges.
One time I went into a computer store with my brother. I was checking out a computer, and the screen was laid out in a manner that made it look like a touch screen monitor. Stupid me, I was sitting their tapping the screen trying to make it load an app. After a brief moment, I'm thinking that this touch screen is broken, and then it hit me that it wasn't a touch screen at all. At this point, I'm looking around, praying that nobody saw me sitting there poking the screen like a freaking idiot.
Another true story. A person I work with is a degreed mechanical engineer, and in school he had to help design a rocket. We were trying to do something and he was wondering aloud why he couldn't get a screw to start with a cordless drill. I was looking at the situation from the opposite side at the moment, but I could see that the drill was in reverse, and I was thinking to myself, "well, I might not be a rocket scientist, but I know why that freaking screw isn't starting."
Yes, the article is strange...but perhaps the strangest of all is that it is coming out of Russia. It is like a piece from the Onion that got picked up by Russia or something. Put personally, I thought it was a strange mix of fact and fantasy that made for a really good read.
In effect, Bush is asserting the same powers seized by Adolf Hitler in 1933. His Federalist Society apologists and Department of Justice appointees claim that President Bush has the same power to interpret the Constitution as the Supreme Court. An Alito Court is likely to agree with this false claim.
Bush Justice Department official and Berkeley law professor John Yoo argues that no law can restrict the President in his role as Commander In Chief. Thus, once the president is at war - even a vague, open-ended "war on terror" - Bush's Justice Department says the president is free to undertake any action in pursuit of war, including the torture of children and the indefinite detention of American citizens.
In a further bid this week to tighten their grip upon the United States, military leaders have announced that their nation's judges no longer have oversight over their actions, and as we can read as reported by the Reuters News Service in their article titled "US Says Gov't, Not Courts, Should Judge Spy Secrets," and which says:
"The United States government, not any court, is the best judge of whether to keep programs such as its controversial effort to eavesdrop on citizens a secret, an assistant attorney general said on Wednesday. Peter Keisler, an assistant attorney general, and other U. S. officials made the claim in the latest filing to a lawsuit alleging that telecommunications firm AT&T illegally allowed the government to monitor phone conversations and e-mail communications.
"In cases such as this one, where the national security of the United States is implicated, it is well established that the executive branch is best positioned to judge the potential effects of disclosure of sensitive information on the nation's security, they wrote in a filing on Wednesday evening."
I in no way think that google should block sites, but it would be nice if they would scan sites witht this -- especially for sites that install stuff through holes in IE -- and put a little icon on search results that return an infected site. That way you could at least have a heads up before you clicked on a search result about what you were getting into. It would also be great for Firefox, when everyone gets to see how many sites are exploiting IE.
Interestingly, I have been involed in a 802.11 WISP that uses LocustWorld as its management software...and which was chosen pretty much on a whim. Now I have seen good and bad things about LocustWorld MESH software, but the main things that worry me are, 1) LocustWorld is owned by a small group of people, what happens if they close up shop or sell out? 2) They collect a lot of data...they pretty much log every site one of our customers visits, but we never made any type of agreement with them how that data gets used...not a thing.
LocustWorld is not Open Source, at least not now, even though I think they do have a free version. Man, I would just hate to have a loaded up system full of customers and one day find ourselves dead in the water.
Microsoft is in a tough position. The Windows line has matured to the point that it does most everything people need it to do. Heck, on an article posted just a little while ago here, people are jumping on MS for not supporting Win98 any more...which came out how long ago???
The thing is, Windows 98 still does just about everything the average joe needs it to do, after all these years. What makes people upgrade is getting a new computer that comes with a new operating system and/or trying to get better security.
Now, if Microsoft actually put out a stable and secure operating system, how much money would it cost them from the people who decide to stick with what they have because it does everything they need it to do???
And the real kicker is, now that they have improved the security of their software, at least a little since the Win98 days, now we are looking at expiring licenses, forced upgrades...and DRM. Why? Because when the OS is mature and nobody is upgrading, that is where the money will be.
I work in a 2-way radio business radio shop that uses a mixture of old DOS and Windows software. All of our programming computers, desktop and laptops use Windows 98 SE because everything after that had trouble with using the serial ports of out DOS (Now, on Win98, almost everything works. On anything past that, 90% of the software works, but you will run into something here or there that refuses to read or write to a radio). We do have some Windows 2000 programming laptops, but the people who take them know that DOS programs may or may not work.
I would love nothing more to swap each Win98 computer over to Linux, but you know how much of the radio programming software - Kenwood, Motorola, Icom, etc. -- will run on Linux? None.
Yeah, maybe we could use a free dos or gnu dos and WINE for some of the windows programs, but I'm sure some stuff wouldn't work. When we use Windows 98 SE, just about everything *just works*.
I work in a 2-way radio business radio shop. All of our programming computers use Windows 98 SE because everything after that had trouble with using the serial ports of out DOS (Now, on Win98, almost everything works. On anything past that, 90% of the software works, but you will run into something here or there that refuses to read or write to a radio).
I would love nothing more to swap each Win98 computer over to Linux, but you know how much of the radio programming software - Kenwood, Motorola, Icom, etc. -- will run on Linux? None.
I would bet that a fair amount of Win98 users still use it because they are in a situation similar to us, too. And you know how many of their critical apps run on Linux? Probably none, too.
No, in this case copyright law was in place to make sure the creator was properly compensated for each copy sold...and they were. And after a movie is purchased, the owners of said movie, should be able to do whatever the hell they want with it, including letting someone edit it for them.
Or, are you going to sit here on/. and tell everyone that we don't actually purchase the movie, we just get a viewing license?
I suppose you also think that MOD chips for game consoles are illegal, because, unlike what the rest of the world thinks, hardware isn't really yours after you purchase it, either.
Heck, I spend all of this money, and the things I buy aren't really mine!
If I want to buy something off of an auction, I would go to eBay and search for what I was looking for.
I can't stand going to Google and searching for something, only to have a bunch of auction spam pages come up in the top links... and what really sucks is that a lot of the auction spam is for stuff where the actual auctions have been over for quite some time.
Heck yeah, let Google ban eBay and bask in the glory as we all rejoice!
Slashdot Mirror
Not too long ago I spent a lot of time trying to pick out a track on iTunes. After quite a lot of my time invested, I went to buy the track I picked out, only to find that the only way to get it was to buy the whole album.
I can see artists holding out for other reasons, but am I missing something on the "whole" album thing? I mean, if they want people to purchase the whole album, it must be just a bit in a database that Apple needs to flip...and boom, you are screwed if, like me, you just want that one track.
Transporter_ii
I find it odd that all was quite on the western front, and all of the sudden the domestic wire tapping issue & AT&T blows up in their faces...and right in the middle of it they bust a bunch of Jamaican pot heads in Florida for being terrorist. And then all of the sudden, they start busting a few more "cells," and they always tag on, "and they were caught by monitoring the Internet or by wire tapping." ...as if it is some sort of subtle advertising campaign. I mean, really, in any other type of incident, they probably wouldn't even release how they were caught for months, if at all (yeah, why not tip off the terrorist to quit using the phones or the Net). But it is almost as if we are watching some infomericals from some PR firm, not to scare the "terrorist," but to condition us and make us pro-monitoring.
Transporter_ii
That all was quite on the western front, and all of the sudden the domestic wire tapping issue & AT&T blows up in their faces...and right in the middle of it they bust a bunch of Jamaican pot heads in Florida for being terrorist. And then all of the sudden, they start busting a few more "cells," and they always tag on, "and they were caught by monitoring the Internet or by wire tapping." ...as if it is some sort of subtle advertising campaign. I mean, really, in any other type of incident, they probably wouldn't even release how they were caught for months, if at all (yeah, why not tip off the terrorist to quit using the Net). But it is almost as if we are watching some infomericals from some PR firm, not to scare the "terrorist," but to condition us.
Transporter_ii
If that is the case, then it would have been about 28% if Carter was still in office.
Ummm, but wikipedia shows this:
-=-=
During the Reagan presidency, the inflation rate dropped from 13.6% in 1980 (President Carter's final year in office) to 4.1% by 1988
-=-=-
Now Reagan still screwed us, saying he wanted less government, but creating a huge deficit. It is just that, the defecit comes out of our children's pockets, so nobody felt it at the time. Taking money out of your pocket = BAD. Taking money out of your children's pocket = GOOD.
Transporter_ii
It's the trust and accountability we have in companies that keeps this from happening in general.
Yeah, I know someone who swears that there is a camera in the remote sensor on cable TV boxes.
While I figure it would take all of a day before someone figures out that the boxes have a camera in them, my main argument to him rested in the fact of what would happen to a company if it turned out every cable box they made had a camera in it.
You know what, I think it goes beyond just having a bankrupt company and stock worth less than the price of some SCO stock (if that's mathmatically possible)...I think people would hunt down the upper management of the company and kill them.
Of course, AT&T execs are still alive...
Transporter_ii
I'm old enough to remember how, under Carter, interest rates were sky high (and at the time, while I don't remember it, the deficit was also fairly low).
When Reagan came in, he really got interest rates down, but he started borrowing money like crazy and the deficit went way, way, way up.
At the time, everyone except the people living off of interest were very happy with Reagan because of the drop of double-digit interest rates into the single digits.
But the deal is, because nobody felt the borrowing at the time, it seemed like he was fantastic when compared to Carter (and he actually was in some areas, but not this one!).
People are so short sighted that most can't see past tomorrow.
I guess we should eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow our children, their children, and our children's children are going to be freaking paying for it!
Myself, I usually vote Libertarian when I have the choice, because for some reason I, as well as a handful of other people, have the ability to see that both the Republicans and the Democrats are screwing us over.
Transporter_ii
at work... It is a variation of something like a drinking game only it doesn't involve drinking. It works like this. Every time you hear someone mention the words "mailbox money" in the same sentence as wireless Internet, you must immediately pull out a knife and jab them in the stomach. Then, as fast as you can, you must find the closest available dumpster and throw the body in it. And hey, it is actually a lot more fun that it sounds. (To stay somewhat on topic, at least the people in India aren't going to be trying to make a profit off of what they are doing). Transporter_ii
I wish them luck. In my opinion, using wi-fi for this application is really pushing a technology way past what it was actually designed for. There are so many points of failure and a lot of equipment that comes so close to working perfectly...yet fails for unknown reasons. There are issues with bandwidth and interference from the limited channels (maybe over there with no FCC, they can one-up us on that one?).
I was talking to someone who has also deployed wi-fi just the other day. His honest opinion of his equipment was that the companies selling wi-fi seem to be more interested in selling a lot of equipment than they were in spending the time to develop solid equipment that actually worked and worked solidly.
Of course, I smell MESH networks, and nothing sounds cooler than a wireless MESH network...but in my experience, there is also a lot hype there that also falls flat when you actually try and deploy it.
Of course, some of our problems have resulted in some crappy boards we were sold, but even if they were working 100%, I'm still less than impressed with wi-fi on a large scale like that.
Transporter_ii
The link got all screwed up...sorry:
8 04,5.html
http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0615,ferguson,72
Transporter_ii
Link got mangeled, sorry:
8 04,5.html
http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0615,ferguson,72
Transporter_ii
http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0615,ferguson,728
Since 2003, the NYPD has been filming protesters at political demonstrations, regardless of whether anything illegal's going on. City lawyers were in court last month defending the practice, arguing that what happens in public view is fair game.
But police evidently aren't so keen on surveillance when the cameras are turned on them--particularly when those cameras show them abusing free-street-parking privileges.
Transporter_ii
wikipedia: A police state is a state in which the government maintains strict control over the population, particularly through suspension of civil rights...
8 04,5.html [villagevoice.com]
One of the things I really appreciate about the founders is that they gave us equality under the law (if we could keep it, and apparently we couldn't).
One of my personal definitions of a police state, is when the police can do things that are illegal for "normal people" to do...because they are above the law.
Well, they want to photograph us, video tape us, monitor our every move, but they however, not only expect their privacy...they freaking get it by force of law and a jack boot for those that still don't "get it."
Here is a perfect example:
http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0615,ferguson,72
Since 2003, the NYPD has been filming protesters at political demonstrations, regardless of whether anything illegal's going on. City lawyers were in court last month defending the practice, arguing that what happens in public view is fair game.
But police evidently aren't so keen on surveillance when the cameras are turned on them--particularly when those cameras show them abusing free-street-parking privileges.
Transporter_ii
when people think they are above the law. Bush certainly thinks he is above the law, but you have to be careful how you point that out, or you get modded down around here.
8 04,5.html
Seriously, Bush signs bills into law, but then he goes to his little books and writes in a little exemption to the law for himself, as He sees fit. It doesn't matter what Congress or the courts say, Bush has a little book to write in, and he isn't afraid to do so. He has shown little regard for the rule of law, but he can get away with it because he has the support of all that is holy and moral in America, the churches.
As the police state writes laws that put themselves above the law, I think you are right, they looked straight to the top for their inspiration.
For example, they want to monitor and video tape our every move, but they are above the law:
Watching the Detectives
The NYPD wants to take your picture--but beware of turning your lens on the cops by Sarah Ferguson April 10th, 2006 5:30 PM
http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0615,ferguson,72
NYPD on filming protests: No harm, no foul
by Jarrett Murphy
Since 2003, the NYPD has been filming protesters at political demonstrations, regardless of whether anything illegal's going on. City lawyers were in court last month defending the practice, arguing that what happens in public view is fair game.
But police evidently aren't so keen on surveillance when the cameras are turned on them--particularly when those cameras show them abusing free-street-parking privileges....
Transporter_ii
wikipedia: A police state is a state in which the government maintains strict control over the population, particularly through suspension of civil rights...
8 04,5.html
One of the things I really appreciate about the founders is that they gave us equality under the law (if we could keep it, and apparently we couldn't).
One of my personal definitions of a police state, is when the police can do things that are illegal for "normal people" to do...because they are above the law.
Well, they want to photograph us, video tape us, monitor our every move, but they however, not only expect their privacy...they freaking get it by force of law and a jack boot for those that still don't "get it."
Here is a perfect example:
http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0615,ferguson,72
Since 2003, the NYPD has been filming protesters at political demonstrations, regardless of whether anything illegal's going on. City lawyers were in court last month defending the practice, arguing that what happens in public view is fair game.
But police evidently aren't so keen on surveillance when the cameras are turned on them--particularly when those cameras show them abusing free-street-parking privileges.
Transporter_ii
One time I went into a computer store with my brother. I was checking out a computer, and the screen was laid out in a manner that made it look like a touch screen monitor. Stupid me, I was sitting their tapping the screen trying to make it load an app. After a brief moment, I'm thinking that this touch screen is broken, and then it hit me that it wasn't a touch screen at all. At this point, I'm looking around, praying that nobody saw me sitting there poking the screen like a freaking idiot.
Another true story. A person I work with is a degreed mechanical engineer, and in school he had to help design a rocket. We were trying to do something and he was wondering aloud why he couldn't get a screw to start with a cordless drill. I was looking at the situation from the opposite side at the moment, but I could see that the drill was in reverse, and I was thinking to myself, "well, I might not be a rocket scientist, but I know why that freaking screw isn't starting."
Transporter_ii
Well now, I think we all know one little submitter who is going to get a visit from Homeland Security tonight.
Transporter_ii
Yes, the article is strange...but perhaps the strangest of all is that it is coming out of Russia. It is like a piece from the Onion that got picked up by Russia or something. Put personally, I thought it was a strange mix of fact and fantasy that made for a really good read.
Transporter_ii
URL: http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/81616- crisis-0
In effect, Bush is asserting the same powers seized by Adolf Hitler in 1933. His Federalist Society apologists and Department of Justice appointees claim that President Bush has the same power to interpret the Constitution as the Supreme Court. An Alito Court is likely to agree with this false claim.
Bush Justice Department official and Berkeley law professor John Yoo argues that no law can restrict the President in his role as Commander In Chief. Thus, once the president is at war - even a vague, open-ended "war on terror" - Bush's Justice Department says the president is free to undertake any action in pursuit of war, including the torture of children and the indefinite detention of American citizens.
In a further bid this week to tighten their grip upon the United States, military leaders have announced that their nation's judges no longer have oversight over their actions, and as we can read as reported by the Reuters News Service in their article titled "US Says Gov't, Not Courts, Should Judge Spy Secrets," and which says:
"The United States government, not any court, is the best judge of whether to keep programs such as its controversial effort to eavesdrop on citizens a secret, an assistant attorney general said on Wednesday. Peter Keisler, an assistant attorney general, and other U. S. officials made the claim in the latest filing to a lawsuit alleging that telecommunications firm AT&T illegally allowed the government to monitor phone conversations and e-mail communications.
"In cases such as this one, where the national security of the United States is implicated, it is well established that the executive branch is best positioned to judge the potential effects of disclosure of sensitive information on the nation's security, they wrote in a filing on Wednesday evening."
I in no way think that google should block sites, but it would be nice if they would scan sites witht this -- especially for sites that install stuff through holes in IE -- and put a little icon on search results that return an infected site. That way you could at least have a heads up before you clicked on a search result about what you were getting into. It would also be great for Firefox, when everyone gets to see how many sites are exploiting IE.
Transporter_ii
Interestingly, I have been involed in a 802.11 WISP that uses LocustWorld as its management software...and which was chosen pretty much on a whim. Now I have seen good and bad things about LocustWorld MESH software, but the main things that worry me are, 1) LocustWorld is owned by a small group of people, what happens if they close up shop or sell out? 2) They collect a lot of data...they pretty much log every site one of our customers visits, but we never made any type of agreement with them how that data gets used...not a thing.
LocustWorld is not Open Source, at least not now, even though I think they do have a free version. Man, I would just hate to have a loaded up system full of customers and one day find ourselves dead in the water.
Transporter_ii
Microsoft is in a tough position. The Windows line has matured to the point that it does most everything people need it to do. Heck, on an article posted just a little while ago here, people are jumping on MS for not supporting Win98 any more...which came out how long ago???
The thing is, Windows 98 still does just about everything the average joe needs it to do, after all these years. What makes people upgrade is getting a new computer that comes with a new operating system and/or trying to get better security.
Now, if Microsoft actually put out a stable and secure operating system, how much money would it cost them from the people who decide to stick with what they have because it does everything they need it to do???
And the real kicker is, now that they have improved the security of their software, at least a little since the Win98 days, now we are looking at expiring licenses, forced upgrades...and DRM. Why? Because when the OS is mature and nobody is upgrading, that is where the money will be.
Transporter_ii
I work in a 2-way radio business radio shop that uses a mixture of old DOS and Windows software. All of our programming computers, desktop and laptops use Windows 98 SE because everything after that had trouble with using the serial ports of out DOS (Now, on Win98, almost everything works. On anything past that, 90% of the software works, but you will run into something here or there that refuses to read or write to a radio). We do have some Windows 2000 programming laptops, but the people who take them know that DOS programs may or may not work.
I would love nothing more to swap each Win98 computer over to Linux, but you know how much of the radio programming software - Kenwood, Motorola, Icom, etc. -- will run on Linux? None.
Yeah, maybe we could use a free dos or gnu dos and WINE for some of the windows programs, but I'm sure some stuff wouldn't work. When we use Windows 98 SE, just about everything *just works*.
Transporter_ii
I work in a 2-way radio business radio shop. All of our programming computers use Windows 98 SE because everything after that had trouble with using the serial ports of out DOS (Now, on Win98, almost everything works. On anything past that, 90% of the software works, but you will run into something here or there that refuses to read or write to a radio).
I would love nothing more to swap each Win98 computer over to Linux, but you know how much of the radio programming software - Kenwood, Motorola, Icom, etc. -- will run on Linux? None.
I would bet that a fair amount of Win98 users still use it because they are in a situation similar to us, too. And you know how many of their critical apps run on Linux? Probably none, too.
Transporter_ii
No, in this case copyright law was in place to make sure the creator was properly compensated for each copy sold...and they were. And after a movie is purchased, the owners of said movie, should be able to do whatever the hell they want with it, including letting someone edit it for them.
/. and tell everyone that we don't actually purchase the movie, we just get a viewing license?
Or, are you going to sit here on
I suppose you also think that MOD chips for game consoles are illegal, because, unlike what the rest of the world thinks, hardware isn't really yours after you purchase it, either.
Heck, I spend all of this money, and the things I buy aren't really mine!
Transporter_ii
If I want to buy something off of an auction, I would go to eBay and search for what I was looking for.
... and what really sucks is that a lot of the auction spam is for stuff where the actual auctions have been over for quite some time.
I can't stand going to Google and searching for something, only to have a bunch of auction spam pages come up in the top links
Heck yeah, let Google ban eBay and bask in the glory as we all rejoice!
Transporter_ii