As a technical and web infrastructure consultant, I take offense to that remark. Any financial institution worth it's money takes very serious care in web security. Nothing is bulletproof, but to say that myspace.com and usbank.com, for example, are equivalent is absolute nonsense.
Oh, and the stuff the poster above me said is true enough as well.
Except that real money is involved in Second Life. There's more to it than just a game -- when money can be made and lost, the stakes and consequences are higher.
Yeah, these look pretty nice, but you can't beat those old tube drives for that warm, acoustic sound.
Re:Tried it, don't like it
on
Miro Turns 1.0
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I run Miro in the background at all times, and notice that it uses very little bandwidth -- just a hair more than Deluge is using right now. It would be nice to select an external app, but given that you can just set any video player to open files from your Miro download folder, I don't see it as any more hindering than the fact that amaroK gives you no option to play music files in another player from its interface.
You can change the default action for feeds in the options menu. Also, with proper setting of the retention policies, you can be sure it won't swell to unreasonable sizes. I do agree that it would be nice to have more prioritizing and downloading controls.
From TFA:
Unfortunately for fans of Net neutrality, the congressman said he was not ready to go down this path and instead stressed market-based methods of fixing the problems.
Thank God. There is an alarming trend among those who want to see a "neutral net" (a sentiment I agree with) to have "Dr. Government" fix it all. this is a slippery slope in plain sight; the idea of trusting the government to keep the net neutral doesn't appeal to me any more than having Comcast do it. What happens when the next elections come, and a new party/interest is in power? What happens when X lobby group petitions to sway the government's control of the network?
Fortunately, we have this convenient mechanism called the free market, where an outcry of foul play means an increased demand for competition. I realize this doesn't mean overnight those in Comcast-only zones are given an alternative, but over time, it is possible.
Now, when it comes to the infrastructure, the actual physical cables, etc., there's some room for talk as to whether the Government can have some limited intervention there, because we're dealing with interstate business and infrasturcture... but that's another story.
Look, could you just be honest, Adobe? Acknowledge that you want to trap customers into paying eternally for your products, gaining millions of dollars over the life cycle of your products in the market, and move on. Don't feed garbage about "what customers want". Find me a customer who wants to pay for the rest of his life for a software product instead of paying once, and I'll show you either a sado-masochist or a paid advertisement.
Great points, DrYak. In addition, after reading TFA, a few important issues were either glossed over, or completely ignored:
1) Mr. Reisinger seems to be suggesting a "two-party" ideology with this issue, using the analogy of conservatives and liberals. What he fails to comprehend, or at least suggest, is the possibility of a "third party". It is entirely possible to maintain the integrity of the Linux kernel while improving the usability of the userspace tools and distributions. The author seems to be so entrenched in the idea that those promoting ease of use in the desktop environment are seeking to take his precious features away, he forgets that the two ends are in no way mutually exclusive. Ubuntu provides an excellent example of how the functionality and potential of Linux can be under the hood of an easy to drive, pretty sexy OS.
2) The majority of patches and suggestions sent upstream have more to do with latency/tasking operations in desktop uses. Tweaking the kernel a bit to cater to those issues does NOT make it less efficient as a powerhouse server kernel, or sacrifice any of it's capabilities.
3) I don't mean to sound pedantic, but I'm not so sure that Mr. Reisinger understands the difference between the kernel and the userspace. Optimizing a distribution to be extremely user friendly doesn't mean that another distribution has to be; that's the beauty of the openness. While there are some who are pushing for the "One Distro to Rule Them All" I would say these are in a minority of the usability proponents; most of use just want to see a Linux distribution fare well in the OS market and offer a real viable choice to consumers.
4) The author seems to forget that Linux will never be consumer-ready or friendly, it's a damn kernel. Joe Blow would have no idea what to do with a kernel, but give him an OS with Linux as the kernel, and maybe he can get going. Linus is protective of his kernel, and I understand why. He's going to have to make some improvements to cater to how people want to use computers IF his goal is to have a widely-used kernel that is free. If that isn't his goal, then he doesn't have to do that, and Linux distributions will slowly go the way of the OS/2 buffalo.
5) There's other great ends to a prolific Linux distro than money. I think the author is completely ignoring the fact that the kernel is GPL'd, and Linus has presented no intention of changing that. Therefore, a realistic usability proponent isn't thinking about how great it would be to see a proprietary Linux sitting next to Vista Ultimate, selling for $499. There's things like vast improvements to the userspace tools, propelling even further the penetration and recognition of free software, and the subsequent push on hardware manufacturers to provide compliant drivers or open their specs. These are all things that excite me a "crazed Linux kernel liberal". But hey, what do I know? I don't write for CNET.
You mean the ones that paid for the CD to be created, promoted and arranged many of the live events, and made the band's rise to fame possible? Those middlemen?
Like it or not, the artists aren't bondservants. They WILLINGLY signed agreements to record companies, knowing they would make crapola off the CDs, but stand a chance at getting famous. It's the way the industry works.
A better thing to say would be: support the bands that cut out the middlemen by producing/owning/managing their own material (Clap Your Hands Say Yeah, etc.)
Wrong. As co-host of an on the air radio show, I can assure you our station, and every other, pays out the ass in royalties. Promoters give us free CDs, swag, and smiles, and that's about it. Even at the largest stations, I'll bet my new in the wrapper Smashing Pumpkins poster that the perks promoters give them don't hold a candle to what they pay for royalties. Did you think the commercials on the air are for fun?
Simple. When you buy MS products, and many other commercial software products, they simply state you are buying a LICENSE to use the software, not the software itself. BS? Sure. Legal? Of course. Welcome to the world of software licensing.
Good thing no one asked you to. GPL code is open-source, so "keeping it out of their grubby little hands" is not an option or even wanted. You had probably better come to understand the purpose of the GPL and what a GPL violation is before you post.
Because the belief of atheism is of course thoroughly provable, without uncertainty, and nothing like a religion of its own? It is not believed for a certain pleasure?
Never mind.
The problem here isn't that anyone is being forced to accept censorship; TFA makes it clear it is optional. The problem is that companies are being forced by the government to offer a service that they previously may not have wanted to provide (usually because of the expense involved). If I want filtering software for my household, it's my responsibility to buy it. I wouldn't want my government forcing me to go through the trouble and expense of something that does not benefit me. If an ISP offers filtering services because it is profitable, that's one thing. But being forced to take a hit they may not be able to afford? That's bad for business.
Intersting! That makes me a bit more hopeful for the standard. The whole idea is to move towards the "semantic web": say what you want, and render it in the most accessible ways possible. More and more sites and services are being presented in both a standard and mobile format, as well as several handicapped-accessible formats. More choices is a good thing.
What I'm not seeing (perhaps because I haven't read the standard yet, or thought it through enough) is what HTML brings to the table that XHTML can't. Why bother with allowing the HTML mimetype, if it has no advantages other than it's what was done in the past?
It's made of many people, period. Some of them do not work for any tech firms.
If the primary (or even subsidiary) interest in updating standards was to sell more copies of Dreamweaver and other similar products, then why would there be free updates to Dreamweaver extensions to reflect standards changes? Also, the majority of the industry is not coding in Dreamweaver, so there's no chokehold on the business here.
Sorry, no point-and-click HTML generator makes "perfectly good HTML". Many do a decent job, but it will never be as efficient as straight code and thorough knowledge of the standards.
In closing, if the W3C's purpose was to bolster commercial software sales, they sure are going about it in the most ineffective way possible.
Slashdot Mirror
As a technical and web infrastructure consultant, I take offense to that remark. Any financial institution worth it's money takes very serious care in web security. Nothing is bulletproof, but to say that myspace.com and usbank.com, for example, are equivalent is absolute nonsense.
Oh, and the stuff the poster above me said is true enough as well.
Except that real money is involved in Second Life. There's more to it than just a game -- when money can be made and lost, the stakes and consequences are higher.
In SOVIET SPACE PROGRAM, imaginary clouds move you!
Opera hasn't had an ad-supported browser for about 4 years now.
"Colossus DRM System" project...
Yeah, these look pretty nice, but you can't beat those old tube drives for that warm, acoustic sound.
I run Miro in the background at all times, and notice that it uses very little bandwidth -- just a hair more than Deluge is using right now. It would be nice to select an external app, but given that you can just set any video player to open files from your Miro download folder, I don't see it as any more hindering than the fact that amaroK gives you no option to play music files in another player from its interface.
You can change the default action for feeds in the options menu. Also, with proper setting of the retention policies, you can be sure it won't swell to unreasonable sizes. I do agree that it would be nice to have more prioritizing and downloading controls.
Thank God. There is an alarming trend among those who want to see a "neutral net" (a sentiment I agree with) to have "Dr. Government" fix it all. this is a slippery slope in plain sight; the idea of trusting the government to keep the net neutral doesn't appeal to me any more than having Comcast do it. What happens when the next elections come, and a new party/interest is in power? What happens when X lobby group petitions to sway the government's control of the network?
Fortunately, we have this convenient mechanism called the free market, where an outcry of foul play means an increased demand for competition. I realize this doesn't mean overnight those in Comcast-only zones are given an alternative, but over time, it is possible.
Now, when it comes to the infrastructure, the actual physical cables, etc., there's some room for talk as to whether the Government can have some limited intervention there, because we're dealing with interstate business and infrasturcture... but that's another story.
>. ihbt
You know what's really neat? Facts to back up your statements. Got any of those?
Look, could you just be honest, Adobe? Acknowledge that you want to trap customers into paying eternally for your products, gaining millions of dollars over the life cycle of your products in the market, and move on. Don't feed garbage about "what customers want". Find me a customer who wants to pay for the rest of his life for a software product instead of paying once, and I'll show you either a sado-masochist or a paid advertisement.
Support Moderation. Read at 0.
Have you heard about the new WHOOSH (tm) technology?
It's like .NET, widget, AJAX, and Silverlight...
You aren't supposed to know. That's what makes it so cool! GETIT?!
Great points, DrYak. In addition, after reading TFA, a few important issues were either glossed over, or completely ignored:
1) Mr. Reisinger seems to be suggesting a "two-party" ideology with this issue, using the analogy of conservatives and liberals. What he fails to comprehend, or at least suggest, is the possibility of a "third party". It is entirely possible to maintain the integrity of the Linux kernel while improving the usability of the userspace tools and distributions. The author seems to be so entrenched in the idea that those promoting ease of use in the desktop environment are seeking to take his precious features away, he forgets that the two ends are in no way mutually exclusive. Ubuntu provides an excellent example of how the functionality and potential of Linux can be under the hood of an easy to drive, pretty sexy OS.
2) The majority of patches and suggestions sent upstream have more to do with latency/tasking operations in desktop uses. Tweaking the kernel a bit to cater to those issues does NOT make it less efficient as a powerhouse server kernel, or sacrifice any of it's capabilities.
3) I don't mean to sound pedantic, but I'm not so sure that Mr. Reisinger understands the difference between the kernel and the userspace. Optimizing a distribution to be extremely user friendly doesn't mean that another distribution has to be; that's the beauty of the openness. While there are some who are pushing for the "One Distro to Rule Them All" I would say these are in a minority of the usability proponents; most of use just want to see a Linux distribution fare well in the OS market and offer a real viable choice to consumers.
4) The author seems to forget that Linux will never be consumer-ready or friendly, it's a damn kernel. Joe Blow would have no idea what to do with a kernel, but give him an OS with Linux as the kernel, and maybe he can get going. Linus is protective of his kernel, and I understand why. He's going to have to make some improvements to cater to how people want to use computers IF his goal is to have a widely-used kernel that is free. If that isn't his goal, then he doesn't have to do that, and Linux distributions will slowly go the way of the OS/2 buffalo.
5) There's other great ends to a prolific Linux distro than money. I think the author is completely ignoring the fact that the kernel is GPL'd, and Linus has presented no intention of changing that. Therefore, a realistic usability proponent isn't thinking about how great it would be to see a proprietary Linux sitting next to Vista Ultimate, selling for $499. There's things like vast improvements to the userspace tools, propelling even further the penetration and recognition of free software, and the subsequent push on hardware manufacturers to provide compliant drivers or open their specs. These are all things that excite me a "crazed Linux kernel liberal". But hey, what do I know? I don't write for CNET.
Is there a good possibility of iPhones for other US GSM networks in the very near future?
Good thing I said the commercials exclusively pay for royalties. Reading comprehension is fun for you and for me!
You mean the ones that paid for the CD to be created, promoted and arranged many of the live events, and made the band's rise to fame possible? Those middlemen? Like it or not, the artists aren't bondservants. They WILLINGLY signed agreements to record companies, knowing they would make crapola off the CDs, but stand a chance at getting famous. It's the way the industry works. A better thing to say would be: support the bands that cut out the middlemen by producing/owning/managing their own material (Clap Your Hands Say Yeah, etc.)
Wrong. As co-host of an on the air radio show, I can assure you our station, and every other, pays out the ass in royalties. Promoters give us free CDs, swag, and smiles, and that's about it. Even at the largest stations, I'll bet my new in the wrapper Smashing Pumpkins poster that the perks promoters give them don't hold a candle to what they pay for royalties. Did you think the commercials on the air are for fun?
Simple. When you buy MS products, and many other commercial software products, they simply state you are buying a LICENSE to use the software, not the software itself. BS? Sure. Legal? Of course. Welcome to the world of software licensing.
Good thing no one asked you to. GPL code is open-source, so "keeping it out of their grubby little hands" is not an option or even wanted. You had probably better come to understand the purpose of the GPL and what a GPL violation is before you post.
They are releasing the modified YAST code that is supported in their distribution. YAST as it stands in, say, OpenSuSe, has been open for a long time.
Because the belief of atheism is of course thoroughly provable, without uncertainty, and nothing like a religion of its own? It is not believed for a certain pleasure?
Never mind.
The problem here isn't that anyone is being forced to accept censorship; TFA makes it clear it is optional. The problem is that companies are being forced by the government to offer a service that they previously may not have wanted to provide (usually because of the expense involved). If I want filtering software for my household, it's my responsibility to buy it. I wouldn't want my government forcing me to go through the trouble and expense of something that does not benefit me. If an ISP offers filtering services because it is profitable, that's one thing. But being forced to take a hit they may not be able to afford? That's bad for business.
Intersting! That makes me a bit more hopeful for the standard. The whole idea is to move towards the "semantic web": say what you want, and render it in the most accessible ways possible. More and more sites and services are being presented in both a standard and mobile format, as well as several handicapped-accessible formats. More choices is a good thing.
What I'm not seeing (perhaps because I haven't read the standard yet, or thought it through enough) is what HTML brings to the table that XHTML can't. Why bother with allowing the HTML mimetype, if it has no advantages other than it's what was done in the past?
- It's made of many people, period. Some of them do not work for any tech firms.
- If the primary (or even subsidiary) interest in updating standards was to sell more copies of Dreamweaver and other similar products, then why would there be free updates to Dreamweaver extensions to reflect standards changes? Also, the majority of the industry is not coding in Dreamweaver, so there's no chokehold on the business here.
- Sorry, no point-and-click HTML generator makes "perfectly good HTML". Many do a decent job, but it will never be as efficient as straight code and thorough knowledge of the standards.
In closing, if the W3C's purpose was to bolster commercial software sales, they sure are going about it in the most ineffective way possible.