2914 posts • joined Tuesday 25th March 2008 12:38 GMT
Let me get this right
The Daily Fail etc get their panties in a bunch about some buttocks on the telly before 2100, yet many of these gutter rags will have some waif with her whoppers out on page 3 and are themselves owned by porn peddlers.
Allowing a child to watch "X Factor" is tantamount to child abuse, but for entirely different reasons.
The answer is simple.
OEM price for Windows exclusivity on hardware is X.
The price for non-exclusivity is Y.
Where Y >>> X.
Now, question, why do OEMs want (need?) to ship Windows? Well, the answer is easy. That's what non-techie Joe McPunter knows. Sven Chubbleson and his designer pals know about Macs, true. But Joe McPunter lives in a Windows world. He uses IE6, Word etc at work, plays MMOs with his friends etc. All these (like it or not) demand Windows and as far as he knows, Windows is it.
So if HP (or someone) sell him a PC that cannot run IE, Word, MegaKill 4000 Ultra-Violence Edition; then he will return it as "broken" rather than try to learn a new system.
Even if that system is superior in many ways.
You can argue until you are blue in the face about how "wrong" all this is and I will agree with many of your points, but that is the way the world is. Linux is at least a decade away from being on the desktop, there's still too much Windows-only entrenchment and momentum.
Here's the thing
"The TUC's general secretary Brendan Barber described it as "a major boost to people who work in the creative industries and whose livelihoods are put at risk because creative content is stolen on a daily basis."
By and large people WANT to support the creatives, but the current business model prevents that. People know that most of the money will vanish up the noses of execs and be squandered elsewhere, with the actual talent getting very little.
Now, you can call "Bullshit" if you want and I will agree that there are quite a few bad-eggs out there who need a punch in the face, but if one looks at the success of attempts to work WITH people rather than AGAINST them, then one can see a glimmer of hope.
Now, sure, these initiatives won't keep EMI or Sony afloat; but who gives two craps about them? So long as money gets to the creatives, that's the important thing.
One would have thought that empowering creatives to directly connect with their customers and taking the creatives out from under the yoke of the majors would have been something the TUC is in favour of!
"Theirs is actually capable of 100% duty, so $525,000 per MW at expected duty cycle - under a tenth the capital cost."
That's a fair point, but it ignores one thing; what's the planet cost? Dust-to-dust, which one costs the planet more per MW? That is the only measure of concern.
And as it happens, I think wind is an utter waste of space. Never mind the blight on the landscape and the threat to wildlife, wind cannot be relied on; is often there when you don't need it and gone when you do (30% capacity is pushing it).
Nuclear (even after recent events) is a better option.
Simply using less is an even better option.
...I grant you, but there are some nice features:
1) The doc on the left is very nice. Much better than other docs I have tried (and rejected)
2) The "expose" style overview of windows is good.
3) The lack of clutter on the screen is great.
Things I don't like:
1) The doc on the right for different desktops
2) It takes too many clicks to find an app and they are not grouped/categorised by function
3) The lack of clutter on the screen! One can't just go to an icon and do something any more.
All in all though, it's good to see some attempt an innovation. I just worry that (like Unity) it is too focused on the fondleslab and does not pay enough heed to the different work-function of the average desktop.
...no issue for me here (SuperHub on R25) but then I "only" have the 20mbps service.
Which I got days before the 30mbps came out. Not sure whether to be happy or sad that I missed out.
That kind of PR is bad and it was killing them, but they needed to control Hotz to protect their various licensing agreements.
Probably the thought that they could get themselves out of the spotlight for a while.
Almost certainly (at least the the geek and nerd market segment).
The donation did not form part of the settlement. Think. Why would a corporation like Sony (lover of rootkits) want to help the EFF? They wouldn't. It was Mr. Hotz who gave the money away as this is what he had promised.
I think Hotz had it pretty much right - free speech has been cut in the USA to appease corporate interests. And one more thing:
DO NOT BUY SONY!
Sony has lots of money, so Sony can buy the decision they want. (Technically it was BMG with the rootkits, but they are owned by Sony; so Sony can still be help accountable).
Probably not much - what kind of pillock puts a music disc (it's not a CD as it did not conform to the standard) into the drive of a server or anything else important? It would have been home machines that got attack by the rootkit. Although that does not make it any more acceptable.
Yup. If people were using the mod illegally they should have gone after those people. Next: everyone with a crowbar to be arrested as a burglar. Everyone with a knife to be arrested as a murderer. Everyone with a....and so on.
It's not the tool (be it physical or electronic), it's the use that tool is put to.
I understand it perfectly
"You can save 50% by going to the Cloud!"
"Oh, you still need to buy a full compliment of Office licenses. Sucker."
The world and its monkey...
...can offer this. Not just Google or MS. And for the "case", if it's the one I think it is then all hell is about to break loose. The MS cloud is not FISMA certified according to Groklaw. http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20110413220154117
FISMA won't apply to everyone, and there's loads of offering that will do private clouds, cloudburst etc. And if they company has a web presence, odds are they are already running a flavour of the OS that is could aware and have most of the skills in-house already.
Haven't we been here before?
Didn't the WTC find against the US-of-A when they blocked some Antiguan gambling sites?
Any way, if bank fraud etc is to be investigated I hope the Yanks don't expect help from the imbeciles at HRMC or the FSA. Settle for fractions of a penny in the pound those idiots will.
".xxx" is live!
Next news headlines:
Australia blocks ".xxx" because porn is "bad" and degrading to women
America blocks ".xxx" to preserve moral and stop something-or-other
UK blocks ".xxx" because the Sun/Mirror/Mail says its disgusting and won't anyone think of the children?
Porn remains on .com/.net/.whatever because, when all is said and done, it's the biggest industry on the intertubes and is the global leader in new consumer technologies and markets. Get off your hypocritical, Abrahamic high-horse and just bloody deal with it. Mmm-kay?
Is it just me...
...or does anyone else chuckle when the hear "The Last Air*bender*".
Maybe I am just puerile and spend too much time on b3ta.
I used to be an unpaid volunteer myself (did a variety of collections in uniform too) to I am probably being somewhat hypocritical, but I never stopped people and never called out/shook the tin. I just stood there looking needy.
I'd rather have more efficient governance than higher taxes (i.e. no more PFI/PPP crap). Tighten our belts, mend and make do. But then I am a dreamer.
If it was one or two...
...charities, then they would have a point and perhaps there is some better way they can cover these costs (make a 10% donation themselves and write if off against tax or something) but a company cannot be expected to support every possible charity at zero cost out of the goodness of its own heart. Because is doesn't have one.
You can be sure that Virgin et a have calculated to the nearest penny how much free PR this is giving them, and they probably account for that as covering their costs.
The sheer number of charities that are going around these days is ridiculous. So I can completely see why a company may wish to covers their costs. Personally I am sick to the back teeth with all the chuggers (you know, the people paid to mug you - where's the outcry about that?), charities cold-calling (engaging in emotional blackmail) and the various collection bags shoved through my door. I just bin their crap or close the door in their face.
Might make me seem like a cold, heartless bastard (maybe I am) but the constant pleading/begging is putting me off and I am giving less because I am so tired of it all.
Let the down-voting commence.
Silverlight works on Mac
So it is cross-platform.
Heck if it runs on XP and Win7, then one can spin that as "cross-platform".
What it isn't is a patent-free standard and neither you nor I can run out and implement it. We could (if we were mad enough) implement our own HTML rendering engine, and that really gives the answer/power/competition/freedom.
Even when MS does force a standard through, it contains patent bombs and one still can't implement it fully (e.g. docx). In such an instance one should demand ODF.
"I get a lot of questions: 'Should I use Silverlight or HTML5?',"
Well, there is only one answer. You use HTML5 because it is the closest thing to an industry-wide standard. This stops your company becoming dependent on MS and prevents your customers becoming more dependent, allowing them to re-tool as new technologies take hold.
If the standard/cross-platform tech of choice can't do what is required, look for another. Only in extremis should one be choosing a technology/implementation that is proprietary.
I realise that is a pipe dream, but dreaming is the only thing that keeps me sane sometimes.
Now if you will excuse me, I have to go back to shouting at the sacks of vomit that are IE7 and IE8.
Not too bothered...
...if some add-ons slow the start-up down (so long as it doesn't become ridiculous, i.e. minutes). AdBlock, Flashblock and NoScript are two I would still use regardless of how slow they were. Why? Because without them the Web would become almost unusable with pop-ups, pop-unders, floating ads hiding content, in-line ads messing up flow, content ad links and flashing adverts.
Why are people automatically granting unknown attachments execute rights?
Oh, wait. This is Windows. Having everything ready to run and wide open to be exploited is normal.
This may explain why the *nix are not affected.
Even on Windows one can drop the permits to just "Read". Why is this not the default state for all attachments (no macros, no Flash etc permitted to run). If the user wants something to run, they can explicitly grant execute rights in the very few cases where it should be required.
And 2 months to fix something that is actively being exploited? That, frankly, is pathetic and that is why people should not be using Flash or Adobe need to release the code to the community. You can bet that the legion of geeks with too much time on their hands would have a patch ready in a few days (or sooner).
Oh, and they might be able to get Flash to be slightly less shit.
Content has previously always been behind a paywall. One had to buy the book/magazine/paper to get at the content. Why does it make any difference if the paywall is electronic?
Not content with forcing libraries to re-buy e-books after a measily few loans, all publisher have to do is slip all their content behind a veneer of a paywall and they can strangle the supply to everyone. It's like DVD Region encoding, but worse.
Once again the government is pandering to the needs of business and ignoring the needs of the people. Can anyone actually tell the difference between the Tories and Labour?
Yeah, but KDE needs a Cray for all it's graphics.
Let the GUI wars commence!
Oh, and which Window Manager do you prefer? Oh, then you're WRONG! HA HA HA!
(See the fun you Windows users miss out on? :) )
I agree with your sentiments about freeloaders, but your logic is wrong.
Just because a thing/right can be used to steal/infringe is not a good enough reason to remove that thing/right. What one must do is target the transgressors and punish them, leave others alone.
It is that simple and just because this is an electronic device does not change that one whit.
I have a hacked xBox, I could use it for all sorts of shenanigans but I don't. There's more than enough legit stuff floating about to keep me happy, I really just wanted to stream (legal) media to it.
Sony have been raging ass-hats and I for one will not be buying Sony.
Yes, they are compulsory if:
---You want to use network play
---Play newer games (these demand more recent firmware)
So saying the updates are not compulsory is a total crock.
Sony sold the PS3 as advertised with the "Other OS" option and then arbitrarily removed it. Why consumer organisations the world over haven't spanked Sony to hell and back beats me.
There again, Sony were not adequately punished for the rootkits. (Yes, I know they were on BMG discs, but BMG is just a subsidiary of Sony, ergo Sony are responsible)
No, actually, it isn't an EU thing at all. It was an "EU interpretation" thing perpetrated by the last shower of raging incompetents as the EU did not explicitly demand the test be conducted the way the DSA decided to do it.
Love to cite a source, but of course I can't find it now.
...less websites that are simply a PR stunt?
If the government does not already know what red tape is driving industry nuts (due to the various lobbying groups), then the government is incompetent.
If the government actually wants to ask the great unwashed, then this site is completely the wrong way to do it and they won't get answers they want. e.g. the public might want the ridiculous brake/swerve exercise from the motorcycle test scrapped; the public won't give to craps (or possibly even know) about strange sales regulations and what have you.
Actually, here's some red tape I'd like to see: all EU committees must publish public accounts and a public record of meetings. EU accounts must be signed-off by an auditor and publicly available.
That, you can be sure, will lead to greater costs savings across the EU that soem snazzy site and a bit of PR puffery.
"Mono is an open source mimic of Microsoft's .NET platform"
Mono is a sub-set of [a previous version of the] Microsoft .Net. If you want a proper cross-platform language, then choose a proper cross-platform language. Not MS patent-encumbered bollocks.
You can bet your last penny that MS are just waiting for Mono to become ubiquitous on Linux derivatives so that they can torpedo it and thus remove any viable competition from the marketplace.
All respect to the Mono team, they really know their cheese, but they are not helping anyone by their efforts. this is just going to lead to future pain.
Anyone depending on Mono should be deeply, deeply worried.
People may not wish their personal views to be known outside certain circles.
One may hold a political view that they do not wish their employer to know about for fear of discrimination (or dismissal). e.g. What if you are a member of Greenpeace, but your employer is bidding for a contract with a big oil company? If the employer knows your views, it could be detrimental.
One may have a sexual preference that one does not wish to become known outside that community. e.g. I have attended clubs that my friends have refused to attended for fear that they will be dismissed by their employers for doing so.
The list goes on and thus there are many cases where some form of anonymity is essential to freedom and free speech. The fact that Facebook et al tie you directly to comments, memberships and associations can have life-changing impacts; even if you are not doing anything "dodgy".
I think the point was...
...if Facebook "becomes" the Internet then you are verifiably tied to everything you say /and/ you have no control over that content.
I really like the look of the Freedom Box idea, if I can get the time/skills it is something I will deffo be looking into.
It will only be shutdown/broken up if it acts illegally or to restrict free enterprise*.
This is why MS go spanked and Apple has (so far) been left alone. One was a monopoly and acted illegally, the other wasn't.
You can argue that Google has a monopoly on "web search" and a few other techs. Whether or not it has acted illegally is up to the courts. Google has a choice:
--- Re-organise/re-structure to avoid the accusation; or
--- Fight it in court
*There are exceptions; cartels such as BPI, RIAA and MPAA who actively engage in restrictions on trade with impunity. And no, I do not mean cracking down on pirates. I mean, restricting free trade.
"Is it costing me money? No, so why would I care?"
Because it costs you? Even if you value your privacy at zero (and it seems you do), it still costs you.
Company pays for ad.
That cost is recouped through prices.
Customers pay those prices.
You are a customer.
You have paid (in part) for that ad monetarily and by giving you privacy away for free.
Also, it is rarely (if ever) Linux that gets hacked. It's usually some poorly configured web application that has had the security set to "Ass out window, underpants optional".
Well some digging around Launchpad got Unity working (install vanilla, update packages, install dkms, install vb-ose-x11 doofer - NOT the one provided by Oracle!)
And....yes. Great on a fondleslab is my guess, I can really see the potential there. Some nice UI features (not sure I like the Apple menu thingy though).
But for a desktop? That I have to work at each day? No. Takes too bloody long to find anything.
The complicated a UI gets, the more I feel the urge to become more proficient at the CLI.
I'd like to be able to say "Yes"
But an install of the Natty beta into VirtualBox is not stable.
Without the guest additions, you can see the Window decorator crash.
With the guest additions it doesn't boot properly (can't get to the login screen).
From what I could see (before I put guest additions on) is that the basic Gnome is even more of an Apple rip-off. Obviously I can't comment on Unity as it doesn't run, but speaking to people who have used it the reviews are not good. Sort of a bastard love-child of iOS and Win7.
There again, change always scares people.
...Disunity more like. Why do we need yet another sodding DE/WM/guff? Would it not have been better to throw some weight behind Gnome/KDE and help make them fit-for-purpose? I mean, at least Gnome is accessible to the optically different, unlike Unity!
Open Source is great. Choice is great.
But really, guys, have you never heard of "United we stand, divided we fall"?
- Facebook offshores HUGE WAD OF CASH to Caymans - via Ireland
- Microsoft teams up with Feds, Europol in ZeroAccess botnet zombie hunt
- Justin Bieber BEGGED for a $200k RIM JOB – and got REJECTED
- Review Bigger on the inside: WD’s Tardis-like Black² Dual Drive laptop disk
- Inside Steve Ballmer’s fondleslab rear-guard action