292 posts • joined Friday 16th February 2007 07:31 GMT
C'thulhu help me, I agree with the decision.
Company A makes a product and it costs them $5.00 to make it. The give it to Company B on consignment so that they can sell it on and give Company A $12.00 as their cut of the sale. If Company B then looses the card they had on consignment, then they are liable *for the amount Company A would have received*.
Accepting things on consignment is great for Company B as it means they do not have to actually purchase the goods from Company A, only pass back an agreed amount on each sale. The downside is, Company B agrees to pay Company that amount - not the production costs.
Same thing here. Sony sent some HW on consignment to be sold on to Games. If the middleman looses the HW, they are liable for the amount that Sony would have gotten out of the sale. The distributor took a bet (that nothing would happen to the consignment) and lost, and now they want to be let off the hook?
I am not a great lover of Sony (so-so hardware, lousy attitude) but this sort of "want my cake and eat it too" attitude just pisses me off. You want the returns, you gotta pay the price when things don't go your way.
<sigh> And people wonder why Linux has yet to take off...
... I made a few comments about what I wanted for my wishlist... and instead of being "educated" (ie, shown how to get what I want) I get ranted at.
First of all - to all of you who flamed me, read my post again. I am a big fan of Linux. As a server. Love it. Wouldn't want to run anything else. It keeps on ticking away in its little box and serving my web-pages and e-mail to the outside world without supervision. I just don't think it is ready for the desktop.
As for the flaming and people telling me to engage my brain... might you look in the mirror sirs? I did not ask that GIMP and OO be "like photoshop or MS word", I wanted a compatibility option like MSWord had for WP. It would help me make the transition. Why? Because I do not like Adobe or Microsoft. I would love to cross over. I just don't feel up to re-learning upteen million commands (exaggeration, I know, but it sometimes feel like it) just so I can *start* to use the damn product. No, I don't want a Linux copy of Photoshop or OO, I want a version of GIMP or OO I can use *right now*. Even if not fully.
I notice, BTW, that no-one has responded to my "normal view" comment, unless that comment about "too much like MS" was the response.
A few requests:
I am a happy user of Linux *as a server*. I have tried to use it a few times as a desktop install and wiped it each and every time. Here is my wishlist for a Linux desktop (some of which may have already happened, knowing FOSS):
1) apt & yum and others are great. I have my server updating once a week without any problems. However, trying to figure out which packages/software are available, what they do, etc, etc, could be made simpler by (for example) having a, er.., product, which lists the available packages by names and/or categories and/or keywords (etc) with a description of what each package does.
2) Installation of packages should create an appropriate icon on the desktop or item in the appropriate menu list. Yes, yes, I know *some* packages do this already, but not all. And it should include an easy "uninstall" option for when you've realised you've installed the wrong package.
3) a pre-configured version of Wine or equivalent. Yes people, realise that the majority of users you want to attract (myself included) will have a stack of old MSWindows program they still want to use. Deal with it.
4) I perfectly agree with some of the comments - some packages are just too much pain to use. GIMP and OpenOffice come to mind. Did someone purposefully go out of their way to make them as un-windows as possible? Somebody *please* tell me how I can get OpenOffice to display my documents in something akin to MSWord's "Normal View"? Is it so hard to understand that some of us *don't* want WYSIWYG until we're ready to add final formating to the document? Heck, MSWord has (had?) a "Word-Perfect compatible" command which allowed ex-WP users to use WP command in MSWord.
Let's face it - Apple took a *nix flavour and customised it so that even the grand-folks could use it.
You mentioned Hitler. I invoke Godwin's Law.
Kept on calling me about my account and the phone-monkey at the end of the line could not understand why I would not "confirm a few details" to "prove my identity" and some got royally pissed off when I asked to prove to *me* that they were from Citibank.
Due to the stupidity of these phone exchanges, I changed banks in a hurry to one which publicly advertises that it will *not* contact you through email or phone. And so far, hasn't.
Re:> "force suspects to disclose encryption keys."
@Luke Barton: "I wouldn't cough it up. I would just cite my right not to incriminate myself."
<ironic laughter> I do hope you live in the US, not the UK. Then again, you quoted a price in GBP. Here's a tip - remember that the 'right' you are quoting is "the fifth amendment to the American constitution". In other word, it doesn't apply to UK law.
At least it's better than French-law, where the simple fact you're in front of the court means you're guilty and must now prove your innocence. After all, the Police wouldn't have arrested you unless you *were* guilty, right?
As much as I hate to side with a government agency on Tax issues, I don't see what Amazon and Overstock are bitching about.
The law is fairly specific: if the seller is in NY jurisdiction, the shop must collect the sales tax. Neither Amazon nor Overstock have any legal grounds to stand on - local taxes are local taxes, if you don't like them, get them repealed or don't trade in that area. In that respect, Overstock did the correct thing and simply dropped their NY affiliates rather than collect taxes on those sales.
On the other hand, the *affiliates* may have ground to take NY to court for loss of business... IANAL, but depending on how old that Tax law is, they may have grounds to see it repealed as it obviously interfered with their business.
Probably has a grant already.
It should be revoked. C'mon, say it with me: "Don't pay the Ferryman"
Mines the one with the deep cowl.
I'm an Ozzie and let's face it - none of the Australian wildlife is either cute or cuddly. The Koalas they hand you to hold in the petting zoos don't count - they've cleaned them, deodorised them and made sure they've had their bowel movements before the public gets there.
Your average Ozzie wildlife is an ornery creature who wants to be left alone - but which has developed various methods to discourage you in case you decide to press the point. Unlike the previously-mentions Black Mamba (which has been known to hunt down a human or two when it's pissed), Australian animals would much rather scare you and leave you alone.
Which does not mean that there no animal-related deaths in Oz. Between the Funnel-web spiders down south, the red-backs up here, the various poisoned snakes, fish and sharks, SOMEONE will eventually get on the short end of the (stati)stick. Even if only from pure dumb-ass bad luck (stay away from the Dingos, though - Hyenas without the shyness, the lot of them).
I have no problems walking the bush over here, safe in the knowledge that unless I do something stupid ("oh look honey, the big red male 'roo is stretching and scratching its stomach at us. Imitate him so I can get a photo") both the animal and I will want to simply back off and go our separate way.
"Now watch my left hand..."
"Boeing-mounted" my shiny metal butt. Am I the only one who sees this eventually mounted on LEO platforms? (with a couple of converted Bombers for show)
This is a trademark, not a patent, and is only enforceable if there is a possibility of mistaking one product for another. Therefore CBS, owning the trademark "Mighty Mouse" for the cartoon, could "lease" the trademark for cartoons, comics, etc... - items of a similar nature (including appearances of MM's likeness on various non-cartoon-related products, like Burger King cups, for example).
Mighty Mouse the cartoon hero is unlikely to be mistaken for Might Mouse the M&M product, but Mighty Mouse the Apple-made mouse is playing in *exactly* the same product field as M&M's Mighty Mouse - thus Apple has breached trademarks.
This is the same reason why Apple (the record company) and Apple (the computer company) co-existed for so long (and we'll leave how *that* ended as an exercise for the students).
Re: But What About...
@Peyton: "(regarding the usage tracking) places like terminals in schools, universities, etc., where you may not be the one installing it? It's going to be a sad day if using IE becomes the safer option..."
<huh>You kidding me? schools and universities (and work places) don't bother logging at the browser-level. Why should they, when it's much easier for the Gateway to do the logging for them and avoids the whole "what OS/browser is the user running" problem?
Re: A New Law
@Anonymous Coward: "A new law covering this sort of thing might be well and good, but it won't help nail the lowlife that started this mess. They can't reach back and charge her under a new law for something that was illegal at the time."
<ironic laugh> Yeah... right... in the USA maybe... but any Legal System which operates under the UK/Commonwealth system has this wonderful concept of "retroactive law". *especially* if the government wants to recoup Taxes (which seems to be what this wonderful clause is mostly used for).
The concept alone pisses me off.
Re: Ped ant
@ Elmer Phud: "Erm, I believe that the glass case with ants in it is outside HEX. The bees are inside."
Sorry Elmer, but the previous poster had it correct: the ants are directed around HEX by use of perforated cards. The bee hive was a later addition and is used for long-term storage.
So let me get this straight...
An industry which is using a slab of "non-owned" wavelength *for free* is trying to stop another group from doing the same?
There's a reason companies bid for spectrum, people - you want exclusive use of a band, pay for the right.
"I thought low pressure helped things BOIL. If I remember my chemistry correctly, INCREASED pressure helps liquefy or freeze things, not decreased pressure..."
Please do not confused "boiling" (generally recognised as an increase in heat in the liquid) and "vaporisation" (the turning of a liquid into gas).
Dropping pressure lowers the boiling temperature of a liquid - in other words, the liquid vaporises at a lower temperature, which is why mountain climbers have to use pressure cookers to cook anything properly.
Increasing pressure actually *increases* the temperature of the liquid - said increase in heat must be lost before the liquid will crystalise.
For an application of this principle, look no further than your fridge or air-conditioner: The liquid, upon leaving your house/fridge, enters a compression system. The compressed liquid (now hotter than it was) is fed through a series of radiators which allow the liquid to cool. This cooler liquid is now piped back into the house/fridge where it is then allowed to "decompress", dropping in temperature. A second set of radiators allow the liquid to "pick up heat" from its environment (house/fridge), at which point it is then piped back out to the compressor and the cycle begins again.
"I really, really, really, REALLY hope m'learned friends bankrupt the pair of them."
An ISIRTA John Cleese quote ran through my mind: "... furthermore, m'learned friend is neither learned nor my friend. With m'lord's permission, I shall henceforth refer to him as 'my stupid enemy'..."
Joke doing the 'round while AC was still part of AA:
A shepherd was standing by a dirt road, tending his flock and directing his sheepdog, when a 4WD pulls up besdie him and a man dressed in an impeccable business suit steps out and addresses him. "That's quite a fine herd you have there... if I guess how many you have, might I have one of them?"
The shepherd scratches his chin and answers "I reckon so..." at which point the man in the suit brings out a laptop, hooks it up to a portable satellite station, request an orbital fly-by by an imaging satellite, downloads the resulting pictures, runs them through a dozen analysis softwares, imports the data into a spreadsheet and prints out a ream of reports before look at the shepherd and saying "183."
"That's right" says the shepherd. The business-suited man grabs one of the animals and places it in the 4WD and starts to pack up when the shepherd asks him "If I can guess what your job is, can I have my animal back?"
"Sure" answers the man, at which point the shepherd immediately states "You are a consultant for Andersen Consulting". The man blinks at him and says "That's right. How do you know?"
"I was happily minding my own business when you turned up un-announced to tell me something I already knew and charged me for it. More importantly, you have no idea what my business is; you've just taken my dog."
In the early parts of the 20th century, America saw a decline in morals and blamed alcohol for it. Virtually overnight, the sale and consumption of alcohol was made illegal and the Government (and the Moral Minority) patted itself on the back and closed the books on alcohol. But making something non-legal does not abolish it - people started trading alcohol "under the table" and it wasn't long before dedicated distribution methods (the "speakeasy") popped up and catered to the demanding market. Eventually, the criminal element saw that a lot of money could be made through manipulating these "speakeasy"s and took them over, helping finance their other activities (such as gambling, etc). The Government, aghast at having offered such a playground to the criminal element, tried unsuccessfully to stop people from buying and drinking alcohol by making more laws and making the sentences harder. It didn't work. Eventually, pressured by both its inability to stem the tide of underground boozing and the backlash of the general public, the Government repealed the Prohibition Act. Unfortunately, it was too late - Organised Crime was here to stay in the "civilised" world.
Nice little history lesson, innit?
Tell you what - let's change a few words and see what we get:
In the later parts of the 20th century, MPAA/RIAA saw a decline in sales and blamed file-sharing for it. Virtually overnight, the creation and distribution of media files was made illegal and the Government (and the MPAA/RIAA) patted itself on the back and closed the books on file-sharing. But making something non-legal does not abolish it - people started trading media-files "under the table" and it wasn't long before dedicated distribution methods (P2P networks) popped up and catered to the demanding market. Eventually, the criminal element saw that a lot of money could be made through manipulating these P2P networks and took them over, helping finance their other activities (such as drugs, etc). The Government, aghast at having offered such a playground to the criminal element, tried unsuccessfully to stop people from creating and spreading media-files by making more laws and making the sentences harder. It didn't work. Eventually, pressured by both its inability to stem the tide of underground sharing and the backlash of the general public, the Government repealed the DRM Act. Unfortunately, it was too late - Organised Crime was here to stay in the "virtual" world.
Yeah, yeah, I know - there's no such thing as the DRM Act. Replace it with your local equivalent.
The point is: alcohol was made illegal and that didn't work. Eventually, a better set of *distribution and consumption* rules and methods were created and those worked much better thankyouverymuch. Unfortunately, by then it was too late to get the criminal element out of the equation.
It seems the same mistakes are now being made with regards to media-files - instead of working out a better "distribution and consumption" set of rules and methods, we have the MP3 version of the Prohibition. Care to take bets on how this one will run its course?
I grieve for the loss of the family and feel *really* sorry for the kid - he was an innocent bystander - but marvel at people's (not just the parent's) stupidity.
Who in their right mind relies on TCP/IP for mission-critical application comms? The damn thing is designed to "gracefully loose" information, FFS! Whether it be emails, documents, voice, whatever - TCP/IP is *convenient* and *flexible* (best design so far for the purpose) but it is not *guaranteed delivery*!
Surprise, surprise, you decide to go with VOIP because it's cheaper and complain because you (don't get as clear a line)/(have to compete with other TCP/IP apps)/(aren't located physically). Well, DUH! TCP/IP was designed not to care about physical locations ON PURPOSE and now people wonder why it's so hard for VOIP providers to locate callers physically? Wrong tool for the wrong job, people! "well, a hammer drives nails in real good, so why don't it work properly with mah screws?"
Jeez. Visions of the "cruise control" lawsuits of the 80s come to mind. These are the kind of people which caused at least one chain-saw manufacturer to have to place a "do not stop chainsaw with genitalia" warning in their user manual.
I *was* a big fan of AVG free edition... until I installed a 1TB hard-drive. AVG Free doesn't allow you to specify which HDD/Directory to scan and which to leave alone, and this resulted in scans taking well over 24-hours. To add insult to injury, AVG doesn't check to see if a scan is already running before launching a new one - so by day 5 I had 4 separate scans running in the background doing horrible things to my HDD access.
Since I already had a multi-PC license for ZoneAlarm I dropped AVG; so unless the new version of AVG Free allows for scan-target selection, I won't be loading it back on my PC.
I do not understand people who bought a Wii and then complained about the graphics... don't you people read this website? Anyone who did even a little bit of research knew that the Wii could not compete with the xBox or the PS3 in terms of graphics. Even someone who walked off the street to try one in the shop could see this.
I didn't buy my Wii for the graphics, I bought it for the control system it used. And the games I have were bought *specifically* because they required me to get off the couch and move about (OK, Guitar-Hero III doesn't quite count, but I enjoyed the first two on the PS2). And I still enjoy it, even down to dusting off Wii Sport every once in a while and see how "old" I am. ^_^
"During the descent there was some kind of fire outside the Soyuz capsule because we were going through the atmosphere. "
Let me get this straight - SK's first astronaut was blissfully unaware of the plasma display seen during *all* re-entries? Sheesh!
I may be missing something, but...
...when I pay my (yearly) dues to a registrar, it is my understanding that I also get the right to any sub-domains. So for example, because I paid for blah.com, then www.blah.com, ftp.blah.com or even library.blah.com are mine (and only mine) to use.
So if I understand correctly, these people are trying to make money using domain names which are legally mine.
Isn't that domain-hijacking?
Does anyone know if there is an Apache module/add-on I can use to recognise HTTP requests from BT? Because if BT put Phorm on-line in an attempt to make money by using *my* web pages to profile users, I want to be able to send a "BT and Phorm can get lost" page instead of my normal sites.
Re: DNA still unbeat then
Please make a difference between states, members and permutations.
For example; a 2-member, 3-state system will allow for 9 permutations (AA, AB, AC, BA, BC, BB, CA, CB, CC).
The Human DNA doesn't have 10^600million members or states, it has a pool of 10^600million *possible permutations*. In other words, you cannot store 10^600million bits of information on a DNA strand, but you can store *one of* 10^600million permutations.
I can't remember what the number of actual "bits" are on a DNA, but since it is a four-state system (GATC) then it's probably X in the equation 4^X=10^600million.
Mind you, since it is a four-state bit (instead of a two-state bit), we can probably store two binary-bits per DNA-bits.
My bullshit quotient...
...just went through the roof.
Comcast lost the plot a long time ago - they are not selling specific software services, the are not selling "email access" or "web-site access", they are selling "internet access" at a specific speed (at a specific quantity?) for a specific price-per-month. And now they are trying to wrangle and bullshit their way out of that responsibility.
1) It's not YOUR hardware;
2) It's not YOUR internet connection;
3) and since you're supposed to be at work, it's not YOUR time either.
And before anyone replies: I am Australian, I work in the IT industry (both private and public) and I consider any Internet time given to me by my employers a privilege not to be abused, not a right.
You want privacy, get your own ISP and pay your own way. Otherwise, lump it - you are using someone else's property.
Next, people will be bitching about how they can't take their computer home because they're so much better than the one they own. Sheesh.
"But seriously, many HGV's have the sign "If you can't see my mirrors, then I can't see you!","
I use to like that sign... for about 3 minutes - just long enough to dawn on my that it should read "if you can't see my mirrors, I am driving a badly-designed vehicle which should not be on the road".
I have to agree with at least one of those interviewed
"This is a free service, so if you don't want targeted advertising, you just say no to the free access."
While I despise *paid* ISPs who try to increase their revenue on the back of their *paying* subscriber, I have to agree with the above statement (assuming the notice *is* easy to find, as stated in the report).
Re: Customer IS King
"In the end how can ebay prevent us paying for stuff in whatever way we mutually agree with the other party"
By cancelling your account forthwith because you have breached their T&Cs. And you'll have no recourse for action.
<quote>""We expect most applications will be able to serve around 5 million pageviews per month," McDonald said, referring to the preview release.</quote>
So, to paraphrase:
McDonald: Over 5 million served!
Which ever way....
Whichever way you look at it, their actions were in bad Phorm.
Personally, I think their credibility just bought the Phorm.
Mine's the multi-coloured one.
Many thanks to the many people who answered my question. I'd just like to mention, however, that the "backup" option will not work for me as I regularly update my hardware (small upgrades every so often, new PC about once a year) and transfer licences to the new hardware... which means a backup of an existing installation will not work for me. (the old hardware, BTW, is given a flavour of Linux and becomes part of the Server array on my 19U rack... best purchase I ever did).
As an aside, I though AutoPatcher had been cease-and-desisted by MS?
OK, so I have a couple of web/file servers at home running Linux, but my HTPC, laptop, main PC and my wife's PC all run XP Pro. And, as usual, every once in a while I have to wipe a disc and re-install XP on it, go on-line to re-initialise it and then spend the rest of the day installing the updates.
Which brings us to my two questions. I do *not* want to "upgrade" to Vista - I want to continue using my *legal* copies of XP Pro. So:
1) What happens to the on-line activation once they stop "supporting" XP?
2) Anyone knows of an easy way to get all those various pesky updates and store them locally (preferably on a DVD or dedicated HDD)? I don't want to be left out in the cold once MS decides to stop supplying the patches/updates/drivers and I have to re-install XP on a PC.
Thanks for any help.
Original + Burn Up?
"Jules Verne is carrying '1,150 kg of dry cargo, including food, clothes and equipment as well as two original manuscripts handwritten by Jules Verne and a XIXth century illustrated edition of his novel From the Earth to the Moon'..."
"When its visit is completed, the Jules Verne will carry ISS rubbish back into Earth's atmosphere for a controlled burn-up over the Pacific."
And what happens to the *original* manuscripts then?
"Perfect for hunting rabbits."
Surely this should be "wabbits"?
That should be...
...Abort, Retry, Ignore. (not Cancel).
(with apologies to the original author)
Once upon a midnight dreary,
Fingers cramped and vision bleary,
System manuals piled high and wasted paper on the floor
Longing for the warmth of bedsheets,
Still I sat there, doing spreadsheets;
Having reached the bottom line, I took a floppy from the drawer.
Typing with a steady hand,
Then invoked the SAVE command
But I got a reprimand:
It read "Abort, Retry, Ignore."
Was this some occult illusion?
Some maniacal intrusion?
These were choices Solomon himself had never faced before.
Carefully, I weighed my options.
These three seemed to be the top ones.
Clearly I must now adopt one:
Choose "Abort, Retry, Ignore."
With my fingers pale and trembling,
Slowly t'wards the keyboard bending,
Longing for a happy ending, hoping all would be restored,
Praying for some guarantee
Finally I pressed a key--
But on the screen what did I see?
Again: "Abort, Retry, Ignore."
I tried to catch the chips off-guard--
I pressed again, but twice as hard.
Luck was just not in the cards. I saw what I had seen before.
Now I typed in desperation
Trying random combinations
Still there came the incantation:
Choose: "Abort, Retry, Ignore."
There I sat, distraught exhausted,
By my own machine accosted
Getting up I turned away and paced across the office floor.
And then I saw an awful sight:
A bold and blinding flash of light--
A lightning bolt had cut the night and shook me to my very core.
I saw the screen collapse and die
"Oh no--my data base," I cried
I thought I heard a voice reply,
"You'll see your data Nevermore!"
To this day I do not know
The place to which lost data goes
I bet it goes to heaven where the angels have it stored
But as for productivity, well
I fear that IT goes straight to hell
And that's the tale I have to tell
Your choice: "Abort, Retry, Ignore."
Hmmm... I wonder how they decide what *caused* the crash. Do they simply look at which program stopped running at the time and go "here's your problem"?
If so, I'd like to introduce them to a little concept known as "segmentation violation". It can be a pain to fix: That's when program A (illegally) shits all over program B's memory, causing Program B to crash when trying to access its stores. But the cause of the crash is not poor program B, it's program A.
So, depending on how scrupulous MS is about finding the *cause* of the problem, it might just be that NVidia drivers are more sensitive (perhaps because of size issues) to some sort of "behind the scene" corruption by an as-yet-unknown source. Or maybe (for example) they more often access MS functions which leak memory like sieves.
When find the fault for a crash, be very careful of the arrangement of horses and carts.