Actually it makes a lot of sense. Those companies can't afford to not offer Windows. There is a very big demand for it. That shouldn't mean that they should suffer the loss of their Windows customers just because they want to searve customers who want Linux as well.
Unfortunately that's exactly what happens. Microsoft has threatened Compaq this way. I believe they threatened Gateway as well. Those are just the ones we know about. It's quite likely that it is (or was, at least before the DOJ lawsuit) a standing threat to all OEMs. Of course, they've used the licensing price as a club as well, so you're correct about that.
How is that going to happen without government intervention? They made the mess with legislation... it'll take more legislation to alter (hopefully for the better) the mess.
Unrestricted access to consumers? OK. That won't happen unless the cable/phone companies have to offer their lines at a competitive price to other access providers. How do you propose to get them to do that?
Then, we would also have to do something about the government passing out monopolies like they were candy. I would hope that they've learned their lesson, but I doubt it.
Some things are good for everyone, but require enormous capital to get started. Do you think 5 separate companies could raise that kind of capital without some kind of guarantee of a decent return? Prolly not.
I think that the government should sponsor certain projects and declare them to be public property and regulate them as such. Anyone can use them, but they must not prevent others from using them as well. There would probably be other terms to such a deal as well... I don't plan to attempt to think the whole thing out right now though.
The companies that own the lines NEVER TOOK ANY RISK! They were given a monopoly by the government. Plain and simple. It's time for their free ride to end and for the government to make sure that they do what's best for the consumers. The same people who paid the taxes to the goverment that gave them their monopoly in the first place.
In addition to the other reply to your post, I would like to add that you are utterly incorrect about 98% of the population being within reach of ADSL. You must be within approx. 3 miles of a switch to get ADSL service. Let me quote from the phone company's DSL FAQ:
"Are there restrictions to getting Southwestern Bell DSL service?
Yes, due to restrictions of the currently available technology, customers must live within about 17,500 feet of their central telephone switching office, and their telephone line must be qualified to carry the DSL signal. Not all customers serviced by DSL-equipped central offices will qualify for DSL service. In addition, host networks must be connected to Southwestern Bell's Fast Packet Network service to ensure quality and throughput of Southwestern Bell DSL connections.
My entire neighborhood doesn't get ADSL because of this. Neither do a couple other neighborhoods nearby. It's not poor lines. It's distance. It could be fixed, but just try to get the phone company to do it. They aren't gonna do it if nobody makes them do it. I call and they tell me that I cannot get ADSL. I ask when I will be able to get it. They say they don't know. That leads me to believe they don't have any plans to fix my problem anytime soon. My local cable company has not offered cable modems in my area yet either. They have been telling me that they will be out in a couple months for a year and a half.
From reading the fallout from the whole Mindcraft episode, I think that the criticism of the TCP/IP stack is that it's not threaded. I read somewhere else that this is either being fixed now, or has already been fixed.
P.S. I would like to choose ISPs to connect to via my cable. But I don't think it is right (in general) for me (or us collectively) to use the government to force companies (or people) to do what I (we) want.
Those companies wouldn't have the power and control that they have now if OUR GOVERNMENT hadn't given it to them on a silver platter. The government put them in the position where they could afford to build the massive networks. If they hadn't been guaranteed a monopoly for a period of time, they never would have been able to build those networks. Don't think that these guys are just brilliant entrepreneurs that built their companies and networks from scratch. They had a lot of help from the government and we the taxpayers. I think they've had their free ride and now it's time to do what's in the best interests of the consumer.
Being an idiot could be attributed to poor education.:) Perhaps I should be more specific. Instead of just teaching the R's, maybe we should be teaching (obviously un)common sense. We should be teaching more about people and how we can make things better by not acting like idiots quite so often. When I think of my education, I don't really think so much about what I learned in school, but more about the things I learned from reading books (both fiction and non) and other stuff that isn't taught in school.
Not all models look that way. They aren't all Kate Moss. Seems like now a lot of female athletes are doing modeling on the side. They are usually much better looking and in a lot better shape. They aren't just thin. They are well-toned and healthy.
Seems to me like a lack of decent education and a lack of perspective on life. If your whole world revolves around being pretty, to the point where you would harm your health, then you have a problem. Maybe if people weren't put in public schools where every day is a popularity contest/beauty pagent, perhaps things would be different.
He wasn't telling anyone what their values should be. He said that's up to them.
An eating disorder is exactly that, a _disorder_. I doubt that there is much weighing and consideration of trade-offs here.
Right. It's probably a medical disorder.
My point is not that I want to force people not to be thin. My point is that there are people who are suffering - most likely in some part due to the media who _are_ telling you what you should and should not want - and they should be helped.
Again, people trying to blame their personal problems on something they saw on tv or in a magazine. People with eating disorders often have other, larger issues to deal with. It doesn't usually just happen on its own. They need medical and/or psychological help. It's not the media's fault. There are many more examples of people who are just as exposed to the same media who do not have such a disorder. To say that the media is a contributing factor is no better than saying that sight is a contributing factor because it allows them to see that they aren't as pretty as someone else.
This thing sounds almost like a laptop with a music player app that is run on bootup. Quoting from the abstract:
"The device includes a hard drive, a modem for connection to a data base via an on-line service, a keyboard, a display, and an audio system."
Well, does that mean that a device that doesn't include all of these things would not be subject to the patent?
Does this mean that a laptop with WinAmp is covered by the patent?
Here is the part they say is unique:
"The device uniquely combines the remote data access capability resident in a personal computer with a set of tailored, streamlined control functions to simplify, automate, and render seamless the process of selecting audio program material; ordering the program material from a service; receiving acknowledgment of the order and receiving the program material via automatic download for storage in a hard drive; playback of the program material when and where the user desires, with fully streamlined control functions; and control of the user interface functionality on the keyboard through a setup mode of operation."
Don't they at least have to have a prototype? Not that it would be too difficult. Just get the old Thinkpad out and rig it up with a pretty UI.
On the other hand, I don't think any of the current digital MP3 players would be subject to this patent. It is fairly specific about what it does and how the thing will operate. I don't know of any that operate specifically like this. As long as players continue to get their data from a PC, they wouldn't infringe on this patent.
Neither. I wasn't generalizing. I'm not saying all Christians are ignorant or self-righteous. Neither am I saying that all non-Christians are not those things, or vice versa. Quit looking for insults and read what I wrote.
The movie makes fun of individuals who display the traits of ignorance and self-righteousness. Those characters sometimes reflect people in real life. I don't have a problem with most Christians, but certain people who claim to be Christians are giving the religion a bad name. Jerry Falwell is the most readily apparent example I can think of, but there are many others. This man claims to be a Christian, yet he exhibits little, if any, of the behavior that most moderate Christians would expect of someone who claims to be devoted to Christ. He is intolerant, bigotted, and ignorant. He provokes these traits in other people who are not capable of seeing him for what he really is. People like Mr. Falwell are the obvious targets of this movie.
The only thing the movie really makes fun of is intolerence.
This is mostly true. I think it also makes fun of the ignorance that causes bigotry and intolerance too. You can almost feel sorry for Cartman's ignorance. It's a reflection of his upbringing though. There were plenty of other ignorant people who were made fun of in the movie. I've only seen it once, but I plan to go see it again. I'm sure I missed some stuff.
Re:Religious bigotry: alive and well in the USA.
on
Spoonful of Quickies
·
· Score: 1
Actually, it made fun of Hinduism too. Remember, Ghandi was one of the faces in Hell.
Actually, I think that might have been a poke at Christianity. Note that despite whatever good Ghandi had done in his life, he wasn't a Christian, so he's in hell. The point being that God/Christians won't tolerate those who are not Christian, even if they are good people.
As I said in an earlier post though, I don't think they are really making fun of Christianity or any other religion. They are making fun of ignorance, self-righteousness, and intolerance.
Well, I see that you have left out alot of good accomplished by Christian men and women over the years
Just like the reviewer neglected to mention any of the good points of the movie.
but listed a few things done in the name of Catholicism in the Middle Ages pretty well, and assigned blame for atrocities in the New World to Christians in general
Just because things were done in the Middle Ages doesn't make them any less wrong. The Catholic Church, by far the largest group of Christians in the world, committed many atrocities in that time. While they wouldn't get away with nearly as much today, I still don't think they are to be trusted. They still seem to think everyone should see things their way or there must be bad. They still engender fear and intolerance. Christians still bash gays and other groups that they consider to be against God's will. Either God is one intolerant individual, or the Christian extremists and hardcore conservatives are violating his will in a major way.
This movie doesn't really make fun of Christianity as much as it makes fun of ignorance and self-righteousness.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually it makes a lot of sense. Those companies can't afford to not offer Windows. There is a very big demand for it. That shouldn't mean that they should suffer the loss of their Windows customers just because they want to searve customers who want Linux as well.
Unfortunately that's exactly what happens. Microsoft has threatened Compaq this way. I believe they threatened Gateway as well. Those are just the ones we know about. It's quite likely that it is (or was, at least before the DOJ lawsuit) a standing threat to all OEMs. Of course, they've used the licensing price as a club as well, so you're correct about that.
How is that going to happen without government intervention? They made the mess with legislation... it'll take more legislation to alter (hopefully for the better) the mess.
Unrestricted access to consumers? OK. That won't happen unless the cable/phone companies have to offer their lines at a competitive price to other access providers. How do you propose to get them to do that?
Then, we would also have to do something about the government passing out monopolies like they were candy. I would hope that they've learned their lesson, but I doubt it.
Some things are good for everyone, but require enormous capital to get started. Do you think 5 separate companies could raise that kind of capital without some kind of guarantee of a decent return? Prolly not.
I think that the government should sponsor certain projects and declare them to be public property and regulate them as such. Anyone can use them, but they must not prevent others from using them as well. There would probably be other terms to such a deal as well... I don't plan to attempt to think the whole thing out right now though.
They don't burrow through my yard to give me choices in the supermarket.
The companies that own the lines NEVER TOOK ANY RISK! They were given a monopoly by the government. Plain and simple. It's time for their free ride to end and for the government to make sure that they do what's best for the consumers. The same people who paid the taxes to the goverment that gave them their monopoly in the first place.
In addition to the other reply to your post, I would like to add that you are utterly incorrect about 98% of the population being within reach of ADSL. You must be within approx. 3 miles of a switch to get ADSL service. Let me quote from the phone company's DSL FAQ:
"Are there restrictions to getting Southwestern Bell DSL service?
Yes, due to restrictions of the currently available technology, customers must live within about 17,500 feet of their central telephone switching office, and their telephone line must be qualified to carry the DSL signal. Not all customers serviced by DSL-equipped central offices will qualify for DSL service. In addition, host networks must be connected to Southwestern Bell's Fast Packet Network service to ensure quality and throughput of Southwestern Bell DSL connections.
My entire neighborhood doesn't get ADSL because of this. Neither do a couple other neighborhoods nearby. It's not poor lines. It's distance. It could be fixed, but just try to get the phone company to do it. They aren't gonna do it if nobody makes them do it. I call and they tell me that I cannot get ADSL. I ask when I will be able to get it. They say they don't know. That leads me to believe they don't have any plans to fix my problem anytime soon. My local cable company has not offered cable modems in my area yet either. They have been telling me that they will be out in a couple months for a year and a half.From reading the fallout from the whole Mindcraft episode, I think that the criticism of the TCP/IP stack is that it's not threaded. I read somewhere else that this is either being fixed now, or has already been fixed.
P.S. I would like to choose ISPs to connect to via my cable. But I don't think it is right (in general) for me (or us collectively) to use the government to force companies (or people) to do what I (we) want.
Those companies wouldn't have the power and control that they have now if OUR GOVERNMENT hadn't given it to them on a silver platter. The government put them in the position where they could afford to build the massive networks. If they hadn't been guaranteed a monopoly for a period of time, they never would have been able to build those networks. Don't think that these guys are just brilliant entrepreneurs that built their companies and networks from scratch. They had a lot of help from the government and we the taxpayers. I think they've had their free ride and now it's time to do what's in the best interests of the consumer.
Perhaps that could be part of the solution. Take the existing networks away from the monopolies. Give them the same access to them as everybody else.
Hmmm... yeah... that'll work until a flock of some endangered or protected species fly through and get cooked right out of the air.
Being an idiot could be attributed to poor education. :) Perhaps I should be more specific. Instead of just teaching the R's, maybe we should be teaching (obviously un)common sense. We should be teaching more about people and how we can make things better by not acting like idiots quite so often. When I think of my education, I don't really think so much about what I learned in school, but more about the things I learned from reading books (both fiction and non) and other stuff that isn't taught in school.
Neither do many other countries....
Why needs human anatomy? Get a good plastic surgeon and you don't have to worry about what real people look like.
Not all models look that way. They aren't all Kate Moss. Seems like now a lot of female athletes are doing modeling on the side. They are usually much better looking and in a lot better shape. They aren't just thin. They are well-toned and healthy.
Yep. It'll be like having Lara Croft doing bra ads for Victoria's Secret.
Seems to me like a lack of decent education and a lack of perspective on life. If your whole world revolves around being pretty, to the point where you would harm your health, then you have a problem. Maybe if people weren't put in public schools where every day is a popularity contest/beauty pagent, perhaps things would be different.
No more than anyone else here, including you.
He wasn't telling anyone what their values should be. He said that's up to them.
An eating disorder is exactly that, a _disorder_. I doubt that there is much weighing and consideration of trade-offs here.
Right. It's probably a medical disorder.
My point is not that I want to force people not to be thin. My point is that there are people who are suffering - most likely in some part due to the media who _are_ telling you what you should and should not want - and they should be helped.
Again, people trying to blame their personal problems on something they saw on tv or in a magazine. People with eating disorders often have other, larger issues to deal with. It doesn't usually just happen on its own. They need medical and/or psychological help. It's not the media's fault. There are many more examples of people who are just as exposed to the same media who do not have such a disorder. To say that the media is a contributing factor is no better than saying that sight is a contributing factor because it allows them to see that they aren't as pretty as someone else.
Great. Maybe women will learn not to go out with such shallow guys. Then perhaps the divorce rate will begin to come down. Bummer for lawyers.
What did Japan contribute last year? What did the U.S. contribute?
This thing sounds almost like a laptop with a music player app that is run on bootup. Quoting from the abstract:
"The device includes a hard drive, a modem for connection to a data base via an on-line service, a keyboard, a display, and an audio system."
Well, does that mean that a device that doesn't include all of these things would not be subject to the patent?
Does this mean that a laptop with WinAmp is covered by the patent?
Here is the part they say is unique:
"The device uniquely combines the remote data access capability resident in a personal computer with a set of tailored, streamlined control functions to simplify, automate, and render seamless the process of selecting audio program material; ordering the program material from a service; receiving acknowledgment of the order and receiving the program material via automatic download for storage in a hard drive; playback of the program material when and where the user desires, with fully streamlined control functions; and control of the user interface functionality on the keyboard through a setup mode of operation."
Don't they at least have to have a prototype? Not that it would be too difficult. Just get the old Thinkpad out and rig it up with a pretty UI.
On the other hand, I don't think any of the current digital MP3 players would be subject to this patent. It is fairly specific about what it does and how the thing will operate. I don't know of any that operate specifically like this. As long as players continue to get their data from a PC, they wouldn't infringe on this patent.
There are probably other factors involved, such as what exactly is being served.
Neither. I wasn't generalizing. I'm not saying all Christians are ignorant or self-righteous. Neither am I saying that all non-Christians are not those things, or vice versa. Quit looking for insults and read what I wrote.
The movie makes fun of individuals who display the traits of ignorance and self-righteousness. Those characters sometimes reflect people in real life. I don't have a problem with most Christians, but certain people who claim to be Christians are giving the religion a bad name. Jerry Falwell is the most readily apparent example I can think of, but there are many others. This man claims to be a Christian, yet he exhibits little, if any, of the behavior that most moderate Christians would expect of someone who claims to be devoted to Christ. He is intolerant, bigotted, and ignorant. He provokes these traits in other people who are not capable of seeing him for what he really is. People like Mr. Falwell are the obvious targets of this movie.
The only thing the movie really makes fun of is intolerence.
This is mostly true. I think it also makes fun of the ignorance that causes bigotry and intolerance too. You can almost feel sorry for Cartman's ignorance. It's a reflection of his upbringing though. There were plenty of other ignorant people who were made fun of in the movie. I've only seen it once, but I plan to go see it again. I'm sure I missed some stuff.
Actually, it made fun of Hinduism too. Remember, Ghandi was one of the faces in Hell.
Actually, I think that might have been a poke at Christianity. Note that despite whatever good Ghandi had done in his life, he wasn't a Christian, so he's in hell. The point being that God/Christians won't tolerate those who are not Christian, even if they are good people.
As I said in an earlier post though, I don't think they are really making fun of Christianity or any other religion. They are making fun of ignorance, self-righteousness, and intolerance.
n/t
Well, I see that you have left out alot of good accomplished by Christian men and women over the years
Just like the reviewer neglected to mention any of the good points of the movie.
but listed a few things done in the name of Catholicism in the Middle Ages pretty well, and assigned blame for atrocities in the New World to Christians in general
Just because things were done in the Middle Ages doesn't make them any less wrong. The Catholic Church, by far the largest group of Christians in the world, committed many atrocities in that time. While they wouldn't get away with nearly as much today, I still don't think they are to be trusted. They still seem to think everyone should see things their way or there must be bad. They still engender fear and intolerance. Christians still bash gays and other groups that they consider to be against God's will. Either God is one intolerant individual, or the Christian extremists and hardcore conservatives are violating his will in a major way.
This movie doesn't really make fun of Christianity as much as it makes fun of ignorance and self-righteousness.