How many people are informed enough to be opinionated against Vista, and feel competent enough to swap out an OS, but still buy prebuilts laden with crapware rather than building one? I could see it for offices and schools swapping out old hardware en masse, but why would this be the case for an individual?
But seriously, MS has too much money jammed up its collective ass and too many branches for the loss of a monopoly in the OS market to kill it outright. They still make wonderful peripherals, the RedRing 360, and their research division must bring in plenty, thanks to patent licensing. Oh, and don't forget that many are just snapping up XP if they don't like Vista; it's still another dollar for MS. Who knows, maybe MS would take another look at Windows if sales started plummeting.
Well I'd assume at least those intending to make use of this would. That's like asking how many people have lock picks, when talking about securing doors.
Hm, imagine that. Having a workstation that from the ground up is equipped to handle roaming users, even across the internet. There would be issues with compatibility and installed software, but assuming the basics (OS login, browser bookmarks, yadda yadda) it would be a fair step towards ubiquitous computing. Ah, the future... are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet?...
Well, I've run across twoservices like that recently. GOPC, while closer to 'save once, read anywhere' is ridiculously limited,in that you can't install applications and that the cost per gigabyte of storage is through the roof. (It actually makes me think of Geocities/Angelfire's hosting plans on some level.) Zonbu, while being more expensive (hardware costs), includes a small, moddable thin client, a more programs, 4-60GB of local storage and 50GB of online storage.
It may not be much, but a few cool toys trickle down every now and then.
I don't know how it'll fair in the entertainment arena, but there's always a place for high-capacity discs elsewhere. I sure wouldn't mind replacing my stack of backup DVDs with a few BR-RWs in the near future. I'll cheer on the day I can cheaply image one of my larger hard drives to a single disc, slap a dated label on it and file it away.
What about just putting heavy research into something? You know, spending months/years on a new type of...elevator, and then filing an 'I might use this' patent (with proof of actually having spent this time/effort). Patents aren't just there for temporary monopolies, they also exist to provide details on the invention. Some people have genuinely good ideas, but don't have the capital to do anything with them without licensing them to someone else.
Seriously, I see no way that anyone would do something like this to do anything besides prove a point. It would be like someone being sued over the 'circular transportation facilitation device' patent from a few years ago.
For example, as we know it there are some parameters in the standard model of physics that have to be set just right in order for the universe as it is currently set to exist. That is for the strength of the gravitional force, magnetic force, atomic etc.
Who's to say there wouldn't be something else if it were differen't? Were there even of these mystical 'force dials' in the first place?
I believe the it is a more difficult miracle for God to set this stuff up into motion 15 billion years ago so that today you have humans walking around than to have created everything 3000 years ago with the illusion of having been created so long ago.
While we're at it, maybe we just appeared five minutes ago with fabricated memories. Also, gods are omnipotent by definition; there's no 'difficult' miracle'.
Really, I don't see why people get so flustered about 'conflict' between science and religion. For all we know, the universe could just be a bubble, freely manipulated by beings outside of it. It's not like getting 'gravity now repells' into a respected journal makes it happen, nor does spending my life writing a new holy book make a new god; it's all observation and hypotheses.
But would it even be enforceable if it had such a broad definition? Just look at the laws regarding 'strong encryption' and the rise of the Internet. (And even if it did end up written in such a half-assed manner, I'd like to think it would be thrown out the moment it was brought up in court; all but the most senile/corrupt of judges should be able to see the implications of an overgeneralized law regarding 'investigation'.)
People without the will power to stop themselves from doing something that they don't want to do should die.
But that's just it! It's an addiction, the user wants to take it. It is, however, possible to find this want undesireable, while still wanting the object of the addiction. Keep in mind that some things aren't just a matter of will; the brain is still a machine of sorts and its functioning may be interrupted/modified through various means.
Society would be a lot better off if modern medicine's resources went into trying to solve actual problems as opposed to ones create by weak willed individuals.
But then it might not be as profitible; healthcare/drug manufacture isn't usually done out of charity, and hope as we may, there just aren't enough altruists running prarmcos. At least with these vaccines, they could possibly become manditory in places and thus turn an enormous profit over time.
As for the whole 'weed out the weak' tone of your post, there's really no reason to do so when humans have taken over all but one continent and have more than enough resources to coddle those who would otherwise be selected against. It's not endangering the human race as a whole (under current conditions), it's just really, really annoying at times.
"Why did the cancer cross the road? To metastasize." Since when does taste matter when telling jokes on an anonymous forum, far away from anyone who could be offended (maybe not very far, but how would you know)? Save that formality for the meatspace. People tend to distance themselves from the subject; it's not like people crowd around some poor soul being raped at knifepoint, nor would many of the people flinging around holocaust jokes bust a gut when shown a video about WW2 concentration camps.
Also Ralsky has done a lot more than just this. I cringe from the bad memories after he convinced a former employer of mine that spamming animal porn was a great way to make money.
At least it makes for an interesting resume. So, how do interviews go?
Forcing a company to add something is one thing, but it's completely different to let a company actively disable something. Not that it matters though, consumers are sheep; if I bought an iPod on name alone, I'd either get it 'free' or buy it from iTunes. "Oh, MS has cheaper songs? Well I just spent $250 on my iPod Super-Hyper-Pico Plus."
Back on the topic of actively disabling WMA, how about requiring manufacturers doing more to point out supported formats? Maybe a spiky red bubble on the front of the box saying what's supported? That way, it would look like some marvelous extra, like 'batteries included' or 'one free song download'.
Even when the opposition can easily do the same? Should I be disqualified for taking a short nap before a chess tournament? Preempt: You can't compare that to steroid use, that would be more like reading a move book before a game.
Why would ads bother you if you'll only see them for about three pages (provided you know what you're looking for)? As long as they're non-animated banner ads or text ads, why is it a problem? He's also paying for this completely out of pocket. I see three options here: use the service and ignore the ads, hope the service starts relying on donations and pay like that (or freeload while others donate), or use TOR/nothing instead. It's not like the client has flashing 'catch the Pope, win an iPod' ads at the top and bottom, regardless of whether or not you're using the browser.
Slashdot Mirror
How many people are informed enough to be opinionated against Vista, and feel competent enough to swap out an OS, but still buy prebuilts laden with crapware rather than building one? I could see it for offices and schools swapping out old hardware en masse, but why would this be the case for an individual?
Did you bother getting a refund on the bundled copies of Vista? I'd imagine you could get a lot back for 200 machines.
Who knows, maybe MS would take another look at Windows if sales started plummeting.
Well I'd assume at least those intending to make use of this would. That's like asking how many people have lock picks, when talking about securing doors.
'Mordor does not simply walk into one'?
GOPC, while closer to 'save once, read anywhere' is ridiculously limited,in that you can't install applications and that the cost per gigabyte of storage is through the roof. (It actually makes me think of Geocities/Angelfire's hosting plans on some level.)
Zonbu, while being more expensive (hardware costs), includes a small, moddable thin client, a more programs, 4-60GB of local storage and 50GB of online storage.
It may not be much, but a few cool toys trickle down every now and then.
You're right. If only we could force them to release the source code or something, then we could just look.
True, but how many times have you lost a CD/DVD to dust, moisture, or gravity?
Perhaps it has more to do with the overwhelming cost of a nice HDTV? $400-$900 is a bit...much.
I don't know how it'll fair in the entertainment arena, but there's always a place for high-capacity discs elsewhere. I sure wouldn't mind replacing my stack of backup DVDs with a few BR-RWs in the near future. I'll cheer on the day I can cheaply image one of my larger hard drives to a single disc, slap a dated label on it and file it away.
What about just putting heavy research into something? You know, spending months/years on a new type of...elevator, and then filing an 'I might use this' patent (with proof of actually having spent this time/effort). Patents aren't just there for temporary monopolies, they also exist to provide details on the invention.
Some people have genuinely good ideas, but don't have the capital to do anything with them without licensing them to someone else.
...this patent troll's trolling?
Seriously, I see no way that anyone would do something like this to do anything besides prove a point. It would be like someone being sued over the 'circular transportation facilitation device' patent from a few years ago.
Nope, just the copies. :p
Really, I don't see why people get so flustered about 'conflict' between science and religion. For all we know, the universe could just be a bubble, freely manipulated by beings outside of it. It's not like getting 'gravity now repells' into a respected journal makes it happen, nor does spending my life writing a new holy book make a new god; it's all observation and hypotheses.
But would it even be enforceable if it had such a broad definition? Just look at the laws regarding 'strong encryption' and the rise of the Internet.
(And even if it did end up written in such a half-assed manner, I'd like to think it would be thrown out the moment it was brought up in court; all but the most senile/corrupt of judges should be able to see the implications of an overgeneralized law regarding 'investigation'.)
Bollox!
...Firefox doesn't detect frustration.
As for the whole 'weed out the weak' tone of your post, there's really no reason to do so when humans have taken over all but one continent and have more than enough resources to coddle those who would otherwise be selected against. It's not endangering the human race as a whole (under current conditions), it's just really, really annoying at times.
"Why did the cancer cross the road?
To metastasize."
Since when does taste matter when telling jokes on an anonymous forum, far away from anyone who could be offended (maybe not very far, but how would you know)? Save that formality for the meatspace.
People tend to distance themselves from the subject; it's not like people crowd around some poor soul being raped at knifepoint, nor would many of the people flinging around holocaust jokes bust a gut when shown a video about WW2 concentration camps.
Forcing a company to add something is one thing, but it's completely different to let a company actively disable something.
Not that it matters though, consumers are sheep; if I bought an iPod on name alone, I'd either get it 'free' or buy it from iTunes. "Oh, MS has cheaper songs? Well I just spent $250 on my iPod Super-Hyper-Pico Plus."
Back on the topic of actively disabling WMA, how about requiring manufacturers doing more to point out supported formats? Maybe a spiky red bubble on the front of the box saying what's supported? That way, it would look like some marvelous extra, like 'batteries included' or 'one free song download'.
Nah, it was just a postemptive prediction.
And why doesn't anyone like seven? Seems a bit unfair to me.
With or without a cat?
Even when the opposition can easily do the same? Should I be disqualified for taking a short nap before a chess tournament? Preempt: You can't compare that to steroid use, that would be more like reading a move book before a game.
Why would ads bother you if you'll only see them for about three pages (provided you know what you're looking for)? As long as they're non-animated banner ads or text ads, why is it a problem?
He's also paying for this completely out of pocket. I see three options here: use the service and ignore the ads, hope the service starts relying on donations and pay like that (or freeload while others donate), or use TOR/nothing instead. It's not like the client has flashing 'catch the Pope, win an iPod' ads at the top and bottom, regardless of whether or not you're using the browser.