But Gnome, too. I was very frustrated that the new version of Sawfish has the "new feature" of removed functionality. You cannot use viewports, and edge-flipping is therefore impossible by default.
This is caused in part by a really silly typo in windows.jl Check http://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?i d=75300 for how to get everything running. Unfortunately, the stupid "workspace switcher" in Gnome 2.0 doesn't know about viewports, while the desk guide in home 1.4 did. But that seems to go along perfectly with Gnome's new "we'll make things easy not by designing a system well but by removing all functionality" philosophy.
M$ is a monopoly not because they own the lions share (~95%) of the PC market, they are a monopoly because of what they do, and how they hold onto that share.
Actually, Microsoft is a monopoly because they own the lion's share of the PC market. They became an illegal monopoly because of what they do. A monopoly is not always bad or illegal.
No creative professional-- artist or otherwise-- would ever judge color on a computer monitor. This is the line that clearly separates the pros from the wanna-bes.
Absolutely incorrect. Many computer professionals just color on a monitor. It usually has to be done in a dark room with a carefully calibrated monitor.
If no--> Pick up the cheapest, lousiest, ratty looking new model you can find (such as a Wal-Mart $300), as it is 10x too powerful for your tasks.
I never make the suggestion that people pick the most low-end components they can, because those piece of crap computers tend to be much less stable. Almost everyone is willing to pay more for stability, and you usually won't get stability from the PCChips motherboard and the no-name peripherals. Sure they won't need the P4, a nice Celeron or AMD will work just fine for them, but there are certain areas that you can't skimp on (motherboard especially) if you're looking for a stable system.
That's hilarious. They showed "Something About Mary" on TV the other day, and with half the scenes cut to hell, many things became as pointless as the above. There were a half dozen scenes that were rendered incomprehensible by the butchery. And they were funny before they were butchered.
Yup. Another example: Armageddon was shown on ABC a few months back. Most of the initial meteor strike in New York was censored out (for obvious reasons). The eye candy was pretty much the only reason to watch that movie. Without that, the only things left were the shabby plot and unlikable characters.
So, you're claiming that artists work for the sheer love of it and have no need to or interest in selling their products? You must believe artists are somehow different than the rest of us.
No, he simply either believes that artists are magical beings who have no need to buy food or shelter, or he believes any artist should be able to create all the art we want for free after they get off their 10-hour Wallmart shifts.
Right now, the IP industry is based on *recovery* of costs... create the software/CD/film, then try to reclaim your expenses in sales. How about some more proactive approaches?
"We're looking to do something innovative. Who wants to cough up a Hamilton to ensure it happens?"
The end result being a world in which far less art or creative works are made. No thanks, I'd rather keep the current system. In order to advance society, what you propose has to work Better than the current model... and it has to work better in the real world, not an idealized one.
Just like the old days when I'd try to get into a public ftp site, only to be turned away because there were too many visitors, and the system couldn't support them...
Of course, if you've a mission critical system of course you've subscribed. But for Joe Home Users the upgrading might take a while.
Or he could use one of the many mirrors. (yes... I know, the mirroring system is very faulty, but it's there, sortof)
As for the Linux/NT thing, I normally expect Linux users to have a higher level of competence in both Windows NT and Linux. Most of the Linux users I see are moving away from Windows,
Moving away from Windows, granted, but that doesn't mean they've been exposed to NT or NT domains though. That's not usually consumer-grade stuff.
You know, there's a logo on the front of most microwaves telling their brand name.
Yeah, you're usually not visually assaulted by microwave logos. Now if the logo suddenly expanded to fill the entire length and height of the door for 10 seconds every time you microwaved something, perhaps that would be a valid comparison.
Yup. One thing to keep in mind is that when they were going through the post-production on Fellowship, the Fellowship was all they needed to work on. Now they're doing both the Two Towers and the added scenes for the Fellowship DVD. It adds up...
Your forgetting, most people will, even when presented with royal assloads of logical evidence to the contrary (and even if on some level they AGREE with the evidence and how it is presented), still opt to buy the newest latest coolest looking model
That's a little bit far-fetched, but still possible. An intermediary step that would happen first though would be locking the CD to an area. You can listen to it in your house, but forget about loaning it to your friend.
All you have to do to make the first sentence you posted make sense is to prove unequivocally that every download is a lost sale. Hint: you can't.
Whether it's a lost sale or not is irrelevant. The act of obtaining of the copywritten material creates an obligation to pay for it. The not paying for it part is the theft. No, you are not stealing music, movies, etc, but you are stealing money. The money you owe when you obtain the movie or music or so forth. Downloading the music, the movies.. that IS a sale, a sale you are not paying for.
If I sneak into an amusement park or theater that is running under capacity (and will not be running at full capacity), then that is a crime, as well it should be.
I'm sure the MPAA wouldn't mind that too much. After all, it makes it extremely difficult or impossible for anyone to download the Two Towers movie then.
So.. what you are saying is those that are working harder than others shouldn't be paid more? And that companies shouldn't be allowed to ask their employees to give a little more?? Reminds me of a Union shop I worked where I was told not to work so hard because it made the others look bad.
There's a difference between telling an employee to work more efficiently throughout the day (your union example) and telling an employee to work longer than is reasonable. On one hand, yes I do believe work should be rewarded, but on the other hand, you don't want to create an environment where long hours are expected and considered reasonable. Work should not have to be an employee's whole life (yes, I'd define 60 hours per week as "your whole life"), and an employee who wants to have a decent life outside of work shouldn't lose out because other employees either don't have or don't want a life outside of their workplace. Around the places where I've worked, unless something was breaking terribly, a sysadmin was expected to work 40-45 hours a week. And there's no reason why this shouldn't be the expected.
Always, always remember: the company is not more important than the employees. We heard a lot of bullshit during the dot-com era about how the employees needed to sacrifice everything to advance the company.. somehow it was reasonable to expect 80-hour work weeks, weekends, all because the company was in a groundbreaking new field and it would make all the employees rich.. and we know how empty those promises ended up being.
I guess my (admittedly rambling) point is that employees should have the right to expect the 40-hour work week. Some people might want to work a little longer for extra pay, and I have no problem with that. The only things I fear is that then this becomes expected for other employees, and they are pressured (or simply fired) for not upping their own hours.
There is shipping. The rest is 'handling,' which is pure profit. 'Handling' is a way to charge more for a product without having that amount show up in the purchase price, and without having to pay taxes on that amount.
Slashdot Mirror
Regular folks get these doors kicked open for them too. However, it's usually followed by a few people yelling "This is the DEA, freeze!"
This is caused in part by a really silly typo in windows.jl Check http://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?i d=75300 for how to get everything running. Unfortunately, the stupid "workspace switcher" in Gnome 2.0 doesn't know about viewports, while the desk guide in home 1.4 did. But that seems to go along perfectly with Gnome's new "we'll make things easy not by designing a system well but by removing all functionality" philosophy.
Actually, Microsoft is a monopoly because they own the lion's share of the PC market. They became an illegal monopoly because of what they do. A monopoly is not always bad or illegal.
Absolutely incorrect. Many computer professionals just color on a monitor. It usually has to be done in a dark room with a carefully calibrated monitor.
I never make the suggestion that people pick the most low-end components they can, because those piece of crap computers tend to be much less stable. Almost everyone is willing to pay more for stability, and you usually won't get stability from the PCChips motherboard and the no-name peripherals. Sure they won't need the P4, a nice Celeron or AMD will work just fine for them, but there are certain areas that you can't skimp on (motherboard especially) if you're looking for a stable system.
Yup. Another example: Armageddon was shown on ABC a few months back. Most of the initial meteor strike in New York was censored out (for obvious reasons). The eye candy was pretty much the only reason to watch that movie. Without that, the only things left were the shabby plot and unlikable characters.
Nope. Never was. Especially when you take the damaging internal memos that were released during the trial into account.
Problem is... most people listen to crap. I want to listen to good music instead.
No, he simply either believes that artists are magical beings who have no need to buy food or shelter, or he believes any artist should be able to create all the art we want for free after they get off their 10-hour Wallmart shifts.
"We're looking to do something innovative. Who wants to cough up a Hamilton to ensure it happens?"
The end result being a world in which far less art or creative works are made. No thanks, I'd rather keep the current system. In order to advance society, what you propose has to work Better than the current model... and it has to work better in the real world, not an idealized one.
Agreed. I remember just cringing when I heard way back when that he was lobbying hard for the role of Aragorn in the Lord of the Rings movies.
He sucks majorly at every role he's ever played.
Hey, Bill and Ted seemed to work well for him.
Just like the old days when I'd try to get into a public ftp site, only to be turned away because there were too many visitors, and the system couldn't support them...
Of course, if you've a mission critical system of course you've subscribed. But for Joe Home Users the upgrading might take a while.
Or he could use one of the many mirrors. (yes... I know, the mirroring system is very faulty, but it's there, sortof)
Moving away from Windows, granted, but that doesn't mean they've been exposed to NT or NT domains though. That's not usually consumer-grade stuff.
Yeah, you're usually not visually assaulted by microwave logos. Now if the logo suddenly expanded to fill the entire length and height of the door for 10 seconds every time you microwaved something, perhaps that would be a valid comparison.
Yup. One thing to keep in mind is that when they were going through the post-production on Fellowship, the Fellowship was all they needed to work on. Now they're doing both the Two Towers and the added scenes for the Fellowship DVD. It adds up...
Like DIVX?
Whether it's a lost sale or not is irrelevant. The act of obtaining of the copywritten material creates an obligation to pay for it. The not paying for it part is the theft. No, you are not stealing music, movies, etc, but you are stealing money. The money you owe when you obtain the movie or music or so forth. Downloading the music, the movies.. that IS a sale, a sale you are not paying for.
There's a difference between telling an employee to work more efficiently throughout the day (your union example) and telling an employee to work longer than is reasonable. On one hand, yes I do believe work should be rewarded, but on the other hand, you don't want to create an environment where long hours are expected and considered reasonable. Work should not have to be an employee's whole life (yes, I'd define 60 hours per week as "your whole life"), and an employee who wants to have a decent life outside of work shouldn't lose out because other employees either don't have or don't want a life outside of their workplace. Around the places where I've worked, unless something was breaking terribly, a sysadmin was expected to work 40-45 hours a week. And there's no reason why this shouldn't be the expected.
Always, always remember: the company is not more important than the employees. We heard a lot of bullshit during the dot-com era about how the employees needed to sacrifice everything to advance the company.. somehow it was reasonable to expect 80-hour work weeks, weekends, all because the company was in a groundbreaking new field and it would make all the employees rich.. and we know how empty those promises ended up being.
I guess my (admittedly rambling) point is that employees should have the right to expect the 40-hour work week. Some people might want to work a little longer for extra pay, and I have no problem with that. The only things I fear is that then this becomes expected for other employees, and they are pressured (or simply fired) for not upping their own hours.
There is shipping. The rest is 'handling,' which is pure profit. 'Handling' is a way to charge more for a product without having that amount show up in the purchase price, and without having to pay taxes on that amount.
I think it was Hatch... but of course he had other supporters. Don't forget it passed unanimously.