Ok, then, the Olympics can have a race for amputees and a race for non-amputees. He can compete in the former.
I really don't understand why this is an argument given the science behind the ruling. If he used the exact same amount of energy running with the prosthetics as a regular runner and the exact same speeds or slower could be a achieved (admittedly this would be hard to test), then sure, he should have the same shot as non-amputees. But the numbers are different. So, out of fairness to the competitors, he can't.
Given what they're passing off for meat on the McDonald's Value Menu these days, I wouldn't be too surprised if one of them created a nasty, cardboard-flavored version of a cow.
Still, I assume many average users really don't think a computer is going to catch fire...if the PCs are pre-built, they should include some sort of failsafe.
A more interesting question would be to ask a PC game maker if they'd release their game with no copyright, if their publishers/retailers allowed them to. Right now, they have no choice-- given the choice, which would they make?
They'd probably still use a lesser copyright, but still a fairly strong one. Also, unfortunately, without the publishers and their money many of the games simply wouldn't be as detailed/good. I point you to the majority of open-source games (ignoring the exceptions). And the publishers are never going to go for a lack of a copyright.
And yes, copy-protection is futile, but does not need to be increased. Worse comes to worse, a male-male cable on the computer for audio or a direct-feed-to-audio-capture for video is still going to copy the media, and for games...well, that might be a little harder. The bottom line is that the most copy-protection can and should do is prevent copying by the average user.
If I remember correctly, then no...at least, not as the Wii neared release (a year or so before, yes). It was supposed to be a lot closer, though. I suppose all of the build-up may actually be good for sales in the market of those not already addicted.
That being said, I have quite a few friends who are going to be more than a little pissed off at the news.
Fortunately I can safely say that while the board members who make these decisions are people with a distorted view of the world (ok: bigots), I know that many of the teachers I had in high school would rather be fired than stop teaching evolution. I forsee many lawsuits...
...and for a distro like ubuntu which misses oh so many updates it is harder than say, Debian.
...only if you're using the default repositories and not the most current ones. One of the little things about Ubuntu is that only well-tested updates make it to final release, and this takes time. Should certain updates be pushed through almost instantly? Of course they should, and things like the recent Samba Server update (update to the update, really) are.
I know that for my Windows box I'm one of those 95%. I have so much crap on there that I wouldn't be surprised if 95% of the programs were unpatched, ignoring those that actually prompt me to update (which seems to be limited to my office, firewall and antivirus programs).
Given that all of those laptops can run Windows, and also many of them probably have the Mac version of Office installed (ever bought a fresh copy of Windows/Office not attached to hardware? Costs a bit much, and gives Microsoft quite a bit more money on a per-computer basis than the bulk licenses), I don't think Microsoft has much to worry about. It does bother me a little that some schools mandate computer types, and that's coming from someone who uses Windows reluctantly for school/work and boots into Linux for everything else.
Ok, so I made the mistake of saying it was the FCC, but saying that "A coalition of consumer groups and legal scholars asked the agency" still doesn't answer where the figure came from (as in, why $192,000 and not $193,000). If you know the answer to the real question, I would be happy if you told me. Otherwise, I'm really not interested.
This isn't unique to Windows - the majority of brown paper bag releases of the Linux kernel that seriously impact users are also x.y.0 releases.
This is true, but I don't pay for Linux. I expect to have problems with something I got for free and then spend time tinkering with it, but a $100+ (I'm not entirely sure of the market price...) piece of software better be damn near perfect, minor problems (with quick fixes) aside.
It's a fundamental principle of software purchase that has always been true and will likely always be true.
Only if people continue to buy the bad software. I for one didn't even touch XP until well into SP2 and likely won't even give Vista a thought. Am I more tech oriented than the average user and would know not to buy Vista as-is? I read Slashdot, so of course I am, which also means I should (and do) help others not buy bad software. If enough tech people do this than the market will speak for itself.
I'm a little confused by your apparent offense at my comment (Or poorly worded joke. I can't tell which.), but I'll take the opportunity to explain regardless.
I found it laughable that "burning sulfur" would be interpreted to be asteroids, and was asking if the reference was intended as a joke. This was neither an attack on the Bible by an athiest nor a defensive comment of a believer, but a simple question.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sorry if I'm missing the point (I don't think I am), but how exactly does this fight myminicity?
Ok, then, the Olympics can have a race for amputees and a race for non-amputees. He can compete in the former.
I really don't understand why this is an argument given the science behind the ruling. If he used the exact same amount of energy running with the prosthetics as a regular runner and the exact same speeds or slower could be a achieved (admittedly this would be hard to test), then sure, he should have the same shot as non-amputees. But the numbers are different. So, out of fairness to the competitors, he can't.
Well, I guess no super bionic capabilities for you!
Given what they're passing off for meat on the McDonald's Value Menu these days, I wouldn't be too surprised if one of them created a nasty, cardboard-flavored version of a cow.
What does that have to do with freedom? As a matter of fact, not requiring labels means more freedom for producers.
If it's really a problem for people, they can feel perfectly free to buy a ranch and raise their own non-cloned livestock for food.
Does this mean I should throw away my Wal-Mart© papier-mâché monitor? It only smokes occasionally...and it only cost me $4.88!
Or be considerably poorer than your neighbor. Either works, really.
Still, I assume many average users really don't think a computer is going to catch fire...if the PCs are pre-built, they should include some sort of failsafe.
They'd probably still use a lesser copyright, but still a fairly strong one. Also, unfortunately, without the publishers and their money many of the games simply wouldn't be as detailed/good. I point you to the majority of open-source games (ignoring the exceptions). And the publishers are never going to go for a lack of a copyright.
And yes, copy-protection is futile, but does not need to be increased. Worse comes to worse, a male-male cable on the computer for audio or a direct-feed-to-audio-capture for video is still going to copy the media, and for games...well, that might be a little harder. The bottom line is that the most copy-protection can and should do is prevent copying by the average user.
If I remember correctly, then no...at least, not as the Wii neared release (a year or so before, yes). It was supposed to be a lot closer, though. I suppose all of the build-up may actually be good for sales in the market of those not already addicted.
That being said, I have quite a few friends who are going to be more than a little pissed off at the news.
What if they used the sapphire-crystal displays we say here a few weeks back?
...Will they be more streamlined for my shopping-cart races?
Not quite...the article more or less is about a recession and it's affect on open source, not an open source recession.
Sorry to go all grammar-Nazi...the statement wasn't clear.
Fixed.
I wouldn't necessarily regard SACD as a failure; even though it was planned as a replacement for CDs it still found its niche among audiophiles.
Of course, your main point is still valid...after the whole rootkit fiasco I don't even touch regular Sony/BMG CD's anymore...
So you define "terrorist" as...?
Fortunately I can safely say that while the board members who make these decisions are people with a distorted view of the world (ok: bigots), I know that many of the teachers I had in high school would rather be fired than stop teaching evolution. I forsee many lawsuits...
"He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security." - Benjamin Franklin
So you can die the death of a salesman!
...only if you're using the default repositories and not the most current ones. One of the little things about Ubuntu is that only well-tested updates make it to final release, and this takes time. Should certain updates be pushed through almost instantly? Of course they should, and things like the recent Samba Server update (update to the update, really) are.
I know that for my Windows box I'm one of those 95%. I have so much crap on there that I wouldn't be surprised if 95% of the programs were unpatched, ignoring those that actually prompt me to update (which seems to be limited to my office, firewall and antivirus programs).
Given that all of those laptops can run Windows, and also many of them probably have the Mac version of Office installed (ever bought a fresh copy of Windows/Office not attached to hardware? Costs a bit much, and gives Microsoft quite a bit more money on a per-computer basis than the bulk licenses), I don't think Microsoft has much to worry about. It does bother me a little that some schools mandate computer types, and that's coming from someone who uses Windows reluctantly for school/work and boots into Linux for everything else.
A little touchy there, I must say.
Ok, so I made the mistake of saying it was the FCC, but saying that "A coalition of consumer groups and legal scholars asked the agency" still doesn't answer where the figure came from (as in, why $192,000 and not $193,000). If you know the answer to the real question, I would be happy if you told me. Otherwise, I'm really not interested.
...which begs the question: where, exactly, did the FCC pull that number from?
This is true, but I don't pay for Linux. I expect to have problems with something I got for free and then spend time tinkering with it, but a $100+ (I'm not entirely sure of the market price...) piece of software better be damn near perfect, minor problems (with quick fixes) aside.
Only if people continue to buy the bad software. I for one didn't even touch XP until well into SP2 and likely won't even give Vista a thought. Am I more tech oriented than the average user and would know not to buy Vista as-is? I read Slashdot, so of course I am, which also means I should (and do) help others not buy bad software. If enough tech people do this than the market will speak for itself.
I'm a little confused by your apparent offense at my comment (Or poorly worded joke. I can't tell which.), but I'll take the opportunity to explain regardless.
I found it laughable that "burning sulfur" would be interpreted to be asteroids, and was asking if the reference was intended as a joke. This was neither an attack on the Bible by an athiest nor a defensive comment of a believer, but a simple question.
I apologize for not making that perfectly clear.