And what's the extra upcharge on that? I got my static at no extra charge whatsoever. And I am talking residential, not business.
Just checked your DSL offerings, and something only roughly equivalent with no mention of static IP's is $10 more than what I pay today, and that's before all the myriad fees get tacked on.
can't get it because...?? Several people have noted getting it not only with Open/StarOffice but also with KDE's spreadsheet and Gnumeric. Seems unlikely they're using winblows....
I had to fight and fight to get my ISP to take seriously my demand that the first hop be less than 50 ms or I was going to find someone else. See, I went with a provider that I thought was a local ISP who turned out to just be reselling service from...halfway across the country. So, I get the ATM link from here (Oak Park) to my CO, but I'm positive that that gateway router is in Virginia. If I wanted to give the business to my ILEC, I could probably do better, but as long as it's 50ms or less I can live with it. If I changed to Ameritech I'd probably have to give up my static IP and unblocked ability to have a small web server too.
Actually, what this really accomplishes (if many people do it) is force the major manufacturers to simply start honoring the license or provide their own no-OS options. That seems worthwhile, and isn't accomplished by simply going elsewhere.
If Linux worked out of the box, I'd probably attach that same monetary value to it, because once you get past the install nightmare it mostly works.
What are you blathering about? I haven't had any "install nightmare" on any version of Linux since 5.X ages ago. Red Hat 6, Suse 7, Suse 8, Red Hat 9 have never given me any issues on installation on any of the boxes I've installed them on.
As for buying a computer without an OS, if for whatever reason you want one from one of the major manufacturers (Dell, HP, et. al) usually it's a huge struggle, which leads to this "refund" business.
You really have no clue about how effective the "individual company" DNC lists were do you? I.E. not at all. There are literally hundreds if not thousands of companies who might want to call me to hassle me about buying their products. If I have to contact each one individually, or wait until they've already harassed me once to get them not to call me, that's a huge burden. It makes sense that I would want a central place where I can go, put my name up and say "I don't want telemarketers to call me damn it!". Since the phone companies and the free market aren't providing that service, it seems perfectly reasonable to have the government step in, especially given the huge number of people who feel the same way.
If the industry would have come up with a solution on its own that actually worked and made sense, things would never have come to this. I have no pity for their claims (which I don't see much substantiation for) that they'll be put out of business.
Unfortunately the percentage cost to each of those 911 people is going to be higher for the defendants than the prosecutors, so it's likely the RIAA can afford the costs better than the defendants.
Some classes have mandatory message boards (read: graded) where you have to post your own opinion, then respond to someone elses.
I'm all for interaction, but this kind of simple-minded requirement just leads to awkward, stupid, and obvious things being posted by people who either 1) can't think of anything better or 2) were already beaten to the punch in asking a truly insightful question.
Know directly, or by claims made by those with a political axe to grind? I'm surprised that being in the "lost middle" you'd know any welfare recipients. And any time I've investigated such claims in the past, they were universally based on extreme exaggerations of a few exceptions. Chances are really good that welfare money didn't buy any such big screen TVs anyway--I'd be more likely to assume drug money or similar illegal gains (which doesn't mean I blame drugs, but that's a different discussion)
As for "money handouts" I didn't say that the money should be given directly as cash, but certainly it takes money to provide a reasonable standard of education, healthcare, etc. I don't recall advocating for "the dole".
Nor do I recall too many conservative arguments here acknowledging any responsibility to society at large, nor any need to help their fellow humans. Inasmuch as they don't say exactly what I've said, it seems to me primarily due to not wanting to seem as greedy as ultimately it turns out they are.
Let's take a case in point. The recent round of tax cuts were all about providing "stimulus to the economy" to help everyone. Except that percentagewise, the vast majority of the benefit went to the most wealthy people--the same people who have the most resources (i.e. money to pay lawyers) to make sure they've already minimized their tax burden as much as possible anyway. The corporate version of this is the move to offshore tax havens like Bermuda. What has this done in the short term? Totally screwed the states who have been mandated by congress to provide certain services, but now aren't getting enough money to do so because the feds don't have the money to give (they gave it back to you and me and the wealthy) and the economy is so down that their tax structures don't allow them enough to make it either. So what gets cut? Support services for the poor. Because the poor don't make big political donations, because the poor have already become so cynical about how badly they're being screwed that they don't bother being involved much, etc.
That's a prime example of "I should be able to keep my money I earned" basically meaning "I've got mine, and screw the rest of y'all". That's what it has come down to time and again, and I don't see people taking that money they've saved in taxes and donating it to charity, so I can't see how there's any other reasonable interpretation of the behavior, no matter what "arguments" are provided.
If you can't recognize a paraphrase as what it was, and want to make that into a big moral argument, perhaps you should spend your time arguing with someone else, because I don't plan to rise to that bait.
If I had meant it as a literal quote it would have been in italics, as per the convention here.
Let me rephrase less extremely: "I've got mine, I don't owe anyone anything." It boils down to the same thing, of course, because all the haves can shut the have-nots out of society and leave them to rot, as they seem to be actively doing in our cities today. Then the have-nots create their own lovely "lord of the flies" variation of society for lack of any real alternatives, leaving the haves to pat themselves on the back and say "see, they were all lazy/stupid/subhuman/undeserving anyway."
Don't get me wrong: I don't think the government does a great job--in fact it does a spectacularly bad job--but I think it does better than the alternative at least at this point.
As for your morals, your assertion of morals bears zero weight. Explain, demonstrate, etc. I have no qualms about questioning anyone's morals in the absence of such demonstration.
The MIT museum in Boston. I forget the exact location, I just know I was walking around MIT campus and stumbled across it. I'm sure any information source about MIT can point you at it. They have it set up in an old academic building. There was a section devoted to MIT "hacks" (things like the "breast of knowledge" made from the great dome, and other odd things like a cow and a cop car put up on top of the dome, as well as other stuff. But more impressively, there was a section devoted to the kinetic sculpture done by "this one guy" (sorry, I'm not doing him justice) that was all exceedingly cool. Basically they were all little mechanisms run either from small motors or hand cranks that did amusing, puzzling, and eventually basically useless stuff, but still looked interesting and were cool to play with and/or look at. I would highly recommend it.
Re:Liberal/Convervative mumbo jumbo
on
Saving the Net
·
· Score: 1
I dunno, it sounded to me like the author had a lot of sympathy for some conservative perspectives, but was pointing out a disconnect between conservative rhetoric and actions.
Slashdot Mirror
Just checked your DSL offerings, and something only roughly equivalent with no mention of static IP's is $10 more than what I pay today, and that's before all the myriad fees get tacked on.
can't get it because...?? Several people have noted getting it not only with Open/StarOffice but also with KDE's spreadsheet and Gnumeric. Seems unlikely they're using winblows....
If you haven't noticed, Rab/R&B/Hip-Hop is really popular with the disaffected suburban youth. Who have computers.
What I find irritating is that the "number of times" field ought to be it's own column in the spreadsheet so you can actually sort the frigging list.
I had to fight and fight to get my ISP to take seriously my demand that the first hop be less than 50 ms or I was going to find someone else. See, I went with a provider that I thought was a local ISP who turned out to just be reselling service from...halfway across the country. So, I get the ATM link from here (Oak Park) to my CO, but I'm positive that that gateway router is in Virginia. If I wanted to give the business to my ILEC, I could probably do better, but as long as it's 50ms or less I can live with it. If I changed to Ameritech I'd probably have to give up my static IP and unblocked ability to have a small web server too.
Anyone else read this as "and is waiting for them to drop out"?
If you had read many of the anti-microsoft articles in the Linux world, you'd understand.
So let the company prove that is the right figure, and he would have settled for $10.
Actually, what this really accomplishes (if many people do it) is force the major manufacturers to simply start honoring the license or provide their own no-OS options. That seems worthwhile, and isn't accomplished by simply going elsewhere.
My favorite was the follow up:
"My refund check will be arriving this month."
you hope
What are you blathering about? I haven't had any "install nightmare" on any version of Linux since 5.X ages ago. Red Hat 6, Suse 7, Suse 8, Red Hat 9 have never given me any issues on installation on any of the boxes I've installed them on.
As for buying a computer without an OS, if for whatever reason you want one from one of the major manufacturers (Dell, HP, et. al) usually it's a huge struggle, which leads to this "refund" business.
If the industry would have come up with a solution on its own that actually worked and made sense, things would never have come to this. I have no pity for their claims (which I don't see much substantiation for) that they'll be put out of business.
I'm not talking about damages, I'm talking just about lawyers fees, which are not known to be tiny.
Unfortunately the percentage cost to each of those 911 people is going to be higher for the defendants than the prosecutors, so it's likely the RIAA can afford the costs better than the defendants.
People are going to be suspicious that this doesn't preserve their anonymity voting.
Thank you, glad to see him get the credit he deserves. He has done some really really cool stuff.
I'm all for interaction, but this kind of simple-minded requirement just leads to awkward, stupid, and obvious things being posted by people who either 1) can't think of anything better or 2) were already beaten to the punch in asking a truly insightful question.
Can we get some Kazaa proxies set up overseas anyone?
War! Hunh! Good God! What is it GOOD FOR? (Absolutely Nothing)
Know directly, or by claims made by those with a political axe to grind? I'm surprised that being in the "lost middle" you'd know any welfare recipients. And any time I've investigated such claims in the past, they were universally based on extreme exaggerations of a few exceptions. Chances are really good that welfare money didn't buy any such big screen TVs anyway--I'd be more likely to assume drug money or similar illegal gains (which doesn't mean I blame drugs, but that's a different discussion)
As for "money handouts" I didn't say that the money should be given directly as cash, but certainly it takes money to provide a reasonable standard of education, healthcare, etc. I don't recall advocating for "the dole".
Nor do I recall too many conservative arguments here acknowledging any responsibility to society at large, nor any need to help their fellow humans. Inasmuch as they don't say exactly what I've said, it seems to me primarily due to not wanting to seem as greedy as ultimately it turns out they are.
Let's take a case in point. The recent round of tax cuts were all about providing "stimulus to the economy" to help everyone. Except that percentagewise, the vast majority of the benefit went to the most wealthy people--the same people who have the most resources (i.e. money to pay lawyers) to make sure they've already minimized their tax burden as much as possible anyway. The corporate version of this is the move to offshore tax havens like Bermuda. What has this done in the short term? Totally screwed the states who have been mandated by congress to provide certain services, but now aren't getting enough money to do so because the feds don't have the money to give (they gave it back to you and me and the wealthy) and the economy is so down that their tax structures don't allow them enough to make it either. So what gets cut? Support services for the poor. Because the poor don't make big political donations, because the poor have already become so cynical about how badly they're being screwed that they don't bother being involved much, etc.
That's a prime example of "I should be able to keep my money I earned" basically meaning "I've got mine, and screw the rest of y'all". That's what it has come down to time and again, and I don't see people taking that money they've saved in taxes and donating it to charity, so I can't see how there's any other reasonable interpretation of the behavior, no matter what "arguments" are provided.
If you can't recognize a paraphrase as what it was, and want to make that into a big moral argument, perhaps you should spend your time arguing with someone else, because I don't plan to rise to that bait.
Let me rephrase less extremely: "I've got mine, I don't owe anyone anything." It boils down to the same thing, of course, because all the haves can shut the have-nots out of society and leave them to rot, as they seem to be actively doing in our cities today. Then the have-nots create their own lovely "lord of the flies" variation of society for lack of any real alternatives, leaving the haves to pat themselves on the back and say "see, they were all lazy/stupid/subhuman/undeserving anyway."
Don't get me wrong: I don't think the government does a great job--in fact it does a spectacularly bad job--but I think it does better than the alternative at least at this point.
As for your morals, your assertion of morals bears zero weight. Explain, demonstrate, etc. I have no qualms about questioning anyone's morals in the absence of such demonstration.
That would be the UpChuck River Community College? :-)
That's a false dichotomy, exactly the same as mine, except mirrored. If you can't get that, there's no discussion we can actually have.
The MIT museum in Boston. I forget the exact location, I just know I was walking around MIT campus and stumbled across it. I'm sure any information source about MIT can point you at it. They have it set up in an old academic building. There was a section devoted to MIT "hacks" (things like the "breast of knowledge" made from the great dome, and other odd things like a cow and a cop car put up on top of the dome, as well as other stuff. But more impressively, there was a section devoted to the kinetic sculpture done by "this one guy" (sorry, I'm not doing him justice) that was all exceedingly cool. Basically they were all little mechanisms run either from small motors or hand cranks that did amusing, puzzling, and eventually basically useless stuff, but still looked interesting and were cool to play with and/or look at. I would highly recommend it.
I dunno, it sounded to me like the author had a lot of sympathy for some conservative perspectives, but was pointing out a disconnect between conservative rhetoric and actions.