You're entirely right, but I still think Google is doing something wrong here, by allowing the submitters of content to restrict distribution to certain countries. That's not the sort of freedom of information they're supposed to represent. Why should they accept any content if the copyright-holders aren't willing to let it be seen anywhere?
Oh come on, you don't believe anything you read on Slashdot, do you? It'll be released this year, and it'll be sold at a gigantic loss to Sony. Which won't matter because they'll still have control of all of the games that are actually worth buying, and recoup their losses in no time.
"Money is a measure of how much society values your time and work."
I think it is more a supply and demand issue.
Uh right. What do you think supply and demand is an issue of? Oh yes, the demanded price is a function of how much society values your time and work. Strange, I think the GP said that.
Demand comes from the ability of a job to produce something of value for an employer.
True, but don't ever assume that that's the entirety of the equation, or else you end up with some really dangerous economic philosophies.
The news isn't "embedded linux!". The news is "Ubuntu is doing embedded linux!". Some people are interested in Ubuntu. Some people are interested in linux gadgets. Some people, like me, are interested in both, and interested in finding out whether Ubuntu can bring anything interesting to the table.
Maybe it's not huge, but it's a hell of a lot more newsworthy than bullshit like sore thumbs and useless uses of brainscans.
Er... what universe are you in? RAM is easy, drives (optical and magnetic) are easy, processors are hit-or-miss, but it's not bad on mine. Video... well, that usually sucks.
Oh... you were talking about Apple hardware. Well of course it's going to cost more, be less capable, be impossible to upgrade, and break in ways that Apple will refuse to fix.
I didn't dodge the question, I answered it directly. There's no such thing as a player that can play an AAC file from iTunes because you cannot get an AAC file from iTunes. You can get a file that will only play on Apple equipment.
Sorry, search tools don't beat out common sense. The great-or-so-grandparent called it the "recent port", which is a hint. The rest follows from the principle of not making comments about something when what you know is fuck-all.
Actually it doesn't look bad at all. No clutter. But are you really too stupid to understand things like "just ported last week" and "still working on the LCD code" and "beta software"?
MP3 isn't transparent at 192. It's tolerable at 192. I'm not a certifiable audiophile, and I'm not talking about hi-fi equipment. All it takes is a decent set of headphones or any set of speakers fancy enough to have satellites, and you too can hear awful warbling sounds!
What non-Apple player can he play AAC files on that he purchased from the iTunes store?
You can't purchase an AAC file from the iTunes store. You can purchase an AAC-ish file that won't play on anything besides Apple's hardware or software.
And why does slashdot assume the only possible explanations are A) the government is evil and rewriting history or B) the government is stupid or C) the government is evil?
Because all governmental action can be fully explained by a combination of stupidity and evil. As someone who may have actuallye existed once said, it's when the two of them get together that you really have to start worrying; that's called "bipartisanship."
As usual, you miss the point that the intent of the GPL is to use copyright to subvert copyright. One mustn't agree with copyright in order to make use of the GPL; one must only be willing to use the tools of copyright legislation to enforce the freedom, instead of the encumbrance, of a work. As such, your argument is just silly.
Which merely goes to show that in order to do computer filtering even halfway decently, you need a computer that understands natural language. And since we don't have one of those, we shouldn't attempt it at all. It's one of those "use humans or don't bother" problems.
Society benefits from a government that is concerned with the well being of the people in society.
Too bad there's never been one of these, and never will be. Governments are composed of people. And not just any people, people who've been told that they're powerful and important. They are, 99.44% of the time, going to perform in a way that's in their interest.
So what does that mean? Well, a government, as you've so nicely reported above, is in the business of "solving problems" -- regulating aspects of your life to make it more pleasant, so that you'll be happy with them. It wouldn't be smart for them to do a good job of this; then they'd find themselves largely unnecessary, without all kinds of clout, and without big corporations willing to give them lavish gifts. Instead it's in their interest to make sure that there are plenty of problems to solve, and that the public is convinced that government is the best tool for solving each and every problem. That way they can wedge themselves into every crack, take advantage of each and every transaction, and achieve as much power as possible for their own use. The fact that it hurts everyone else is only incidental. No government ever gives up power. They've invariably taken more and more control, until they've completely squeezed the life out of their fiefdoms, and then they've been replaced.
As a corollary, when it comes to war, the government isn't interested in defending any particular citizens; it's interested in maintaining itself first, and in maintaining enough of a citizenry to pay tribute second.
Apply some common sense here. It doesn't really know what the app is going to do; if it did we'd be calling all the major journals because Microsoft would have solved the halting problem. Some of it is done with heuristics to try to figure out if code is doing "something bad", yes, and a lot of it is done with old-fashioned human research and pattern recognition. This could be a completely random false-positive, or it could be that MS's product is triggering off of one of the very patterns that Norton is trained to look for.
And it's actually pretty trivial to "prove him wrong" using, of all things, relativity. The answer, of course, is that there is no t. That is to say, there's no unique "time" term that applies everywhere; when observing a body in motion, an observer A will find d(x_a)/d(t_a) to be different from observer B's d(x_b)/d(t_b). This shows up as disparities in the apparent speeds of objects, apparent lengths, and apparent passage of time for different observers. If we conduct the famous "twins experiment", get back together, and I've observed 20 years pass since we last met, while you've observed the passage of 10 years, obviously dt/d(something) was different for you than it was for me. This is explained by the theory (still relativity, still nothing new) that "motion through spacetime" isn't bunk; it's something that we're always doing, and further that our vector through spacetime is constrained in such a way that when dx/dt, dy/dt, and dz/dt get large, dT/dt gets smaller (where T is time from the point of view of the accelerated observer, and t is time measured by the nonaccelerated observer. I think that's how it works out, anyway).
As far as we know right now, there isn't any practical way to make your observation of time move in the opposite direction from everyone else's. It certainly would be trippy if you could. But the argument is nothing like as simple as this guy is saying.
I like Palm. Yes, they're a little bit slow to catch on to good tech, especially on the software end. Yes, it's a bit pricy to get the good ones. But if Apple buys them their products won't get better Either:
A) Palms will get new shiny cases, the pricetag will double, and the batteries will only last a year, or B) Apple won't sell PDAs at all, and will just hold on to the IP.
Slashdot Mirror
You're complaining about a website going downhill and posting inane shit that doesn't interest you (or anyone).
I've got a newsflash for you: You read Slashdot. You have no right to comment on this topic.
We now return to our regularly scheduled program, brought to you by Scuttlemonkey.
You sound like you may have been saying something interesting -- so could you try doing it in English, with coherent sentences and such?
You're entirely right, but I still think Google is doing something wrong here, by allowing the submitters of content to restrict distribution to certain countries. That's not the sort of freedom of information they're supposed to represent. Why should they accept any content if the copyright-holders aren't willing to let it be seen anywhere?
Oh come on, you don't believe anything you read on Slashdot, do you? It'll be released this year, and it'll be sold at a gigantic loss to Sony. Which won't matter because they'll still have control of all of the games that are actually worth buying, and recoup their losses in no time.
"Money is a measure of how much society values your time and work."
I think it is more a supply and demand issue.
Uh right. What do you think supply and demand is an issue of? Oh yes, the demanded price is a function of how much society values your time and work. Strange, I think the GP said that.
Demand comes from the ability of a job to produce something of value for an employer.
True, but don't ever assume that that's the entirety of the equation, or else you end up with some really dangerous economic philosophies.
That the US government could possibly be the perpetrators of public lies and secret spying?
The news isn't "embedded linux!". The news is "Ubuntu is doing embedded linux!". Some people are interested in Ubuntu. Some people are interested in linux gadgets. Some people, like me, are interested in both, and interested in finding out whether Ubuntu can bring anything interesting to the table.
Maybe it's not huge, but it's a hell of a lot more newsworthy than bullshit like sore thumbs and useless uses of brainscans.
You just have no reading comprehension skills.
Er... what universe are you in? RAM is easy, drives (optical and magnetic) are easy, processors are hit-or-miss, but it's not bad on mine. Video... well, that usually sucks.
Oh... you were talking about Apple hardware. Well of course it's going to cost more, be less capable, be impossible to upgrade, and break in ways that Apple will refuse to fix.
I didn't dodge the question, I answered it directly. There's no such thing as a player that can play an AAC file from iTunes because you cannot get an AAC file from iTunes. You can get a file that will only play on Apple equipment.
Your source... for unbiased news... about Arabic Muslims... is Israel?
Sorry, search tools don't beat out common sense. The great-or-so-grandparent called it the "recent port", which is a hint. The rest follows from the principle of not making comments about something when what you know is fuck-all.
And no, I'm not too stupid...neither the parent that I was responding to, nor the page he had linked to had said Last Week or Beta Software.
Sorry, wrong.
Actually it doesn't look bad at all. No clutter. But are you really too stupid to understand things like "just ported last week" and "still working on the LCD code" and "beta software"?
MP3 isn't transparent at 192. It's tolerable at 192. I'm not a certifiable audiophile, and I'm not talking about hi-fi equipment. All it takes is a decent set of headphones or any set of speakers fancy enough to have satellites, and you too can hear awful warbling sounds!
What non-Apple player can he play AAC files on that he purchased from the iTunes store?
You can't purchase an AAC file from the iTunes store. You can purchase an AAC-ish file that won't play on anything besides Apple's hardware or software.
And why does slashdot assume the only possible explanations are A) the government is evil and rewriting history or B) the government is stupid or C) the government is evil?
Because all governmental action can be fully explained by a combination of stupidity and evil. As someone who may have actuallye existed once said, it's when the two of them get together that you really have to start worrying; that's called "bipartisanship."
As usual, you miss the point that the intent of the GPL is to use copyright to subvert copyright. One mustn't agree with copyright in order to make use of the GPL; one must only be willing to use the tools of copyright legislation to enforce the freedom, instead of the encumbrance, of a work. As such, your argument is just silly.
Which merely goes to show that in order to do computer filtering even halfway decently, you need a computer that understands natural language. And since we don't have one of those, we shouldn't attempt it at all. It's one of those "use humans or don't bother" problems.
Ooh, and best of all, the website says it's compatible with "Time Criss"
Society benefits from a government that is concerned with the well being of the people in society.
Too bad there's never been one of these, and never will be. Governments are composed of people. And not just any people, people who've been told that they're powerful and important. They are, 99.44% of the time, going to perform in a way that's in their interest.
So what does that mean? Well, a government, as you've so nicely reported above, is in the business of "solving problems" -- regulating aspects of your life to make it more pleasant, so that you'll be happy with them. It wouldn't be smart for them to do a good job of this; then they'd find themselves largely unnecessary, without all kinds of clout, and without big corporations willing to give them lavish gifts. Instead it's in their interest to make sure that there are plenty of problems to solve, and that the public is convinced that government is the best tool for solving each and every problem. That way they can wedge themselves into every crack, take advantage of each and every transaction, and achieve as much power as possible for their own use. The fact that it hurts everyone else is only incidental. No government ever gives up power. They've invariably taken more and more control, until they've completely squeezed the life out of their fiefdoms, and then they've been replaced.
As a corollary, when it comes to war, the government isn't interested in defending any particular citizens; it's interested in maintaining itself first, and in maintaining enough of a citizenry to pay tribute second.
Apply some common sense here. It doesn't really know what the app is going to do; if it did we'd be calling all the major journals because Microsoft would have solved the halting problem. Some of it is done with heuristics to try to figure out if code is doing "something bad", yes, and a lot of it is done with old-fashioned human research and pattern recognition. This could be a completely random false-positive, or it could be that MS's product is triggering off of one of the very patterns that Norton is trained to look for.
And it's actually pretty trivial to "prove him wrong" using, of all things, relativity. The answer, of course, is that there is no t. That is to say, there's no unique "time" term that applies everywhere; when observing a body in motion, an observer A will find d(x_a)/d(t_a) to be different from observer B's d(x_b)/d(t_b). This shows up as disparities in the apparent speeds of objects, apparent lengths, and apparent passage of time for different observers. If we conduct the famous "twins experiment", get back together, and I've observed 20 years pass since we last met, while you've observed the passage of 10 years, obviously dt/d(something) was different for you than it was for me. This is explained by the theory (still relativity, still nothing new) that "motion through spacetime" isn't bunk; it's something that we're always doing, and further that our vector through spacetime is constrained in such a way that when dx/dt, dy/dt, and dz/dt get large, dT/dt gets smaller (where T is time from the point of view of the accelerated observer, and t is time measured by the nonaccelerated observer. I think that's how it works out, anyway).
As far as we know right now, there isn't any practical way to make your observation of time move in the opposite direction from everyone else's. It certainly would be trippy if you could. But the argument is nothing like as simple as this guy is saying.
Oh, and of course
C) PalmPod. It would be a horrible failure, but at least you wouldn't have all of those Palm customers cutting into iPod sales.
I like Palm. Yes, they're a little bit slow to catch on to good tech, especially on the software end. Yes, it's a bit pricy to get the good ones. But if Apple buys them their products won't get better Either:
A) Palms will get new shiny cases, the pricetag will double, and the batteries will only last a year, or
B) Apple won't sell PDAs at all, and will just hold on to the IP.