But radio? I mean, the target demographic for Linux (young, reasonably computer savvy) doesn't listen to the radio really anymore. And Kim Komando is a total joke. Her "advice" is reboot things. Yeah, it works, but to be perfectly honest, if you haven't already tried that chances are you shouldn't be installing Linux (yeah, you can make it work, but -far- too often those people will be upset with how some niche Windows program doesn't run on Linux). Show some fancy 3-D compiz effects on prime time and you have a success, but radio? And Kim Komando? Those people don't need Linux, they need something common to pay geek squad whenever something goes wrong.
J.K. Rawlings though doesn't show the abuse of copyright, however other authors such as J.R.R. Tolkien, George Orwell and other long dead authors who's work are still under copyright. The oldest HP book isn't even 20 years old yet, on the other hand 1984 is what? 60 years old? And still under copyright when the author has been deceased for almost as long? That is the abuse.
The main reason is cost. If I could get real graphics at the price of one hour battery life, but still have my laptop only cost $300, I'd switch in a heartbeat. But for $300 or less, the best your are going to get is integrated graphics.
I don't get why an average Joe needs a Core 2 Duo laptop for Word processing and surfing the web, which is what most people have and what most people do now.
Because Flash is terribly inefficient? Yeah, surfing static HTML webpages are simple, but the Flash plugin tends to eat up CPU like theres no tomorrow.
Plus, the "average Joe" usually games casually. Even "simple" games like the Sims require a decent CPU/graphics card.
Myself I want a machine that can handle whatever I throw at it. I want a machine to be able to play most games without too much difficulty, to run whatever programs I want without having to worry about the specs. I think most people are in the same boat.
Gaming. I know a lot of gamers who would live with keeping it plugged in 95% of the time just to have a mobile rig with a decent framerate. Yeah, with an external mouse plugged in all the time, and the AC adapter its not going to be as portable as a netbook, but for a gamer who travels a lot, its a whole lot easier than taking a desktop + monitor on the road.
If I had a hammer and nails and wanted to put something together, why wouldn't I use the hammer? Sure, I could use a screwdriver and screws to do it, but if all I had was a hammer and nails that does the job pretty much as well as the screwdriver and screws.
Exactly, have any of these people of the "green revolution" stopped and looked at the state of the economy? If we are going to "regulate" can we at least do it in a period of prosperity where the average person isn't worrying about being downsized, their retirement funds they invested in the stock market being a net loss, and when the average person can easily sell one of their largest investments (real estate).
And look at how great the car companies are doing in the USA! I hear GM, Chrysler and Ford have record profits! Oh wait... Congress "had" to bail them out?... We are in a recession, it makes no sense to increase regulations (and therefore increase expenses) when the average person has a huge cash flow problem. Lets see here, the house you invested in now either might end up being a loss, or at the very least hard to sell today. The stocks you invested in? Most are probably losses if you were to sell them today. If you are going to try to regulate the market (which is a bad idea in and of itself) at least do it in a period of prosperity, that is when people have the money to spend, if the price of goods go up, the average person is going to spend less, the less they spend the worse the economy gets.
And to be honest there really -shouldn't- be an alternative energy movement in the US yet. We have -tons- (literally) of coal. This helps a great deal of people earn their living. In other countries though, they might not have any coal or oil, if they are developed enough nuclear would be great for them. If they have lots of rivers waiting to be dammed up, hydroelectric power would be for them. If they have lots of open windy plains, wind energy would be great for them. If they have a large coastline, using the ocean's energy would work. But here in the USA, we have lots of coal, so coal energy makes sense. Sure, there are some areas where wind power, hydroelectric or even nuclear power makes sense, but we have a huge coal deposit, why not tap that? Its cheap, plentiful and helps a lot of unskilled workers.
While NASA doesn't have the greatest track record, I'm not sure if we can blame NASA for all these problems. NASA's budget is getting tighter and tighter every year. In general the shuttle program was a failure, it failed to really cut costs or be any more reliable than Russia's space program and even though it did do some neat and useful things such as the space telescope, it really couldn't do more than that. If we want to have people back on the moon again, we need to make some new rockets, something we should have been developing during the lifetime of the shuttle, but we haven't. After Colombia, NASA started developing rockets, but it was too little too late.
For some reason if corporations do it, then it's bad, but if governments do it, then everyone thinks it's okay. Odd.
Because the it benefits the government so much if you masturbate or not? Its not people pay the government for that, and neither does the government produce porn or anything like that.
If you vote Republican, neocon policies are what you're voting for.
We don't have a multi-party system. A vote for the right is just a vote against the left most of the time. I know a lot of people who voted for McCain simply because they knew Obama's policies wouldn't work, similarly, I know people who voted for Obama because they didn't want McCain's policies.
If we would fix the system to allow for more than two parties, you might have a point. But in most cases people are simply voting against the greater evil. Yeah, I could vote libertarian/green/etc all I want but probably still won't get a single representative in congress.
Sure, but right now Apple pretty much has convenience as their main selling point. (especially now with variable pricing, they are no longer the cheapest). If you have to go to a different and cheaper store to get one or two popular artists, why not buy your entire collection there? The main reason why I use iTunes is that I have to use it to sync my iPod, if I was going to buy songs in the easiest way I would the the iTunes music store. If I have to go to Amazon or some other provider which is cheaper for my music, one song or a hundred songs pretty much take the same amount of effort to import to your iPod.
Yeah, there are a few mainstream artists that aren't sold on iTunes, but they are few. AC/DC and the Beatles aren't sold on iTunes, but lets say that Apple cut off the newest "teen" pop artist, suddenly iTunes just got replaced with whatever digital store sold them (or possibly FrostWire or BitTorrent). There are a few "no name" artists they could ditch, but usually most of the non-famous artists aren't too picky about their music.
So lets see here, if I'm not going to listen to the song for free via YouTube, the radio, downloading it off TPB, or now a 30 second sample, how am I to judge the song? Really, the songs I buy off iTunes are in general the ones I've listened to via other means.
It relies on the flawed argument that a tiny GPS == car == you. With a wiretap you can more or less figure out if it is a different person on the phone. Same with bugs. How many times do we let someone else drive our car? Yeah, it might be someone we trust (spouse, family member, close friend) but they are still driving your car. Cars also are pretty easy to steal. And the GPS receiver is small enough that it can be removed and placed on a different car.
Because there is a lot more possible abuse. For example, you have one of these things installed (chances are without your knowing) and a friend borrows your car and takes it somewhere that looks bad, they then use this "evidence" to frame you even though you weren't the person driving the car. Even worse, someone takes it off your car and puts it on a different car, etc. What happens if someone steals your car? This relies on the flawed argument that if someone is driving your car it -must- be you.
So you are comparing a -pirated- slimmed down OS released in 2001, to an OS released in 2009 (assuming you mean Snow Leopard) with no tweaks because it all runs on Mac hardware where Apple controls most of the specs needed. Yeah, thats one fair comparison.
Slashdot Mirror
http://thepiratebay.org/
Yeah, even if you use Windows, 99.9% of the software you want is available for free. You just might have to use... less than legal methods.
But radio? I mean, the target demographic for Linux (young, reasonably computer savvy) doesn't listen to the radio really anymore. And Kim Komando is a total joke. Her "advice" is reboot things. Yeah, it works, but to be perfectly honest, if you haven't already tried that chances are you shouldn't be installing Linux (yeah, you can make it work, but -far- too often those people will be upset with how some niche Windows program doesn't run on Linux). Show some fancy 3-D compiz effects on prime time and you have a success, but radio? And Kim Komando? Those people don't need Linux, they need something common to pay geek squad whenever something goes wrong.
J.K. Rawlings though doesn't show the abuse of copyright, however other authors such as J.R.R. Tolkien, George Orwell and other long dead authors who's work are still under copyright. The oldest HP book isn't even 20 years old yet, on the other hand 1984 is what? 60 years old? And still under copyright when the author has been deceased for almost as long? That is the abuse.
The main reason is cost. If I could get real graphics at the price of one hour battery life, but still have my laptop only cost $300, I'd switch in a heartbeat. But for $300 or less, the best your are going to get is integrated graphics.
I don't get why an average Joe needs a Core 2 Duo laptop for Word processing and surfing the web, which is what most people have and what most people do now.
Because Flash is terribly inefficient? Yeah, surfing static HTML webpages are simple, but the Flash plugin tends to eat up CPU like theres no tomorrow.
Plus, the "average Joe" usually games casually. Even "simple" games like the Sims require a decent CPU/graphics card.
Myself I want a machine that can handle whatever I throw at it. I want a machine to be able to play most games without too much difficulty, to run whatever programs I want without having to worry about the specs. I think most people are in the same boat.
Gaming. I know a lot of gamers who would live with keeping it plugged in 95% of the time just to have a mobile rig with a decent framerate. Yeah, with an external mouse plugged in all the time, and the AC adapter its not going to be as portable as a netbook, but for a gamer who travels a lot, its a whole lot easier than taking a desktop + monitor on the road.
How exactly am I saving money when I have to spend more on my products?
If I had a hammer and nails and wanted to put something together, why wouldn't I use the hammer? Sure, I could use a screwdriver and screws to do it, but if all I had was a hammer and nails that does the job pretty much as well as the screwdriver and screws.
Why can't Ford do this?
American Unions. Enough said.
Lets just reform copyright law and eliminate this problem altogether.
Exactly, have any of these people of the "green revolution" stopped and looked at the state of the economy? If we are going to "regulate" can we at least do it in a period of prosperity where the average person isn't worrying about being downsized, their retirement funds they invested in the stock market being a net loss, and when the average person can easily sell one of their largest investments (real estate).
And look at how great the car companies are doing in the USA! I hear GM, Chrysler and Ford have record profits! Oh wait... Congress "had" to bail them out?... We are in a recession, it makes no sense to increase regulations (and therefore increase expenses) when the average person has a huge cash flow problem. Lets see here, the house you invested in now either might end up being a loss, or at the very least hard to sell today. The stocks you invested in? Most are probably losses if you were to sell them today. If you are going to try to regulate the market (which is a bad idea in and of itself) at least do it in a period of prosperity, that is when people have the money to spend, if the price of goods go up, the average person is going to spend less, the less they spend the worse the economy gets.
And to be honest there really -shouldn't- be an alternative energy movement in the US yet. We have -tons- (literally) of coal. This helps a great deal of people earn their living. In other countries though, they might not have any coal or oil, if they are developed enough nuclear would be great for them. If they have lots of rivers waiting to be dammed up, hydroelectric power would be for them. If they have lots of open windy plains, wind energy would be great for them. If they have a large coastline, using the ocean's energy would work. But here in the USA, we have lots of coal, so coal energy makes sense. Sure, there are some areas where wind power, hydroelectric or even nuclear power makes sense, but we have a huge coal deposit, why not tap that? Its cheap, plentiful and helps a lot of unskilled workers.
While NASA doesn't have the greatest track record, I'm not sure if we can blame NASA for all these problems. NASA's budget is getting tighter and tighter every year. In general the shuttle program was a failure, it failed to really cut costs or be any more reliable than Russia's space program and even though it did do some neat and useful things such as the space telescope, it really couldn't do more than that. If we want to have people back on the moon again, we need to make some new rockets, something we should have been developing during the lifetime of the shuttle, but we haven't. After Colombia, NASA started developing rockets, but it was too little too late.
Lets see here, McCain wasn't elected, we have no clue what his policies would have been. Obama is elected, his policies aren't working.
For some reason if corporations do it, then it's bad, but if governments do it, then everyone thinks it's okay. Odd.
Because the it benefits the government so much if you masturbate or not? Its not people pay the government for that, and neither does the government produce porn or anything like that.
If you vote Republican, neocon policies are what you're voting for.
We don't have a multi-party system. A vote for the right is just a vote against the left most of the time. I know a lot of people who voted for McCain simply because they knew Obama's policies wouldn't work, similarly, I know people who voted for Obama because they didn't want McCain's policies.
If we would fix the system to allow for more than two parties, you might have a point. But in most cases people are simply voting against the greater evil. Yeah, I could vote libertarian/green/etc all I want but probably still won't get a single representative in congress.
...And how many people would listen anyways? Most people will tune them out free food or not.
Sure, but right now Apple pretty much has convenience as their main selling point. (especially now with variable pricing, they are no longer the cheapest). If you have to go to a different and cheaper store to get one or two popular artists, why not buy your entire collection there? The main reason why I use iTunes is that I have to use it to sync my iPod, if I was going to buy songs in the easiest way I would the the iTunes music store. If I have to go to Amazon or some other provider which is cheaper for my music, one song or a hundred songs pretty much take the same amount of effort to import to your iPod.
Yeah, there are a few mainstream artists that aren't sold on iTunes, but they are few. AC/DC and the Beatles aren't sold on iTunes, but lets say that Apple cut off the newest "teen" pop artist, suddenly iTunes just got replaced with whatever digital store sold them (or possibly FrostWire or BitTorrent). There are a few "no name" artists they could ditch, but usually most of the non-famous artists aren't too picky about their music.
So lets see here, if I'm not going to listen to the song for free via YouTube, the radio, downloading it off TPB, or now a 30 second sample, how am I to judge the song? Really, the songs I buy off iTunes are in general the ones I've listened to via other means.
It relies on the flawed argument that a tiny GPS == car == you. With a wiretap you can more or less figure out if it is a different person on the phone. Same with bugs. How many times do we let someone else drive our car? Yeah, it might be someone we trust (spouse, family member, close friend) but they are still driving your car. Cars also are pretty easy to steal. And the GPS receiver is small enough that it can be removed and placed on a different car.
Because there is a lot more possible abuse. For example, you have one of these things installed (chances are without your knowing) and a friend borrows your car and takes it somewhere that looks bad, they then use this "evidence" to frame you even though you weren't the person driving the car. Even worse, someone takes it off your car and puts it on a different car, etc. What happens if someone steals your car? This relies on the flawed argument that if someone is driving your car it -must- be you.
You have a boss that reads /.? Can we swap bosses?
So you are comparing a -pirated- slimmed down OS released in 2001, to an OS released in 2009 (assuming you mean Snow Leopard) with no tweaks because it all runs on Mac hardware where Apple controls most of the specs needed. Yeah, thats one fair comparison.