You're not. I thought it was pure idiocy for Apple to go with NeXT and bring in a New OS from the ground up as opposed to tweaking Be's existing OS.
Apple has made OS X work, apparently quite well. I guess there isn't much point in playing the "what if" game, but I'd like to see what Apple could have done with the Be OS. It was snappy on a 200 Mhz 603ev processor, it would have stomped some serious ass on a G4.
It's not just rabid Kerryists that want the recounts, and acting like a rabid Bushist doesn't help your argument any. The point here is not who won, but how fairly.
Problem is that we don't trust the "recount" to be as fair as the initial count.
What harm has Nintendo really done to people other than sue the occasional Warez site distributing old Nintendo ROMS?
My all time favorite arcade game was Killer Instinct. Not only did Nintendo refuse to release it for the "Ultra 64", which we all came to know as the Nintendo 64, but went on to defile my beloved game by bringing an ass sucking sequel to market and I will not even discuss the blasphemy that was Killer Instinct for the SNES.
So, now that all of the arcades have gotten rid of it my choices for playing the game I love are to use an unlicensed copy of the ROMs and hard drive image with an emulator or play the ass sucking Killer Instinct Gold for the N64 or playing the supremely ass sucking Killer Instinct for the SNES.
Fuck Nintendo. I haven't spent a cent on one of their products in about 9 years now. I have no plan on every giving them another cent of my money.
Now that I know Nintendo is pissed off about these "1200 games in one" devices, I just might have to pick one up.
Hell, less than a week ago I played Hogan's Alley on one at an expo show. (No Nintendo, I will not tell you where.)
I think that unionizing IT would have the same overall effect it has had on manufacturing. More of the work would get done in asia by people who are willing to work for less money in countries where the union holds no influence.
Lets make this even more complex. Lets take two senior programmers of equal skill, one spends 20% of his time mentoring/helping more junior programmers, the other does not. Ultimatly the company (and society) are benefited more by the mentoring programmer, but the non-mentor has probably written 20% more code.
I guess that would all depend on what kind of job the promotion was to. For example, if the promotion would require teaching underlings what has to be done the guy who mentors would be a better fit. If it requires more "nose to the grindstone" coding, the guy who does not would be the better fit.
I understand and agree with the point you're making, quality is subjective. I am just trying to make a counter point that there are always other criteria to consider.
I think there should be more education for the public that Free Software is not Public Domain and ripping off Open Source Work is just as bad a Pirating Closed Source Software.
IMHO, it's even worse. Open Source software is given away so that the whole world can benefit from it. To rip off that software steals from everyone.
This sounds like one of those topics in high school where if you sounded interested you were written a raincheck for an after school beating by the rugby team.
My standing advice for all school-aged geeks. Pick one jock that you think you can beat and pound the shit out of him whenever he gives you crap.
The rest of them will see how humiliated their comrade was and they will move on to easier targets. Sure, they could probably beat you, but they're not going to take the chance.
This would be possible if we had an IT Workers Union. But then we get all of the downsides to a union. Such as seniority instead of ability dictating what promotions you get.
Because I didn't feel like driving all the way back across town.
Often, if you take advantage of price matching, the retailer then goes back to his supplier and puts pressure on the supplier to stop supplying the usually-smaller business that is undercutting him.
I won't say which was which but in my example I had visited CompUSA, Circuit City and Best Buy. None of them is going to force any of the others out of business.
I believe there is an ethical problem with taking advantage of price matching.
Low price guarantees are there for a reason. For us to use them.
Don't punish the person competing and thus keeping prices low.
I'm not going to punish myself either. If it's the same item and I don't need any support from the retailer, I'm going to go with the lower price.
...do we still hate Circuit City over the DIVX debacle, or can we forgive them now?
I worked for CC during the DiVX launch. My managers couldn't understand why it was doomed to fail from its inception.
No matter how many times I tried to explain "People don't want to pay every time they watch a movie that they've bought." A manager would respond with "No late fees. Low price. What's wrong with that?"
I think most retailers have already figured out this scam, and will only price-match local retailers who have the the item IN-STOCK
I used an ad to get a price match at a retailer that I will not name. The competitor was local, and they DID have the item in stock. The salesdrone asked me "Well, why didn't you buy it there?" as if I were annoying him just by trying to spend my money there.
My answer was "I stopped there first to get the ad, and then I decided to see if your price was lower. Rather than drive across town again, I'll buy it here".
Convienently they were "out of stock" on the item at the time.
Also, many stores will intentionally carry different models of similar items so that they don't overlap inventory with competitors and have to honor low price guarantees.
I think, because most prostitutes start doing it either because they're in dire financial need, or because they were abused as children and therefore think that it's natural for them to carry on being abused.
In places where it's illegal, you're correct. In places where it's legal you're not.
However, the law *should* treat the prostitutes as being in need of help, and punish their pimps (or others who profit from their misery) severely instead.
Like their children? They too benefit from a prostitute's earnings. There is no way to write a law that punishes all pimps and madames without including others who benefit from a prostitute's earnings like her children or the stores that she patronizes.
It's about one group legally pushing their morality on all others.
The women in Nevada's legal brothels who are making $500k per year have all the self-esteem and self respect that anyone else does.
Drugs are lucrative for those who sell them, but they have strong dependencies and ruin lives. They are dangerous for those who take them and for those who live around them.
It is drug prohibition that causes most of these problems. If drugs were legal and controlled the quality would be higher. Much fewer overdoses. They'd also be cheaper, fewer addicts would be robbing others to pay fot their habits.
If drugs were legal, there wouldn't be obscene profits involved and no drug dealers would be having shootouts over territory.
Prohibition is more of a problem than the drugs.
I don't even smoke weed, but I don't give a fuck if you want to. Your body, your money, your choice.
Slashdot Mirror
Force M$ to give up a percentage of every copy of the warez-tanted windows sold to the publisher of SoundForge.
LK
You're not. I thought it was pure idiocy for Apple to go with NeXT and bring in a New OS from the ground up as opposed to tweaking Be's existing OS.
Apple has made OS X work, apparently quite well. I guess there isn't much point in playing the "what if" game, but I'd like to see what Apple could have done with the Be OS. It was snappy on a 200 Mhz 603ev processor, it would have stomped some serious ass on a G4.
LK
How much do you want for that BeBox?
LK
You go girl.
Black people don't say that anymore, and neither do the gay people who stole it from us.
LK
It's not just rabid Kerryists that want the recounts, and acting like a rabid Bushist doesn't help your argument any. The point here is not who won, but how fairly.
Problem is that we don't trust the "recount" to be as fair as the initial count.
LK
What harm has Nintendo really done to people other than sue the occasional Warez site distributing old Nintendo ROMS?
My all time favorite arcade game was Killer Instinct. Not only did Nintendo refuse to release it for the "Ultra 64", which we all came to know as the Nintendo 64, but went on to defile my beloved game by bringing an ass sucking sequel to market and I will not even discuss the blasphemy that was Killer Instinct for the SNES.
So, now that all of the arcades have gotten rid of it my choices for playing the game I love are to use an unlicensed copy of the ROMs and hard drive image with an emulator or play the ass sucking Killer Instinct Gold for the N64 or playing the supremely ass sucking Killer Instinct for the SNES.
Fuck Nintendo. I haven't spent a cent on one of their products in about 9 years now. I have no plan on every giving them another cent of my money.
Now that I know Nintendo is pissed off about these "1200 games in one" devices, I just might have to pick one up.
Hell, less than a week ago I played Hogan's Alley on one at an expo show. (No Nintendo, I will not tell you where.)
LK
I have never tried it on anything as fragile as a zip disk, but it has helped me recover files from a dead hard drive.
LK
that's a bad assumption to make in this crowd.
It worked for me.
LK
First and foremost, eliminate all "Campaign Finance Reforms". Anyone and everyone can contribute as much money as they want to any party or campaign.
Think Nader is being treated unfairly? Just one rich guy can bankroll his campaign. No more scraping for $2000 donations.
Second, full disclosure. No hiding behind PACs. Every dollar should be traced back to its source.
No federal matching funds. Elected officials shouldn't be able to use tax dollars to run for office.
Return the debates to the league of women voters. They have proven to be a fair group who just wants the issues addressed.
LK
I guess that would all depend on what kind of job the promotion was to. For example, if the promotion would require teaching underlings what has to be done the guy who mentors would be a better fit. If it requires more "nose to the grindstone" coding, the guy who does not would be the better fit.
I understand and agree with the point you're making, quality is subjective. I am just trying to make a counter point that there are always other criteria to consider.
LK
I think there should be more education for the public that Free Software is not Public Domain and ripping off Open Source Work is just as bad a Pirating Closed Source Software.
IMHO, it's even worse. Open Source software is given away so that the whole world can benefit from it. To rip off that software steals from everyone.
LK
This sounds like one of those topics in high school where if you sounded interested you were written a raincheck for an after school beating by the rugby team.
My standing advice for all school-aged geeks. Pick one jock that you think you can beat and pound the shit out of him whenever he gives you crap.
The rest of them will see how humiliated their comrade was and they will move on to easier targets. Sure, they could probably beat you, but they're not going to take the chance.
LK
Penn is a cool ass man.
I had no idea of how deep he was until I saw him on Politically Incorrect.
LK
This would be possible if we had an IT Workers Union. But then we get all of the downsides to a union. Such as seniority instead of ability dictating what promotions you get.
LK
That means he put the laws on the books.
Congress and the President put laws on the books. Ashcroft may have suppored the USAPA, but he didn't enact it.
LK
At any time has John Ashcroft done anything other than enforce the laws that are on the books?
LK
Uh, yes, it does, that's what I was complaining about. Typing in 40 prices does, in fact, take time.
If the time it takes a cashier to enter 40 prices is less than the time it takes me to drive to the other store(s), guess where I'm buying them.
LK
But is time not money?
Of course it is. It doesn't take much of my time for a cashier to honor the store's policy.
LK
If you're going to spend that much time figuring out which stores have the cheapest price, why don't you save everyone else some time and shop there?
Because the point is to save money, not to quickly get out of the store.
LK
So, why didn't you buy it there?
Because I didn't feel like driving all the way back across town.
Often, if you take advantage of price matching, the retailer then goes back to his supplier and puts pressure on the supplier to stop supplying the usually-smaller business that is undercutting him.
I won't say which was which but in my example I had visited CompUSA, Circuit City and Best Buy. None of them is going to force any of the others out of business.
I believe there is an ethical problem with taking advantage of price matching.
Low price guarantees are there for a reason. For us to use them.
Don't punish the person competing and thus keeping prices low.
I'm not going to punish myself either. If it's the same item and I don't need any support from the retailer, I'm going to go with the lower price.
LK
...do we still hate Circuit City over the DIVX debacle, or can we forgive them now?
I worked for CC during the DiVX launch. My managers couldn't understand why it was doomed to fail from its inception.
No matter how many times I tried to explain "People don't want to pay every time they watch a movie that they've bought." A manager would respond with "No late fees. Low price. What's wrong with that?"
LK
I think most retailers have already figured out this scam, and will only price-match local retailers who have the the item IN-STOCK
I used an ad to get a price match at a retailer that I will not name. The competitor was local, and they DID have the item in stock. The salesdrone asked me "Well, why didn't you buy it there?" as if I were annoying him just by trying to spend my money there.
My answer was "I stopped there first to get the ad, and then I decided to see if your price was lower. Rather than drive across town again, I'll buy it here".
Convienently they were "out of stock" on the item at the time.
Also, many stores will intentionally carry different models of similar items so that they don't overlap inventory with competitors and have to honor low price guarantees.
LK
I think, because most prostitutes start doing it either because they're in dire financial need, or because they were abused as children and therefore think that it's natural for them to carry on being abused.
In places where it's illegal, you're correct. In places where it's legal you're not.
However, the law *should* treat the prostitutes as being in need of help, and punish their pimps (or others who profit from their misery) severely instead.
Like their children? They too benefit from a prostitute's earnings. There is no way to write a law that punishes all pimps and madames without including others who benefit from a prostitute's earnings like her children or the stores that she patronizes.
LK
I feel like I'm reading a Jon Katz story.
Enough with the buzzword bingo, please!
LK
It's all about self-esteem and respect.
It's about one group legally pushing their morality on all others.
The women in Nevada's legal brothels who are making $500k per year have all the self-esteem and self respect that anyone else does.
Drugs are lucrative for those who sell them, but they have strong dependencies and ruin lives. They are dangerous for those who take them and for those who live around them.
It is drug prohibition that causes most of these problems. If drugs were legal and controlled the quality would be higher. Much fewer overdoses. They'd also be cheaper, fewer addicts would be robbing others to pay fot their habits.
If drugs were legal, there wouldn't be obscene profits involved and no drug dealers would be having shootouts over territory.
Prohibition is more of a problem than the drugs.
I don't even smoke weed, but I don't give a fuck if you want to. Your body, your money, your choice.
LK