Perhaps you should read the article before you start spouting off next time.
Perhaps you should actually read my comment. It was really brief, too.
In case you missed it, these geeks are demanding that Microsoft release a signed Linux boot loader.
Wrong. The geeks are saying, "We want to talk to Microsoft about releasing a signed Linux bootloader, we have a method for doing it but it allows pirated games to boot so if Microsoft doesn't cooperate we're going to release it and Microsoft loses out."
Microsoft is in no way obligated to do this, and there are probably several big business reasons why they would want to anyway. So go ahead and do whatever you want with your hardware, but don't expect Microsoft to just stand on the sidelines without taking steps to prevent it. It is their business, after all...
There are a lot of reasons why they would want to, and the issue is piracy like the geeks are trying to prevent. Just issuing a signed boot loader that someone else wrote isn't a big challenge for Microsoft, but fighting a losing battle against piracy is a big challenge.
Microsoft can try to prevent it, but it'll be just like the RIAA vs. P2P. They are smarter to adapt to the technology and offer a signed boot loader that has anti-piracy measures built in.
What the hell are you talking about? You are "allowed" to do whatever the hell you want with it. What you are asking is for Microsoft to support you in doing it.
Really? Could you quote me on that... really, go ahead and try. Do you find that you win more arguments when you make up what the other person is saying?
Which does not mean that they have to support everything you want to do on it. If you want to spend $200 to rip it apart, load new software on it and turn it into a dishwasher, you are free to give it a try (its your hardware). You just can't expect Microsoft to help you do it.
Yes, but Mr. Kneejerk, they said "Why should Microsoft allow running Linux on their Xbox" and now you are changing what we're talking about. We're talking about "Allowing" and you are talking about "Supporting." Do you see the difference? There is also such a thing as releasing Unsupported Applications.
Its like complaining that Ford made it too hard to change your Expedition into an airplane.
Oh wait, now it's back to allowing instead of supporting... Will you make up your mind so you don't come off sounding like a schizophrenic?
Why should Microsoft allow running Linux on their Xbox?
XBox == Hardware, which means it's mine. If I want to flash the BIOS, that's my thing. Microsoft should allow a signed Linux bootloader so they can control what it actually boots (instead of botting pirated games.)
You want to run Linux on a $200 device? Buy an e-Machine and shut the fuck up. Linux on the Xbox serves no purpose except for "huh huh, Linux on a Microsoft machine, huh huh huhuhuhuh, I'm a super l33t geex0r!"
I can understand your point, but you have to look at the differences here:
XBox has a custom NV2X chip, designed for TV Output. It has a decent CPU, 64MB RAM, and a decent size hardware.
It's an appliance box, not a full computer. I would love to have Linux (Or some other flexible operating system) running on there for Jukebox/graphics capabilities.
Stuff like this is an embarrassment. I hope they get slapped silly with lawsuits.
It's a shame you feel that way, because they are doing the same things that made Slashdot a possibility. (Remember the altair, and if you don't, go rent some real documentaries.)
The hack isnt fake. The hack is old and well known. It involves running the game 007, and using a doctored gamesave to reset the system and boot linux. Then you can flash the bios.
They said in the article that it was similar, but an easier approach -- but their system will allow piracy to go rampant on it, and they don't want to open that can of worms.
Just a bunch of loudmouth attention seeking idiots, making the legitimate hacking scene look like dirtbags.
They're just saying they want a real bootloader, and want to talk to Microsoft about releasing a signed bootloader -- not that they are trying bully tactics. If Microsoft ignores them, they're going to open it up publicy (with piracy capabilities) because they just want the Linux bootloader.
I'd blame Slashdot for making them look like attention seeking idiots.
interfering is taking my gameboy out of my pocket in front of the boarding line and telling me in an overhearable voice that you wish you made enough money to get one for your kid, and that it must be nice that I, "have enough money for things like that." fuck the airlines.
You should have said, "Yes, it is and I don't appreciate discussing matters that don't concern our current business relationship."
If that's the best you can come up with as to why people should "fuck the airlines" than you need some serious help.
opening all the presents that had JUST PASSED THROUGH AN X-RAY MACHINE.
I'm still not feeling sympathy here... you had to open presents, it's not like you had to spread your ass cheeks.
This just cements the deal. This is YOUR GOVERNMENT performing unreasonable random searches on you and interfering with free travel now, friends.
Interfering? I'm not sure how they are interfering with my travel. I walk through a device and travel. There is no interference to travel. There is invasion of privacy, but I'm not that bashful. It's the human body, people see people naked constantly. As for it being unreasonable, why? Why is having a full body scan unreasonable? It seems to be a perfectly reasonable way to ensure free travel. Free travel meaning not getting in trouble in the air, as airplanes are a constant target in case you haven't paid attention to the last two decades.
I'd rather it by the government than a corporation, wouldn't you?
You said, "No, I never said 'Free'". I did not say you did. I paraphrased you to condense things down. Given the context of your comment, it is obvious to assume that you were talking about me using Free Software because I was, according to you, unwilling to pay others for software:
Yes, you did say that I did: "if you use inferior (Free) Software". I didn't put Free in there. I said, If you use any inferior software, because of philosophical or ethical beliefs you are an idiot. End of story.
The only person here lying about what the other person is saying is you. You are also trying to lie about what you just said a few posts ago. Anyone reading this can go back over this thread and realize that you have blatantly lied. On top of that, you have been rude and obnoxious from the start. Wow, your delusions are reaching an all new high here. Congratulations. You are the one who needs to do that, and you accused me of being insulting when all I was saying is "Use the best tool for the job."
You said, consistently, that I say things I do not say. Then, when I call you on it, you say that I'm doing it. That's a special brand of special.
You might consider using it to save some face and apologize for being so rude, as well as lying; or you could just air out more irrelevant personal insults. Your choice.
Here, we can settle this easily. I have a journal. I have several hundred fans. I will write up a nice little article about this and post a link to the thread, and you can read how stupid you actually are from other people.
Check my journal tomorrow, and you'll see how it looks.
if you use inferior (Free) Software because you have problems with [companies] making money to pay people just like you, then you deserve to get fired.
No, I never said "Free". If you want to put words into my mouth, why don't you just say, "You said you are teh l33t h4x0R!!! I r0x and U ARE TEH SUX0rs"
Finally, you may wish to calm down. Using personal insults will neither help you to convince me nor anyone else that you are right, nor do they make your argument any more compelling. Personal information about me is completely irrelevant to this debate, and much of your response is fallacious reasoning (ad hominem). There is a reasoning why your comments in this thread have been moderated as trolls.
I would rather insult and actually be realistic, than make up shit about what the other person is saying.
Because you can't actually maintain a thread, with what people are talking about, you deserve to be insulted. Not my fault.
Your exact words: "...because you have some philosophical issues with people making money to pay people just like you". You are implying that my support for Free Software derives from not wanting to pay for software, which very much implies that Free Software is about getting software for $0.
Ok, when you get a high school reading level come back and talk to me. What was meant there is people who make money, by selling software, pay you to write software. Get it? If you can get paid writing free software you are either Linus Torvalds, or a few other people. Just because your failures to understand simple sentences, doesn't mean they are implying anything.
According to who, you? Quite frankly, you are not the ultimate arbitrator of what is and is not the right decision for individuals. Personal beliefs and ethics cannot "cloud one's judgement". They are there to guide judgement. You can argue that one's beliefs are misplaced, but you cannot argue that one's beliefs "cloud one's judgement". Anger, sorrow, remourse, pity, self-indulgence, and other irrational emotions can cloud judgement. Thought out ethics and moral positions, however, cannot.
Hey sparky, I'm talking about companies. You know, that thing that you will go work for when you grow up.
The real issue is that most people's choice of tools are the ones they can grab from a friend or download of Kazaa - ethics go to hell in a handbasket then. Sure, we could all use Linux, but people keep WINE or a Win box around to Quake a bit on the side. To switch hardware platforms, you have to give up the latter, and that's what keeping the fight going...easy access to pirate warez.
This is why I'm saying "The best tool for the job." Not the best tool for your gaming machine, etc.
I was talking about software for personal use in my response to your post (which I did not make clear), so your exmaple is not relevant to that.
So... when I say best tool for the job and you change the subject, people magically understand that you change what people are talking about. I'm sure that's a very special talent, and your mother is very proud that you have it.
Your company will not have to worry about the business that makes that tool going bankrupt, and having no possibility of upgrade for future needs, or bug-fixes. Your company will not have to worry about EULAs or audits from the BSA, nor bear the costs of keeping track of licenses and proofs of purchase. Your company will not be forced into mandatory upgrade schedules. Etc etc etc.
This is called FUD. BSA doesn't really watch enterprise services. I'd like to see BSA come into my company ($1B revenue) and want to check our licenses. We would promptly tell them to go to hell, as we have a legal team that could have freed OJ. The counter, which is more real, is that you use open source solutions and the developer quits working on it and it has shitty documentation and no support.
Which one do you think happens more? An open source project dies, or a company goes bankrupt?
No, you are being deceitful.
I'm glad you understand that word, when the only way your argument starts to make sense is when you change the context for personal use.
Your post implies several things that are simply false, all of which I suspect you knew of.
It's easy for you to try to tell me my points are false, when you change the scope.
(1) You imply that Free Software is about getting something for free ($0);
When did I imply this? I said, "Use the best tool for the job." I didn't imply not using free software, I stated use the best tool for the job and keep your personal ethics out of company business. If a company likes proprietary solutions, you follow suit. I'm not implying anything.
(2) You imply that the Free Software advocates believe it is the morally correct choice because of cost instead of freedom;
Again, when did I imply this? You are extrapolating a whole lot of points without a lot of data. I never brought cost into it, in fact, I'm ignoring cost. When I evaluate a product, whether software or hardware, I look at what it can do. Not the price tag. Hence, "Use the best tool for the job." You really are special.
(3) You imply that one is a zealot if his or her ethics do not necessarily permit him or her to maximize profit.
No, I state, not imply, that one is a zealot of they let their personal beliefs cloud their judgement.
Some people have something called ethical considerations. They believe that only users should have certain freedoms in regards to the software they user. Thus, Free Software should be used, even if it is not necessarily the best tool for the job. Furthermore, this prevents vendor-lockouts and allows users a self-determined upgrade cycle. This explains those who will only use Free Software.
Ok, if you use an inferior tool for a job that pays your bills because you have some philosophical issues with people making money to pay people just like you, than you deserve to get shit-canned right after your inferior solution shows it's true colors.
Having ethical considerations does not make one a zealot, so please stop being so insulting.
Having ethical considerations that cloud judgement, does. I'm not being insulting, I'm being real.
One paragraph mate, at the top of the story: Greg Joswiak, vice president of hardware product marketing at Apple, in a phone interview today, defended Apple's performance claims for its upcoming Power Mac G5, after they came under fire in the wake of yesterday's announcement. Read on for the details.
You seem to be forgetting Slashdot's whole "Interview" thing that's been going on for quite a while.
The truth is, KDE borrows UI concepts from all the user interfaces that came before it: Windows, Mac, CDE, BeOS. I don't see any car companies getting sued for putting the headlight switch on a stalk instead of a dashboard switch (copying whichever company started this trend), and similarly, as long as no trademarks are violated, no one's going to get sued for copying ideas in UI design.
Just to add to this, you can't trademark/copyright look and feel. You can trademark and copyright actual icons and images.
You can take the exact same look and feel of Windows, replace their icons with those of your own and be in the clear. You just can't use Windows, or have any flags, because that would be trademark infringement.
Well, I have to say that it is a non-obvious business practice.
Non-obvious... I've seen a few places that use similar models. Usually it's $0.50 rentals with a monthly fee. A lot of import rentals (Taping foreign shows for rental) do things like this.
Otherwise video stores would have tried it years ago. I'm not sure they should have patented it, but it is definitely a useful implementation.
Some video stores do it. And have been doing it for over a decade... Just go to import video stores and check them out. A big part of why they have membership fees is to continue to buy blank tapes to record the television shows on.
Don't believe me? Look at the kinds of people walking around in NY and Chicago and LA. Trust me, this is just the tip of the ice berg, and in the next century I think we'll see this concept gain a little more solidity.
I do believe you, humanity is entering a point that has not been touched before -- surviving without the need to survive. By "need to survive" I mean there is an actual necessity to work towards survival. You simply survive, there is no working towards it.
Intelligence will decrease as you can survive adequately with out it. Physical "beauty" will become more defined and prominent. People will continue doing what people do.
I'll just remind/. readers about the theory that most human attributes including pigmentation were selected by sexual, not environmental selection. I.e. we look like we do largely because, like glowing fish, we find ourselves "cute".
Yes, and what is found to be cute often relies on the features necessary for best survival in any environment.
Go back a few thousand years: In Africa, the darker the skin the more time out in the sun gathering food and hunting. The women who are larger can carry more, nurse more, hence the desire for larger, curvatious women (Go back to older African songs saying their women have bigger breasts/ass)
In Eastern Asian countries, especially Japan, a lot of time is spent fishing in bright sunlight. Darker pigmentation in the eyes, plus smaller eyes, for better visibility on the water, lean muscles for fishing -- height being a factor.
Cute is a byproduct of what the environment says will survive best.
You're trying to find the pathological case, so you might just refine it to make it impossible, but my solution would be to note that the car at the back of the line is going faster than the other left-lane traffic, realize that he is going to have to pass them, and accelerate above 65mph long enough to pass him before he makes his move. I do this sort of thing routinely.
No, I drive in Oregon and this happens constantly. I'm not making anything pathological, I'm just saying in a lot of circumstances it's bullshit to be able to drive using your cruise control without adjusting.
You have to think ahead, not just react to the current situation. Predicting other drivers' behaviour is actually very easy with enough experience.
In a two lane freeway, you will run into the pigeon hole principle very quickly. It is impossible, no matter how accurately you can predict other drivers, to not have to adjust your speed.
The key is proper following distance and good use of space. Anticipate those cloggy ramps/exits. Give yourself a car length for every 10 mph. Yes! That's 60-70 feet or more between you and the "asshat" ahead of you.
Two lane freeway, 10 cars spaced approximately every 70 feet travelling at a rate of 60 mph. You have your cruise set at 65mph. Person in right lane changes in the back of the line, and proceeds at 61mph to pass those cars.
Tell me how you do that without adjusting your cruise control. Chances are you are following too close.
Maybe obsessive-compulsive. If you tune out the world around you and focus on your inner reality, then it's more akin to => autism/asperger's syndrome, or tunnel vision.
I have no other symptoms of aspergers/autism at all, so I don't think that it's anything related to that. OCD perhaps, but it fights with my nature of being disorganized (no need to be, weird memory for spatial objects... I can recall where just about anything is at as long as I've seen it in the last year.) My OCD traits come in the form of having to put things back to where they are supposed to go -- like a chess board, if you move a piece or there is a piece that is in the wrong position I have to correct it.
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps you should read the article before you start spouting off next time.
Perhaps you should actually read my comment. It was really brief, too.
In case you missed it, these geeks are demanding that Microsoft release a signed Linux boot loader.
Wrong. The geeks are saying, "We want to talk to Microsoft about releasing a signed Linux bootloader, we have a method for doing it but it allows pirated games to boot so if Microsoft doesn't cooperate we're going to release it and Microsoft loses out."
Microsoft is in no way obligated to do this, and there are probably several big business reasons why they would want to anyway. So go ahead and do whatever you want with your hardware, but don't expect Microsoft to just stand on the sidelines without taking steps to prevent it. It is their business, after all...
There are a lot of reasons why they would want to, and the issue is piracy like the geeks are trying to prevent. Just issuing a signed boot loader that someone else wrote isn't a big challenge for Microsoft, but fighting a losing battle against piracy is a big challenge.
Microsoft can try to prevent it, but it'll be just like the RIAA vs. P2P. They are smarter to adapt to the technology and offer a signed boot loader that has anti-piracy measures built in.
What the hell are you talking about? You are "allowed" to do whatever the hell you want with it. What you are asking is for Microsoft to support you in doing it.
Really? Could you quote me on that... really, go ahead and try. Do you find that you win more arguments when you make up what the other person is saying?
Which does not mean that they have to support everything you want to do on it. If you want to spend $200 to rip it apart, load new software on it and turn it into a dishwasher, you are free to give it a try (its your hardware). You just can't expect Microsoft to help you do it.
Yes, but Mr. Kneejerk, they said "Why should Microsoft allow running Linux on their Xbox" and now you are changing what we're talking about. We're talking about "Allowing" and you are talking about "Supporting." Do you see the difference? There is also such a thing as releasing Unsupported Applications.
Its like complaining that Ford made it too hard to change your Expedition into an airplane.
Oh wait, now it's back to allowing instead of supporting... Will you make up your mind so you don't come off sounding like a schizophrenic?
Why should Microsoft allow running Linux on their Xbox?
XBox == Hardware, which means it's mine. If I want to flash the BIOS, that's my thing. Microsoft should allow a signed Linux bootloader so they can control what it actually boots (instead of botting pirated games.)
You want to run Linux on a $200 device? Buy an e-Machine and shut the fuck up. Linux on the Xbox serves no purpose except for "huh huh, Linux on a Microsoft machine, huh huh huhuhuhuh, I'm a super l33t geex0r!"
I can understand your point, but you have to look at the differences here:
XBox has a custom NV2X chip, designed for TV Output. It has a decent CPU, 64MB RAM, and a decent size hardware.
It's an appliance box, not a full computer. I would love to have Linux (Or some other flexible operating system) running on there for Jukebox/graphics capabilities.
Stuff like this is an embarrassment. I hope they get slapped silly with lawsuits.
It's a shame you feel that way, because they are doing the same things that made Slashdot a possibility. (Remember the altair, and if you don't, go rent some real documentaries.)
The hack isnt fake. The hack is old and well known. It involves running the game 007, and using a doctored gamesave to reset the system and boot linux. Then you can flash the bios.
They said in the article that it was similar, but an easier approach -- but their system will allow piracy to go rampant on it, and they don't want to open that can of worms.
Just a bunch of loudmouth attention seeking idiots, making the legitimate hacking scene look like dirtbags.
They're just saying they want a real bootloader, and want to talk to Microsoft about releasing a signed bootloader -- not that they are trying bully tactics. If Microsoft ignores them, they're going to open it up publicy (with piracy capabilities) because they just want the Linux bootloader.
I'd blame Slashdot for making them look like attention seeking idiots.
interfering is taking my gameboy out of my pocket in front of the boarding line and telling me in an overhearable voice that you wish you made enough money to get one for your kid, and that it must be nice that I, "have enough money for things like that." fuck the airlines.
You should have said, "Yes, it is and I don't appreciate discussing matters that don't concern our current business relationship."
If that's the best you can come up with as to why people should "fuck the airlines" than you need some serious help.
opening all the presents that had JUST PASSED THROUGH AN X-RAY MACHINE.
I'm still not feeling sympathy here... you had to open presents, it's not like you had to spread your ass cheeks.
This just cements the deal. This is YOUR GOVERNMENT performing unreasonable random searches on you and interfering with free travel now, friends.
Interfering? I'm not sure how they are interfering with my travel. I walk through a device and travel. There is no interference to travel. There is invasion of privacy, but I'm not that bashful. It's the human body, people see people naked constantly. As for it being unreasonable, why? Why is having a full body scan unreasonable? It seems to be a perfectly reasonable way to ensure free travel. Free travel meaning not getting in trouble in the air, as airplanes are a constant target in case you haven't paid attention to the last two decades.
I'd rather it by the government than a corporation, wouldn't you?
This is great:
"Computer Is Unresponsive When Hibernating"
If you click through to the details it means that the computer is freezing when going into hibernation. Not while it is hibernating.
You said, "No, I never said 'Free'". I did not say you did. I paraphrased you to condense things down. Given the context of your comment, it is obvious to assume that you were talking about me using Free Software because I was, according to you, unwilling to pay others for software:
Yes, you did say that I did: "if you use inferior (Free) Software". I didn't put Free in there. I said, If you use any inferior software, because of philosophical or ethical beliefs you are an idiot. End of story.
The only person here lying about what the other person is saying is you. You are also trying to lie about what you just said a few posts ago. Anyone reading this can go back over this thread and realize that you have blatantly lied. On top of that, you have been rude and obnoxious from the start.
Wow, your delusions are reaching an all new high here. Congratulations. You are the one who needs to do that, and you accused me of being insulting when all I was saying is "Use the best tool for the job."
You said, consistently, that I say things I do not say. Then, when I call you on it, you say that I'm doing it. That's a special brand of special.
You might consider using it to save some face and apologize for being so rude, as well as lying; or you could just air out more irrelevant personal insults. Your choice.
Here, we can settle this easily. I have a journal. I have several hundred fans. I will write up a nice little article about this and post a link to the thread, and you can read how stupid you actually are from other people.
Check my journal tomorrow, and you'll see how it looks.
if you use inferior (Free) Software because you have problems with [companies] making money to pay people just like you, then you deserve to get fired.
No, I never said "Free". If you want to put words into my mouth, why don't you just say, "You said you are teh l33t h4x0R!!! I r0x and U ARE TEH SUX0rs"
Finally, you may wish to calm down. Using personal insults will neither help you to convince me nor anyone else that you are right, nor do they make your argument any more compelling. Personal information about me is completely irrelevant to this debate, and much of your response is fallacious reasoning (ad hominem). There is a reasoning why your comments in this thread have been moderated as trolls.
I would rather insult and actually be realistic, than make up shit about what the other person is saying.
Because you can't actually maintain a thread, with what people are talking about, you deserve to be insulted. Not my fault.
Your exact words: "...because you have some philosophical issues with people making money to pay people just like you". You are implying that my support for Free Software derives from not wanting to pay for software, which very much implies that Free Software is about getting software for $0.
Ok, when you get a high school reading level come back and talk to me. What was meant there is people who make money, by selling software, pay you to write software. Get it? If you can get paid writing free software you are either Linus Torvalds, or a few other people. Just because your failures to understand simple sentences, doesn't mean they are implying anything.
According to who, you? Quite frankly, you are not the ultimate arbitrator of what is and is not the right decision for individuals. Personal beliefs and ethics cannot "cloud one's judgement". They are there to guide judgement. You can argue that one's beliefs are misplaced, but you cannot argue that one's beliefs "cloud one's judgement". Anger, sorrow, remourse, pity, self-indulgence, and other irrational emotions can cloud judgement. Thought out ethics and moral positions, however, cannot.
Hey sparky, I'm talking about companies. You know, that thing that you will go work for when you grow up.
The real issue is that most people's choice of tools are the ones they can grab from a friend or download of Kazaa - ethics go to hell in a handbasket then. Sure, we could all use Linux, but people keep WINE or a Win box around to Quake a bit on the side. To switch hardware platforms, you have to give up the latter, and that's what keeping the fight going...easy access to pirate warez.
This is why I'm saying "The best tool for the job." Not the best tool for your gaming machine, etc.
I was talking about software for personal use in my response to your post (which I did not make clear), so your exmaple is not relevant to that.
So... when I say best tool for the job and you change the subject, people magically understand that you change what people are talking about. I'm sure that's a very special talent, and your mother is very proud that you have it.
Your company will not have to worry about the business that makes that tool going bankrupt, and having no possibility of upgrade for future needs, or bug-fixes. Your company will not have to worry about EULAs or audits from the BSA, nor bear the costs of keeping track of licenses and proofs of purchase. Your company will not be forced into mandatory upgrade schedules. Etc etc etc.
This is called FUD. BSA doesn't really watch enterprise services. I'd like to see BSA come into my company ($1B revenue) and want to check our licenses. We would promptly tell them to go to hell, as we have a legal team that could have freed OJ. The counter, which is more real, is that you use open source solutions and the developer quits working on it and it has shitty documentation and no support.
Which one do you think happens more? An open source project dies, or a company goes bankrupt?
No, you are being deceitful.
I'm glad you understand that word, when the only way your argument starts to make sense is when you change the context for personal use.
Your post implies several things that are simply false, all of which I suspect you knew of.
It's easy for you to try to tell me my points are false, when you change the scope.
(1) You imply that Free Software is about getting something for free ($0);
When did I imply this? I said, "Use the best tool for the job." I didn't imply not using free software, I stated use the best tool for the job and keep your personal ethics out of company business. If a company likes proprietary solutions, you follow suit. I'm not implying anything.
(2) You imply that the Free Software advocates believe it is the morally correct choice because of cost instead of freedom;
Again, when did I imply this? You are extrapolating a whole lot of points without a lot of data. I never brought cost into it, in fact, I'm ignoring cost. When I evaluate a product, whether software or hardware, I look at what it can do. Not the price tag. Hence, "Use the best tool for the job." You really are special.
(3) You imply that one is a zealot if his or her ethics do not necessarily permit him or her to maximize profit.
No, I state, not imply, that one is a zealot of they let their personal beliefs cloud their judgement.
Some people have something called ethical considerations. They believe that only users should have certain freedoms in regards to the software they user. Thus, Free Software should be used, even if it is not necessarily the best tool for the job. Furthermore, this prevents vendor-lockouts and allows users a self-determined upgrade cycle. This explains those who will only use Free Software.
Ok, if you use an inferior tool for a job that pays your bills because you have some philosophical issues with people making money to pay people just like you, than you deserve to get shit-canned right after your inferior solution shows it's true colors.
Having ethical considerations does not make one a zealot, so please stop being so insulting.
Having ethical considerations that cloud judgement, does. I'm not being insulting, I'm being real.
One paragraph mate, at the top of the story:
Greg Joswiak, vice president of hardware product marketing at Apple, in a phone interview today, defended Apple's performance claims for its upcoming Power Mac G5, after they came under fire in the wake of yesterday's announcement. Read on for the details.
You seem to be forgetting Slashdot's whole "Interview" thing that's been going on for quite a while.
This means 3 things:
People just have a hard time dealing with this whole "choice" thing.
The truth is, KDE borrows UI concepts from all the user interfaces that came before it: Windows, Mac, CDE, BeOS. I don't see any car companies getting sued for putting the headlight switch on a stalk instead of a dashboard switch (copying whichever company started this trend), and similarly, as long as no trademarks are violated, no one's going to get sued for copying ideas in UI design.
Just to add to this, you can't trademark/copyright look and feel. You can trademark and copyright actual icons and images.
You can take the exact same look and feel of Windows, replace their icons with those of your own and be in the clear. You just can't use Windows, or have any flags, because that would be trademark infringement.
Well, I have to say that it is a non-obvious business practice.
Non-obvious... I've seen a few places that use similar models. Usually it's $0.50 rentals with a monthly fee. A lot of import rentals (Taping foreign shows for rental) do things like this.
Otherwise video stores would have tried it years ago. I'm not sure they should have patented it, but it is definitely a useful implementation.
Some video stores do it. And have been doing it for over a decade... Just go to import video stores and check them out. A big part of why they have membership fees is to continue to buy blank tapes to record the television shows on.
Because if that were the answer - then 5 minute prior to you posting it the earth would have been destroyed to make well for an interstellar highway.
You need to read it again, mate. The earth was destroyed while calculating the question. 42 was just the answer.
it's no accident that Sales and Marketing is S&M.
They just chose who is in the bondage.
Don't believe me? Look at the kinds of people walking around in NY and Chicago and LA. Trust me, this is just the tip of the ice berg, and in the next century I think we'll see this concept gain a little more solidity.
I do believe you, humanity is entering a point that has not been touched before -- surviving without the need to survive. By "need to survive" I mean there is an actual necessity to work towards survival. You simply survive, there is no working towards it.
Intelligence will decrease as you can survive adequately with out it.
Physical "beauty" will become more defined and prominent.
People will continue doing what people do.
I'll just remind /. readers about the theory that most human attributes including pigmentation were selected by sexual, not environmental selection. I.e. we look like we do largely because, like glowing fish, we find ourselves "cute".
Yes, and what is found to be cute often relies on the features necessary for best survival in any environment.
Go back a few thousand years:
In Africa, the darker the skin the more time out in the sun gathering food and hunting. The women who are larger can carry more, nurse more, hence the desire for larger, curvatious women (Go back to older African songs saying their women have bigger breasts/ass)
In Eastern Asian countries, especially Japan, a lot of time is spent fishing in bright sunlight. Darker pigmentation in the eyes, plus smaller eyes, for better visibility on the water, lean muscles for fishing -- height being a factor.
Cute is a byproduct of what the environment says will survive best.
You're trying to find the pathological case, so you might just refine it to make it impossible, but my solution would be to note that the car at the back of the line is going faster than the other left-lane traffic, realize that he is going to have to pass them, and accelerate above 65mph long enough to pass him before he makes his move. I do this sort of thing routinely.
No, I drive in Oregon and this happens constantly. I'm not making anything pathological, I'm just saying in a lot of circumstances it's bullshit to be able to drive using your cruise control without adjusting.
You have to think ahead, not just react to the current situation. Predicting other drivers' behaviour is actually very easy with enough experience.
In a two lane freeway, you will run into the pigeon hole principle very quickly. It is impossible, no matter how accurately you can predict other drivers, to not have to adjust your speed.
The key is proper following distance and good use of space. Anticipate those cloggy ramps/exits. Give yourself a car length for every 10 mph. Yes! That's 60-70 feet or more between you and the "asshat" ahead of you.
Two lane freeway, 10 cars spaced approximately every 70 feet travelling at a rate of 60 mph. You have your cruise set at 65mph. Person in right lane changes in the back of the line, and proceeds at 61mph to pass those cars.
Tell me how you do that without adjusting your cruise control.
Chances are you are following too close.
Maybe obsessive-compulsive. If you tune out the world around you and
:)
focus on your inner reality, then it's more akin to => autism/asperger's syndrome, or tunnel vision.
I have no other symptoms of aspergers/autism at all, so I don't think that it's anything related to that. OCD perhaps, but it fights with my nature of being disorganized (no need to be, weird memory for spatial objects... I can recall where just about anything is at as long as I've seen it in the last year.) My OCD traits come in the form of having to put things back to where they are supposed to go -- like a chess board, if you move a piece or there is a piece that is in the wrong position I have to correct it.
I'm just weird like that