You do realized that Federal law (Telecommunications Act of 1996) as made exclusive telecommunication contracts between businesses and municipalities illegal for over a decade, don't you?
Also, prohibition of alcohol has ended and you don't need to buy your beer from mobsters anymore . . .
Sony is the only console maker that DID support Linux.
They dropped the support because it was an rarely utilized feature and it was cheaper not to support it on the new model.
I run Linux on all my PCs (2 laptops and 4 desktops) but never installed it on my PS3 (despite having partitioned my upgraded hard drive with room for it). I never felt the need to do so. I run a media server on two of the Linux boxes and I don't need the PS3 to be a 7th general purpose computer when that is not it's intended function as one and not designed for that purpose.
This fanboy of Linux (and fanboy of Sony as well) doesn't care about the dropped support. I thank Sony for all the support up to this point and wish this platform continued success.
I am an anarchist. I can assure you that you have not the slightest clue how society would work if I had my vision brought to life. If you did, you wouldn't use word like "property", "homeowner", "jailed" and "sued".
Only in an American society do you build a country with slavery, genocide and biological warfare and then have the gall to pretend that you have the moral high ground.
I love you man, I really do, but you are lost in a world of lies. How about you don't talk about things you have no understanding of, specifically, anarchy?
Wow, I truly enjoyed that last paragraph. I enjoyed the whole post but that last paragraph was particularly honest and heartfelt. I have no mod points so all I can give you is my appreciation.
The bulk of your argument is "all Blu-Ray offers me is just same old crap in high definition".
There are many wonderful films made. Most are not making it to the screen at your local theater, but I assure you they are still being made. For instance, may I recommend "Let the Right One In"? It is a Swedish film made in 2008 and it is available on Blu-Ray. And there are classic films such as "Lawrence of Arabia", which is also available on Blu-Ray.
If you think the DVD and the Blu-Ray of "Lawrence of Arabia" are of the same quality then there is no point in continuing this discussion. We should instead start debating whether Milwaukee's Best is really the best beer in Milwaukee (it isn't). Is a good beer worth the extra price? If it tastes much better it is! Yes, they both contain alcohol. If all I wanted was to get drunk, maybe I would buy the "beast". But I enjoy beer for its flavor.
I pay more money for good beer and I pay more money for good films. I suppose it all comes down to a matter of priorities . ..
I feel like there is a huge groupthink happening here. Do we all really dislike Blu-Ray? Is there no one else that finds the quality unbeatable and worth the price?
I cannot believe you do not appreciate the quality difference between a DVD and a Blu-Ray. That is as bizarre to me as people, and there are many of them, that say they cannot tell the difference between a CD and a 192 kbps MP3. I think those people have hearing problems. The loss of quality is like nails on a chalkboard.
In both cases, the difference is striking and the higher quality product is significantly better. I love my Blu-Ray films and I love losslessly compressed audio (FLAC anyone?).
I see Blu-Ray as a significant step forward and as a film lover, I truly appreciate the quality of this format. No satellite, broadcast TV or cable company is giving me the quality of HD signal that the Blu-Ray format does. Blu-Ray is the best in show for the quality category for digital multimedia.
Now, is it more expensive than DVD?
Yes.
More importantly, is it TOO expensive?
I answer firmly, "No. The quality justifies the price."
Prices are less expensive, considering inflation, than DVDs were at this same period in their adoption cycle. Also, as adoption/market-share increases prices will drop as well.
I care about Blu-Ray because I care about film and quality is important to me. May Blu-Ray have a long, happy life.
I loved Teoma. It was the best search engine I had ever used. It provided more useful results for me than when using Google, so I used it instead. I always found something that related to the intersection of my search terms as opposed to pages that simply contained them. Alas, Teoma was absorbed by Ask.com (I think) but it's search algorithm was not replicated but that which assimilated it.
I love Google's ease of use, the collection of apps (mail, maps, image search) but I still long for the essential relevancy that Teoma provided. Google is useful but I find it's page ranking to be far from the best method, in my experience as a user.
Finally, healthy ecosystems (biological or economic) have diversity. Microsoft's expansion into yet another facet of our information age is NOT competition. It is the expansion of a company with an unhealthy monopoly into other activities which support the existing monopoly. Our information age is sick because of our society's inability to reign in Microsoft.
In real estate speculation, you can make a great deal of money.
You make a great deal of money but, you have done nothing to improve the land, you did nothing useful with the land while it was in your possession, you have provided no goods, no services and quite simply you have done nothing to benefit your fellow man in any substantive way (and don't think for a second that your property tax helped your fellow man - they were paying theirs right along with you, homeboy). However, despite that FACT that you didn't do substantive WORK AT ALL, you get BIG TIME MONEY.
I believe it is perfectly clear that while legal, this practice only serves the rich that have the free capital to invest in the first place. It is clearly an immoral practice. One person benefits, at the cost of all other, when they have done nothing to deserve the benefit. Here is a solution: Your society needs to change. Stop taking advantage of your fellow man and expecting to get something for nothing. Produce more than you consume. Stop being a greedy and part of the problem. Start being a selfless example to others and part of the solution.
Finally, stop telling people that criticize immoral actions to "get off your lawn". It isn't really your lawn now, is it? Do you own America? If not, stop telling good people to leave it. Clearly, America could use as many moral people as it can find and you are telling them to go away. MADNESS!
I spent $25 to drive 100 gallons of drinking water into the desert. It will cost be $25 to drive back out again (all of this takes into account the water, wear and tear and my time as well). Normally, selling my water for $1 a gallon would be doubling my money. However, I find you in the desert with $10,000,000 in gold and you are dying of thirst.
Question: Did my water magically increase $9,999,900 in value by meeting your sorry ass out in the middle of the desert?
Capitalist Answer: HAHAHAH!!!! Yes, it did you sorry sod! Gimme all your gold!
Humane Answer: No. Here is some water and if you want to help with diesel money it would be nice. I am driving out of here either way and I won't take advantage of someone in a bad situation.
In your scenario, you need to get paid a great deal of money when, in reality, you have done no useful work, provided no service and helped you fellow man in no way what so ever. Are you a banker by trade? Your rationale is why the world is so ugly, why rich people stay rich while being supported on the back of the poor. Things are NOT worth what their purchasers will pay for them. The market can only set a true value, when the powerful are not exerting unfair control on prices (by powerful I mean, Microsoft, Exxon, ADM, the list goes on . ..). In the mean time, the rich rape the poor. The sad thing is I bet you are one of us that is poor but you proselytize for the wealthy anyway.
While this thread is extremely off topic already (which I have zero problems with), I would like to mention that you are permitted to write "fuck" here.
Express yourself! With fucking profanity!
The Terms of Service even warn about it:
"Each user, by using SourceForge Sites, may be exposed to Content that is offensive, indecent or objectionable. Each user must evaluate, and bear all risks associated with the use of any Content, including any reliance on the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of such Content."
Any competitor to cable must run its own lines as the inherent structure of the cable network is such that two companies cannot share the lines, in the same way the two radio stations cannot share the same frequency.
Anyone is free to run competing cable at any time. The question is, "Then, why is this not being done?"
The reason that cable companies do not compete in the same market is that there is already competition from multiple satellite TV companies and DSL.
The incoming cable company has to overbuild the existing cable company. This is a gargantuan expense. Then they must compete with several other companies (the multiple satellite TV companies, the original cable company and one or more DSL companies) all while attempting to recoup their enormous, initial investment in infrastructure. As the company will only attract a fractional number of the homes to which they built infrastructure, being profitable is next to impossible.
Cable companies don't compete with each other because they DO NOT have a monopoly. They are fiercely competing with satellite and phone companies.
How many local phone providers are there in a single location? Probably only one.
Satellite does not build infrastructure, phone and cable do. Ever looked at speed and pricing on satellite internet? It exists. It is slow, pricey and too laggy for anything realtime like gaming or Skype?
My whole point is that "elrous0" is perpetuating a big lie which detracts attention from the reality we are attempting to fix. There is no cable monopoly. Address the reality of the situation and stop with the emotional ranting that has no basis in reality.
I need to point out that the
Telecommunications Act of 1996 made it illegal for a municipality in the United Stated of America to grant an exclusive franchise agreement to any telecommunication company, especially cable companies. There is no city, county or state government-granted cable monopoly anywhere in the US and there have not been for over a decade. Any such franchise agreement would be in violation of Federal law. Your post is wildly inaccurate. It is unfortunate that it was modded insightful, because it is not insightful in any way.
Are you saying that the law is not equal and fair?
Are you saying that in the USA the wealthy are at an inherent advantaged over the poor? That justice isn't blind and she looks at the litigants pocket books and leans on the rich person's side of the scale?
I was just wondering because I see the same thing and it is nice to hear that I am not alone.
Slashdot Mirror
You do realized that Federal law (Telecommunications Act of 1996) as made exclusive telecommunication contracts between businesses and municipalities illegal for over a decade, don't you?
Also, prohibition of alcohol has ended and you don't need to buy your beer from mobsters anymore . . .
I love my PS3.
I love Linux.
Sony is the only console maker that DID support Linux.
They dropped the support because it was an rarely utilized feature and it was cheaper not to support it on the new model.
I run Linux on all my PCs (2 laptops and 4 desktops) but never installed it on my PS3 (despite having partitioned my upgraded hard drive with room for it). I never felt the need to do so. I run a media server on two of the Linux boxes and I don't need the PS3 to be a 7th general purpose computer when that is not it's intended function as one and not designed for that purpose.
This fanboy of Linux (and fanboy of Sony as well) doesn't care about the dropped support. I thank Sony for all the support up to this point and wish this platform continued success.
Listen!
I am an anarchist. I can assure you that you have not the slightest clue how society would work if I had my vision brought to life. If you did, you wouldn't use word like "property", "homeowner", "jailed" and "sued".
Only in an American society do you build a country with slavery, genocide and biological warfare and then have the gall to pretend that you have the moral high ground.
I love you man, I really do, but you are lost in a world of lies. How about you don't talk about things you have no understanding of, specifically, anarchy?
Wow, I truly enjoyed that last paragraph. I enjoyed the whole post but that last paragraph was particularly honest and heartfelt. I have no mod points so all I can give you is my appreciation.
Technically, you can compile software by hand if you REALLY want to (no computer involved). However, it is ridiculously time consuming . . .
"Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun."
- Mao Zedong
Milwaukee's best is fine in a can. I will take my Fat Tire in a bottle or draft, please and I will take my "Lawrence" in HD, too.
The bulk of your argument is "all Blu-Ray offers me is just same old crap in high definition".
.
There are many wonderful films made. Most are not making it to the screen at your local theater, but I assure you they are still being made. For instance, may I recommend "Let the Right One In"? It is a Swedish film made in 2008 and it is available on Blu-Ray. And there are classic films such as "Lawrence of Arabia", which is also available on Blu-Ray.
If you think the DVD and the Blu-Ray of "Lawrence of Arabia" are of the same quality then there is no point in continuing this discussion. We should instead start debating whether Milwaukee's Best is really the best beer in Milwaukee (it isn't). Is a good beer worth the extra price? If it tastes much better it is! Yes, they both contain alcohol. If all I wanted was to get drunk, maybe I would buy the "beast". But I enjoy beer for its flavor.
I pay more money for good beer and I pay more money for good films. I suppose it all comes down to a matter of priorities . .
I feel like there is a huge groupthink happening here. Do we all really dislike Blu-Ray? Is there no one else that finds the quality unbeatable and worth the price?
I cannot believe you do not appreciate the quality difference between a DVD and a Blu-Ray. That is as bizarre to me as people, and there are many of them, that say they cannot tell the difference between a CD and a 192 kbps MP3. I think those people have hearing problems. The loss of quality is like nails on a chalkboard.
In both cases, the difference is striking and the higher quality product is significantly better. I love my Blu-Ray films and I love losslessly compressed audio (FLAC anyone?).
I see Blu-Ray as a significant step forward and as a film lover, I truly appreciate the quality of this format. No satellite, broadcast TV or cable company is giving me the quality of HD signal that the Blu-Ray format does. Blu-Ray is the best in show for the quality category for digital multimedia.
Now, is it more expensive than DVD?
Yes.
More importantly, is it TOO expensive?
I answer firmly, "No. The quality justifies the price."
Prices are less expensive, considering inflation, than DVDs were at this same period in their adoption cycle. Also, as adoption/market-share increases prices will drop as well.
I care about Blu-Ray because I care about film and quality is important to me. May Blu-Ray have a long, happy life.
I cannot believe this excellent suggestion is so far down the list in the responses.
I think the combination of SFTP and PAR2 is a effective, simple answer.
There is no rule in English that says it's improper to end a sentence with a preposition. That is a myth.
Splitting infinitives is acceptable also.
Finally, the plural of octopus is octopuses not octopi.
Teoma.
I loved Teoma. It was the best search engine I had ever used. It provided more useful results for me than when using Google, so I used it instead. I always found something that related to the intersection of my search terms as opposed to pages that simply contained them. Alas, Teoma was absorbed by Ask.com (I think) but it's search algorithm was not replicated but that which assimilated it.
I love Google's ease of use, the collection of apps (mail, maps, image search) but I still long for the essential relevancy that Teoma provided. Google is useful but I find it's page ranking to be far from the best method, in my experience as a user.
Finally, healthy ecosystems (biological or economic) have diversity. Microsoft's expansion into yet another facet of our information age is NOT competition. It is the expansion of a company with an unhealthy monopoly into other activities which support the existing monopoly. Our information age is sick because of our society's inability to reign in Microsoft.
Does this look interesting?
.
Yes. .
But I will believe it only when I see it available in the retail world. Until then:
VAPORWARE
In real estate speculation, you can make a great deal of money.
You make a great deal of money but, you have done nothing to improve the land, you did nothing useful with the land while it was in your possession, you have provided no goods, no services and quite simply you have done nothing to benefit your fellow man in any substantive way (and don't think for a second that your property tax helped your fellow man - they were paying theirs right along with you, homeboy). However, despite that FACT that you didn't do substantive WORK AT ALL, you get BIG TIME MONEY.
I believe it is perfectly clear that while legal, this practice only serves the rich that have the free capital to invest in the first place. It is clearly an immoral practice. One person benefits, at the cost of all other, when they have done nothing to deserve the benefit. Here is a solution: Your society needs to change. Stop taking advantage of your fellow man and expecting to get something for nothing. Produce more than you consume. Stop being a greedy and part of the problem. Start being a selfless example to others and part of the solution.
Finally, stop telling people that criticize immoral actions to "get off your lawn". It isn't really your lawn now, is it? Do you own America? If not, stop telling good people to leave it. Clearly, America could use as many moral people as it can find and you are telling them to go away. MADNESS!
I spent $25 to drive 100 gallons of drinking water into the desert. It will cost be $25 to drive back out again (all of this takes into account the water, wear and tear and my time as well). Normally, selling my water for $1 a gallon would be doubling my money. However, I find you in the desert with $10,000,000 in gold and you are dying of thirst.
.). In the mean time, the rich rape the poor. The sad thing is I bet you are one of us that is poor but you proselytize for the wealthy anyway.
Question: Did my water magically increase $9,999,900 in value by meeting your sorry ass out in the middle of the desert?
Capitalist Answer: HAHAHAH!!!! Yes, it did you sorry sod! Gimme all your gold!
Humane Answer: No. Here is some water and if you want to help with diesel money it would be nice. I am driving out of here either way and I won't take advantage of someone in a bad situation.
In your scenario, you need to get paid a great deal of money when, in reality, you have done no useful work, provided no service and helped you fellow man in no way what so ever. Are you a banker by trade? Your rationale is why the world is so ugly, why rich people stay rich while being supported on the back of the poor. Things are NOT worth what their purchasers will pay for them. The market can only set a true value, when the powerful are not exerting unfair control on prices (by powerful I mean, Microsoft, Exxon, ADM, the list goes on . .
While this thread is extremely off topic already (which I have zero problems with), I would like to mention that you are permitted to write "fuck" here.
Express yourself! With fucking profanity!
The Terms of Service even warn about it:
"Each user, by using SourceForge Sites, may be exposed to Content that is offensive, indecent or objectionable. Each user must evaluate, and bear all risks associated with the use of any Content, including any reliance on the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of such Content."
What I really want to know is what is google to the power of google divided by the natural log to the power of Richard Stallman?
Later, we can try dividing by zero . . .
How about a a google to the googleth power?
Any competitor to cable must run its own lines as the inherent structure of the cable network is such that two companies cannot share the lines, in the same way the two radio stations cannot share the same frequency.
Anyone is free to run competing cable at any time. The question is, "Then, why is this not being done?"
The reason that cable companies do not compete in the same market is that there is already competition from multiple satellite TV companies and DSL.
The incoming cable company has to overbuild the existing cable company. This is a gargantuan expense. Then they must compete with several other companies (the multiple satellite TV companies, the original cable company and one or more DSL companies) all while attempting to recoup their enormous, initial investment in infrastructure. As the company will only attract a fractional number of the homes to which they built infrastructure, being profitable is next to impossible.
Cable companies don't compete with each other because they DO NOT have a monopoly. They are fiercely competing with satellite and phone companies.
How many local phone providers are there in a single location? Probably only one.
Satellite does not build infrastructure, phone and cable do. Ever looked at speed and pricing on satellite internet? It exists. It is slow, pricey and too laggy for anything realtime like gaming or Skype?
My whole point is that "elrous0" is perpetuating a big lie which detracts attention from the reality we are attempting to fix. There is no cable monopoly. Address the reality of the situation and stop with the emotional ranting that has no basis in reality.
I need to point out that the Telecommunications Act of 1996 made it illegal for a municipality in the United Stated of America to grant an exclusive franchise agreement to any telecommunication company, especially cable companies. There is no city, county or state government-granted cable monopoly anywhere in the US and there have not been for over a decade. Any such franchise agreement would be in violation of Federal law. Your post is wildly inaccurate. It is unfortunate that it was modded insightful, because it is not insightful in any way.
And don't forget about the encrypted root file system. Take my drive. Hell, take my whole machine and you still don't have my data.
Actually, I like my machine. Please, don't take it. I was just trying to make a point.
The dollar amount paid on the utility bill is not the real cost of the electricity. You must also take into account externaliities:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externalities
When externalities are considered, coal, oil and nuclear are no longer the cheapest solutions.
Are you saying that the law is not equal and fair?
Are you saying that in the USA the wealthy are at an inherent advantaged over the poor? That justice isn't blind and she looks at the litigants pocket books and leans on the rich person's side of the scale?
I was just wondering because I see the same thing and it is nice to hear that I am not alone.
PARTY!!!!!!
*dances*
*dances badly but with passion*
I always liked this one:
"C combines all the elegance and power of assembly language with the portability of assembly language."