Anyhow.. lightning is beta so i guess thats why they though its "ok" (i think it sux)
Nope:
Lightning 1.0 beta7 is the latest stable release built for Thunderbird 7 and contains 39 bugfixes and improvements over the 1.0b5 release, that improve the add-on's stability, performance and memory consumption.
Updating from within the add-on manager worked, too. I assumed there was no update after the automatic add-on updating screen that always appears after a Thunderbird update didn't find anything.
Add in the new on-board DRM that prevents overclocking and such that Intel is working on (and I'm sure AMD will emulate eventually)
Why would they do that? Both AMD and Intel even have processors specifically targeted to overclockers (I think they're called Extreme Edition and Black Edition, respectively)
With Windows, you have administrator access so you should be able to install anything you want? Is this the end of that too?
There has always been the "SYSTEM" user who has even more privileges than the administrator. So far, it hasn't actually prevented you from doing anything, though.
Okay, I was wrong in that regard then. I still think some sort of market-based approach is the better fit for the more "popular" stuff (i.e. stuff like Star Wars).
By your kind of logic, you should work to get rid of the whole judicial system, because they're employed by and thus controlled by the government.
Now you're being ridiculous. Art and the judicial system have nothing relevant in common at all.
Art is just about the last thing that I'd like to see under the control of the state. Nobody could make anything outside of the fringe that criticizes the governments policies or that contains anything anybody in the parliament or the government finds offensive.
I don't see that as fair at all. It means that you can churn out large amounts of crap in different new genres and subgenres, then sit back and wait for at least a few of the genres will take off, and the public will vacuum up everything, and other artists will have to pay to turn your crap into something useful. That's not being an artist, that's being a patent troll.
If what you have produced is crap by itself but someone else can build upon it, why shouldn't you deserve a share? That patent troll comparison just doesn't make any sense because two people independently creating the same art happens much less often than two people creating the same invention, if at all.
Then how about this: Artists also only get paid once. Not perpetually, so they can stop making art and live on their working. A scientist has to keep publishing, or die. Why should an artist be any different?
Because nobody has suggested a working system for this yet.
I'd love to get paid for what I did five, ten and twenty years ago. That'd be a real incentive for me to continue working. Or not.
The difference is that you presumably got paid for what you did shortly after you did it. It's only fair that if you don't get paid for your work right away that you will at least profit of it later.
That's the intent - if you don't produce something the public wants, you shouldn't get paid. This is an incentive for you to not rest on your laurels and hope sales will pick up, but go make something different.
But the public obviously does want it -- they just didn't want it immediately.
FYI, in Germany it's never been like that. The oldest German copyright law I could find is the one of the North German Confederation of 1870 which specified a term of life plus 30 years. Some of the individual German countries may have had copyright laws before, though. But without a united German state or any of the modern copyright agreements, these were mostly ineffectual.
Slashdot Mirror
That's because it doesn't install into %PROGRAMFILES% as it's supposed to. I bet some admins don't like that.
No, "scrapbook" refers to a book containing scraps.
(I can whoosh myself, thank you very much.)
On top of that, he was logged in while an AC pointed out it's goatse.
iPad is the best-selling PC in the world for over a year now, and there is no Silverlight there.
I'm a PC, and I object to being compared to an iPad.
Apparently 5-10% of the students have trouble with Silverlight, so 90-95% running Windows would be more accurate.
That assumes nobody using Windows will have any trouble with Silverlight.
cutting the price by $10 will not sell appreciably more units relative to selling them at cost,
It's psychological pricing. 210 is in the 200's. $199 looks like barely more than $100.
Why are you spending $20 on a caddy for 160gig when a new 1tb is $70?
Because you don't actually need more than 160GB and it saves you $50?
Anyhow.. lightning is beta so i guess thats why they though its "ok" (i think it sux)
Nope:
Lightning 1.0 beta7 is the latest stable release built for Thunderbird 7 and contains 39 bugfixes and improvements over the 1.0b5 release, that improve the add-on's stability, performance and memory consumption.
You can get latest lightning here: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/thunderbird/addon/lightning/ [mozilla.org]
download manually, upgrade manually. Bang, works.
Updating from within the add-on manager worked, too. I assumed there was no update after the automatic add-on updating screen that always appears after a Thunderbird update didn't find anything.
I just got the update to Thunderbird 7. Of course, it broke Lightning.
That would assign the result of os.system("ls") to the variable called ls. The closest thing would be:
>>> import os
>>> def ls(): os.system("ls")
>>> ls()
...does it run DOS?
Try pressing CTRL-C. Sometimes it works.
Add in the new on-board DRM that prevents overclocking and such that Intel is working on (and I'm sure AMD will emulate eventually)
Why would they do that? Both AMD and Intel even have processors specifically targeted to overclockers (I think they're called Extreme Edition and Black Edition, respectively)
What a horribly obsolete piece of software. I'll wait till they have at least reached 10.
With Windows, you have administrator access so you should be able to install anything you want? Is this the end of that too?
There has always been the "SYSTEM" user who has even more privileges than the administrator. So far, it hasn't actually prevented you from doing anything, though.
I owned the original Mona Lisa, I could spray-paint it, toss it in a fire, or do whatever else I please with it.
I imagine there might be a law like this in France.
Okay, I was wrong in that regard then. I still think some sort of market-based approach is the better fit for the more "popular" stuff (i.e. stuff like Star Wars).
By your kind of logic, you should work to get rid of the whole judicial system, because they're employed by and thus controlled by the government.
Now you're being ridiculous. Art and the judicial system have nothing relevant in common at all.
Art is just about the last thing that I'd like to see under the control of the state. Nobody could make anything outside of the fringe that criticizes the governments policies or that contains anything anybody in the parliament or the government finds offensive.
I don't see that as fair at all. It means that you can churn out large amounts of crap in different new genres and subgenres, then sit back and wait for at least a few of the genres will take off, and the public will vacuum up everything, and other artists will have to pay to turn your crap into something useful. That's not being an artist, that's being a patent troll.
If what you have produced is crap by itself but someone else can build upon it, why shouldn't you deserve a share? That patent troll comparison just doesn't make any sense because two people independently creating the same art happens much less often than two people creating the same invention, if at all.
Then how about this: Artists also only get paid once. Not perpetually, so they can stop making art and live on their working. A scientist has to keep publishing, or die. Why should an artist be any different?
Because nobody has suggested a working system for this yet.
I'd love to get paid for what I did five, ten and twenty years ago. That'd be a real incentive for me to continue working. Or not.
The difference is that you presumably got paid for what you did shortly after you did it. It's only fair that if you don't get paid for your work right away that you will at least profit of it later.
That's the intent - if you don't produce something the public wants, you shouldn't get paid. This is an incentive for you to not rest on your laurels and hope sales will pick up, but go make something different.
But the public obviously does want it -- they just didn't want it immediately.
Since the copyright term depends on his death and not on the release of anything, that makes no sense.
FYI, in Germany it's never been like that. The oldest German copyright law I could find is the one of the North German Confederation of 1870 which specified a term of life plus 30 years. Some of the individual German countries may have had copyright laws before, though. But without a united German state or any of the modern copyright agreements, these were mostly ineffectual.
Source (in German)
You're in luck. I'm not sure if Roland Emmerich is the right man for this job, though.
Huh? I really didn't expect him to be that dedicated to his cause.
There's nothing wrong with making new editions. The problem is that he is trying to eradicate the originals from history.