The point of the poster wasn't whether Gore or Bush or Nader is 'better' than the other. It's simply that if you express certain political views, you get moderated up as insightful or down as flamebait or redundant, even though those moderations are extremely unfair.
What I find strangest is that, from what I've seen, the majority of posters here will vote for Nader. (I'm not saying you will, this is just a general observation that's somewhat offtopic.) However, whenever they post, they bitch about being in the "minority." (How having more people in the community constitutes a minority, I don't think I will ever know.) It's one thing to see all of them get modded up to +5 by saying the word "republicrats", as that just reflects the opinions of the moderators, but could they at least stop the whining?
"Frankly, I was surprised at the level of interest from the tech world"
why would you be?
Well, let's see. Look at what people on Slashdot (not really the tech community in general, but it's the part of it he was talking to) do when they don't like something. They fire up netscape and try to boost their karma on a web discussion forum. As a general rule, not many of us are known for attempting to do something useful
I know I don't. I've decided on my vote, and will cast it, but it's not all that important to me. To be honest, I just want to have my millionth of a percent in the results to be counted, and then go back to minding my own business. In fact, I don't particularily see why the presidential elections get so much attention. Your congressional representatives are probably more important than some stupid figurehead in the White House.
From the article on emulation: the playing of "classic games" is a crime
That's not quite what they meant, of course, but the fact is that many companies would like to make it a crime to play these games (even if you actually legally own them. See all the complaining about emulators, even if you're using it for your own games.) It's this part that really annoys me about the attitude of the game companies... they want you to buy their new (and generally not very good) games so badly that they want to remove the chance to play these older games. A video game is a work of art, and it seems like a shame that they would effectively destroy them because they're incapable of otherwise turning a profit.
I don't think that, legally, we'll be able to make any ground on this issue... at least, until somebody manages to get copyright law reverted to a somewhat sane state... but until then, I hope that the little 'rebellion' keeps going strong.
...without speaking approvingly of either candidate
Um...did you happen to read that essay? Although he does occasionally point out some of Gore's flaws, it pales compared to his references to Bush being a "nitwit" and "liar." (To name a couple.) And several times, he praises Gore and the democrat platform in general.
It was a good read -- I didn't agree with a lot of it, but that's OK -- but it was anything but unbiased.
I think it's been shown that filtering doesn't even work in those cases. The same words in english can be used obscenely or not, the "color range" filter can't really even determine if there's nudity, much less pornography, and despite all our efforts, computers are really no closer to actually understanding language than they were twenty years ago. Besides which, even if you could write a program that could perform these tasks, you still have to tell it what of that to filter, which is going to involve somebody's agenda.
I don't actually have a problem with schools using a filter... it's their choice, after all. I think it's a waste of money, but if local sentiment is dead-set on using it, then I think it's reasonable. However, I think that forcing it on them as a federal mandate is a very bad idea. These types of issues should be decided on an individual or local level.
These laws all say that we're too dumb as individuals to take care of ourselves, and momma Government must come in and take care of us.
You're missing a big point, though. These laws are in place to protect the safety of others. Whether or not you kill yourself by acting stupidly is your business, but you'll never convince me that your god-given rights give you the privelege to endanger others.
Children can't be reasonably expected to look out for their own safety. The fact is, the do fall into swimming pools and drown, get hit by cars while riding bikes, and so forth, and get themselves killed. Now, imagine that you have an unsecured pool, and someone's toddler walks into it and drowns. Yes, it's their parents' fault, and they can be taken to court for neglect and abuse, but the kid's still dead. You're claiming that, to protect your right to be socially irresponsible, this should be an acceptable scenario? (Yeah, I know your answer's going to be yes. It's rhetoric for the people that actually think they have some social responsibility.)
Same thing with the dynamite. If I'm in an apartment, I don't want there to be a ton of dynamite in the apartment next to mine. If by some accident it explodes, I certainly haven't done anything wrong, but I'm still dead. Should we allow someone to drive a car bomb into a crowded building, as long as they promise not to detonate it? Why should we wait until someone has been harmed instead of taking action to prevent it?
Remember the phrase 'life, liberty, and property.' Everyone should have these rights. If people cannot be trusted to ensure that these rights are upheld for everyone (not just you), then we have to turn to the government. The function of the government is (ideally) to protect the well-being of its citizens, physically and economically. You're welcome to live your life, just realize that you can't impinge on the rights of others.
Just to get this on-topic, I think that reverse engineering is perfectly acceptable. (I don't believe that the dynamite analogy works.) Stupidity is not a protected right, and if your livelyhood depends on keeping a secret, then you're taking a big chance. Tough luck.
Well, even ignoring the fact that this isn't meant to be the next big, immensly popular hit game, you ought to lighten up. First: these programmers wanted to make a game; part of the whole 'open source' thing (or 'free software', for that matter) is that people work on what they want to work on. Second: There are already publishing programs for Linux (if you think you need something more, then go ahead and use Wine. Not Whine, Wine. Or write one yourself.) Third: besides office and internet products, games are almost certainly the most popular programs. (I don't know the numbers, so I can't say how they rank as compared to the other two.) So this is a great way to get some more people to see Linux in action.
In my opinion, the rules for admitting evidence shouldn't change based on whether it's stored electronically or not. So, I think this rule may be reasonable (although I question the logic that just because you try to get rid of something, it can't be held against you... sort of like saying that if you tried to get rid of a body and flubbed it, you still wouldn't be held responsible...) it had better apply to both paper documents and electronic. Otherwise, criminals will simply turn to the internet because of the extra safety factor.
Re:are copyrights necessary?
on
RIAA CEO Speaks
·
· Score: 4
Maybe a better compromise would be 5 years for a copyright. What have you done for us lately.
This idea, I think, is the key. If there were no copyrights, there would be fewer artists, and we all lose. (Yeah, you can argue that one, but a lot of people are only in it for the _big_ money, which you probably can't reach without the money-sucking corporate structure.) However, if copyrights are changed back to a "limited term", as they were originally intended to be... suddenly, if the artists want to keep those profits rolling in, they have to keep on creating. It seems strange to me than someone should expect to be paid horrendous amounts of money for something they did 30 years ago. I really think that limiting copyrights (and then really enforcing them) would be the best way to deal with the opposing interests of artists and consumers.
If I can't control what I do with my body, well, I might as well just give up now.
Why do you think that? Last I checked, there was more to life that simply what happens to your extra blood or organs. I don't see this as any different than, say, requiring that we give up some of our abstract liberties in order to live in a society, which is what the law is all about.
I'd never argue that blood/organ donation should be mandatory; I do think that it should be a person's personal choice. (An aside to everyone: if you don't donate blood, or haven't specified that you'd like your organs to be donated if possible, and don't have moral objections to it, do it today. It's not much trouble.) But I don't see why you hold that privledge above all others. I personally couldn't care less what happens to my body after I'm dead. If you have a reason for caring, please enlighten me. (As for things while your alive... really, same idea, if it doesn't affect you adversely.)
Seriously, would you buy a monitor that only displays 90x90? Right, you'd wait until something better comes out!
I dunno, would anyone buy a monitor that only did 320x200x256?... Oh, right, that used to be standard. Sure, what we're talking about here isn't of astounding resolution, but it's still usable... don't just look down on something because you can imagine better. (Although imagining better is the first step to creating something even more impressive.)
That said, I'm sure you've noticed by now that dozens of people have pointed out that the display is something like 450x450x450, or 768x768x200, or something. Quite a bit better than 90x90... so are you going to go buy yourself one now?
Well, I don't really mean that, if you say something that was mentioned in another discussion, that it's redundant. However, if it's something that's already been beaten to death so many times that any slashdotter can recite it in their sleep, it's redundant.
In my opinion, trolls should be dropped to -1, very offtopic and redundant posts to 0, and anything else I won't bother to mod down.
Well, comments aren't only redundant because they've already been said in another comment. They could also have been said in another discussion, or the article, or just be a 'me too!' post.
For instance, one time when I got moderator access and was in a foul mood, I went to a discussion and moderated 5 slashbots as redundant. There was probably some whining about 'moderators on crack', and some of them probably got their +5 anyway, but hearing the same tired 'linux is good', 'windows is good', 'napster is good' without saying anything is getting really old. They deserved a karma hit.
(as a disclaimer: I'm usually pretty nice, and actually almost always use my mod points to bump posts up, not down.)
Why shouldn't anyone walk into McDonald's and grab 50 ketchup packets? After all, it's unlikely that anyone will try to stop you, and even if they do, nothing will happen.
If Napster was the only music-sharing service available, you can bet that lots of people (you included, more than likely) would shell out five bucks for it. In fact, I bet a lot of people would anyway (if this happened to fly, which it almost certainly won't), because right now the alternatives aren't so great.
If the music is worth $5 to you, then why wouldn't you pay? Perhaps that's what I don't like about Napster etc... I don't have a problem paying for for something I want. In fact, I see it as a responsibility.
All too often, there are posts that really need a +1 or -1, but the choices just don't cover it. Therefore, I say we need the following choices added:
+1, Troll
/* Really, we need more than just 'Funny' to reward the good ones. */
+1, Whore
+5, Signal 11
/* So we don't have to waste multiple moderators' time. */
+1, Slashdot Already Posted This
+1, Claimed They Were Expecting -1
+1, Redundant
/* Perhaps split into several categories, such as 'about [copyrights | patents | free speech | privacy | gun control | jon katz]' */
+1, Only Intelligent Post in the Entire Discussion
-1, Stupid
-1, Clueless
/* I expect these to be used rather heavily */
-1, Opposing view
-1, goatse.cx
+1, goatse.cx
There could be many more, of course... Perhaps, instead of the list, we could have a textbox where moderators type the reason for their moderation.
The moderator that moderated this (and I would assume, the at least two others in this discussion) post as offtopic helps prove that the moderation system is really bizarre. (I would guess that this one did it to make a point, but I occasionally read at -1 for a laugh, just because the trolls who complain about 'moderators on crack' are so often right.)
That said, I don't think this proposed system is all that great... I wasn't really able to follow it that well, as it seemed quite complicated and I wasn't too inclined to try to sort it all out. However, the idea that some people's posting should be limited seems wrong... at least here, part of Slashdot's charm is that anyone can post whatever they want, and moderation only helps people filter the list.
Then, the MP3 came along, and you wanted to listen to tunes in the background as you worked.
The MP3 is on the verge of becoming the next "killer app" (if it isn't already). And yet a P100 with 24 megs of RAM and Windows 95 will barely play them.
I can play MP3s on my 486/66, in the background while I code. Sure, Windows is inefficient, but I don't think that it slows down the hardware so much that you need a gigahertz processor for normal use. (I'm sure, however, that the next version of Office will include enough delay loops to make it look like you need that newest processor.)
I'm not saying that a 486 is good enough, of course (I'll buy a newer computer when I manage to scrape together a few pennies.) But the fact is that nobody really needs the latest chip; they just want it for bragging rights. Me, I'm happy to stay a couple years behind and a few hundred dollars richer.
The reason why they want to redo it is because Gnome and KDE haven't managed to get it right yet. For all the work that has been done on both of them, they're both bloated and, more hideously, they pretty much act just like Windows. Maybe this time we'll get something that looks and works nicer than what we've got. (I won't use either, but I can still see that the integrated desktop works well for some.)
As far as applications not working together, that's not the fault of the window manager... that's the fault of the application developers. If you make your application so that it will only work well with KDE, well... you're an idiot. It's not the fault of the people using Gnome that you ignore them.
Now, exactly why is it that you need three desktop environments? Try thinking about what you use, and what your alternatives are. I think you'll find that you don't need to have all three; simply select some applications that were well-designed to begin with and you can settle on one.
Try reading "The Language Instinct" by Steven Pinker. He actually touches on this, including an analysis on how it's said. (Unfortunately, my copy has disappeared.) The 'loose' mistake is just an annoying mispelling, but "could care less" makes sense, is easier to say, and its meaning is obvious and well-defined (No one would take 'could care less' to mean anything but the fact that they don't care at all, much as nobody would expect a double negative to imply a positive.) Lighten up.
Nope, sorry, Both are correct; "could care less" is a sarcastic form of the same thing. (Find somebody who says that they "could care less" about something; the sound form is completely different than when someone says that they "couldn't care less". At least make sure you know what you're talking about before posting.
No kidding. "Yahoo!" and such are annoying enough. ("This morning, Yahoo! announced that they are the web search engine of choice for 90% of all Arabian Llama breeders." Wait, This Morning, Yahoo! isn't a full sentence... oh, right, it's just a 'clever' name.)
Then, we have such abominations as:CueCat: and so forth (I would come up with some new ones, but can't think of any off hand.) I suppose that at least they can't be mistaken for actual punctuation, but it's still extremely difficult to read. And I bet that bunches of Perl scripts throw up or get confused when trying to parse text with such crap.
But "DivX;-)" really has to be the worst one yet. It's completely impossible to read past without spasming mentally for a moment. I really hope that none of the corporate idiots pick up on this. I really don't want my computer to have a logo on it that says "e:-)", or a "Dry ^-^ Cleaners" on the way to work, or a law firm named "!@#$% %$#@!" advertising that they can help you rip off insurance companies.
Of course it's basically impossible to get any sort of entertainment anymore without breaking the law or sticking to the very expensive, no talent, bring-me-your-money sheep mass media.
Keep in mind that all this fansubbed anime you're watching was created by the very expensive, no talent, bring-me-your-money-sheep mass media itself. (It just so happens that this particular group of corporations reside in Japan rather than the US.) Although the fansubbers are doing a lot of work, and often do very well, they're not the primary artistic force behind these shows.
Now, I don't think that fansubbing and distributing these shows substantially cuts into their profits (they don't market good anime here like they should, and make most of their profits off the crap that makes it onto network TV), but just keep in mind that at some point, illegal distribution could have enough of an effect to shut some of these places down. And that would be pretty sad.
Personally, I'd like to see something like the micropayments that have been suggested for music; where viewers of fansubbed anime can give something back to the studio that developed it. (Or whoever deserves the money at the back end. I really don't know much about their methods of distribution.) The 'subtitling by committee' thing just doesn't seem to work.
Anyway, to keep this on topic, you're right. What I immediately thought of wasn't how I could store my video collection (or copy others), but how much nicer it would be for distribution and storage of video that isn't commercially available. (anime, or amateur videos, or whatnot.)
Hey, if they ported NH to X-Box, it might be worth having. I wouldn't have to lug around a monitor with my hack machine. (I tell ya, it's not that easy to wheel my 486 and a 19-inch monitor all over the place just in case I have a few extra minutes...
What surprises me is that people are getting so worked up over this. Yeah, sure, it would be nice if DC actually tried to protect people's privacy. But unless you're completely clueless, why would you expect them to? If you didn't want your information to be recorded, and possibly distributed (whether by DC or by people 'cracking' their security), then you'd better take matters into your own hands and either not use the thing, or not use it in any way that gives them your personal information.
If you want to cut the wires and use it yourself, that's great. It's your device, and you can do what you want. But if your buying habits have been spread all over the net, you have no one to blame but yourself.
But if they're a non-profit organization, why are they raising such a big stink over "licensed" players (i.e. ones that they have received extra $$$ for)?
Because the idea that an organization that represents for-profit organizations can be essentially non-profit itself is laughable, to say the least. Sure, the MPAA itself may not be in the business of making money... but all its members are. The 'non-profit' status is really just a legality; in reality it's BS.
Slashdot Mirror
What I find strangest is that, from what I've seen, the majority of posters here will vote for Nader. (I'm not saying you will, this is just a general observation that's somewhat offtopic.) However, whenever they post, they bitch about being in the "minority." (How having more people in the community constitutes a minority, I don't think I will ever know.) It's one thing to see all of them get modded up to +5 by saying the word "republicrats", as that just reflects the opinions of the moderators, but could they at least stop the whining?
why would you be?
Well, let's see. Look at what people on Slashdot (not really the tech community in general, but it's the part of it he was talking to) do when they don't like something. They fire up netscape and try to boost their karma on a web discussion forum. As a general rule, not many of us are known for attempting to do something useful
I know I don't. I've decided on my vote, and will cast it, but it's not all that important to me. To be honest, I just want to have my millionth of a percent in the results to be counted, and then go back to minding my own business. In fact, I don't particularily see why the presidential elections get so much attention. Your congressional representatives are probably more important than some stupid figurehead in the White House.
the playing of "classic games" is a crime
That's not quite what they meant, of course, but the fact is that many companies would like to make it a crime to play these games (even if you actually legally own them. See all the complaining about emulators, even if you're using it for your own games.) It's this part that really annoys me about the attitude of the game companies ... they want you to buy their new (and generally not very good) games so badly that they want to remove the chance to play these older games. A video game is a work of art, and it seems like a shame that they would effectively destroy them because they're incapable of otherwise turning a profit.
I don't think that, legally, we'll be able to make any ground on this issue ... at least, until somebody manages to get copyright law reverted to a somewhat sane state ... but until then, I hope that the little 'rebellion' keeps going strong.
Um...did you happen to read that essay? Although he does occasionally point out some of Gore's flaws, it pales compared to his references to Bush being a "nitwit" and "liar." (To name a couple.) And several times, he praises Gore and the democrat platform in general.
It was a good read -- I didn't agree with a lot of it, but that's OK -- but it was anything but unbiased.
I don't actually have a problem with schools using a filter ... it's their choice, after all. I think it's a waste of money, but if local sentiment is dead-set on using it, then I think it's reasonable. However, I think that forcing it on them as a federal mandate is a very bad idea. These types of issues should be decided on an individual or local level.
You're missing a big point, though. These laws are in place to protect the safety of others. Whether or not you kill yourself by acting stupidly is your business, but you'll never convince me that your god-given rights give you the privelege to endanger others.
Children can't be reasonably expected to look out for their own safety. The fact is, the do fall into swimming pools and drown, get hit by cars while riding bikes, and so forth, and get themselves killed. Now, imagine that you have an unsecured pool, and someone's toddler walks into it and drowns. Yes, it's their parents' fault, and they can be taken to court for neglect and abuse, but the kid's still dead. You're claiming that, to protect your right to be socially irresponsible, this should be an acceptable scenario? (Yeah, I know your answer's going to be yes. It's rhetoric for the people that actually think they have some social responsibility.)
Same thing with the dynamite. If I'm in an apartment, I don't want there to be a ton of dynamite in the apartment next to mine. If by some accident it explodes, I certainly haven't done anything wrong, but I'm still dead. Should we allow someone to drive a car bomb into a crowded building, as long as they promise not to detonate it? Why should we wait until someone has been harmed instead of taking action to prevent it?
Remember the phrase 'life, liberty, and property.' Everyone should have these rights. If people cannot be trusted to ensure that these rights are upheld for everyone (not just you), then we have to turn to the government. The function of the government is (ideally) to protect the well-being of its citizens, physically and economically. You're welcome to live your life, just realize that you can't impinge on the rights of others.
Just to get this on-topic, I think that reverse engineering is perfectly acceptable. (I don't believe that the dynamite analogy works.) Stupidity is not a protected right, and if your livelyhood depends on keeping a secret, then you're taking a big chance. Tough luck.
Well, even ignoring the fact that this isn't meant to be the next big, immensly popular hit game, you ought to lighten up. First: these programmers wanted to make a game; part of the whole 'open source' thing (or 'free software', for that matter) is that people work on what they want to work on. Second: There are already publishing programs for Linux (if you think you need something more, then go ahead and use Wine. Not Whine, Wine. Or write one yourself.) Third: besides office and internet products, games are almost certainly the most popular programs. (I don't know the numbers, so I can't say how they rank as compared to the other two.) So this is a great way to get some more people to see Linux in action.
In my opinion, the rules for admitting evidence shouldn't change based on whether it's stored electronically or not. So, I think this rule may be reasonable (although I question the logic that just because you try to get rid of something, it can't be held against you ... sort of like saying that if you tried to get rid of a body and flubbed it, you still wouldn't be held responsible...) it had better apply to both paper documents and electronic. Otherwise, criminals will simply turn to the internet because of the extra safety factor.
This idea, I think, is the key. If there were no copyrights, there would be fewer artists, and we all lose. (Yeah, you can argue that one, but a lot of people are only in it for the _big_ money, which you probably can't reach without the money-sucking corporate structure.) However, if copyrights are changed back to a "limited term", as they were originally intended to be ... suddenly, if the artists want to keep those profits rolling in, they have to keep on creating. It seems strange to me than someone should expect to be paid horrendous amounts of money for something they did 30 years ago. I really think that limiting copyrights (and then really enforcing them) would be the best way to deal with the opposing interests of artists and consumers.
Why do you think that? Last I checked, there was more to life that simply what happens to your extra blood or organs. I don't see this as any different than, say, requiring that we give up some of our abstract liberties in order to live in a society, which is what the law is all about.
I'd never argue that blood/organ donation should be mandatory; I do think that it should be a person's personal choice. (An aside to everyone: if you don't donate blood, or haven't specified that you'd like your organs to be donated if possible, and don't have moral objections to it, do it today. It's not much trouble.) But I don't see why you hold that privledge above all others. I personally couldn't care less what happens to my body after I'm dead. If you have a reason for caring, please enlighten me. (As for things while your alive ... really, same idea, if it doesn't affect you adversely.)
I dunno, would anyone buy a monitor that only did 320x200x256? ... Oh, right, that used to be standard. Sure, what we're talking about here isn't of astounding resolution, but it's still usable ... don't just look down on something because you can imagine better. (Although imagining better is the first step to creating something even more impressive.)
That said, I'm sure you've noticed by now that dozens of people have pointed out that the display is something like 450x450x450, or 768x768x200, or something. Quite a bit better than 90x90 ... so are you going to go buy yourself one now?
Well, I don't really mean that, if you say something that was mentioned in another discussion, that it's redundant. However, if it's something that's already been beaten to death so many times that any slashdotter can recite it in their sleep, it's redundant.
In my opinion, trolls should be dropped to -1, very offtopic and redundant posts to 0, and anything else I won't bother to mod down.
Well, comments aren't only redundant because they've already been said in another comment. They could also have been said in another discussion, or the article, or just be a 'me too!' post.
For instance, one time when I got moderator access and was in a foul mood, I went to a discussion and moderated 5 slashbots as redundant. There was probably some whining about 'moderators on crack', and some of them probably got their +5 anyway, but hearing the same tired 'linux is good', 'windows is good', 'napster is good' without saying anything is getting really old. They deserved a karma hit.
(as a disclaimer: I'm usually pretty nice, and actually almost always use my mod points to bump posts up, not down.)
Why shouldn't anyone walk into McDonald's and grab 50 ketchup packets? After all, it's unlikely that anyone will try to stop you, and even if they do, nothing will happen.
... I don't have a problem paying for for something I want. In fact, I see it as a responsibility.
If Napster was the only music-sharing service available, you can bet that lots of people (you included, more than likely) would shell out five bucks for it. In fact, I bet a lot of people would anyway (if this happened to fly, which it almost certainly won't), because right now the alternatives aren't so great.
If the music is worth $5 to you, then why wouldn't you pay? Perhaps that's what I don't like about Napster etc
All too often, there are posts that really need a +1 or -1, but the choices just don't cover it. Therefore, I say we need the following choices added:
/* Really, we need more than just 'Funny' to reward the good ones. */
/* So we don't have to waste multiple moderators' time. */
/* Perhaps split into several categories, such as 'about [copyrights | patents | free speech | privacy | gun control | jon katz]' */
/* I expect these to be used rather heavily */
... Perhaps, instead of the list, we could have a textbox where moderators type the reason for their moderation.
+1, Troll
+1, Whore
+5, Signal 11
+1, Slashdot Already Posted This
+1, Claimed They Were Expecting -1
+1, Redundant
+1, Only Intelligent Post in the Entire Discussion
-1, Stupid
-1, Clueless
-1, Opposing view
-1, goatse.cx
+1, goatse.cx
There could be many more, of course
The moderator that moderated this (and I would assume, the at least two others in this discussion) post as offtopic helps prove that the moderation system is really bizarre. (I would guess that this one did it to make a point, but I occasionally read at -1 for a laugh, just because the trolls who complain about 'moderators on crack' are so often right.)
... I wasn't really able to follow it that well, as it seemed quite complicated and I wasn't too inclined to try to sort it all out. However, the idea that some people's posting should be limited seems wrong ... at least here, part of Slashdot's charm is that anyone can post whatever they want, and moderation only helps people filter the list.
That said, I don't think this proposed system is all that great
The MP3 is on the verge of becoming the next "killer app" (if it isn't already). And yet a P100 with 24 megs of RAM and Windows 95 will barely play them.
I can play MP3s on my 486/66, in the background while I code. Sure, Windows is inefficient, but I don't think that it slows down the hardware so much that you need a gigahertz processor for normal use. (I'm sure, however, that the next version of Office will include enough delay loops to make it look like you need that newest processor.)
I'm not saying that a 486 is good enough, of course (I'll buy a newer computer when I manage to scrape together a few pennies.) But the fact is that nobody really needs the latest chip; they just want it for bragging rights. Me, I'm happy to stay a couple years behind and a few hundred dollars richer.
The reason why they want to redo it is because Gnome and KDE haven't managed to get it right yet. For all the work that has been done on both of them, they're both bloated and, more hideously, they pretty much act just like Windows. Maybe this time we'll get something that looks and works nicer than what we've got. (I won't use either, but I can still see that the integrated desktop works well for some.)
... that's the fault of the application developers. If you make your application so that it will only work well with KDE, well ... you're an idiot. It's not the fault of the people using Gnome that you ignore them.
As far as applications not working together, that's not the fault of the window manager
Now, exactly why is it that you need three desktop environments? Try thinking about what you use, and what your alternatives are. I think you'll find that you don't need to have all three; simply select some applications that were well-designed to begin with and you can settle on one.
Try reading "The Language Instinct" by Steven Pinker. He actually touches on this, including an analysis on how it's said. (Unfortunately, my copy has disappeared.) The 'loose' mistake is just an annoying mispelling, but "could care less" makes sense, is easier to say, and its meaning is obvious and well-defined (No one would take 'could care less' to mean anything but the fact that they don't care at all, much as nobody would expect a double negative to imply a positive.) Lighten up.
Nope, sorry, Both are correct; "could care less" is a sarcastic form of the same thing. (Find somebody who says that they "could care less" about something; the sound form is completely different than when someone says that they "couldn't care less". At least make sure you know what you're talking about before posting.
No kidding. "Yahoo!" and such are annoying enough. ("This morning, Yahoo! announced that they are the web search engine of choice for 90% of all Arabian Llama breeders." Wait, This Morning, Yahoo! isn't a full sentence ... oh, right, it's just a 'clever' name.)
:CueCat: and so forth (I would come up with some new ones, but can't think of any off hand.) I suppose that at least they can't be mistaken for actual punctuation, but it's still extremely difficult to read. And I bet that bunches of Perl scripts throw up or get confused when trying to parse text with such crap.
;-)" really has to be the worst one yet. It's completely impossible to read past without spasming mentally for a moment. I really hope that none of the corporate idiots pick up on this. I really don't want my computer to have a logo on it that says "e :-)", or a "Dry ^-^ Cleaners" on the way to work, or a law firm named "!@#$% %$#@!" advertising that they can help you rip off insurance companies.
Then, we have such abominations as
But "DivX
Keep in mind that all this fansubbed anime you're watching was created by the very expensive, no talent, bring-me-your-money-sheep mass media itself. (It just so happens that this particular group of corporations reside in Japan rather than the US.) Although the fansubbers are doing a lot of work, and often do very well, they're not the primary artistic force behind these shows.
Now, I don't think that fansubbing and distributing these shows substantially cuts into their profits (they don't market good anime here like they should, and make most of their profits off the crap that makes it onto network TV), but just keep in mind that at some point, illegal distribution could have enough of an effect to shut some of these places down. And that would be pretty sad.
Personally, I'd like to see something like the micropayments that have been suggested for music; where viewers of fansubbed anime can give something back to the studio that developed it. (Or whoever deserves the money at the back end. I really don't know much about their methods of distribution.) The 'subtitling by committee' thing just doesn't seem to work.
Anyway, to keep this on topic, you're right. What I immediately thought of wasn't how I could store my video collection (or copy others), but how much nicer it would be for distribution and storage of video that isn't commercially available. (anime, or amateur videos, or whatnot.)
Sounds like you need to start playing nethack...
Hey, if they ported NH to X-Box, it might be worth having. I wouldn't have to lug around a monitor with my hack machine. (I tell ya, it's not that easy to wheel my 486 and a 19-inch monitor all over the place just in case I have a few extra minutes...
What surprises me is that people are getting so worked up over this. Yeah, sure, it would be nice if DC actually tried to protect people's privacy. But unless you're completely clueless, why would you expect them to? If you didn't want your information to be recorded, and possibly distributed (whether by DC or by people 'cracking' their security), then you'd better take matters into your own hands and either not use the thing, or not use it in any way that gives them your personal information.
If you want to cut the wires and use it yourself, that's great. It's your device, and you can do what you want. But if your buying habits have been spread all over the net, you have no one to blame but yourself.
Because the idea that an organization that represents for-profit organizations can be essentially non-profit itself is laughable, to say the least. Sure, the MPAA itself may not be in the business of making money ... but all its members are. The 'non-profit' status is really just a legality; in reality it's BS.