When I first picked up my cable modem after signing up, the nice lady at the front desk registered the modem's serial number on the spot. I went home and plugged it in; worked flawlessly. (Cox Cable FYI)
Stealing? He's simply choosing to shop at one store rather than another because one has a better return policy. Consumer choice is a pretty basic ingredient of a free market.
Seriously though, I'm forced to agree with you. This Ubuntu thing Dell is doing is going to have an extremely shallow impact on the regular Dell customer. You have to actively seek out Ubuntu if you want it; it's not just a configuration option like ATI or nVidia video cards.
Furthermore, prospective buyers have to navigate through messages like "are you sure you really want Ubuntu? It doesn't come with windows!" and "Dell recommends Microsoft Windows Vista!"
It would be sophism to argue on the use of the word "own".
I respectfully beg to differ. I think the parsing of who owns what is the critical issue. Physical CD, copyright, song, electronic file, information; who owns what? In his statement, Jobs was implying that he was going to allow people to own "music" purchased on iTunes. I might have agreed with him if he used the word "files" instead of music. I most certainly would have agreed with his statement if he said something along the lines of "People want to be free to do what they want with iTunes-purchased music." But to (knowingly) imply that people will "own" iTunes-purchased music is inaccurate and dishonest.
In order to continue in this discourse, it is imperative to have a firm agreement on what it means to "own" something. Some people think that one can own something while another can dictate control over it; others see ownership as the exclusive right to something. That is the issue. That is what needs to be discussed.
You seem like a person interested in property rights and copyright law. Here are some additional resources that clarify my viewpoints towards the fundamental connection between rights and property, and how so-called "intellectual property" and copyright laws muddy the waters.
While I fervently disagree with your assertion that a person can truly own something while at the same time be restricted from doing something with it, I respect your opinion. I hope you find the links I provided interesting (if you haven't already read/viewed them), I know I did.
No you don't own it (the song). If I owned it I could do anything I wished with it.
You own an exact copy, and you can do anything with that copy you please... except copy it. The RIAA cannot come and confiscate your CD.
You're proving my point here. If I "own" something, yet someone else dictates what I can and cannot do with it, then I really don't own it, they do. By the way, we are not talking about CDs here. CDs are physical things, while music you download on iTunes is not. I might (according to the first sale doctrine) have the right to resell/destroy/do whatever with a physical CD, but I do not have the right to do so with a purely electronic song. The copyright owners grant you the privilage, not the right, to burn the CD x amount of times, etc, but they restrict other things. This is detailed in the license.
That's where copyRIGHT comes in. It is the right to make a copy, not the ability. It has nothing to do with ownership. You own it, but your rights are restricted. There are other restricted rights as well, such as the right to public performance or whatever. (For comparison, you may own a car, but you do not have the right to drive it on a public highway unless you are granted that right through a license. Regardless of whether you are granted that right, you still OWN the car.)
Emphasis mine. Your analogy of the automobile is flawed. The reason that my privilege of driving the car of the freeway can be regulated is because I don't own the freeway.
By definition, you cannot own something but have your rights restricted. Ownership means the right to something. Therefore, because I am restricted by others to what I may do with an iTunes' purchased song, I do not own it. I merely own a license.
A license may grant you the right to copy the song you own, or the right to publicly perform the song you own.
A right cannot be granted. You meant privilege I'm sure. Again, you don't own the song, the copyright owner does.
A serious question: What about replication and clustering? Does PostgreSQL have support for replication and clustering that is on par or better than MySQL?
Disclaimer: This is not meant to be trollish in any way.
Then I say this: put up or shut up. I know that's blunt and rude, but just because you think it would work well does not make it so. It's been done with Linux, now lets see it done with Windows.
It's fine if you decide not to try newer versions of a product due to a bad first impression. It's not fine if you use that as justification for bashing the current version of the product on slashdot.
It seems like a logical fallacy to me. I may have disliked previous versions of RealPlayer, but I don't go running around slashdot bashing the current version while using my experience with an earlier version as justification.
Tribes 1 is now available free of charge. You can download the full game and play it to your heart's content. There is still a following, and last time I played it (about 3-4 months ago) there were still active servers.
What about, say, food (in general)? Is food not intrinsically valuable to humans? Whether or not you desire to eat, you must eat to continue living. Therefore food does have intrinsic value to all humans wishing to continue living.
Failure rates are known to be highly correlated with drive models, manufacturers and vintages....For example, [the chart showing failure rate] changes significantly when we normalize failure rates per each drive model.
Calm down there sport. I'm just trying to give you a little pointer to something you might want to check out. Gees, if you don't like it, then don't use it. I'm not going to force you.
Oh, and I apologize for not writing a full report spelling-out everything you need to do. Sheesh, I'm just trying to be helpful.
Slashdot Mirror
But a social contract is not a 1-way street, it's a 2-way street. Always has been.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crito
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract#Viol
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_rebellion
When I first picked up my cable modem after signing up, the nice lady at the front desk registered the modem's serial number on the spot. I went home and plugged it in; worked flawlessly. (Cox Cable FYI)
Stealing? He's simply choosing to shop at one store rather than another because one has a better return policy. Consumer choice is a pretty basic ingredient of a free market.
If the full-time professional army was allowed to fight like their enemies in Iraq do, then the situation there would be different.
Wait a minute. Doesn't MySQL AB offer dedicated support plans, training, and certifications?
I'd like to subscribe to your newsletter...
Seriously though, I'm forced to agree with you. This Ubuntu thing Dell is doing is going to have an extremely shallow impact on the regular Dell customer. You have to actively seek out Ubuntu if you want it; it's not just a configuration option like ATI or nVidia video cards.
Furthermore, prospective buyers have to navigate through messages like "are you sure you really want Ubuntu? It doesn't come with windows!" and "Dell recommends Microsoft Windows Vista!"
I respectfully beg to differ. I think the parsing of who owns what is the critical issue. Physical CD, copyright, song, electronic file, information; who owns what? In his statement, Jobs was implying that he was going to allow people to own "music" purchased on iTunes. I might have agreed with him if he used the word "files" instead of music. I most certainly would have agreed with his statement if he said something along the lines of "People want to be free to do what they want with iTunes-purchased music." But to (knowingly) imply that people will "own" iTunes-purchased music is inaccurate and dishonest.
In order to continue in this discourse, it is imperative to have a firm agreement on what it means to "own" something. Some people think that one can own something while another can dictate control over it; others see ownership as the exclusive right to something. That is the issue. That is what needs to be discussed.
I may own the physical book, but I do not own the story. That's copyrighted.
song is to CD as story is to book
Read my post again carefully and you will see that I said you don't own the song, not the CD.
Thanks for the thoughtful replies Pfhorrest.
You seem like a person interested in property rights and copyright law. Here are some additional resources that clarify my viewpoints towards the fundamental connection between rights and property, and how so-called "intellectual property" and copyright laws muddy the waters.
The first is a video series by Michael Badnarik on the US Constitution. You can view the entire series here: http://www.archive.org/details/Michael_Badnarik
The second is a great book on copyright law history by Lawrence Lessig. Again, freely available here: http://www.free-culture.cc/freeculture.pdf
While I fervently disagree with your assertion that a person can truly own something while at the same time be restricted from doing something with it, I respect your opinion. I hope you find the links I provided interesting (if you haven't already read/viewed them), I know I did.
Have a nice day.
No you don't own it (the song). If I owned it I could do anything I wished with it.
You're proving my point here. If I "own" something, yet someone else dictates what I can and cannot do with it, then I really don't own it, they do. By the way, we are not talking about CDs here. CDs are physical things, while music you download on iTunes is not. I might (according to the first sale doctrine) have the right to resell/destroy/do whatever with a physical CD, but I do not have the right to do so with a purely electronic song. The copyright owners grant you the privilage, not the right, to burn the CD x amount of times, etc, but they restrict other things. This is detailed in the license.
Emphasis mine. Your analogy of the automobile is flawed. The reason that my privilege of driving the car of the freeway can be regulated is because I don't own the freeway.
By definition, you cannot own something but have your rights restricted. Ownership means the right to something. Therefore, because I am restricted by others to what I may do with an iTunes' purchased song, I do not own it. I merely own a license.
A right cannot be granted. You meant privilege I'm sure. Again, you don't own the song, the copyright owner does.
I agree. You own a license.
Even when you "purchase" a song, you don't own it. "Renting" or not, you never really own anything other than a license.
That guy sure has a squeaky voice.
"I mean, *squeak*hey*squeak*, everyone knows this is the greatest encyclopedia in the world!"
Sweet. Thanks for the quick reply buddy. I'll check those out to make a decision to how they stack up against MySQL's offerings.
A serious question: What about replication and clustering? Does PostgreSQL have support for replication and clustering that is on par or better than MySQL?
Disclaimer: This is not meant to be trollish in any way.
Then I say this: put up or shut up. I know that's blunt and rude, but just because you think it would work well does not make it so. It's been done with Linux, now lets see it done with Windows.
It's fine if you decide not to try newer versions of a product due to a bad first impression. It's not fine if you use that as justification for bashing the current version of the product on slashdot.
It seems like a logical fallacy to me. I may have disliked previous versions of RealPlayer, but I don't go running around slashdot bashing the current version while using my experience with an earlier version as justification.
Tribes 1 is now available free of charge. You can download the full game and play it to your heart's content. There is still a following, and last time I played it (about 3-4 months ago) there were still active servers.
What about, say, food (in general)? Is food not intrinsically valuable to humans? Whether or not you desire to eat, you must eat to continue living. Therefore food does have intrinsic value to all humans wishing to continue living.
Source: Google, (2007). Failure Trends in a Large Disk Drive Population. Section 3.2, paragraph 1. http://labs.google.com/papers/disk_failures.pdf
Calm down there sport. I'm just trying to give you a little pointer to something you might want to check out. Gees, if you don't like it, then don't use it. I'm not going to force you.
Oh, and I apologize for not writing a full report spelling-out everything you need to do. Sheesh, I'm just trying to be helpful.
Here you go.
Well, exactly. You make a single master image and burn it onto a CD/DVD/whatever, then from that point on, you don't backup OS files.
Developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers?
What about DHCP?
Marriage is the leading cause of divorce.