...it looks hideous matched with the unixy-flat grey and squared off buttons inside the pretty Aqua window borders. It's like if someone putting leather seats inside of a Yugo and thinking it stands side by side with his neighbor's Lexus. It comes off as a half-assed knockoff.
I hear people all the time saying that Linux (and it's most popular apps)are not at all original but merely doing its best to ape other OSes (Linux-Unix, KDE-Windows, GIMP-Photoshop, StarOffice-MS Office). Don't get me wrong, I am a fan of Linux but things like this seem lame and add weight to thier perceptions.
8.1 for PPC (and 8.0 for those who are wondering)
on
Mandrake 8.1 Released
·
· Score: 1
Don't expect 8.1 for the PowerPC to come soon. Sept. 1, I placed and order for 8.0 for the PPC and I still have not recieved it. I popped off an email to service@madrakesoft and still have not gotten a reply. If I were a business thinking of switching to Linux and I couldn't get a reply from a "what's the status of my order" email after a week from sending it - I'd be thing twice about it. But that's another issue altogether.
I called them yesterday, and the guy said that they were experiencing technical difficulties burning the CD's. They were supposed to be mastered in Europe but because of recent events (WTC attack?) they've moved production here in the U.S. and it is going s-l-o-w-l-y. He said I could expect the CD's in about a week or so.
Given that, 8.1 could be a while for PPC. I can't wait for it though. It looked really easy to install on The Screensavers and could be a great system to cut my teeth on Linux with.
I've noticed that Mandrake 8.0 claims to be optimized for the G3 processor. Does this mean that gcc now has PowerPC optimizations? From what I've understood Linux on PowerPC (and possibly other architectures) was somewhat hobbled by the lack of decent PowerPC code generated from the compiler and that gcc pretty much only optimizes for the x86 architecture. Are there compilers out there readily available that now optimize for PowerPC?
I take it then, since you obviously side with the opposing viewpoint and that you feel the need to discredit the man on the basis that he hasn't done any independent research/thinking on the issue that you, in fact, have done the independent research/thinking which therefore qualifies you to discredit him?
Methinks, probably not. By your own logic, your point of view is full of shit as well and you're simply a blowhorn for the opposing viewpoint.
Why people think that valid opinions can only come from firsthand experience is beyond me. And then to top it off they turn around and feel qualified to discredit a point of view that they themselves have no firsthand experience with.
Sadly, this flawed logic is seen repeatedly on Slashdot and it's really annoying.
Despite the overwhelming opinion so far that there is no global warming I can't help but scratch my head and wonder why people seem to be in denial about it
Despite the overwhelming opinion so far that there is no global warming I can't help but scratch my head and wonder why people seem to be in denial about it. Calls for "more research" seems to be a typical response to the non-believer but there is a crapload of research already out there supporting this theory. Check out http://www.ciesin.org/TG/OZ/oz-home.html and look at the picture at the top of the page. Is the satellite that took the picture lying? Did the scientists that control the satellite alter the data? Come on, there's a huge freakin' hole in the atmosphere and anybody can take a picture of it given they have the right technology to do so.
Doesn't it seem odd that we're about the only nation in the world that hasn't accepted the global warming theory and that we're the one nation that will suffer the most economically if we enact the necessary cutbacks and reforms? Do you think that the oil and automotive industries aren't trying to protect their interests and are at this moment lobbying hard in Washington to stall or kill any global warming related reforms?
It's beyond me how a statement like "show me an environmentalist and I'll show you a cult follower" earns a score 5:Insightful rating. All scientists and environmentalists that support pro global warming theories are cult followers and have no real basis to support their beliefs. Right. I think hell would freeze over before a "Show me a Linux user and I'll show you an anti-Microsoft anti-innovation zealot." statement got modded to score 5:Insightful.
Has there been a more stereotypical "Republican" administration in the oval office? Environmental regulations have been thrown out the door, debt reduction has been cast aside for a populist tax cut and there hasn't even been a minimal attempt to try and disguise the fact that big business can buy influence with this administration. To make the point even scarier is that we're only 6 months into Bush's term!
All this from a man a 12-yer old could beat at Scrabble.
It seems not long ago there was a story about Apple taking from Open Source and not giving anything in return. Proof that they have. No, it's not the entire OS like many would want but it's better than many for-profit companies (ahem..Microsoft).
...that it's RealNetworks that's involved with this. I cringe every time I see Real sign a deal with some kind of content provider.
Not meant to be flamebait but the Real players are easily the lowest quality media players available. Unfortunately, the better (WMP) and best (QT) options don't include Linux into their list of supported platforms.
Will people listen to and pay for music than sounds like it's being played from a 1920's era phonograph? Dunno. I just hope this isn't a future glimpse of the new standard of listening to digital music.
It's no secret that Linus doesn't like microkernel architectures. What is really going on here is the press trying to create some buzz, get some hits on their web sites and sell some books. Many sites headlines are saying that Torvalds said OS X is crap, not the Mach kernel which, of course, is false. Read the article.
If you were Apple, the decision going micro or monolithic was a no-brainer in my opinion. Ignoring the Tevanian-Mach connections, going monolithic with OS X would be putting too many eggs in one basket given the shaky CPU ground they're standing on. Mach gives them more alot more flexibility to jump the Motorola ship if forced to.
I concede your point. However, as I'm sure you know, lots of IT guys would have your head if you plugged a Mac or Unix box into their network. There is no OS but Windows in the minds of these guys. It's probably why our LAN's and WAN's are always going down, but that's besides the point. So in their mind, if you can't do it on Windows, you can't do it. Mixed environments are not an option.
Heck, I can't even access my company email at home. To do so they've set it up so that only Windows users running a copy of Microsoft Outlook (not Outlook Express) can retrieve their email. Luckily, I leave my job at work when I'm home and don't need to see my company email.
Considering that NONE of the civil enineering and CAD software I use daily will run on Linux or is even being planned to be ported to Linux your statement has little real world value to most companies. Don't misunderstand me, I'm all for what you just said, it's just not currently realistic to put Linux on the corporate desktop.
I'm not quite understanding how Microsoft can take the position they have with the Alaska Airlines issue. How can they demand a license for a computer logging into the company network via a terminal app? Isn't that akin to my ISP (which runs NT servers) being required to pay for a full-time Windows license for everybody that dials in?
It's so rediculous I know I've got it wrong. Somebody please enlighten me.
After reading you latest post, I don't think we're in conflict with each other at all:^)
We both want choice. I want the ability to use a tool to aid me with parenting. You want the ability to purchase an appliance without paying for the additional filtering capabilities you won't use. I agree 100% with you on that. I would gladly pay the markup for the V-chip technology and consider that perfectly acceptable. I think what we both find distasteful is having someone dictate what we want or don't want or what we can have or cannot have.
To restrict your ability (and mine for that matter) to watch programming that I personally wouldn't let my children watch would be a form of censorship. I would never support that. I drink, I play violent video games and watch violent movies and t.v shows. I don't want these things taken away from me either. As a parent, I will make the choice to restrict these things from my children until I think they can responsibly handle them.
I understand what you're saying and very much agree that it likely no one thing caused Columbine or San Diego. It was never my intent to wrap this whole thing into a tidy little package.
I think, perhaps, you've missed my point. By saying that, for instance, ultra-violent media does not influence certain kids to act out aggressively - you've wrapped up into a neat tidy little package what doesn't cause Columbines. By your own admission, hundreds, if not thousands of different experiences contributed to their actions. Why then are so many people convinced that these things that parents are worried about can't be counted among the hundreds or thousands of things that can mess a kid up.
Some people see that ultra-violent games, movies and music are a relatively recent phenomena. So are school shootings. Did these school shooters have ultra-violent music, games, movies or t.v. in their house? Yes. If you're a parent, do you wait until absolute clinical studies prove or disprove that connection? No. You love your kid and if it feels like the right thing to do for your child then you do it.
Some people think that children should be exposed to the realities of life and that doing otherwise is some sort of harmful sheltering. In time, they will experience all that is good and bad in life but why rush it? What's wrong with trying to control what a child experiences of what's bad in life until their minds have matured enough to process the information and be objective about it? My wife is pregnant but my 4-year old son doesn't understand that several months from now he will have a brother or sister. His mind has not developed enough to grasp the concept of time. Young minds absorb and learn from the environment around them, why poison it with unnecessary evils?
I'm rambling, sorry. I guess I'm trying to say that they world is grey and it's entirely possible, nay probable, that our culture - music, movies, games and all - play a large part in how our children act and live. Parents have a right to want control of these things in their childrens lives if they so choose.
I have seen many people say that it's ridiculous or nonsense that "x" caused Columbine or "y" caused Columbine but those same people have never explained what, then, caused Columbine. When I refer to Columbine I am encompassing the entire school shooting phenomena.
So? What did bring about this phenomena? Yeah, the kids were picked on and treated as outcasts but so what. This is new? Why didn't the "losers" of previous generations decide that killing their peers at random was the answer to their problems? Why then has this been only a recent problem of a few years? Well, I'm waiting.
So many people think themselves qualified to say what didn't cause school shootings but never qualify their opinion with what did. Perhaps these people should stop and think about why then, don't these video games, movies and t.v. shows not affect some children.
The V-chip is not causing censorship. It would be censorship if the decision to block programming was made by somebody other than ourselves such as the government or some other organization outside of our direct and voluntary control. The only censorship issues caused by the V-chip are between the parent and child. To the chagrin of many children everywhere this is still a consititutionally acceptable situation.
2. Quality of the programming
Defenders of the V-chip say t.v. is crap anyway and the kids aren't missing much to be desired. Opponents of the V-chip say there is quality programming like PBS and the Discovery Channel that may me at risk of being filtered. This is irrelevant. Quality is subjective. The chip will black out programs, if told to, based on certain criteria like offensive language and sexual and violent content not the quality of the content. Really, how often does PBS or the Discovery channel air programs with 17 MA ratings anyway?
3. There is no cause and effect between t.v. and behavior
While I cannot definitively say yes there is or no there is not a connection between what kids (or adults) see on t.v. and their behavior, it's wrong to think the V-chip should go away simply because you're on the side that thinks t.v., movies and video games have no effect on a person. Leave the V-chip option there for those that do believe there is a connection and want to be proactive in reducing the amount of those influences in their children. The chip in no way affects your ability to watch violent, profane or sexual content.
Basically, many opponents of the V-chip claim that this is further step onto a slippery slope of government (or some other control group)sanctioned censorship. I don't understand this since nobody but the t.v. set owner controls the operation of the V-chip.
However, the V-chip is a tool for parents to slow the descent of their children on a different slippery slope - the slope of moral decline we've been on for many years now. Come on, do you think Temptation Island you last two seconds on air back in the Fifties?
I'm glad somebody finally said what needed to be said. Lazy parents indeed. Nitemayr, you obviously don't have kids. Run along now or you'll be late for class.
The real issue is that the Napster model, as we know it, is breaking the law. Period. You may think marijiuana should be legalized and could give me a twenty page thesis on why it should be. That still won't prevent you from being arrested and thrown in jail if you sell it to someone. The same reality applies with Napster. What you've posted about the RIAA and Napster may be right on target - it still doesn't matter. If, by being a law-abiding citizen makes me q part of a "righteous flock" then so be it.
For most that argue for the Napster model and see the RIAA as "the man", I'm willing to bet they didn't give a fuck about record industry profits until they found out that free songs could be had on the internet and that someone was now trying to take thier free candy away from them. Now they hide behind arguments of "protest" and "corporate greed". I don't buy it. People always want something for nothing.
So the music industry has been making profits for 10 years? So what? The ice cream industry has been making profits for a hundred years. Your statement implies that it's somehow wrong or repugnant to make a profit on a legal product or service.
Just because you disagree with a law doesn't give you permission to break it.
Some of my favorite turn-based games were on folded-cardboard maps covered with hexagons and used little cardboard sqares representing armored divisions or infantry. The company that made them was called Avalon Hill. Games like Panzerkrieg and Third Reich were awesome. The problem with them was that they were so complex that it was hard to find another person interested in playing with you. Avalon Hill provided a service that hooked up players together over the U.S. Mail. You gave them your name and address with the game you wanted to play and they would give you the name and address of someone that wanted to play also. You would take a turn, write down what you did, mail the details of your turn out and the other person would update his board and pieces. He would then take his turn and record the details, mail them out to you, you would update your board, et cetera, et cetera. It would take months to play a game this way.
I wish I still had those games and that they were still produced. I would still opt to play an Avalon Hill board game over mail (or in this day and age, e-mail) with a real person rather than by myself with the AI of a less-robust computer game. Then again, I have a cat and a four year old and wouldn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of leaving the gameboard and its pieces intact for more than 2 minutes - advantage computer.
Although the intent of this seems to be to phase out non-compliant browsers, I think this unfortunately gives more incentive for websites to be coded so that only the big 2 browsers may view the content. With Netscape currently residing in the intensive care unit Microsoft must be loving this.
Sadly, there are a few browsers that are fully standards compliant that will be left out in the cold because they don't ID themselves as Microsoft or Netscape and aren't even given the chance to render the page. Not only has this practice has been given the blessing of the Web Standards Project but they're telling web developers how to do it. Rather than be turned away at the door, people will download IE (or Netscape if it can recover from the excrement that is Netscape 6) and forget about it. As we all know, humanity tends to behave like electricity and take the path of least resistance and that's what these people are betting on. This is a shame because my browser of choice (iCab) is fully standards compliant and succesfully renders most pages using less than 4MB of RAM while the other two easily gobble up 10+MB.
Once again, Microsoft is poised to dominate yet another area of computing.
Wow. Sarcasm must not translate very well in text. I was trying to make a statement about many of the comments I typically see on Slashdot when a Mac news bit comes up.
Slashdot Mirror
...it looks hideous matched with the unixy-flat grey and squared off buttons inside the pretty Aqua window borders. It's like if someone putting leather seats inside of a Yugo and thinking it stands side by side with his neighbor's Lexus. It comes off as a half-assed knockoff.
I hear people all the time saying that Linux (and it's most popular apps)are not at all original but merely doing its best to ape other OSes (Linux-Unix, KDE-Windows, GIMP-Photoshop, StarOffice-MS Office). Don't get me wrong, I am a fan of Linux but things like this seem lame and add weight to thier perceptions.
Don't expect 8.1 for the PowerPC to come soon. Sept. 1, I placed and order for 8.0 for the PPC and I still have not recieved it. I popped off an email to service@madrakesoft and still have not gotten a reply. If I were a business thinking of switching to Linux and I couldn't get a reply from a "what's the status of my order" email after a week from sending it - I'd be thing twice about it. But that's another issue altogether.
I called them yesterday, and the guy said that they were experiencing technical difficulties burning the CD's. They were supposed to be mastered in Europe but because of recent events (WTC attack?) they've moved production here in the U.S. and it is going s-l-o-w-l-y. He said I could expect the CD's in about a week or so.
Given that, 8.1 could be a while for PPC. I can't wait for it though. It looked really easy to install on The Screensavers and could be a great system to cut my teeth on Linux with.
I've noticed that Mandrake 8.0 claims to be optimized for the G3 processor. Does this mean that gcc now has PowerPC optimizations? From what I've understood Linux on PowerPC (and possibly other architectures) was somewhat hobbled by the lack of decent PowerPC code generated from the compiler and that gcc pretty much only optimizes for the x86 architecture. Are there compilers out there readily available that now optimize for PowerPC?
Hail to those motherfuckers
Hail to those old cocksuckers
Hail! Hail! to Michigan
The cesspool of the West!
Hail to those fornicators
Hail to those masturbators
Hail! Hail! to Michigan
The cesspool of the West!
Sorry, after graduating from Ohio State it just becomes a knee jerk response :^)
Three sir!
I take it then, since you obviously side with the opposing viewpoint and that you feel the need to discredit the man on the basis that he hasn't done any independent research/thinking on the issue that you, in fact, have done the independent research/thinking which therefore qualifies you to discredit him?
Methinks, probably not. By your own logic, your point of view is full of shit as well and you're simply a blowhorn for the opposing viewpoint.
Why people think that valid opinions can only come from firsthand experience is beyond me. And then to top it off they turn around and feel qualified to discredit a point of view that they themselves have no firsthand experience with.
Sadly, this flawed logic is seen repeatedly on Slashdot and it's really annoying.
Flame away.
Despite the overwhelming opinion so far that there is no global warming I can't help but scratch my head and wonder why people seem to be in denial about it. Calls for "more research" seems to be a typical response to the non-believer but there is a crapload of research already out there supporting this theory. Check out http://www.ciesin.org/TG/OZ/oz-home.html and look at the picture at the top of the page. Is the satellite that took the picture lying? Did the scientists that control the satellite alter the data? Come on, there's a huge freakin' hole in the atmosphere and anybody can take a picture of it given they have the right technology to do so.
Doesn't it seem odd that we're about the only nation in the world that hasn't accepted the global warming theory and that we're the one nation that will suffer the most economically if we enact the necessary cutbacks and reforms? Do you think that the oil and automotive industries aren't trying to protect their interests and are at this moment lobbying hard in Washington to stall or kill any global warming related reforms?
It's beyond me how a statement like "show me an environmentalist and I'll show you a cult follower" earns a score 5:Insightful rating. All scientists and environmentalists that support pro global warming theories are cult followers and have no real basis to support their beliefs. Right. I think hell would freeze over before a "Show me a Linux user and I'll show you an anti-Microsoft anti-innovation zealot." statement got modded to score 5:Insightful.
Has there been a more stereotypical "Republican" administration in the oval office? Environmental regulations have been thrown out the door, debt reduction has been cast aside for a populist tax cut and there hasn't even been a minimal attempt to try and disguise the fact that big business can buy influence with this administration. To make the point even scarier is that we're only 6 months into Bush's term!
All this from a man a 12-yer old could beat at Scrabble.
Thank God the R's have lost the Senate.
It seems not long ago there was a story about Apple taking from Open Source and not giving anything in return. Proof that they have. No, it's not the entire OS like many would want but it's better than many for-profit companies (ahem..Microsoft).
Baby steps people.
...that it's RealNetworks that's involved with this. I cringe every time I see Real sign a deal with some kind of content provider.
Not meant to be flamebait but the Real players are easily the lowest quality media players available. Unfortunately, the better (WMP) and best (QT) options don't include Linux into their list of supported platforms.
Will people listen to and pay for music than sounds like it's being played from a 1920's era phonograph? Dunno. I just hope this isn't a future glimpse of the new standard of listening to digital music.
It's no secret that Linus doesn't like microkernel architectures. What is really going on here is the press trying to create some buzz, get some hits on their web sites and sell some books. Many sites headlines are saying that Torvalds said OS X is crap, not the Mach kernel which, of course, is false. Read the article.
If you were Apple, the decision going micro or monolithic was a no-brainer in my opinion. Ignoring the Tevanian-Mach connections, going monolithic with OS X would be putting too many eggs in one basket given the shaky CPU ground they're standing on. Mach gives them more alot more flexibility to jump the Motorola ship if forced to.
I concede your point. However, as I'm sure you know, lots of IT guys would have your head if you plugged a Mac or Unix box into their network. There is no OS but Windows in the minds of these guys. It's probably why our LAN's and WAN's are always going down, but that's besides the point. So in their mind, if you can't do it on Windows, you can't do it. Mixed environments are not an option.
Heck, I can't even access my company email at home. To do so they've set it up so that only Windows users running a copy of Microsoft Outlook (not Outlook Express) can retrieve their email. Luckily, I leave my job at work when I'm home and don't need to see my company email.
Considering that NONE of the civil enineering and CAD software I use daily will run on Linux or is even being planned to be ported to Linux your statement has little real world value to most companies. Don't misunderstand me, I'm all for what you just said, it's just not currently realistic to put Linux on the corporate desktop.
I'm not quite understanding how Microsoft can take the position they have with the Alaska Airlines issue. How can they demand a license for a computer logging into the company network via a terminal app? Isn't that akin to my ISP (which runs NT servers) being required to pay for a full-time Windows license for everybody that dials in?
It's so rediculous I know I've got it wrong. Somebody please enlighten me.
After reading you latest post, I don't think we're in conflict with each other at all :^)
We both want choice. I want the ability to use a tool to aid me with parenting. You want the ability to purchase an appliance without paying for the additional filtering capabilities you won't use. I agree 100% with you on that. I would gladly pay the markup for the V-chip technology and consider that perfectly acceptable. I think what we both find distasteful is having someone dictate what we want or don't want or what we can have or cannot have.
To restrict your ability (and mine for that matter) to watch programming that I personally wouldn't let my children watch would be a form of censorship. I would never support that. I drink, I play violent video games and watch violent movies and t.v shows. I don't want these things taken away from me either. As a parent, I will make the choice to restrict these things from my children until I think they can responsibly handle them.
I understand what you're saying and very much agree that it likely no one thing caused Columbine or San Diego. It was never my intent to wrap this whole thing into a tidy little package.
I think, perhaps, you've missed my point. By saying that, for instance, ultra-violent media does not influence certain kids to act out aggressively - you've wrapped up into a neat tidy little package what doesn't cause Columbines. By your own admission, hundreds, if not thousands of different experiences contributed to their actions. Why then are so many people convinced that these things that parents are worried about can't be counted among the hundreds or thousands of things that can mess a kid up.
Some people see that ultra-violent games, movies and music are a relatively recent phenomena. So are school shootings. Did these school shooters have ultra-violent music, games, movies or t.v. in their house? Yes. If you're a parent, do you wait until absolute clinical studies prove or disprove that connection? No. You love your kid and if it feels like the right thing to do for your child then you do it.
Some people think that children should be exposed to the realities of life and that doing otherwise is some sort of harmful sheltering. In time, they will experience all that is good and bad in life but why rush it? What's wrong with trying to control what a child experiences of what's bad in life until their minds have matured enough to process the information and be objective about it? My wife is pregnant but my 4-year old son doesn't understand that several months from now he will have a brother or sister. His mind has not developed enough to grasp the concept of time. Young minds absorb and learn from the environment around them, why poison it with unnecessary evils?
I'm rambling, sorry. I guess I'm trying to say that they world is grey and it's entirely possible, nay probable, that our culture - music, movies, games and all - play a large part in how our children act and live. Parents have a right to want control of these things in their childrens lives if they so choose.
I have seen many people say that it's ridiculous or nonsense that "x" caused Columbine or "y" caused Columbine but those same people have never explained what, then, caused Columbine. When I refer to Columbine I am encompassing the entire school shooting phenomena.
So? What did bring about this phenomena? Yeah, the kids were picked on and treated as outcasts but so what. This is new? Why didn't the "losers" of previous generations decide that killing their peers at random was the answer to their problems? Why then has this been only a recent problem of a few years? Well, I'm waiting.
So many people think themselves qualified to say what didn't cause school shootings but never qualify their opinion with what did. Perhaps these people should stop and think about why then, don't these video games, movies and t.v. shows not affect some children.
1. Censorship
The V-chip is not causing censorship. It would be censorship if the decision to block programming was made by somebody other than ourselves such as the government or some other organization outside of our direct and voluntary control. The only censorship issues caused by the V-chip are between the parent and child. To the chagrin of many children everywhere this is still a consititutionally acceptable situation.
2. Quality of the programming
Defenders of the V-chip say t.v. is crap anyway and the kids aren't missing much to be desired. Opponents of the V-chip say there is quality programming like PBS and the Discovery Channel that may me at risk of being filtered. This is irrelevant. Quality is subjective. The chip will black out programs, if told to, based on certain criteria like offensive language and sexual and violent content not the quality of the content. Really, how often does PBS or the Discovery channel air programs with 17 MA ratings anyway?
3. There is no cause and effect between t.v. and behavior
While I cannot definitively say yes there is or no there is not a connection between what kids (or adults) see on t.v. and their behavior, it's wrong to think the V-chip should go away simply because you're on the side that thinks t.v., movies and video games have no effect on a person. Leave the V-chip option there for those that do believe there is a connection and want to be proactive in reducing the amount of those influences in their children. The chip in no way affects your ability to watch violent, profane or sexual content.
Basically, many opponents of the V-chip claim that this is further step onto a slippery slope of government (or some other control group)sanctioned censorship. I don't understand this since nobody but the t.v. set owner controls the operation of the V-chip.
However, the V-chip is a tool for parents to slow the descent of their children on a different slippery slope - the slope of moral decline we've been on for many years now. Come on, do you think Temptation Island you last two seconds on air back in the Fifties?
The V-chip is a tool not a conspiracy.
I'm glad somebody finally said what needed to be said. Lazy parents indeed. Nitemayr, you obviously don't have kids. Run along now or you'll be late for class.
The real issue is that the Napster model, as we know it, is breaking the law. Period. You may think marijiuana should be legalized and could give me a twenty page thesis on why it should be. That still won't prevent you from being arrested and thrown in jail if you sell it to someone. The same reality applies with Napster. What you've posted about the RIAA and Napster may be right on target - it still doesn't matter. If, by being a law-abiding citizen makes me q part of a "righteous flock" then so be it.
For most that argue for the Napster model and see the RIAA as "the man", I'm willing to bet they didn't give a fuck about record industry profits until they found out that free songs could be had on the internet and that someone was now trying to take thier free candy away from them. Now they hide behind arguments of "protest" and "corporate greed". I don't buy it. People always want something for nothing.
So the music industry has been making profits for 10 years? So what? The ice cream industry has been making profits for a hundred years. Your statement implies that it's somehow wrong or repugnant to make a profit on a legal product or service.
Just because you disagree with a law doesn't give you permission to break it.
...you're mad because Gracenote provides a service that will make it more difficult for you to break the law and thieve copyrighted music?
Do you also get your soda pop by tipping over the vending machine and collecting the cans that roll out? Oh, wait...that would be wrong.
Some of my favorite turn-based games were on folded-cardboard maps covered with hexagons and used little cardboard sqares representing armored divisions or infantry. The company that made them was called Avalon Hill. Games like Panzerkrieg and Third Reich were awesome. The problem with them was that they were so complex that it was hard to find another person interested in playing with you. Avalon Hill provided a service that hooked up players together over the U.S. Mail. You gave them your name and address with the game you wanted to play and they would give you the name and address of someone that wanted to play also. You would take a turn, write down what you did, mail the details of your turn out and the other person would update his board and pieces. He would then take his turn and record the details, mail them out to you, you would update your board, et cetera, et cetera. It would take months to play a game this way.
I wish I still had those games and that they were still produced. I would still opt to play an Avalon Hill board game over mail (or in this day and age, e-mail) with a real person rather than by myself with the AI of a less-robust computer game. Then again, I have a cat and a four year old and wouldn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of leaving the gameboard and its pieces intact for more than 2 minutes - advantage computer.
ACK!
Although the intent of this seems to be to phase out non-compliant browsers, I think this unfortunately gives more incentive for websites to be coded so that only the big 2 browsers may view the content. With Netscape currently residing in the intensive care unit Microsoft must be loving this.
Sadly, there are a few browsers that are fully standards compliant that will be left out in the cold because they don't ID themselves as Microsoft or Netscape and aren't even given the chance to render the page. Not only has this practice has been given the blessing of the Web Standards Project but they're telling web developers how to do it. Rather than be turned away at the door, people will download IE (or Netscape if it can recover from the excrement that is Netscape 6) and forget about it. As we all know, humanity tends to behave like electricity and take the path of least resistance and that's what these people are betting on. This is a shame because my browser of choice (iCab) is fully standards compliant and succesfully renders most pages using less than 4MB of RAM while the other two easily gobble up 10+MB.
Once again, Microsoft is poised to dominate yet another area of computing.
Wow. Sarcasm must not translate very well in text. I was trying to make a statement about many of the comments I typically see on Slashdot when a Mac news bit comes up.