NBC's recent withdraw from the iTunes store leaves the millions of Apple's customers who have Macs or iPods without a legitimate way to purchase and watch NBC's content.
System Requirements Microsoft Windows XP or Vista (32-bit versions) Windows Media Player 9.0 or higher 1.5 GHz processor & 512 MB RAM Broadband connection
Microsoft seems to be taking care of itself, don't you think? It's biggest challenges, Google, Nintendo, and Apple, are all making lots of money where Microsoft is losing money.
Other companies may make progress, but that progress is often measured in fractions of a percentage point. Firefox, arguably the most successful alternative to a Microsoft product, competes against arguably the worst piece of software ever devised but hasn't reached 40% marketshare. Despite competitors like Open Office, Word Perfect and Google Documents, Office 2007 will set you back $240 list price. And that's for the upgrade. 2007 professional costs a cool $500.
And if Microsoft's Windows/Office monopoly is threatened, they can always cut prices to hurt the competition. They could start losing a million dollars a day and easily still be in business when this country is celebrating it's tricentennial. "Let the market sort it out" isn't much of a solution if you have to wait generations for it to work.
You get into the beta for buying three new games for the price of one, these being Episode 3, Portal & Team Fortress 2.
Episode 2 a new game? All three episodes put together are merely an expansion pack for Half-Life 2, and expansion packs don't count as new, full games. The only thing the episodes have in common with full games is the pricing. So more like 2.2 new games. And thats assuming that TF2 is more than an update of a very old mod with new graphics from existing engine technology.
RMS was in the middle of giving a speech, and Linus started chasing his kid around the stage directly behind RMS.
Context? Did he start playing tag with his son while RMS was giving a speech? That would be extremely rude. Or was it a case of a young bored son acting up, and Linus running after him to bring him back to his seat?
And don't even get me started on all the times where Linus talks about himself as the "practical" one
How is Torvalds not more practical than RMS? In any case, neurotics deserve to have their noses tweaked.
I've found that a great many of the people who criticize and dismiss RMS are often people who make extensive use of GNU tools -- I think it's worth taking a moment every now and again to consider what kind of FOSS world we'd have right now if it weren't for RMS and his mates.
We'd have BSD userland tools instead of GNU tools to do the same task. Yawn.
You can't "kill" an inefficient government short of staging a coup and killing people.
Sure you can. They're called elections. If you can't wait for those, there's recall and impeachment.
You can "kill" an inefficient company by creating a MORE efficient company.
Not if the company in question is a monopoly, and good luck getting anti-trust enforcement from a Libertarian. Microsoft, for example, is horribly inefficient: the only two divisions of the company that really make money are Windows and Office. Everything else (i.e. Xbox) loses them money.
No, you asked a stupid question. Nothing is wrong asking stupid questions, but it is wrong to stubbornly stick to it rather than just shutting up. You are a tool. And a fool.
I always respected how he didn't take shit from anyone.
Up until he decided to run for president again, started backing Bush, cozied up to guys like Jerry Falwell and began to flip flop more than a tank of goldfish dumped onto the floor.
Then the parent can expound upon his views. However, the asshat the jumped into the conversation is unlikely to be equally defensive on a statement such as "I believe that having a large, expanding bureaucracy is good", he can piss off.
Funny, I don't see the part where he says "Having a small government for the sake of a small government".
It's as about as different as cougars and mountain lions. The parent offered no qualifiers or details, so taking his statement of "I believe that having a small, limited government is good" at face value is personally reasonable. Much as taking an equally dubious statement like "I believe that having a large, expanding bureaucracy is good" at face value.
You first, troll.
Unless you can claim with a straight face that you would be equally supportive of someone saying "I believe that having a large, expanding bureaucracy is good", this is the part of the discussion where you blow it out your ass.
Funny how those dictatorships are so darn stable...and friendly. Please wake up.
Vastly more so than civil war and chaos. You wake up. Even Cheney saw that back in the 90's.
Now regarding the comment about destabilizing the entire region...well...um...you might want to read up on history because that region has never been nor ever will be stable.
Of course it has been. And it would be more stable without crap like Operation Ajax.
Stop right here. The basic principle of debate is that you debate what the person actually says, not what you invent.
And you don't get to ignore inconvenient facts. It's no strawman to point out that the vast majority of conservatives who prattle on about "limited government" only want to limit the stuff they don't like (social spending), but baby, bring on that pork and military spending, any more than pointing out how full of crap they are on "family values".
If you can't do that, you can take your ass back to a lefty echo chamber like DailyKos where you belong.
Oh, come on, admit that the real reason you don't like DailyKos is because they bring attention to rightwingassholes.
A small government with less power/budget should be less effective at taking our rights.
And far less able to protect you (Katrina, product and worker saftey, bridge maintenance, pollution) and save you money (healthcare, education, crime reduction). So again, smaller government for the sake of smaller government is no better than larger government for the sake of larger government.
Why should socialism have to adapt to CIA backed coups?
that value the strength of the collective over the freedom of the individual?
There is nothing inherent about socialism that rejects the freedom of the individual. What it does reject, is sink or swim elitism.
Another question for you: how is it that collectives like the Cybermen from Dr. Who, the Borg from Star Trek, or the Zerg from StarCraft keep recurring in popular culture as negative archetypes?
Why do fascist regimes keep recurring in popular culture, from the Empire in Star Wars to Daleks in Dr. Who to Big Brother in 1984? Oh, and mentally collective != economically collective.
The main problem is Africa, and Africa is starving because of socialism, not in spite of it.
Try civil wars, dictatorships, and corruption. And socialism would have a much better success rate if it wasn't always being overthrown by the CIA. We'd also have a lot less enemies around the world and might still be sporting a couple extra buildings in Manhattan.
The current president is closer to Joseph Stalin than he is to any capitalist thinker ever born.
The great fraud being perpetrated in our political discourse is the concerted attempt by movement conservatives, now that the Bush presidency lay irreversibly in ruins, to repudiate George Bush by claiming that he is not, and never has been, a "real conservative." This con game is being perpetrated by the very same conservatives who -- when his presidency looked to be an epic success -- glorified George W. Bush, ensured both of his election victories, depicted him as the heroic Second Coming of Ronald Reagan, and celebrated him as the embodiment of True Conservatism.
This fraud is as transparent as it is dishonest, yet there are signs that the media is nonetheless beginning to adopt this theme that there is some sort of epic and long-standing "Bush-conservative schism." But very little effort is required to see what a fraud that storyline is.
One of the few propositions on which Bush supporters and critics agree is that George Bush does not change and has not changed at all over the last six years. He is exactly the same.
And none of the supposed grounds for conservative discontent -- especially Bush's immigration position -- is even remotely new. Bush's immigration views have been well-known since before he was first elected in 2000, yet conservatives have devoted to him virtually cult-like loyalty and support. Just logically speaking, Bush's immigration views cannot be the cause of the flamboyant conservative "rebellion" against Bush since those views long co-existed with intense conservative devotion to Bush.
There is really only one thing that has changed about George W. Bush from the 2002-2004 era when conservatives hailed him as the Great Conservative Leader, and now. Whereas Bush was a wildly popular leader then, which made conservatives eager to claim him as their Standard-Bearer, he is now one of the most despised presidents in U.S. history, and conservatives are thus desperate to disassociate themselves from the President for whom they are solely responsible. It is painfully obvious there is nothing noble, substantive or principled driving this right-wing outburst; it is a pure act of self-preservation.
Slashdot Mirror
New Macs, yes. However, there are many millions of older Macs out there that can't run Windows natively. However, they can run Azures just fine. :)
Jobs knows what he's doing to help APPLE. Why the hell should he have NBC's best interests at heart?
Because the more NBC shows he sells the more money he will make. Duh.
Microsoft Windows XP or Vista (32-bit versions)
Windows Media Player 9.0 or higher
1.5 GHz processor & 512 MB RAM
Broadband connection
Pragmatism as a philosophy tends to become less pragmatic in the long run. Look at what happened with the "best tool for the job" BitKeeper.
Yes, damn Torvalds for not being telepathic and discovering that their cool, free tool was about to become unfree and uncool. Yawn.
Microsoft seems to be taking care of itself, don't you think? It's biggest challenges, Google, Nintendo, and Apple, are all making lots of money where Microsoft is losing money.
Other companies may make progress, but that progress is often measured in fractions of a percentage point. Firefox, arguably the most successful alternative to a Microsoft product, competes against arguably the worst piece of software ever devised but hasn't reached 40% marketshare. Despite competitors like Open Office, Word Perfect and Google Documents, Office 2007 will set you back $240 list price. And that's for the upgrade. 2007 professional costs a cool $500.
And if Microsoft's Windows/Office monopoly is threatened, they can always cut prices to hurt the competition. They could start losing a million dollars a day and easily still be in business when this country is celebrating it's tricentennial. "Let the market sort it out" isn't much of a solution if you have to wait generations for it to work.
You get into the beta for buying three new games for the price of one, these being Episode 3, Portal & Team Fortress 2.
Episode 2 a new game? All three episodes put together are merely an expansion pack for Half-Life 2, and expansion packs don't count as new, full games. The only thing the episodes have in common with full games is the pricing. So more like 2.2 new games. And thats assuming that TF2 is more than an update of a very old mod with new graphics from existing engine technology.
Not just irony, hypocrisy as well. A two-for-one special!
RMS was in the middle of giving a speech, and Linus started chasing his kid around the stage directly behind RMS.
Context? Did he start playing tag with his son while RMS was giving a speech? That would be extremely rude. Or was it a case of a young bored son acting up, and Linus running after him to bring him back to his seat?
And don't even get me started on all the times where Linus talks about himself as the "practical" one
How is Torvalds not more practical than RMS? In any case, neurotics deserve to have their noses tweaked.
I've found that a great many of the people who criticize and dismiss RMS are often people who make extensive use of GNU tools -- I think it's worth taking a moment every now and again to consider what kind of FOSS world we'd have right now if it weren't for RMS and his mates.
We'd have BSD userland tools instead of GNU tools to do the same task. Yawn.
Well, Linus is lucky he happen to pick a free license. Who would've bothered to join the development community, if his kernel was proprietary?
It's not GNU vs proprietary it's GNU vs some other license. He could have gone with some other license available at the time or made his own.
You complain about "RMS bashing" and then call Torvalds a "visionless fool" in the same breath?
You can't "kill" an inefficient government short of staging a coup and killing people.
Sure you can. They're called elections. If you can't wait for those, there's recall and impeachment.
You can "kill" an inefficient company by creating a MORE efficient company.
Not if the company in question is a monopoly, and good luck getting anti-trust enforcement from a Libertarian. Microsoft, for example, is horribly inefficient: the only two divisions of the company that really make money are Windows and Office. Everything else (i.e. Xbox) loses them money.
It's a Slashdot post, not a dissertation. Nobody cares.
Yes, because the only thing worse than defending free speech is getting paid decently for doing so.
No, you asked a stupid question. Nothing is wrong asking stupid questions, but it is wrong to stubbornly stick to it rather than just shutting up. You are a tool. And a fool.
I always respected how he didn't take shit from anyone.
Up until he decided to run for president again, started backing Bush, cozied up to guys like Jerry Falwell and began to flip flop more than a tank of goldfish dumped onto the floor.
Then the parent can expound upon his views. However, the asshat the jumped into the conversation is unlikely to be equally defensive on a statement such as "I believe that having a large, expanding bureaucracy is good", he can piss off.
Funny, I don't see the part where he says "Having a small government for the sake of a small government".
It's as about as different as cougars and mountain lions. The parent offered no qualifiers or details, so taking his statement of "I believe that having a small, limited government is good" at face value is personally reasonable. Much as taking an equally dubious statement like "I believe that having a large, expanding bureaucracy is good" at face value.
You first, troll.
Unless you can claim with a straight face that you would be equally supportive of someone saying "I believe that having a large, expanding bureaucracy is good", this is the part of the discussion where you blow it out your ass.
Funny how those dictatorships are so darn stable...and friendly. Please wake up.
Vastly more so than civil war and chaos. You wake up. Even Cheney saw that back in the 90's.
Now regarding the comment about destabilizing the entire region...well...um...you might want to read up on history because that region has never been nor ever will be stable.
Of course it has been. And it would be more stable without crap like Operation Ajax.
Stop right here. The basic principle of debate is that you debate what the person actually says, not what you invent.
And you don't get to ignore inconvenient facts. It's no strawman to point out that the vast majority of conservatives who prattle on about "limited government" only want to limit the stuff they don't like (social spending), but baby, bring on that pork and military spending, any more than pointing out how full of crap they are on "family values".
If you can't do that, you can take your ass back to a lefty echo chamber like DailyKos where you belong.
Oh, come on, admit that the real reason you don't like DailyKos is because they bring attention to right wing assholes.
A small government with less power/budget should be less effective at taking our rights.
And far less able to protect you (Katrina, product and worker saftey, bridge maintenance, pollution) and save you money (healthcare, education, crime reduction). So again, smaller government for the sake of smaller government is no better than larger government for the sake of larger government.
Of course he did: Try reading and understanding before posting.
Try pulling your head out.
So if I believe that having a small, limited government is good
Having a small government for the sake of a small government is no better than more government for the sake of more government.
Just how adaptable are those societies
Why should socialism have to adapt to CIA backed coups?
that value the strength of the collective over the freedom of the individual?
There is nothing inherent about socialism that rejects the freedom of the individual. What it does reject, is sink or swim elitism.
Another question for you: how is it that collectives like the Cybermen from Dr. Who, the Borg from Star Trek, or the Zerg from StarCraft keep recurring in popular culture as negative archetypes?
Why do fascist regimes keep recurring in popular culture, from the Empire in Star Wars to Daleks in Dr. Who to Big Brother in 1984? Oh, and mentally collective != economically collective.
Try civil wars, dictatorships, and corruption. And socialism would have a much better success rate if it wasn't always being overthrown by the CIA. We'd also have a lot less enemies around the world and might still be sporting a couple extra buildings in Manhattan.
The current president is closer to Joseph Stalin than he is to any capitalist thinker ever born.
Bullshit: