For a few months now I've had an unbelievable crush on a classmate of mine. I said to myself, "self, you must have her", so I've joined a gym and tried to get a driver's license and a better wardrobe and whatever else. My hopes are that next semester I can successfully ask her out.
I think you should take a look at your self-confidence first. Without that, you are nothing, and women will use you and abuse you.
...that a $5 billion aircraft carrier that we really don't need during this time of budget crunches and economic weakness bears the name of the man who invented modern deficit spending in America.
My guess is the bill authorizing it's construction was passed many many years ago. Then a few years later the construction started, and then after a few more years the construction was complete. So my guess is it is highly unlikely the ship was "ordered" during the dot-com bust (for example).
Don't you know....God owns the copyright on the Bible. And if you steal it or copy it, he'll be pissed.
If you're right, then were the Bible's authors (apparently acting on God's will) committing copyright infringement? Was God granting them a license to redistribute his word or not? Maybe he was only granting a license for their personal use... if we wanted everyone to hear his message, wouldn't he have just used his "outside" voice?
It's not up to me to prove that I bought the CD in the first place, it's up to the RIAA to prove that I didn't.
Innocent until proven guilty.
The theory of innocence until proven guilty only applies in a criminal case. If the RIAA is suing you for copyright infringement, I would guess this is a civil case (since only the government can prosecute a criminal case). I'm no legal expert so your milage may vary.
But keep this in mind... in civil cases the plaintiff has to prove a preponderance of evidence -- a far different task than proving the case beyond a reasonable doubt (or innocent until proven guilty).
So it is possible for the RIAA to sue you and win, even if you're innocent.
So -- what's to stop people from using the excepted planes? Or planes originating in a country where installment of such a system isn't required?
The FAA could require all planes which wanted to land in the US to have the system installed. Thus, if you're a company who wants to land your passenger/cargo plane in the US, you need to install the system first, even if your plane may only land in the US once. Otherwise, it's one hell of a long flight from another country (and don't think that if the US goes for this that they won't, uh, "strongly recommend" that Canada and Mexico do so as well), and you can probably expect a military escort into and out of US airspace.
In a fly-by-wire plane there are no mechanical links to the control surfaces.
Right. Early planes did have their mechanical links made from "wire." Granted, it was probably thicker "wire" that might more accurately be called a "control cable" or some such, but none the less, I always have a moment of confusion when I hear "fly-by-wire."
Why don't they just call it "eFlight?" There's already eTickets and eCheckIn.
1994: PCs suck. 1999: Macs are better. 2004: PCs suck.
The best response by PC users is, of course, "we have more games."
I used to be a Mac zealot, and for those of you who are not, you cannot imaging the uncontrollable frothing at the mouth that most Mac users go through when Apple releases a new product. If you're really interested in observing this phenomenon, read this Slashdot story carefully, or better yet, browse over to some of the Mac forums or even a Mac news site. It's a scary sight...
I guess it's important for both sides to validate their own purchases, as well as their own sense of self-worth.
But I will not be surprised when Mac users come back in 5 years and say "Macs are better" because their old argument isn't valid.
For those of you who were trying to get regularly updated info on the release of the G5, you may have noticed that most of the Mac sites are specifically requesting their users do not refresh the page continually. Likewise, most sites have taken their forums offline (even Ars Technica, who is not a "Mac-only" site).
Is this the new Slashdot effect? Mac users going ballistic over Apple's latest release and posting and reloading their favorite sites continually?
On a side note, is it just me, or is the new design very "bland," even "unoriginal."
Wow... where's Triumph the Insult Comic Dog when you need him?
Looking at the pictures of the anti-SCO protesters, I thought about the Triumph episode where he interviews/insults the Star Wars "nerds" waiting in line for Episode II. Could've been some great material...
I guess someone should've called Conan before the protest started...
Hey did the person who modded me "Troll" READ THE FUCKING ARTICLE ? DID YOU ? Read it.... The whole fucking article is filler.
Tom's Hardware must have degenerated while I wasn't looking. The articles used to be full of detail, two printed pages long per "digital article page" (what you see on the screen;)). Now it looks like the two paragraphs per "article page" are just used to keep the ads from bumping into each other. The whole article could've fit on one page, but I guess that doesn't get very many banner impressions when you know that Slashdot will link to your story, no matter how high the "filler" ratio.
Simple, none of the *nix filesystems out there support the Windows security model.
And FAT partitions does?
(Note: Rudimentary understanding of XFS follows...)
I would expect that XFS is sufficient for Windows NT/2000/XP... XFS supports full ACLs, etc, it's just not available in Linux (well, commonly available) because the "Linux security model" doesn't mesh with the NT-like levels of ACLs supported by XFS. Supposedly this kind of functionality is supported by the IRIX version of XFS, and apparently the Linux version with some special ACL patches. I will refer you to the Samba Changelog for when NT ACL support was added (IIRC), which mentioned (I assume NT-compatible) ACLs were supported.
- Something happens - "they" cover it up, remove all evidence and delete any documents reporting anything about "it" - Everyone invovled dies of old age (Roswell was what, fifty years ago -- another twenty or thirty years and no first-hand witnesses will be around) - No one ever finds out the truth
I agree with you in theory... this would make sense as a potential outcome of "some event."
Let's say, though, that this event is the discovering that "we are not alone" (or pick some other wild theory from UFOlogists (sidenote: worst profession title ever)). The government would have a huge interest in knowing whether or not "we are alone" in the universe. If "space aliens" really exist, and some chaps at Roswell found them, the army would have documented the findings. Someone would still know today, because that kind of information would be incredibly value (especially during the Cold War). To suggest that the information will be lost when all of the primary witnesses dies is rediculous -- if there are documents regarding "space aliens" at Roswell, they are surely retained by the US government, under the closest supervision.
Developer backlash has begun
on
Latest SCO News
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Just wondering - do you have something against ALL possible x86 implementations???
No, but I'm not a big fan of the BIOSes on most modern PCs. My Sun Ultra 30 has a great BIOS (Open Firmware) and I think it'd be great if someone made non-Windows x86 PCs that used OF. As far as I know, those don't exist, so I'd rather look to other hardware platforms (PPC seems promising).
Also, I like running my servers on less-common hardware, as it makes buffer overflows and such a bit more difficult -- Debian still works the same so if I can get a bit of added security from obscure hardware, I'm prefer to use something other than x86.
I'm really looking for something like my Javastation, but designed instead to function as a very lightweight server instead of a client.
I wish there was consumer demand for low power destop computing.
My mail/web server would run fine off of something rediculously small, like a Sharp Zaurus. Here are my requirements, and I will pay for one if it is available.
Non-x86 hardware designed for lower power -- extra speed is nice, but not required; Pentium 200 speeds or better
Low power, with 9V or AA-based battery backup (changeable while system is running)
3" - 4" LCD (with manual switch to turn off) at 640 x 480, or some sort of LED array/VFD, because all I really need is a low power terminal supporting 80 x 24 characters.
USB port for keyboard
Serial port
Two or three 10/100 NICs
Full (Debian) Linux support of all hardware
Some sort of expansion (PCMCIA maybe, or via USB)
Support for CompactFlash for backups
Hardware encryption would be a nice goodie but not required
Yes, I could probably build this with PC104 components, but I want a pre-built product, and I'm willing to pay for it (maybe $300 - $400).
Why would SCO cause themselves more difficulty by using a legal strategy that ultimately would cause them more harm then good?
If SCO was looking to get bought out, specifically by IBM, then threatening IBM with such a lawsuit might make sense. The problem is, SCO was betting on IBM not calling SCO's bluff. If IBM does, SCO is screwed, although current lawsuits aside, it looked like that was going to happen anyways.
once people will realize they have to pay 7425$ to fill their new iPod
Note, what follows is merely wild speculation.
Wasn't the recording industry sued (successfully) for price fixing? What were the prices being fixed at? $20 or so? Now CDs are, say, $13 for 13 songs, so they're still about a dollar per song.
Let's think about this dollar per song ($1/song) for a moment.
I'm sure most readers are familiar those infomercials at 1 AM offering all sorts of products, whether it be CD sets, pasta makers, car wax, etc. Notice how they're always $19.95 or $24.99 or $29.97 etc. This has the obvious advantage of allowing the marketing slogan "under $30" etc (before tax, of course). And really, $24.99 really isn't that much... you probably have as much in your wallet.
So now let's think about the $0.99/song offer. We definitely have the "under a dollar" bit, and again, it's only a dollar... "don't buy that candy bar, instead buy some music." But a dollar adds up quickly. Considering the size of some music collections, going "digital" will be outrageously expensive.
Where I am going with this? I think that the record companies told Apple what the price would be. $0.99 probably has a healthy profit for both parties, so neither side is complaining. Apple can market the songs as "cheap" (cheaper than what?).
What is the marginal cost of another downloaded song? Much, much less than the marginal cost of another CD/CD single. I think that the record companies need the price of downloadable songs rediculously high because otherwise it will be apparent that CDs are priced too high. If a song was, say, $0.10 to download, why wouldn't a CD with 13 of those songs be $1.30? Why is it ten times the price of downloading? Does it offer ten times the value? Does it cost ten times the amount (per song) to produce?
I've heard people say CDs cost pennies to make. Maybe CDRs, but it costs money to get the CDs pressed, and the jackets made, etc. So let's say it costs $1 to make the CD. Now we add on the cost of the songs, so we're up to $2.30. Now let's add some profit (note that the cost of the songs, whatever it is, will cover costs of paying the artists, marketing, etc), and we get $2.75. Maybe the record stores will mark it up a bit more.
Here's the point: downloadable songs will never be pennies per song because that will make it very, very clear that the songs themselves are only worth pennies per track (market value == sale price). While you can sell the same product for different prices, it will be very hard convincing the average consumer why they should (currently, or previously) pay for a CD at $13 -- the tracks on the CD are not "worth" that much. CDs in general are thus overpriced. Think of how angered consumers will be when they figure this out.
And some other thoughts:
How is this really any better than buying a CD? Oh, that's right, I don't have to buy the rest of the crap on the album. So are we going to see CDs with 30 songs on them to compete with this new downloadable music? Or will the rest of the CD need to include quality music from now on? Somehow, we're made to think it's a better "deal" when we're really paying the same price.
Another interesting tidbit is that Apple is giving you rights to the song as long as you live. OK, but I can will my CDs to my son/daughter/friend/sister/etc. Or I can give it to them (transfer ownership). Can I do this with an electronic song? Obviously after I transfer ownership I couldn't listen to it anymore under my name. As far as I can tell, though, it seems like this is the "subscription" model for music. Yay.
And an idea that I'll express here, so I can refer to my Slashdot post as prior art...;)
Here's an idea that I think would work well with regards to downloadable music.
New releases of any and all songs should be very inexpensive. As a song becomes popular, the price goes up (not instantaneously, but, say, every day or so t
While surfing around at work during some downtime and all the sudden you land on a questionable site and BAM a big vagina pops on your screen for 15 seconds...
You begin freaking out but that doesn't compare to the reaction your boss is going to have when he walks by...
If you work for a porn site, do you get reprimanded for downloading porn at work?
Maybe in a situation like you described, you'd actually get a raise!
Slashdot Mirror
For a few months now I've had an unbelievable crush on a classmate of mine. I said to myself, "self, you must have her", so I've joined a gym and tried to get a driver's license and a better wardrobe and whatever else. My hopes are that next semester I can successfully ask her out.
I think you should take a look at your self-confidence first. Without that, you are nothing, and women will use you and abuse you.
My guess is the bill authorizing it's construction was passed many many years ago. Then a few years later the construction started, and then after a few more years the construction was complete. So my guess is it is highly unlikely the ship was "ordered" during the dot-com bust (for example).
Patent pending, 2003, All rights reserved
I think you meant to say, "Your rights reserved, but available for licensing."
Don't you know....God owns the copyright on the Bible. And if you steal it or copy it, he'll be pissed.
If you're right, then were the Bible's authors (apparently acting on God's will) committing copyright infringement? Was God granting them a license to redistribute his word or not? Maybe he was only granting a license for their personal use... if we wanted everyone to hear his message, wouldn't he have just used his "outside" voice?
It's not up to me to prove that I bought the CD in the first place, it's up to the RIAA to prove that I didn't.
Innocent until proven guilty.
The theory of innocence until proven guilty only applies in a criminal case. If the RIAA is suing you for copyright infringement, I would guess this is a civil case (since only the government can prosecute a criminal case). I'm no legal expert so your milage may vary.
But keep this in mind... in civil cases the plaintiff has to prove a preponderance of evidence -- a far different task than proving the case beyond a reasonable doubt (or innocent until proven guilty).
So it is possible for the RIAA to sue you and win, even if you're innocent.
So -- what's to stop people from using the excepted planes? Or planes originating in a country where installment of such a system isn't required?
The FAA could require all planes which wanted to land in the US to have the system installed. Thus, if you're a company who wants to land your passenger/cargo plane in the US, you need to install the system first, even if your plane may only land in the US once. Otherwise, it's one hell of a long flight from another country (and don't think that if the US goes for this that they won't, uh, "strongly recommend" that Canada and Mexico do so as well), and you can probably expect a military escort into and out of US airspace.
In a fly-by-wire plane there are no mechanical links to the control surfaces.
Right. Early planes did have their mechanical links made from "wire." Granted, it was probably thicker "wire" that might more accurately be called a "control cable" or some such, but none the less, I always have a moment of confusion when I hear "fly-by-wire."
Why don't they just call it "eFlight?" There's already eTickets and eCheckIn.
Mac arguments through the years:
1994: PCs suck.
1999: Macs are better.
2004: PCs suck.
The best response by PC users is, of course, "we have more games."
I used to be a Mac zealot, and for those of you who are not, you cannot imaging the uncontrollable frothing at the mouth that most Mac users go through when Apple releases a new product. If you're really interested in observing this phenomenon, read this Slashdot story carefully, or better yet, browse over to some of the Mac forums or even a Mac news site. It's a scary sight...
I guess it's important for both sides to validate their own purchases, as well as their own sense of self-worth.
But I will not be surprised when Mac users come back in 5 years and say "Macs are better" because their old argument isn't valid.
Call us when we can buy a 64-bit iMac, or Apple makes a real $999 desktop box.
You mean something like Sun's 64-bit Blade 100? Given such criteria, I would think Sun won the race for the first 64-bit "desktop."
For those of you who were trying to get regularly updated info on the release of the G5, you may have noticed that most of the Mac sites are specifically requesting their users do not refresh the page continually. Likewise, most sites have taken their forums offline (even Ars Technica, who is not a "Mac-only" site).
Is this the new Slashdot effect? Mac users going ballistic over Apple's latest release and posting and reloading their favorite sites continually?
On a side note, is it just me, or is the new design very "bland," even "unoriginal."
Wow... where's Triumph the Insult Comic Dog when you need him?
Looking at the pictures of the anti-SCO protesters, I thought about the Triumph episode where he interviews/insults the Star Wars "nerds" waiting in line for Episode II. Could've been some great material...
I guess someone should've called Conan before the protest started...
Why they would actually want to sell more 1.1's is beyond me though.
My guess is USB 1.1 chipsets are a few cents cheaper to manufacture than USB 2.0 chipsets.
Hey did the person who modded me "Troll" READ THE FUCKING ARTICLE ? DID YOU ? Read it. ... The whole fucking article is filler.
;)). Now it looks like the two paragraphs per "article page" are just used to keep the ads from bumping into each other. The whole article could've fit on one page, but I guess that doesn't get very many banner impressions when you know that Slashdot will link to your story, no matter how high the "filler" ratio.
Tom's Hardware must have degenerated while I wasn't looking. The articles used to be full of detail, two printed pages long per "digital article page" (what you see on the screen
Simple, none of the *nix filesystems out there support the Windows security model.
And FAT partitions does?
(Note: Rudimentary understanding of XFS follows...)
I would expect that XFS is sufficient for Windows NT/2000/XP... XFS supports full ACLs, etc, it's just not available in Linux (well, commonly available) because the "Linux security model" doesn't mesh with the NT-like levels of ACLs supported by XFS. Supposedly this kind of functionality is supported by the IRIX version of XFS, and apparently the Linux version with some special ACL patches. I will refer you to the Samba Changelog for when NT ACL support was added (IIRC), which mentioned (I assume NT-compatible) ACLs were supported.
- Something happens
- "they" cover it up, remove all evidence and delete any documents reporting anything about "it"
- Everyone invovled dies of old age (Roswell was what, fifty years ago -- another twenty or thirty years and no first-hand witnesses will be around)
- No one ever finds out the truth
I agree with you in theory... this would make sense as a potential outcome of "some event."
Let's say, though, that this event is the discovering that "we are not alone" (or pick some other wild theory from UFOlogists (sidenote: worst profession title ever)). The government would have a huge interest in knowing whether or not "we are alone" in the universe. If "space aliens" really exist, and some chaps at Roswell found them, the army would have documented the findings. Someone would still know today, because that kind of information would be incredibly value (especially during the Cold War). To suggest that the information will be lost when all of the primary witnesses dies is rediculous -- if there are documents regarding "space aliens" at Roswell, they are surely retained by the US government, under the closest supervision.
Maybe I'm a bit late to the show, but I noticed MIMEDefang version 2.34-BETA-5 includes a new "--enable-running-on-scummy-sco" option.
:)
I wonder how many SCO admins will actually use this option.
i went directly to the local apple store and bought an ibook.
this is literally the best of breed machine i have ever used
"Best of breed?" Are you a marketing droid?
Here's a quick hint... you could have kept your current PC and simply installed an alternative OS (most of which are free!).
Then again, you could simply use an alternative mail client, since this doesn't exploit the OS itself, but rather the user behind the keyboard.
What, no BitTorrent link?
I guess if you want it you'll have to check Kazaa for yourself!
Just wondering - do you have something against ALL possible x86 implementations???
No, but I'm not a big fan of the BIOSes on most modern PCs. My Sun Ultra 30 has a great BIOS (Open Firmware) and I think it'd be great if someone made non-Windows x86 PCs that used OF. As far as I know, those don't exist, so I'd rather look to other hardware platforms (PPC seems promising).
Also, I like running my servers on less-common hardware, as it makes buffer overflows and such a bit more difficult -- Debian still works the same so if I can get a bit of added security from obscure hardware, I'm prefer to use something other than x86.
I'm really looking for something like my Javastation, but designed instead to function as a very lightweight server instead of a client.
My mail/web server would run fine off of something rediculously small, like a Sharp Zaurus. Here are my requirements, and I will pay for one if it is available.
Yes, I could probably build this with PC104 components, but I want a pre-built product, and I'm willing to pay for it (maybe $300 - $400).
Update: Statistics now show that 25% of all Segways have been stolen.
So does this mean that there has been a margin increase of Segway thefts of infinite percentage?
0 -> 1 = infinite increase
Or is my brain just tired and my math wildly inaccurate?
I'm not a marketing guru, but isn't this the kind of brand association that you don't want?
Why would SCO cause themselves more difficulty by using a legal strategy that ultimately would cause them more harm then good?
If SCO was looking to get bought out, specifically by IBM, then threatening IBM with such a lawsuit might make sense. The problem is, SCO was betting on IBM not calling SCO's bluff. If IBM does, SCO is screwed, although current lawsuits aside, it looked like that was going to happen anyways.
once people will realize they have to pay 7425$ to fill their new iPod
;)
Note, what follows is merely wild speculation.
Wasn't the recording industry sued (successfully) for price fixing? What were the prices being fixed at? $20 or so? Now CDs are, say, $13 for 13 songs, so they're still about a dollar per song.
Let's think about this dollar per song ($1/song) for a moment.
I'm sure most readers are familiar those infomercials at 1 AM offering all sorts of products, whether it be CD sets, pasta makers, car wax, etc. Notice how they're always $19.95 or $24.99 or $29.97 etc. This has the obvious advantage of allowing the marketing slogan "under $30" etc (before tax, of course). And really, $24.99 really isn't that much... you probably have as much in your wallet.
So now let's think about the $0.99/song offer. We definitely have the "under a dollar" bit, and again, it's only a dollar... "don't buy that candy bar, instead buy some music." But a dollar adds up quickly. Considering the size of some music collections, going "digital" will be outrageously expensive.
Where I am going with this? I think that the record companies told Apple what the price would be. $0.99 probably has a healthy profit for both parties, so neither side is complaining. Apple can market the songs as "cheap" (cheaper than what?).
What is the marginal cost of another downloaded song? Much, much less than the marginal cost of another CD/CD single. I think that the record companies need the price of downloadable songs rediculously high because otherwise it will be apparent that CDs are priced too high. If a song was, say, $0.10 to download, why wouldn't a CD with 13 of those songs be $1.30? Why is it ten times the price of downloading? Does it offer ten times the value? Does it cost ten times the amount (per song) to produce?
I've heard people say CDs cost pennies to make. Maybe CDRs, but it costs money to get the CDs pressed, and the jackets made, etc. So let's say it costs $1 to make the CD. Now we add on the cost of the songs, so we're up to $2.30. Now let's add some profit (note that the cost of the songs, whatever it is, will cover costs of paying the artists, marketing, etc), and we get $2.75. Maybe the record stores will mark it up a bit more.
Here's the point: downloadable songs will never be pennies per song because that will make it very, very clear that the songs themselves are only worth pennies per track (market value == sale price). While you can sell the same product for different prices, it will be very hard convincing the average consumer why they should (currently, or previously) pay for a CD at $13 -- the tracks on the CD are not "worth" that much. CDs in general are thus overpriced. Think of how angered consumers will be when they figure this out.
And some other thoughts:
How is this really any better than buying a CD? Oh, that's right, I don't have to buy the rest of the crap on the album. So are we going to see CDs with 30 songs on them to compete with this new downloadable music? Or will the rest of the CD need to include quality music from now on? Somehow, we're made to think it's a better "deal" when we're really paying the same price.
Another interesting tidbit is that Apple is giving you rights to the song as long as you live. OK, but I can will my CDs to my son/daughter/friend/sister/etc. Or I can give it to them (transfer ownership). Can I do this with an electronic song? Obviously after I transfer ownership I couldn't listen to it anymore under my name. As far as I can tell, though, it seems like this is the "subscription" model for music. Yay.
And an idea that I'll express here, so I can refer to my Slashdot post as prior art...
Here's an idea that I think would work well with regards to downloadable music.
New releases of any and all songs should be very inexpensive. As a song becomes popular, the price goes up (not instantaneously, but, say, every day or so t
While surfing around at work during some downtime and all the sudden you land on a questionable site and BAM a big vagina pops on your screen for 15 seconds...
You begin freaking out but that doesn't compare to the reaction your boss is going to have when he walks by...
If you work for a porn site, do you get reprimanded for downloading porn at work?
Maybe in a situation like you described, you'd actually get a raise!
<rimshot>
.
.
.
(pun intended)