You can mount removable devices as directories. You just must do so while the drive is available to the system. Eg: USB flash drives can be mounted in a directory. This much I have done in the same method as mounting fixed disks in directories.
I have even mounted my USB Multi-card reader's drives as directories, since I didn't like the notion that it was going to populate 5 drive letters just to give me access to all the card slots.
This only works for local drives. It will not work for network drives. I've tried. Would like so badly to mount network drives from a file server locally within the profile space, but it just doesn't seem possible at the moment.
There are many reasons to include regulation in such development when the potential fallout from the products could be lethal. But hey, as your logic goes, let's remove the FDA and get all those drugs out onto the market faster! Doesn't really matter if they kill a few thousand or so because they weren't properly tested, or because the company (as just about ever f'king company that ever existed does) cut corners and shaved off the testing time of development in order to make their buck NOW and beat the competition.
Maybe it'll be fine and there's no reason to worry. That'd be nice. Maybe it won't and having regulations in place would save our asses. Who knows! I, for one, would err on the side of caution, especially when all the promises made by the development are so grandiose. What better reason to approach with caution then when they tell you it'll give you the wonders of the world, yet haven't proven that it will.
Why is it not a valid argument? If there is some major reason why you wouldn't want to have it nearby you, then perhaps the root of that desire has some merit. Such as: Disposition of nuclear waste is a major concern, and if it is improperly disposed of near residential areas, it could poison and kill off the local environment. If you don't want to live next to it, then that concern should be addressed in a sane fashion before the process continues.
It is the irrational or unfounded 'NIMBY' responses to an issue that aren't valid arguments.
The flag, turned upside down, is supposed to be used in times of distress. A signal, or otherwise quiet notification, that someone needs help there. I imagine it was considered a simple thing that one could do that would not be considered relevant by an invading party.
In its most general sense, a fair use is any copying of copyrighted material done for a limited and "transformative" purpose such as to comment upon, criticize or parody a copyrighted work.
It goes on to describe what it means by transformative, etc. and even includes examples in later pages of fair use. This doesn't even technically qualify as Timeshifting, as came up with the Sony Betamax case.
No, what you are doing with stripping copyright protection is transforming the work as a whole and transcribing it into another form that is more portable. Think of it like scanning an entire novel into pdf format.
I think the phrase you're looking for is "Theft of Service", otherwise known as "using a service that you have not been granted access to by the lawful providers."
It's not quite theft in the traditional sense, but it does cause degradation over the cable network. It costs power to push a single to every home. The more homes sucking on the line, the more power it takes to keep the signal strong enough to be usable. In that way, however trivial, you cost the provider money.
Though, philosophically, I can't fault the guy. Comcast isn't exactally a gem among corporations.
Why would someone, for example, work on a shitty piece of code, one that they never use, *for free* just because someone bitched at them? Where's the incentive?
What's the incentive for open source programmers to develop anything at all *for free*?
I figure if that question is answered, then the answer to your question comes about at the same time.
That's pretty dismissive, and an inappropriate way to view their TOS. That's like saying "if you have nothing to hide, you won't mind if we search your home for contraband." "Judging by the quality of items in your home, you won't mind if we steal or break a few of them." It doesn't f'king matter if the quality is good or not, no company should ever say "Hey, something you created, but happen to transmit to someone else over our network... well, that's ours. We get to do whatever we want with it."
What would happen if the phone company did that? How about your ISP for anything you ever sent? Oh, I'm sure that you probably don't mind yourself, as you haven't written anything that's truely astounding to the world of Men. However, it's the rare gems, the potential for abuse, that should be, at all times, limited. The ability to usurp someone else's writings is one such potential that should be curtailed, no matter if it's likely or not.
After all, if it's this today, what will happen tomorrow after we're used to this little abuse?
Developers that do as you suggest and give a big 'f u' to the users of their program generally have their programs dropped like a bad habit due to the feeling of rudeness by the user.
While yes, as an open source developer working in your spare time on a project, you have every right to say that, or say "There's the source code, you do it yourself". However, you paint yourself as rude, obnoxious, arrogant, and contrary to the general goal of developing for the public: getting the public to use what you've developed.
Why should I, the user, use something that I consider broken and buggy, especially if it isn't necessary for me to work?
Why should I, the user, put up with bs from open source developers that are generally obnoxious and rude when I make a suggestion? (note here: making a suggestion and having it explained to me why that is bad is not what is being refered to here. What is being refered to is being told off, ignored (if this is a bug report), or to receive a snobby reply of "I don't feel like it")
Oh, and I am a software developer, hobbyist like many open source developers. Being rude to people who like your stuff enough to provide feedback is a good way to show yourself as the tard you are.
To add to problems, I have seen many HP (Toshiba drives) laptop drives suffer from oil bearing failures due to their inability to disipate heat. It is thought that there may be issues using high performance (7200 RPM) drives with these oil bearings since, with the faster speed and higher temps that they reach, it may degrade the oil faster and cause the platters to shudder more easily once the oil fails.
That is a good point in the closing statements. People honestly seeking suicide are doing so for whatever reason their mind has fixated on. "Consider your family" doesn't really work, because you are not thinking in a proper state of mind (ie: one of preserving your life, the normal mindset for all living organisms).
It amuses me somewhat in that people say how a suicide of someone they cared about messed them up. It amuses me for the fact that, while sometimes there is little warning a person is going to commit suicide, there are often warning indicators (withdrawl from social contact, quietness, etc in unusual quantities) that go unnoticed. They don't seek out the depressed person to help, and then complain that they caused the problems by committing suicide.
In all honesty, locking a car only keeps honest people out. That's not defeatist, that's reality showing. I lock my home all the time when I go out. Yet, what good does this really do, when I sit on a ground floor with a big sliding glass door on the outside? Is it that difficult for someone to break it that my locks are really serving a major purpose for someone that truely wants to steal my stuff? The answer is no.
However, what my locks do prevent against is the person returning home while drunk, mistaking my place for his. They protect against the random wandering child that, while innocent enough, has no issue with roaming anywhere they have access to. They protect against people making honest mistakes. Those that want your things badly enough will defeat any lock you could put in place.
On Gun Control: What the US lacks is proper respect for firearms, as well as proper training. I'm sure a great many people who buy a gun do not know how best to use it, and probably have not even fired it more than a few times. There is no law requiring a license, or training to own a gun, just to pass a background check to make sure you aren't a criminal.
As for the death rate by guns, it is just a coincidence. Other factors play into American deaths more than the sheer presence of a weapon.
And, if you can figure out how to remove guns from the hands of criminals, I would love to hear your solution.
P.S. I seem to recall Iraq, Iran, and a number of other middle-eastern countries where such things as an AK assault rifle are brandished about in celebration at weddings. This isn't common gun ownership outside the US? Is this also something you see within the US?
If charity organizations were rich, everyone would want to be a charity case.
Ok, that's stretching it a little, but the way people view 'helping others' is sometimes a bit off. Donate a little money, and give'm a gift now and then, and viola! Good has been done. But isn't it better to get them out of whatever bad situation they're in? Isn't it better to impart the importance of financial responsibility to those that can't manage their money? Isn't it better to fix the problem than smooth it over with a little good will and cash?
For things like AIDS research, that's useful and helpful, but I wonder how well we're doing by having multiple organizations shipping millions to research this thing, and after how long, we still can't cure it, nor can we seem to prevent against it. And what about where that money goes to? How many research facilities do we need working on the problem, and how much duplicated work is being done with this money?
But then, I come from a twisted world view that says any kind of medicine or treatment for an epidemic should not be controllable by one company, with everyone racing to the prize. It should be publically accessable, patentless, in order to serve the best interests of the people. You get your money from the research, you get your fame, you get ongoing projects as there will always be some major plague to cure. Does it need to be that now you're working to control the health of the population through your patented drugs?
I beg your pardon? Do you think professional audio equipment is free? Do you think talented recording engineers work for nothing? Of course recording studios deserve their money. They work for what they receive, just like you and I do.
Here's the deal. I'm a professional technicial. I fix things and manage assets all day. When I go to work, the company I work for does not charge me for time on their computer network, charge me for use of their equipment, does not charge me for the supplies I use. These are costs of the business, necessary for the business to operate. Thereafter, any work that I produce is rightfully the property of the company I did work for, as they funded the entire thing.
With the recording studio, while they give you a nice little signing bonus, when you go to work that day to record your music, the company DOES charge you for use of their equipment, DOES charge you for use of their technicians, and DOES charge you for the cost of distribution, etc. However, even though, now that you have paid for all of this with the money they gave you, what do you have to show for it? Do you get a paycheck for your efforts? Usually not, as a band's pay comes from their record sales and their records have to get sold, first. How about ownership of the work you had to pay to produce? Nope, the RIAA has happily seen to it that any work done like that is just the same as what I do, it's owned by the company. So how is it a win for the band, or how does their condition even come close to mine?
While admittedly, the difference between the company I work for and a recording studio is vast. However, the recording studio is doing something that the company I work for could never get away with. Charge your customers and your employees for the content that you sell. Best of both worlds. I mean, seriously, doesn't it bother you that they claim high CD prices due to distribution and marketing costs, yet those same fees are also paid by the bands in some form?
P.S. And yes, I do consider a band signed with a label an employee of that label, as contracts they enter into are most likely exclusive (you cannot record for another label) and for a set term (you must produce for us 7 albums).
I'm not going to an extreme situation. I'm taking into account the fact that, as individuals, we all have different learning styles. Myself, I have difficulty learning and retaining any kind of abstract knowledge without a practical or physical frame of reference, or without some pretty damn severe desire on my part. Others learn perfectly well being taught abstracts without context. Some are capable of researching and pulling together information, even about known topics, far faster than they could being taught at someone else's pace. Some must be taught by another in order to ask the questions that searched-for documents will not have.
Many teachers that I have had were a total waste of my time to be around. I ask a question, and they look at me blankly, either unknowing, uncaring, or simply not understanding the question. Many teachers taught in a style that favored their field of expertise, yet were a total drag and wasteful of my time (try learning an overview of error correction techniques from a mathmatician and watch him go into some 45 minute project of trying to generate the error correction codes for an 8 bit string). Now that is not to say that all teachers suffer from this behavior, but it does point to the notion that teachers are not always the best avenue for learning information.
The real problem is that when you sell the 3 billionth pill, they have recouped their costs to make that product. For a bottle of 30 pills, that's only about 111 million sales. Note, though, that even though they've recouped their costs, the price never quite seems to go down to the price of over-the-counter drugs.
And while that's a fair comparison, to the music industry, that just doesn't apply. See, they 'advance' some amount of money to a band wishing to get its music produced. The recording studio then charges the band for use of their studio, which takes a huge chunk of money out of that advanced money. Net effect to the music industry? They paid a band some trivial amount, and got a set of songs recorded. They didn't incur any costs for the band making the recording, they charged them for it.
While you can argue that there is money spent in manufacturing, sales, production, and getting the products on the shelves, often times 'early teasers' for up and coming bands are given for free to radio stations to give away and play on the air. How much does that cost, in terms of materials? Few thousand?
Quite a bit of the money goes to people who don't really deserve it, the recording studio. It would be one thing if it were going to directly support the band, but unless you're a Big Name(tm), you generally don't have the clout or backing to negotiate terms. This hate against the recording studios isn't irrational, it is in some ways very legitimate. Convicted of price fixing, seeking to subsidize their own failures with the success of a few bands rather than simply dump said failed projects, and destroying any kind of copyright that the band holds over the music by getting legislation passed making such things 'works for hire'. Ya. These are really people that we want to do business with.
Another guy stood up and said he'd be happy to give up all his privacy if it would help and people appluaded that remark.
Perfect response to a guy like this: "Oh, then you won't mind then if I swing on by and move in with you, since you don't mind losing your privacy?" This is what giving up one's privacy means, even if it's to the government. It means you get to have someone in every aspect of your life, even so far as watching you go to the bathroom. Oh sure, "giving up one's privacy for safety" sounds good, but in practice, it becomes extremely uncomfortable.
No, see, understand that what makes a smart person is the capacity to learn even when there is no teacher around. For many fields, there simply is no teacher to tell you this is how to do things. You have to make them up as you go. Research into new areas is unteachable simply because noone knows how to do it yet.
The premise is, in my eyes as well, flawed. To be a truely smart person, you need to be able to learn without direction.
I wasn't saying that it was still too soon to go to SP2. Frankly, I installed it soon after I heard it was available, and haven't noticed any issues (though I did disable the firewall for local LAN connections and left it enabled for when I hit wireless hotspots). I was just detailing how some applications may have issue with the service pack.
I didn't notice any significant difference, other than it seems more difficult to get to advanced features of the wireless setup.
It's funny about Microsoft releasing products for its customers. I look at my laptop...
Xp has this nice little feature called offline files. I figure, cool, I hate the briefcase as I have to update it specifically myself. I set it up, and lo and behold, it syncronizes. Excellent! Go on a brief jaunt with it away from home, and my fiance wants to use my laptop. Ok. Lemme set her up an account, too. What's this? Offline files trying to syncronize?
Dispite being a "multi user operating system", Microsoft failed to tell the Offline Files aspect of the system that Different Users might want to syncronize Different Things. I had to turn off 'fast user switching' so that I could turn on offline files, and yet it's just going to syncronize the same damn files. Perfect.
This isn't the only aspect that I've run up against, but it is my biggest gripe. If they released the product for customers, then they would've finished this feature as it should be implimented. As it is, they simply released it for profit, and because they felt they could.
The apps that "break" are largely connected to the sudden introduction of a firewall into the mix. Normally, firewalls with statefull inspection do not interfere much with known programs because the connections are initiated from within/behind it. However, some programs sit and listen for incoming connections, and should be authorized to do so. Remote Desktop software, SMS software, etc can all wait for connections and, in an enterprise environment, this is good for remote administration. Having your administration tools suddenly break because a "badly-configured-for-your-location" firewall just got enabled is generally something to avoid.
As for making a XP SP1 environment, I think that pretty much defeats some of the major features of SP2.
Funny thing about the public, the government, and all that jazz. If the public demands certain protections (and I do mean, a significant majority), they either get them by the will of the people, or those retards in office that can't figure out that they're in office at the sufferance of their constituents will be replaced by people that do understand it. At least, I'd like to hope they would.
While you are correct, anyone can take your picture while you're out in public and it becomes very difficult to stop that behavior, we're not talking about some random person, but rather the Government doing it. Just up and tell the government to shove it where the sun doesn't shine, get out and protest, or hell, revolt if necessary. The American people did it once against a tyranical government. How close is our own approaching that state?
I know I personally have a problem with being manipulated by corporations. Because of that, and their often manipulative Marketing Machine, I frankly just don't care whether or not their precious product release information was released early or not. As the article you quoted even includes (and I agree with), "Sites like [ThinkSecret.com] are beneficial because they inspire interest in the products." It's free f'king advertising! Unless it's got some literal "Trade Secret" such as "this is how we made the processors 20% faster", it's not a trade secret, it's just information that they didn't want us to have at this present time.
Apple already lost me a long time ago because they were not more forthcoming and open concerning their hardware. You buy their products, you buy their accessories, parts, etc, and noone else's. They can be secretive all they like, but that obsession with secrets is, in my opinion, a big reason why Apple's products got shut out of the market so many years ago. Who wants a computer that, when it detects a problem, displays a sad icon and won't let you do anything until you call it's 'parents'? (Yes, I realize it doesn't do this anymore, but this was how Macs used to report errors)
Slashdot Mirror
You can mount removable devices as directories. You just must do so while the drive is available to the system. Eg: USB flash drives can be mounted in a directory. This much I have done in the same method as mounting fixed disks in directories.
I have even mounted my USB Multi-card reader's drives as directories, since I didn't like the notion that it was going to populate 5 drive letters just to give me access to all the card slots.
This only works for local drives. It will not work for network drives. I've tried. Would like so badly to mount network drives from a file server locally within the profile space, but it just doesn't seem possible at the moment.
Such a pathetic reason.
There are many reasons to include regulation in such development when the potential fallout from the products could be lethal. But hey, as your logic goes, let's remove the FDA and get all those drugs out onto the market faster! Doesn't really matter if they kill a few thousand or so because they weren't properly tested, or because the company (as just about ever f'king company that ever existed does) cut corners and shaved off the testing time of development in order to make their buck NOW and beat the competition.
Maybe it'll be fine and there's no reason to worry. That'd be nice. Maybe it won't and having regulations in place would save our asses. Who knows! I, for one, would err on the side of caution, especially when all the promises made by the development are so grandiose. What better reason to approach with caution then when they tell you it'll give you the wonders of the world, yet haven't proven that it will.
Why is it not a valid argument? If there is some major reason why you wouldn't want to have it nearby you, then perhaps the root of that desire has some merit. Such as: Disposition of nuclear waste is a major concern, and if it is improperly disposed of near residential areas, it could poison and kill off the local environment. If you don't want to live next to it, then that concern should be addressed in a sane fashion before the process continues.
It is the irrational or unfounded 'NIMBY' responses to an issue that aren't valid arguments.
The flag, turned upside down, is supposed to be used in times of distress. A signal, or otherwise quiet notification, that someone needs help there. I imagine it was considered a simple thing that one could do that would not be considered relevant by an invading party.
From Stanford's Copyright and Fair Use Overview
Actual text of the lawIt goes on to describe what it means by transformative, etc. and even includes examples in later pages of fair use. This doesn't even technically qualify as Timeshifting, as came up with the Sony Betamax case.
No, what you are doing with stripping copyright protection is transforming the work as a whole and transcribing it into another form that is more portable. Think of it like scanning an entire novel into pdf format.
I think the phrase you're looking for is "Theft of Service", otherwise known as "using a service that you have not been granted access to by the lawful providers."
It's not quite theft in the traditional sense, but it does cause degradation over the cable network. It costs power to push a single to every home. The more homes sucking on the line, the more power it takes to keep the signal strong enough to be usable. In that way, however trivial, you cost the provider money.
Though, philosophically, I can't fault the guy. Comcast isn't exactally a gem among corporations.
What's the incentive for open source programmers to develop anything at all *for free*?
I figure if that question is answered, then the answer to your question comes about at the same time.
That's pretty dismissive, and an inappropriate way to view their TOS. That's like saying "if you have nothing to hide, you won't mind if we search your home for contraband." "Judging by the quality of items in your home, you won't mind if we steal or break a few of them." It doesn't f'king matter if the quality is good or not, no company should ever say "Hey, something you created, but happen to transmit to someone else over our network... well, that's ours. We get to do whatever we want with it."
What would happen if the phone company did that? How about your ISP for anything you ever sent? Oh, I'm sure that you probably don't mind yourself, as you haven't written anything that's truely astounding to the world of Men. However, it's the rare gems, the potential for abuse, that should be, at all times, limited. The ability to usurp someone else's writings is one such potential that should be curtailed, no matter if it's likely or not.
After all, if it's this today, what will happen tomorrow after we're used to this little abuse?
Developers that do as you suggest and give a big 'f u' to the users of their program generally have their programs dropped like a bad habit due to the feeling of rudeness by the user.
While yes, as an open source developer working in your spare time on a project, you have every right to say that, or say "There's the source code, you do it yourself". However, you paint yourself as rude, obnoxious, arrogant, and contrary to the general goal of developing for the public: getting the public to use what you've developed.
Why should I, the user, use something that I consider broken and buggy, especially if it isn't necessary for me to work?
Why should I, the user, put up with bs from open source developers that are generally obnoxious and rude when I make a suggestion? (note here: making a suggestion and having it explained to me why that is bad is not what is being refered to here. What is being refered to is being told off, ignored (if this is a bug report), or to receive a snobby reply of "I don't feel like it")
Oh, and I am a software developer, hobbyist like many open source developers. Being rude to people who like your stuff enough to provide feedback is a good way to show yourself as the tard you are.
To add to problems, I have seen many HP (Toshiba drives) laptop drives suffer from oil bearing failures due to their inability to disipate heat. It is thought that there may be issues using high performance (7200 RPM) drives with these oil bearings since, with the faster speed and higher temps that they reach, it may degrade the oil faster and cause the platters to shudder more easily once the oil fails.
That is a good point in the closing statements. People honestly seeking suicide are doing so for whatever reason their mind has fixated on. "Consider your family" doesn't really work, because you are not thinking in a proper state of mind (ie: one of preserving your life, the normal mindset for all living organisms).
It amuses me somewhat in that people say how a suicide of someone they cared about messed them up. It amuses me for the fact that, while sometimes there is little warning a person is going to commit suicide, there are often warning indicators (withdrawl from social contact, quietness, etc in unusual quantities) that go unnoticed. They don't seek out the depressed person to help, and then complain that they caused the problems by committing suicide.
In all honesty, locking a car only keeps honest people out. That's not defeatist, that's reality showing. I lock my home all the time when I go out. Yet, what good does this really do, when I sit on a ground floor with a big sliding glass door on the outside? Is it that difficult for someone to break it that my locks are really serving a major purpose for someone that truely wants to steal my stuff? The answer is no.
However, what my locks do prevent against is the person returning home while drunk, mistaking my place for his. They protect against the random wandering child that, while innocent enough, has no issue with roaming anywhere they have access to. They protect against people making honest mistakes. Those that want your things badly enough will defeat any lock you could put in place.
On Gun Control:
What the US lacks is proper respect for firearms, as well as proper training. I'm sure a great many people who buy a gun do not know how best to use it, and probably have not even fired it more than a few times. There is no law requiring a license, or training to own a gun, just to pass a background check to make sure you aren't a criminal.
As for the death rate by guns, it is just a coincidence. Other factors play into American deaths more than the sheer presence of a weapon.
And, if you can figure out how to remove guns from the hands of criminals, I would love to hear your solution.
P.S. I seem to recall Iraq, Iran, and a number of other middle-eastern countries where such things as an AK assault rifle are brandished about in celebration at weddings. This isn't common gun ownership outside the US? Is this also something you see within the US?
If charity organizations were rich, everyone would want to be a charity case.
Ok, that's stretching it a little, but the way people view 'helping others' is sometimes a bit off. Donate a little money, and give'm a gift now and then, and viola! Good has been done. But isn't it better to get them out of whatever bad situation they're in? Isn't it better to impart the importance of financial responsibility to those that can't manage their money? Isn't it better to fix the problem than smooth it over with a little good will and cash?
For things like AIDS research, that's useful and helpful, but I wonder how well we're doing by having multiple organizations shipping millions to research this thing, and after how long, we still can't cure it, nor can we seem to prevent against it. And what about where that money goes to? How many research facilities do we need working on the problem, and how much duplicated work is being done with this money?
But then, I come from a twisted world view that says any kind of medicine or treatment for an epidemic should not be controllable by one company, with everyone racing to the prize. It should be publically accessable, patentless, in order to serve the best interests of the people. You get your money from the research, you get your fame, you get ongoing projects as there will always be some major plague to cure. Does it need to be that now you're working to control the health of the population through your patented drugs?
Here's the deal. I'm a professional technicial. I fix things and manage assets all day. When I go to work, the company I work for does not charge me for time on their computer network, charge me for use of their equipment, does not charge me for the supplies I use. These are costs of the business, necessary for the business to operate. Thereafter, any work that I produce is rightfully the property of the company I did work for, as they funded the entire thing.
With the recording studio, while they give you a nice little signing bonus, when you go to work that day to record your music, the company DOES charge you for use of their equipment, DOES charge you for use of their technicians, and DOES charge you for the cost of distribution, etc. However, even though, now that you have paid for all of this with the money they gave you, what do you have to show for it? Do you get a paycheck for your efforts? Usually not, as a band's pay comes from their record sales and their records have to get sold, first. How about ownership of the work you had to pay to produce? Nope, the RIAA has happily seen to it that any work done like that is just the same as what I do, it's owned by the company. So how is it a win for the band, or how does their condition even come close to mine?
While admittedly, the difference between the company I work for and a recording studio is vast. However, the recording studio is doing something that the company I work for could never get away with. Charge your customers and your employees for the content that you sell. Best of both worlds. I mean, seriously, doesn't it bother you that they claim high CD prices due to distribution and marketing costs, yet those same fees are also paid by the bands in some form?
P.S. And yes, I do consider a band signed with a label an employee of that label, as contracts they enter into are most likely exclusive (you cannot record for another label) and for a set term (you must produce for us 7 albums).
Huge risk to the record labels?
Oh, Brittany Spears, for one.
*shudder*
I'm not going to an extreme situation. I'm taking into account the fact that, as individuals, we all have different learning styles. Myself, I have difficulty learning and retaining any kind of abstract knowledge without a practical or physical frame of reference, or without some pretty damn severe desire on my part. Others learn perfectly well being taught abstracts without context. Some are capable of researching and pulling together information, even about known topics, far faster than they could being taught at someone else's pace. Some must be taught by another in order to ask the questions that searched-for documents will not have.
Many teachers that I have had were a total waste of my time to be around. I ask a question, and they look at me blankly, either unknowing, uncaring, or simply not understanding the question. Many teachers taught in a style that favored their field of expertise, yet were a total drag and wasteful of my time (try learning an overview of error correction techniques from a mathmatician and watch him go into some 45 minute project of trying to generate the error correction codes for an 8 bit string). Now that is not to say that all teachers suffer from this behavior, but it does point to the notion that teachers are not always the best avenue for learning information.
The real problem is that when you sell the 3 billionth pill, they have recouped their costs to make that product. For a bottle of 30 pills, that's only about 111 million sales. Note, though, that even though they've recouped their costs, the price never quite seems to go down to the price of over-the-counter drugs.
And while that's a fair comparison, to the music industry, that just doesn't apply. See, they 'advance' some amount of money to a band wishing to get its music produced. The recording studio then charges the band for use of their studio, which takes a huge chunk of money out of that advanced money. Net effect to the music industry? They paid a band some trivial amount, and got a set of songs recorded. They didn't incur any costs for the band making the recording, they charged them for it.
While you can argue that there is money spent in manufacturing, sales, production, and getting the products on the shelves, often times 'early teasers' for up and coming bands are given for free to radio stations to give away and play on the air. How much does that cost, in terms of materials? Few thousand?
Quite a bit of the money goes to people who don't really deserve it, the recording studio. It would be one thing if it were going to directly support the band, but unless you're a Big Name(tm), you generally don't have the clout or backing to negotiate terms. This hate against the recording studios isn't irrational, it is in some ways very legitimate. Convicted of price fixing, seeking to subsidize their own failures with the success of a few bands rather than simply dump said failed projects, and destroying any kind of copyright that the band holds over the music by getting legislation passed making such things 'works for hire'. Ya. These are really people that we want to do business with.
Perfect response to a guy like this: "Oh, then you won't mind then if I swing on by and move in with you, since you don't mind losing your privacy?" This is what giving up one's privacy means, even if it's to the government. It means you get to have someone in every aspect of your life, even so far as watching you go to the bathroom. Oh sure, "giving up one's privacy for safety" sounds good, but in practice, it becomes extremely uncomfortable.
No, see, understand that what makes a smart person is the capacity to learn even when there is no teacher around. For many fields, there simply is no teacher to tell you this is how to do things. You have to make them up as you go. Research into new areas is unteachable simply because noone knows how to do it yet.
The premise is, in my eyes as well, flawed. To be a truely smart person, you need to be able to learn without direction.
I wasn't saying that it was still too soon to go to SP2. Frankly, I installed it soon after I heard it was available, and haven't noticed any issues (though I did disable the firewall for local LAN connections and left it enabled for when I hit wireless hotspots). I was just detailing how some applications may have issue with the service pack.
I didn't notice any significant difference, other than it seems more difficult to get to advanced features of the wireless setup.
It's funny about Microsoft releasing products for its customers. I look at my laptop...
Xp has this nice little feature called offline files. I figure, cool, I hate the briefcase as I have to update it specifically myself. I set it up, and lo and behold, it syncronizes. Excellent! Go on a brief jaunt with it away from home, and my fiance wants to use my laptop. Ok. Lemme set her up an account, too. What's this? Offline files trying to syncronize?
Dispite being a "multi user operating system", Microsoft failed to tell the Offline Files aspect of the system that Different Users might want to syncronize Different Things. I had to turn off 'fast user switching' so that I could turn on offline files, and yet it's just going to syncronize the same damn files. Perfect.
This isn't the only aspect that I've run up against, but it is my biggest gripe. If they released the product for customers, then they would've finished this feature as it should be implimented. As it is, they simply released it for profit, and because they felt they could.
The apps that "break" are largely connected to the sudden introduction of a firewall into the mix. Normally, firewalls with statefull inspection do not interfere much with known programs because the connections are initiated from within/behind it. However, some programs sit and listen for incoming connections, and should be authorized to do so. Remote Desktop software, SMS software, etc can all wait for connections and, in an enterprise environment, this is good for remote administration. Having your administration tools suddenly break because a "badly-configured-for-your-location" firewall just got enabled is generally something to avoid.
As for making a XP SP1 environment, I think that pretty much defeats some of the major features of SP2.
Funny thing about the public, the government, and all that jazz. If the public demands certain protections (and I do mean, a significant majority), they either get them by the will of the people, or those retards in office that can't figure out that they're in office at the sufferance of their constituents will be replaced by people that do understand it. At least, I'd like to hope they would.
While you are correct, anyone can take your picture while you're out in public and it becomes very difficult to stop that behavior, we're not talking about some random person, but rather the Government doing it. Just up and tell the government to shove it where the sun doesn't shine, get out and protest, or hell, revolt if necessary. The American people did it once against a tyranical government. How close is our own approaching that state?
I know I personally have a problem with being manipulated by corporations. Because of that, and their often manipulative Marketing Machine, I frankly just don't care whether or not their precious product release information was released early or not. As the article you quoted even includes (and I agree with), "Sites like [ThinkSecret.com] are beneficial because they inspire interest in the products." It's free f'king advertising! Unless it's got some literal "Trade Secret" such as "this is how we made the processors 20% faster", it's not a trade secret, it's just information that they didn't want us to have at this present time.
Apple already lost me a long time ago because they were not more forthcoming and open concerning their hardware. You buy their products, you buy their accessories, parts, etc, and noone else's. They can be secretive all they like, but that obsession with secrets is, in my opinion, a big reason why Apple's products got shut out of the market so many years ago. Who wants a computer that, when it detects a problem, displays a sad icon and won't let you do anything until you call it's 'parents'? (Yes, I realize it doesn't do this anymore, but this was how Macs used to report errors)