Actually, what TFA doesn't say is that the Vista driver instability was done intentionally because they were sick and tired of listening to us Linux users complain. I guess they figured it would be easier to level the playing field rather than to fix the bugs.
At a press conference in Huston TX, Allard Beutel told reporters:
"We are the Borg. Lower your weapons and disarm yourselves. Your biological and technological distinctiveness will be added to our own. Resistance is futile."
Correct me if I'm wrong, but in a communist system, isn't it the government's property to begin with anyway ?
I realize there are many different definitions and implementations of communism. But I was under the impression that property rights were virtually non-existent in pretty much all of them.
What out of those did your $0.80 cover, apart from Packaging/manufacturing? Did it include distribution and retail overhead/profit? Publishing royalties?
When I included absolutely everything that I pumped into the album the price per CD figured to about $3. The $0.80 / CD covered ONLY the fee from cdman.com (the company that printed the CDs from the master) and the $150 that I paid an art student to illustrate the cover art / inside leaflet.
In total I dropped close to $5k on the project. The printing / art work costs were around $800.
I don't have anything in FLAC at the moment but I'm definitely interested in hooking you up. Why don't we get in touch via e-mail: (garett - at - spencley dot com) and I'll rip the CD to FLAC for you when I have a chance and get it to you ?
I printed 1,000 CDs for a personal indie project that I did (*cough*shameless self plug*cough*) and $0.80 / CD is around what I paid INCLUDING what I paid the artist to do the art work.
There's no freakin' way that that major labels are paying $0.80 / CD when they print runs in the tens of thousands. They should be getting WAY better bulk deals.
That's something that most of my (intelligent and well educated) male friends would say in the company of other males to sound funny.
I'm sure if we knew the guy personally it might be "no shock to anyone that he flunked out", but just reading that sentence didn't dumbfound me or cause me to assume that the guy is an idiot. I could picture just about any male saying that in the right context. I mean, what... if we're geeks we're not allowed to think that women are attractive and want to see more of them around us ? At worst it's sexist if said in the wrong context. Certainly does not automatically denote lack of intelligence.
On a related note, I wonder how many people who do not give away their auto mobiles are to blame for car theft. No need to steal a car if you can legally obtain one for free.
I read TFA as well and that particular part sparked my interest so I did a bit of googling to see exactly what he got 20 years for. I couldn't find much, but I found another similar article which said he was sentenced for "mutilating bodies" (source).
Now that strikes me as a bit odd. These people are already dead. He didn't kill them. So my first question is: does a dead body have rights ? I'm pretty sure it does not. Does it belong to anyone ? This one I don't know. But assuming it belongs to his/her heirs then I think a conviction of theft, breach of contract, vandalism or fraud would be more appropriate.
So what I'm wondering is exactly why "mutilating a dead body", one that you did not have any part in killing, is not only illegal but worth 20 years in prison ?
Did this guy do something unethical ? Absolutely. I'm not condoning what he did. I'm just wondering how he could be convicted and sentenced to 20 years for cutting up dead bodies that were already dead. Of course these are just small sentences in long articles (articles which contradict each other BTW... TFA said the guy was turned in by a jealous lover and the article I google'd said it was an employee) and so they both might be wrong. Without the details of the trial we won't know EXACTLY what he was found guilty of.
"A 60 year old employee who happens to do something risky is just as bad for the network as a 20 year old."
True. But as a 60 year-old employee I prefer to point the finger and blame the weird, young people who have it so easy. Back in my day... ah forget it. It's not like you're paying attention. How could you with that darned devil's music pumping through your... what do you call it... eye pod ? Sounds like something out of a gosh darned horror movie.
Just stop plugging your wippersnappers and gizmos into our computing machines and stay off our lawns and I think we can get along just dandy.
I'm looking at this from a business point of view. The way I see it, lack of hardware support is a weakness. It's a weakness for Apple, it's a weakness for Microsoft and it's a weakness for Linux.
Some Linux users honestly don't give a rats ass if Linux adoption increases. Fine. All the power to them. But assuming for one minute that it's a "goal" then we start looking at ways to increase adoption. Saying "it's not the distribution's fault that hardware manufacturer's don't write Linux drivers" does absolutely nothing to achieve that goal. It's like saying "Ah well. Nothing we can do. C'est la vie. Anyone want to go get a beer ?".
I agree 100%. However, the whole point of these devices is to protect your data in case it is lost / stolen.
The only problem is that they do not work.
There is a big market for physical security. It needs companies that will exploit it without snake oil. I like the idea of a multi-layer encryption / pass phrase / physical lock / self-destruct / whatever combination etc. idea on USB sticks and laptops etc. and I expect that products that cater to that need will grow. Unfortunately products that fail to live up to consumer demands will also continue to grow. It's a young industry.
Biometrics is even younger, and right now I don't trust any kind of biometric security mechanism.
Speaking of the fire service, my father in-law is actually a retired firefighter.
He retired at the end of 2007 and at the same time he opted to get some long needed knee surgery. The reason he got it at the end of his retirement is because the department offered to keep him on worker's compensation AFTER his retirement while he recovered from his surgery. So basically our tax dollars are going to pay for him to live for free. He's not currently employed. He's officially retired. But they're paying for him to live while he recovers.
At the same time, I can't remember the last time I ever directly benefited from the work of the fire department. Oh wait, that's because I never have needed their services. Yes, I would have no problem paying for the service when I actually need it. Insurance companies would benefit too from offering extra premiums to cover the cost of the service. Instead our tax dollars pay for something that the majority of us will never use.
As for private armies, I don't think they should exist. But I still don't like paying to fund my armed forces. I'm Canadian btw, and we have very strong political ties to every member of the British Commonwealth. If Canada were to go to war we would have no shortage of allies on our side, and given that the citizens supported the war (either due to a homeland invasion of Canadian soil or that of an ally) I don't think there would be a shortage of Canadian volunteers either. No, I really don't think that taxing citizens to pay for an ever-ready army is really fair to the average citizen who does not directly benefit from having a bunch of "peace keepers" abroad. The Canadian army as it stands right now is mostly a political tool. A way to lend support to allies and show the world that Canada is determined to resolve conflict. It really doesn't benefit the average Canadian citizen much. Of course that doesn't address how an army would be funded during war-time. But so long as citizens support the war they would either volunteer donations or support a temporary tax to fund it. Funding an army with taxation during peace-time makes little sense to me.
"The way I feel about it, every municipality should operate their own WAN/infrastructure and sell access on it to cable companies and ISPs so that even little guys can compete. The monopolies granted to large corporations in various areas are completely hobbling the fight for net neutrality. When they no longer have an infrastructure to claim as their problem, they cease to have any say. yes, I know this idea is fraught with problems, but leaving the infrastructure in the hands of monopolists (successful ones or not) is the way to net non-neutrality."
The only problem is that you'd be taking the infrastructure out of the hands of one monopolist and handing it into the hands of another. When the government owns industry and communication that's called communism. I don't like the current system. There HAS to be SOME way to make a level playing field on the infrastructure so that small start-ups can come in and offer competition to the big guys. I just don't like the idea of government regulation doing that. It's the antithesis to free market. It's a band-aid. It's socialism. It's government control.
I don't have any answers either. I just don't agree with handing control of the infrastructure over to the government. I don't really believe in handing control of anything over to the government.
Slashdot Mirror
Paul ?
Paul Otellini ?
I didn't know you posted on slashdot !
So what's up man ? Can I buy you a beer ?
Actually, what TFA doesn't say is that the Vista driver instability was done intentionally because they were sick and tired of listening to us Linux users complain. I guess they figured it would be easier to level the playing field rather than to fix the bugs.
Hey, at least we got through to them.
"Right now...unless you have more money than God, you are pretty much out of luck."
Bad analogy.
Linus has certainly made some coin via free stock options from Linux companies, various donations, trademark royalties etc. but he's not THAT rich.
Chokes with Linux / Firefox.
"Just discovered last week... NBC has the entire season 4 of The Office online"
... that's almost as good as if Paramount were to offer Star Trek V for free download.
OMG
*crosses fingers*
At a press conference in Huston TX, Allard Beutel told reporters:
"We are the Borg. Lower your weapons and disarm yourselves. Your biological and technological distinctiveness will be added to our own. Resistance is futile."
Correct me if I'm wrong, but in a communist system, isn't it the government's property to begin with anyway ?
I realize there are many different definitions and implementations of communism. But I was under the impression that property rights were virtually non-existent in pretty much all of them.
What out of those did your $0.80 cover, apart from Packaging/manufacturing? Did it include distribution and retail overhead/profit? Publishing royalties?
When I included absolutely everything that I pumped into the album the price per CD figured to about $3. The $0.80 / CD covered ONLY the fee from cdman.com (the company that printed the CDs from the master) and the $150 that I paid an art student to illustrate the cover art / inside leaflet.
In total I dropped close to $5k on the project. The printing / art work costs were around $800.
I don't have anything in FLAC at the moment but I'm definitely interested in hooking you up. Why don't we get in touch via e-mail: (garett - at - spencley dot com) and I'll rip the CD to FLAC for you when I have a chance and get it to you ?
I printed 1,000 CDs for a personal indie project that I did (*cough*shameless self plug*cough*) and $0.80 / CD is around what I paid INCLUDING what I paid the artist to do the art work.
There's no freakin' way that that major labels are paying $0.80 / CD when they print runs in the tens of thousands. They should be getting WAY better bulk deals.
That's something that most of my (intelligent and well educated) male friends would say in the company of other males to sound funny.
... if we're geeks we're not allowed to think that women are attractive and want to see more of them around us ? At worst it's sexist if said in the wrong context. Certainly does not automatically denote lack of intelligence.
I'm sure if we knew the guy personally it might be "no shock to anyone that he flunked out", but just reading that sentence didn't dumbfound me or cause me to assume that the guy is an idiot. I could picture just about any male saying that in the right context. I mean, what
But the truth never sells! (unless it's REALLY bad and about someone we like to make fun of like George W. or CmdrTaco).
On a related note, I wonder how many people who do not give away their auto mobiles are to blame for car theft. No need to steal a car if you can legally obtain one for free.
I read TFA as well and that particular part sparked my interest so I did a bit of googling to see exactly what he got 20 years for. I couldn't find much, but I found another similar article which said he was sentenced for "mutilating bodies" (source).
... TFA said the guy was turned in by a jealous lover and the article I google'd said it was an employee) and so they both might be wrong. Without the details of the trial we won't know EXACTLY what he was found guilty of.
Now that strikes me as a bit odd. These people are already dead. He didn't kill them. So my first question is: does a dead body have rights ? I'm pretty sure it does not. Does it belong to anyone ? This one I don't know. But assuming it belongs to his/her heirs then I think a conviction of theft, breach of contract, vandalism or fraud would be more appropriate.
So what I'm wondering is exactly why "mutilating a dead body", one that you did not have any part in killing, is not only illegal but worth 20 years in prison ?
Did this guy do something unethical ? Absolutely. I'm not condoning what he did. I'm just wondering how he could be convicted and sentenced to 20 years for cutting up dead bodies that were already dead. Of course these are just small sentences in long articles (articles which contradict each other BTW
Drama and Reality TV != Cable News
And I really hope you're not making the implication that someone who watches drama and/or reality TV would not watch the news.
"A 60 year old employee who happens to do something risky is just as bad for the network as a 20 year old."
... ah forget it. It's not like you're paying attention. How could you with that darned devil's music pumping through your ... what do you call it ... eye pod ? Sounds like something out of a gosh darned horror movie.
True. But as a 60 year-old employee I prefer to point the finger and blame the weird, young people who have it so easy. Back in my day
Just stop plugging your wippersnappers and gizmos into our computing machines and stay off our lawns and I think we can get along just dandy.
Nobody is giving free passes to anyone.
I'm looking at this from a business point of view. The way I see it, lack of hardware support is a weakness. It's a weakness for Apple, it's a weakness for Microsoft and it's a weakness for Linux.
Some Linux users honestly don't give a rats ass if Linux adoption increases. Fine. All the power to them. But assuming for one minute that it's a "goal" then we start looking at ways to increase adoption. Saying "it's not the distribution's fault that hardware manufacturer's don't write Linux drivers" does absolutely nothing to achieve that goal. It's like saying "Ah well. Nothing we can do. C'est la vie. Anyone want to go get a beer ?".
"It's not the distribution's fault that the manufacturer won't make Linux drivers."
No but it is an excuse that gets us nowhere.
"while Kari Byron can be pretty in MythBusters, that's not the main reason to why I watch that show"
ZOMG do we have a female on slashdot ?
Anyway speak for yourself.
I agree 100%. However, the whole point of these devices is to protect your data in case it is lost / stolen.
The only problem is that they do not work.
There is a big market for physical security. It needs companies that will exploit it without snake oil. I like the idea of a multi-layer encryption / pass phrase / physical lock / self-destruct / whatever combination etc. idea on USB sticks and laptops etc. and I expect that products that cater to that need will grow. Unfortunately products that fail to live up to consumer demands will also continue to grow. It's a young industry.
Biometrics is even younger, and right now I don't trust any kind of biometric security mechanism.
Automated lawn sprinkler systems capable of delivering hydrochloric acid.
I'm sick of those damned teenagers hanging out on my lawn.
Speaking of the fire service, my father in-law is actually a retired firefighter.
He retired at the end of 2007 and at the same time he opted to get some long needed knee surgery. The reason he got it at the end of his retirement is because the department offered to keep him on worker's compensation AFTER his retirement while he recovered from his surgery. So basically our tax dollars are going to pay for him to live for free. He's not currently employed. He's officially retired. But they're paying for him to live while he recovers.
At the same time, I can't remember the last time I ever directly benefited from the work of the fire department. Oh wait, that's because I never have needed their services. Yes, I would have no problem paying for the service when I actually need it. Insurance companies would benefit too from offering extra premiums to cover the cost of the service. Instead our tax dollars pay for something that the majority of us will never use.
As for private armies, I don't think they should exist. But I still don't like paying to fund my armed forces. I'm Canadian btw, and we have very strong political ties to every member of the British Commonwealth. If Canada were to go to war we would have no shortage of allies on our side, and given that the citizens supported the war (either due to a homeland invasion of Canadian soil or that of an ally) I don't think there would be a shortage of Canadian volunteers either. No, I really don't think that taxing citizens to pay for an ever-ready army is really fair to the average citizen who does not directly benefit from having a bunch of "peace keepers" abroad. The Canadian army as it stands right now is mostly a political tool. A way to lend support to allies and show the world that Canada is determined to resolve conflict. It really doesn't benefit the average Canadian citizen much. Of course that doesn't address how an army would be funded during war-time. But so long as citizens support the war they would either volunteer donations or support a temporary tax to fund it. Funding an army with taxation during peace-time makes little sense to me.
"The way I feel about it, every municipality should operate their own WAN/infrastructure and sell access on it to cable companies and ISPs so that even little guys can compete. The monopolies granted to large corporations in various areas are completely hobbling the fight for net neutrality. When they no longer have an infrastructure to claim as their problem, they cease to have any say. yes, I know this idea is fraught with problems, but leaving the infrastructure in the hands of monopolists (successful ones or not) is the way to net non-neutrality."
The only problem is that you'd be taking the infrastructure out of the hands of one monopolist and handing it into the hands of another. When the government owns industry and communication that's called communism. I don't like the current system. There HAS to be SOME way to make a level playing field on the infrastructure so that small start-ups can come in and offer competition to the big guys. I just don't like the idea of government regulation doing that. It's the antithesis to free market. It's a band-aid. It's socialism. It's government control.
I don't have any answers either. I just don't agree with handing control of the infrastructure over to the government. I don't really believe in handing control of anything over to the government.
It was Gnome who cut the Cheese.
Sorry.
I already sampled the water from the geysers on Enceladus back in '78 at a Greatful Dead concert.
Tasted kind of sweet with a hint of mint.
NASA needs to get with the times. They've got 30 years of catching up to do.