They send me weekly ads for toner. I have replied and told them I don't own a laser printer, but that doesn't seem to convince them that I don't really need toner...
No kidding, I want to do it but I will be in debt until I decide to sell it... Man, why don't they give the "friends" a deal at the origional $13 quoted? I don't know if that's legal or not, but I'm guessing a bunch of guys who devote free time to develop software that these guys use are going to have a tought time coming up with $3k.
Any idea where I can find info on PPC assembler? I seem to not be able to find reference to instructions or compilers...
I wonder if they actually checked these..
on
Dumb Laws
·
· Score: 1
It says many are verified.. But, I have a hard time believing that in my town, it is illegal for a store to sell corn flakes on a Sunday... I mean, some event would have to have occured to cause these stupid laws, and I cannot think of any reason that buying corn flakes on a Sunday would be any worse than any other day, unless there's some magic way to convert corn flakes easily to alcohol. But what about the generic Flakes or Corn and other corn flake imposters?
When are these people going to learn. Can anyone actually find any useful info on redhat's site? I haven't seen the errata in years... When I go to a website looking for info on a particular product, I don't want links to everywhere on the net! I want well organized, easy to find information. Is that so hard? I think that's the main reason I use google to search, because it's not all cluttered up with news and crap. I want to search, if I wanted news I'd go somewhere else.
The development team, underneath Phillip Huang, has visualized PC's with "no RAM memory needed" in a future implementation which might mate one or more of the INTEL Pentium II Processor(s) with the "90b8" device, along with an "embedded Windows NT operating system".
It's nice to see someone else understand that the advantage of open source software is the added value and economics. If RMS want's to make it a religion, fine, but the path to wide spread acceptance is in the economics, not in the obscure morality that not everyone will agree with or desire.
real time streaming protocol, it's quicktime streaming. Good stuff, I'm runnng a QTSS server. Currently only runs on OSXS, but it's open source so anyone who wants can port it. Se http://www.apple.com/publicsource/
Re:Linux is not the fastest. No excuses.
on
NT vs. Linux: Again
·
· Score: 1
OSXS is in it's childhood. In the fall, Darwin, OSX, and OSXS will be resynced. This will give everything a much faster and capable kernel based on mach 3.0. Other perks will be included such as posix threads. After that, it get's sketchy. OSXS will evolve to be a pakcage that runs on top of OSX. This will be similar in concept to AppleShare IP today running on top of OS8.X. OSX will be radically different from OSXS featuring a much more sophisticated interface, and the deatils of the unix underpinnings will be much more hidden from the user. Hopefully they won't take away my command line though:)
They're all streams, nothing that can be downloaded. Maybe try pointing realplayer at rtsp://troy-1.real.com/showcase/g2audio/jive/wierd _al/wierdal_starwars.rm , that will avoid the web page slowdown.
Woz never actually left apple. To this day he is still on retainer and is technically an employee of apple. He doesn't do anything, but the interview I read said he feels his loyalty belongs there, and he will always remain an employee.
When did I mention morality? I'm talking about the law. Do you feel it is justified to break the law because it disagrees with your moral beliefs? This is a tought question, don't jump to an answer. The problem is that if it is justified for you to break the law because of your personal beliefs, then it is justified for me to break the law for my personal beliefs. My personal beliefs may be a lot different than yours. Maybe my personal beliefs tell me it's okay to steal cars, or murder children.
Yes, killing people is worse than pirating software based on our moral beliefs, but that's not the point. There are only two ways to have it, either the law should be obeyed at all times, or we can break the law when we feel it is justified. The latter scares me, because there are people in his world whose personal beliefs can justify breaking some very important laws. Morality cannot govern a society. There's no such thing as a universal morality, we each have our own. That is why we need law, to set common rules to govern society. Plain and simple.
Yeah, I read it and it took me about 30 seconds to figure out what the fundamental error was. We as a species are greedy. A society where nothing has value and nobody wants for anything simply wouldn't work. This is the fundamental reason I feel socialism is doomed to fail (pure socialism, mind you). Nobody wants to be equal working for the good of the community. We strive for competition, which is part of what has let us create so many impressive things. If our society reached a point where nothing had value, I believe that would be the end of us. I don't think we as a species are capable of living in such an environment.
Don't pity me, and don't think for me either. Please read what I have said and point out where I said law = morality. If you look at some of my other posts, you will see I have said the exact opposite. My point, however, is that laws serve a purpose. We either respect the authority of laws, or we don't. I believe we have an obligation to obey the law except when basic human rights are involved. I'm not saying all laws are good. What I am saying, however, is that we should then work to change them. Read through here a bit. How many posts do you see talking about trying to change the law?
Wrong and right is a grey area. We cannot govern society on that, we need to have a universal set of rules to live by to promote order and security. When these laws are unjust, we should actively work to change them. We should not, however, violate them. If you can pirate software because you don't think it is wrong, then why can't I run around and set buildings on fire because I don't think it is wrong? Because your morality says it's wrong to set buildings on fire? What makes your morality any better than mine?
All I'm saying is, if you don't like the law, change it, don't break it.
It's not the cost of the engine that's the issue, it's the mechanic's skill and knowledge in installing it. Even if the engine were available free, you would still pay the mechanic to install it, you would have no choice. It's the same thing with software, anyone can get a cd and put some software on it. What people don't seem to want to do is pay someone for their skill in creating the program. In the software world, you can avoid paying these people for their skill and ideas. This would be equivalent to somehow forcing the mechanic to install the engine in your car for free. Do you think he would like that?
I'm not talking about losses here, I merely used robbing a bank as an example of something else that was breaking the law.
If everybody thinks this way, and the company goes under because of it, it was probly not that good of a product anyway, since the vast majority of people were unwilling to shell out $$ to support it.
If everyone thinks that it is okay to pirate software, do you really think the company will go under because it wasn't a good product? Why would you want to pirate bad software anyway?
You seem to think that you have a right to have this software. This is not true. You may want this software, but you do not need it. You can justify it any way you want, but what you are doing is still illegal. If you don't think it should be, then it is within your power to take action to change the law. But you are not doing that, are you? Do you think that pirating software is going to remove IP laws? No, it's going to encourage more restrictions. If you want to help the problem, contribute to the FSF. Lobby your local government. Form an organization to raise awareness to your cause. But disagreeing with the law is no excuse for breaking it. The only case where it is is when people are being denied their natural rights, one of which is not software.
I think I've made my point well enough. Just to clarify, I did no say robbing a bank is equivalent to pirating software. I merely used that as an example of something else that was illegal.
Pirating software is illegal. Period. You may not agree with this, you don't have to. But what you are effectively saying above is that it's okay to pirate software becase a) the company is not loosing money (which is not correct by the way) b) it is advantageous to you to have the software and c) it is advantageous to others for you to have the software.
Now my question is, does any of this change the fact that it is illegal? Nope. So are you telling me that it's okay to break the law because it is beneficial to me? Cool, maybe I'll go rob a bank. I mean, I need the money, and if I have the money, I can spend it which befefits the retail market. And I won't hurt anyone, plus the bank is insured, so they don't lose out either. And the government? They can always make more money! It's perfect.
As for the software industry not losing money on you, that's the common "I'm only one person" mentality. Everybody thinks, company A isn't going to be making any money on me anyway, so they aren't loosing anything on me. If everbody thinks that way, then no one will buy the software. That's loosing money. And look at the issue here, when you graduate and get a good paying job, are you going to buy new software, or keep using the old warez?
Slashdot Mirror
That's all sherlock does, give you an integrated eBay search with your local searching...
They send me weekly ads for toner. I have replied and told them I don't own a laser printer, but that doesn't seem to convince them that I don't really need toner...
No kidding, I want to do it but I will be in debt until I decide to sell it... Man, why don't they give the "friends" a deal at the origional $13 quoted? I don't know if that's legal or not, but I'm guessing a bunch of guys who devote free time to develop software that these guys use are going to have a tought time coming up with $3k.
Any idea where I can find info on PPC assembler? I seem to not be able to find reference to instructions or compilers...
It says many are verified.. But, I have a hard time believing that in my town, it is illegal for a store to sell corn flakes on a Sunday... I mean, some event would have to have occured to cause these stupid laws, and I cannot think of any reason that buying corn flakes on a Sunday would be any worse than any other day, unless there's some magic way to convert corn flakes easily to alcohol. But what about the generic Flakes or Corn and other corn flake imposters?
What the hell does 1337 mean?
When are these people going to learn. Can anyone actually find any useful info on redhat's site? I haven't seen the errata in years... When I go to a website looking for info on a particular product, I don't want links to everywhere on the net! I want well organized, easy to find information. Is that so hard? I think that's the main reason I use google to search, because it's not all cluttered up with news and crap. I want to search, if I wanted news I'd go somewhere else.
What was that quote? Something like there are more cockroaches on the planet than people, so does quantity really mean that much?
Well there's Obj-C. If only GNUStep were complete, it's the only OO programming environment you would ever want.
I've actually found KFM (the kde file manager) to be quite a capable and fast browser. Okay, no js or java, but it renders well and is fast.
I certainly hope South Park is better than Austin Powers 2. That movie sucked... I mean, even austin's characters acknowledged the jokes were lame...
The development team, underneath Phillip Huang, has visualized PC's with "no RAM memory needed" in a future implementation which might mate one or more of the INTEL Pentium II Processor(s) with the "90b8" device, along with an "embedded Windows NT operating system".
True or not, this line is a scary thought...
It's nice to see someone else understand that the advantage of open source software is the added value and economics. If RMS want's to make it a religion, fine, but the path to wide spread acceptance is in the economics, not in the obscure morality that not everyone will agree with or desire.
real time streaming protocol, it's quicktime streaming. Good stuff, I'm runnng a QTSS server. Currently only runs on OSXS, but it's open source so anyone who wants can port it. Se http://www.apple.com/publicsource/
OSXS is in it's childhood. In the fall, Darwin, OSX, and OSXS will be resynced. This will give everything a much faster and capable kernel based on mach 3.0. Other perks will be included such as posix threads. After that, it get's sketchy. OSXS will evolve to be a pakcage that runs on top of OSX. This will be similar in concept to AppleShare IP today running on top of OS8.X. OSX will be radically different from OSXS featuring a much more sophisticated interface, and the deatils of the unix underpinnings will be much more hidden from the user. Hopefully they won't take away my command line though :)
They're all streams, nothing that can be downloaded. Maybe try pointing realplayer at rtsp://troy-1.real.com/showcase/g2audio/jive/wierd _al/wierdal_starwars.rm , that will avoid the web page slowdown.
Totally. I couldn't stop laughing, and it wasn't really because the comics were funny (well, not in the way you expect comics to be funny...)
Woz never actually left apple. To this day he is still on retainer and is technically an employee of apple. He doesn't do anything, but the interview I read said he feels his loyalty belongs there, and he will always remain an employee.
When did I mention morality? I'm talking about the law. Do you feel it is justified to break the law because it disagrees with your moral beliefs? This is a tought question, don't jump to an answer. The problem is that if it is justified for you to break the law because of your personal beliefs, then it is justified for me to break the law for my personal beliefs. My personal beliefs may be a lot different than yours. Maybe my personal beliefs tell me it's okay to steal cars, or murder children.
Yes, killing people is worse than pirating software based on our moral beliefs, but that's not the point. There are only two ways to have it, either the law should be obeyed at all times, or we can break the law when we feel it is justified. The latter scares me, because there are people in his world whose personal beliefs can justify breaking some very important laws. Morality cannot govern a society. There's no such thing as a universal morality, we each have our own. That is why we need law, to set common rules to govern society. Plain and simple.
Yeah, I read it and it took me about 30 seconds to figure out what the fundamental error was. We as a species are greedy. A society where nothing has value and nobody wants for anything simply wouldn't work. This is the fundamental reason I feel socialism is doomed to fail (pure socialism, mind you). Nobody wants to be equal working for the good of the community. We strive for competition, which is part of what has let us create so many impressive things. If our society reached a point where nothing had value, I believe that would be the end of us. I don't think we as a species are capable of living in such an environment.
Don't pity me, and don't think for me either. Please read what I have said and point out where I said law = morality. If you look at some of my other posts, you will see I have said the exact opposite. My point, however, is that laws serve a purpose. We either respect the authority of laws, or we don't. I believe we have an obligation to obey the law except when basic human rights are involved. I'm not saying all laws are good. What I am saying, however, is that we should then work to change them. Read through here a bit. How many posts do you see talking about trying to change the law?
Wrong and right is a grey area. We cannot govern society on that, we need to have a universal set of rules to live by to promote order and security. When these laws are unjust, we should actively work to change them. We should not, however, violate them. If you can pirate software because you don't think it is wrong, then why can't I run around and set buildings on fire because I don't think it is wrong? Because your morality says it's wrong to set buildings on fire? What makes your morality any better than mine?
All I'm saying is, if you don't like the law, change it, don't break it.
It's not the cost of the engine that's the issue, it's the mechanic's skill and knowledge in installing it. Even if the engine were available free, you would still pay the mechanic to install it, you would have no choice. It's the same thing with software, anyone can get a cd and put some software on it. What people don't seem to want to do is pay someone for their skill in creating the program. In the software world, you can avoid paying these people for their skill and ideas. This would be equivalent to somehow forcing the mechanic to install the engine in your car for free. Do you think he would like that?
I'm not talking about losses here, I merely used robbing a bank as an example of something else that was breaking the law.
If everybody thinks this way, and the company goes under because of it, it was probly not that good of a product anyway, since the vast majority of people were unwilling to shell out $$ to support it.
If everyone thinks that it is okay to pirate software, do you really think the company will go under because it wasn't a good product? Why would you want to pirate bad software anyway?
You seem to think that you have a right to have this software. This is not true. You may want this software, but you do not need it. You can justify it any way you want, but what you are doing is still illegal. If you don't think it should be, then it is within your power to take action to change the law. But you are not doing that, are you? Do you think that pirating software is going to remove IP laws? No, it's going to encourage more restrictions. If you want to help the problem, contribute to the FSF. Lobby your local government. Form an organization to raise awareness to your cause. But disagreeing with the law is no excuse for breaking it. The only case where it is is when people are being denied their natural rights, one of which is not software.
I think I've made my point well enough. Just to clarify, I did no say robbing a bank is equivalent to pirating software. I merely used that as an example of something else that was illegal.
I'll refute you.
Pirating software is illegal. Period. You may not agree with this, you don't have to. But what you are effectively saying above is that it's okay to pirate software becase a) the company is not loosing money (which is not correct by the way) b) it is advantageous to you to have the software and c) it is advantageous to others for you to have the software.
Now my question is, does any of this change the fact that it is illegal? Nope. So are you telling me that it's okay to break the law because it is beneficial to me? Cool, maybe I'll go rob a bank. I mean, I need the money, and if I have the money, I can spend it which befefits the retail market. And I won't hurt anyone, plus the bank is insured, so they don't lose out either. And the government? They can always make more money! It's perfect.
As for the software industry not losing money on you, that's the common "I'm only one person" mentality. Everybody thinks, company A isn't going to be making any money on me anyway, so they aren't loosing anything on me. If everbody thinks that way, then no one will buy the software. That's loosing money. And look at the issue here, when you graduate and get a good paying job, are you going to buy new software, or keep using the old warez?