The X Consortium requests that the following names be used when referring to this software:
And Richard Stallman requests that the term GNU/Linux be used when referring tot he Linux operatingsystem and GNU utilities, Coca Cola request that the term "Coke" not be used for other brands of cola.
The thing is, however much you plead, people are going to refer to it as X-Windows. X, and X11 don't make it obvious that you're talking about a GUI, and "The X Window System" is way too long winded. The X-consortium might as well bite the bullet and trademark X-windows.
I'm sure most people's main privacy concern is companies selling their information (primarily just name and number) to telesales firms. I have to wonder why they do this. Look at the numbers;
There are very few monthly services that cost less than $10 per month. Usually that's over a minimum 12 month term, so that means that for each customer,the company will make $120.
In addition to this, they can sell the customer information for about 1 cent per name. They might even be able to find 100 companies to sell it to. Is that dollar really worth it? Wouldn't a promise never to sell a customer's details be worth more to the customer?
I really doubt that it's going to be hugely recognisable that it's the same story.
Much like Total Recall diverged from "We can remember for you wholesale" after the first act, I would expect that the similarity will be that someone goes back in time on a dinosaur hunting trip, and manages to change the future.
Any further similarity will be purely unintentional.
Regardless of how you feel about this case, this guy wasn't caught with a few plants that had blown into his field. He was collecting the seeds from the patented plant and planting them himself.
True, but he wasn't actually using the patented genes. If I understand correctly, the genes provide resistance to herbicides, and he wasn't using the herbicide. I always thought that technology was patented for a particular purpose. Evidently not.
(Doesn't seem to be abloe to tell me what albums though)
But aside from that, that's my point. People want to download the music they want. Old Napster let them. If the publishers don't want people to download it, new Napster isn't going to let them no matter how much they pay. You may think they have that right. Perhaps. I don't care. The illegal service offered something that the legal service is unable to. In that respect, the legal service is not an adequate alternative.
You might have a point. I'm just guessing about the industry.
But, people are very reluctant to change an agreement. We're conditioned into thinking it's a take it or leave it deal. The record companies know this, and take advantage of it. Hell, even in my job (programmer) I found it hard to argue that there was no way I'm going to do unpaid overtime, and the stakes are a lot lower.
Is it the musicians fault for accepting it. Well, yeah, I guess so. I still say the record companies are severely crooked for pulling this shit.
You inbred fucking/. readers need to get off this fucking notion that the RIAA is a company.
True, but not really important. People are of course referring to the record company cartel members. The members of the cartel are the same as the RIAA members.
Past that, it is each and every one of the artists that decide how much they are getting paid per CD / Song. Of course, if they want to take the odds the Majors might give them, they might have to take a lower cut.
Well, not really. They get a choice between what the record company dictates, or nothing at all. Normally, they'd be able to go somewhere else, but it's a cartel, so that's not going to get them a lot.
As a lowly fucking tech that helped out on production at times, I was making a better rate than some of the artists that didn't read their contracts.
As a "lowly tech" you're in a much better bargaining position. You can go somewhere else. You value is not based on the subjective whims of some record industry exec, so you can easily go somewhere else.
So, why do you think there are so few musicians who do use their own lawyer? You'd have thought a few of them might have had the sense to get representation.
Really, ignoring the fact that it only has DRM, and only has WMA files...
The thing about Napster was it had a lot of music. Anything anyone felt like sharing. This new service doesn't. It just has what the corporate puppets decide that we should want. It's not the same service. I wish they'd stop pretending.
Hmm... can they get into trouble with theEU for being UK only?
haha that guy's a moron, I mean he told you the hot-swap IDE cage is overrated and you probably don't need one unless you were building a server! hahaha! That moron didn't even know that you could use them for stuff like building a server like the one you were going to make!
True. Got to admit though, it's bad customer service. So he's still an idiot. Just not a tech idiot.
Really! What is it with these companies, and screwing over their customers for an extra few dollars? No spammer is going to pay as much per number as the user is going to pay making and receiving calls.
This shows a total disregard for their customers. This is a stupid attitude, towards the people who actually pay the bulk of their income. They need to stop courting the extras, and make sure those who supply their primary income are as happy as possible with the service.
First off, there is no assurance that spammers will adhere to this in the first place - if they are using trojan-ed systems and the like, there is no way you would be track them down.
You can try. They'll have to accept credit cards, for example. You should be able to find who they are from that.
, or is it just for intra-US spam? If it's just the latter, it isn't much use
Yes it is. It reduces US based spam, thus leaving a simpler problem of dealing with foreign spam.
Why does everyone assume there's a silver bullet for spam? Deal with it piece by piece. If you can stop some of it, then it's woorth a try.
Microsoft have been fscking around with DirectX for the last ten years, and it's still a complete mess.
I quite liked D3D 6 and above. Not used the other APIs though.
It's taken them 25 years to get an OS even remotely as stable as any UNIX variant you'd care to name.
They've only really been trying to write a stable OS since NT3.5 in 1994. And I remember using an application back in the 1990s that could bring down a Sparc
And now they're going to Take Over The World with yet another half-assed, rushed-out-the-door collection of hacks?
Of course,m the problem here is you have to play the game to make money. One guy tried a scheme in Star Wars galaxies to automate this. Here's how well he did.
Slashdot Mirror
The X Consortium requests that the following names be used when referring to this software:
And Richard Stallman requests that the term GNU/Linux be used when referring tot he Linux operatingsystem and GNU utilities, Coca Cola request that the term "Coke" not be used for other brands of cola.
The thing is, however much you plead, people are going to refer to it as X-Windows. X, and X11 don't make it obvious that you're talking about a GUI, and "The X Window System" is way too long winded. The X-consortium might as well bite the bullet and trademark X-windows.
I'm sure most people's main privacy concern is companies selling their information (primarily just name and number) to telesales firms. I have to wonder why they do this. Look at the numbers;
There are very few monthly services that cost less than $10 per month. Usually that's over a minimum 12 month term, so that means that for each customer,the company will make $120.
In addition to this, they can sell the customer information for about 1 cent per name. They might even be able to find 100 companies to sell it to. Is that dollar really worth it? Wouldn't a promise never to sell a customer's details be worth more to the customer?
I really doubt that it's going to be hugely recognisable that it's the same story.
Much like Total Recall diverged from "We can remember for you wholesale" after the first act, I would expect that the similarity will be that someone goes back in time on a dinosaur hunting trip, and manages to change the future.
Any further similarity will be purely unintentional.
Don't they use an as well? I've had a look at either this or another service before, and it had both embedded images and iframes.
Anyone know how to turn off HTML in mozilla?
Regardless of how you feel about this case, this guy wasn't caught with a few plants that had blown into his field. He was collecting the seeds from the patented plant and planting them himself.
True, but he wasn't actually using the patented genes. If I understand correctly, the genes provide resistance to herbicides, and he wasn't using the herbicide. I always thought that technology was patented for a particular purpose. Evidently not.
I searched for "The Beatles".
Results:
Yes, we have The Beatles on Napster.
(Doesn't seem to be abloe to tell me what albums though)
But aside from that, that's my point. People want to download the music they want. Old Napster let them. If the publishers don't want people to download it, new Napster isn't going to let them no matter how much they pay. You may think they have that right. Perhaps. I don't care. The illegal service offered something that the legal service is unable to. In that respect, the legal service is not an adequate alternative.
You might have a point. I'm just guessing about the industry.
But, people are very reluctant to change an agreement. We're conditioned into thinking it's a take it or leave it deal. The record companies know this, and take advantage of it. Hell, even in my job (programmer) I found it hard to argue that there was no way I'm going to do unpaid overtime, and the stakes are a lot lower.
Is it the musicians fault for accepting it. Well, yeah, I guess so. I still say the record companies are severely crooked for pulling this shit.
You inbred fucking /. readers need to get off this fucking notion that the RIAA is a company.
True, but not really important. People are of course referring to the record company cartel members. The members of the cartel are the same as the RIAA members.
Past that, it is each and every one of the artists that decide how much they are getting paid per CD / Song. Of course, if they want to take the odds the Majors might give them, they might have to take a lower cut.
Well, not really. They get a choice between what the record company dictates, or nothing at all. Normally, they'd be able to go somewhere else, but it's a cartel, so that's not going to get them a lot.
As a lowly fucking tech that helped out on production at times, I was making a better rate than some of the artists that didn't read their contracts.
As a "lowly tech" you're in a much better bargaining position. You can go somewhere else. You value is not based on the subjective whims of some record industry exec, so you can easily go somewhere else.
So, why do you think there are so few musicians who do use their own lawyer? You'd have thought a few of them might have had the sense to get representation.
"Yes, we have multiple resuilts for 'zerfnarkle'"
Oddly enough "Beatles" didn't return "The Beatles" amongst the list of matches.
Really, ignoring the fact that it only has DRM, and only has WMA files...
The thing about Napster was it had a lot of music. Anything anyone felt like sharing. This new service doesn't. It just has what the corporate puppets decide that we should want. It's not the same service. I wish they'd stop pretending.
Hmm... can they get into trouble with theEU for being UK only?
erm.. He could be dyslexic, you know.
Tangentially: Since the economy still sucks, why is customer service still awful everywhere?
Perhaps you're mixing up cause and effect;)
haha that guy's a moron, I mean he told you the hot-swap IDE cage is overrated and you probably don't need one unless you were building a server! hahaha! That moron didn't even know that you could use them for stuff like building a server like the one you were going to make!
True. Got to admit though, it's bad customer service. So he's still an idiot. Just not a tech idiot.
I bet they sell (or have in the past sold) SCSI scanners though. Is there anything you can do with a rack other than put rackmount cases in?
Please mod funny, I need karma...
Umm.. that don't work nomore. Funny doesn;t add to your karma.
Really! What is it with these companies, and screwing over their customers for an extra few dollars? No spammer is going to pay as much per number as the user is going to pay making and receiving calls.
This shows a total disregard for their customers. This is a stupid attitude, towards the people who actually pay the bulk of their income. They need to stop courting the extras, and make sure those who supply their primary income are as happy as possible with the service.
So.. because none of the US spammers have your email address, you assume that there are few or no US spammers?
The spamhaus spammer list would suggest that there are one or two US based spammers.
Neither CAN-SPAM or this new joke of a law has had any effect on the level of spam I'm seeing or filtering.
The Farm and Ranch Risk Management Act has no effect on me. I'm not going to argue that it was a bad idea because of this.
In fact, when CAN-SPAM went into effect, my spam load jumped over 50%. I'm filtering about 1000 spams a day.
Yes, but are you suggesting it was the cause? If so, you've just contradicted yourself.
First off, there is no assurance that spammers will adhere to this in the first place - if they are using trojan-ed systems and the like, there is no way you would be track them down.
You can try. They'll have to accept credit cards, for example. You should be able to find who they are from that.
, or is it just for intra-US spam? If it's just the latter, it isn't much use
Yes it is. It reduces US based spam, thus leaving a simpler problem of dealing with foreign spam.
Why does everyone assume there's a silver bullet for spam? Deal with it piece by piece. If you can stop some of it, then it's woorth a try.
where, ten years after he first had this argument, he still feels obliged to rag on Linux's design as a monolithic kernel as a bad design decision
Well, a lot of people will argue that microkernels are better.
This from a man who describes true multitasking and multi-threaded I/O as "a performance hack."
And you disagree with this? Why?
Why are microkernels a bad idea?
That's probably more palatable for the suits.
It's odd that games companies have less of an issue giving away money than code that's already available.
It's LGPL. Requires redistribution of source, does not allow static linking, and ensuring compliance is way too much hassle.
Microsoft have been fscking around with DirectX for the last ten years, and it's still a complete mess.
I quite liked D3D 6 and above. Not used the other APIs though.
It's taken them 25 years to get an OS even remotely as stable as any UNIX variant you'd care to name.
They've only really been trying to write a stable OS since NT3.5 in 1994. And I remember using an application back in the 1990s that could bring down a Sparc
And now they're going to Take Over The World with yet another half-assed, rushed-out-the-door collection of hacks?
Yup. Worked in the past.
Well, that covers the 3D aspect, and sockets library covers networking, but what do you use for 2D graphics, sound, and input?
Of course,m the problem here is you have to play the game to make money. One guy tried a scheme in Star Wars galaxies to automate this. Here's how well he did.