Oddly enough, several people I know who dl movies also go out and buy the DVDs or VHS tapes. They dl it see if it is any good, and if it is, they buy a copy of their very own.
Considering that for a lot of the films they want, they can't find at Blockbuster, I don't blame them for wanting to make sure a movie is worth it before plunking down $25 or more.
The above is an example of truly astonishing ignorance (and flame-bait).
No, it's not. You cannot truly abuse a system until you know it. Lawyers have years of classes, easy access during school years to Lexis-Nexus (free during law school, after that you pay) where they can look up law cases and precedent, and they generally command more respect in a court of law then someone without a law degree representing themself (pro se).
Just as someone who knows the code, line by line, for a program can perform manipulations of that program much easier then someone who has not studied it, lawyers can easily manipulate the law to their effect.
Oh right. And with only two major parties for the last several decades, we've had such remarkable breakthroughs in legislative wisdom. The IRS may not take 70% of my income, but other parts of the guvmint decide what products I can and can't buy, make laws concerning software that I _thought_ I legitimately owned (but apparently I'm just licensing it), etc.
Frankly, I would welcome a few more major parties in the U.S. if it would lead to less actual laws passing, as each one seems to take away a little more of my freedom.
Because reptiles are cold-blooded and it's damn chilly down there in penguin-land.
Besides, isn't there fossil evidence in Antarctica as well? Hrm. Something lived there once (and no, I'm not talking about H.P. Lovecraft's Elder Things here), and it is already known that when climate and environment changes occur, life changes (and frequently dies off) in response.
Now, in the case of Mars, is there bacteria there? Beats me. NASA has been bolloxing missions for just a little while there, so it's hard to tell for certain. Is there a danger, if Martian bacteria does exist, of it getting back to Earth via a return trip from a manned expedition? Sure. There's also a danger of a giant comet smacking into the Earth and destroying all life as we know it. If that bothers you, pull the covers up over your tin-foil covered head and hide from the nasty bogeyman.
I prefer to have my science without quite so much panic, thank you.
Microsoft reccomends their software to millions of people. And based on the many BSODs I (and my customers get) it sure as Hell(tm) wasn't tested very much.
*nod* South Carolina, as one example, has some similar laws. You can be dismissed for _any_ reason, as long as it isn't an illegal one (i.e. racism, sexism), so you can get fired for being 5 minutes late one time in 5 years of work, but you can't get fired because your Klan member of a boss hates your skin colour.
On the sort of plus side, if any of your previous places of employment are asked for a reference, the "worst" reference they can give is a neutral reference (i.e. "Yes, he worked here.").
Still, it's fscking harsh. Let's say you're one of these IT workers. You've been doing your job, your performance reviews are good, and yet you're being told that because you earn more then 60K a year, you have to take a 50% pay cut?
That is so fsckign bogus...
"Hey, sorry Jim. You're taking it up the ass, but based on this statistical analysis of what we should do to raise our stocks 0.5% (which we hired a syphlitic monkey to do), we have to drastically cut the paychecks of everyone over a certain cap, no matter how little sense it makes. By the way, could you send in Frank, I have to tell him that because he only makes $59,500 a year, he can go ahead and buy that jet-ski he wants."
Just when I thought life could _not_ get wierder then Dilbert......
Unfortunately, no. It's something I saw on TV, not on the Headline News site. And, true, it could easily be biased, as I don't recall them offering by what means the statistics were derived (i.e. how many people they asked, or exactly what the questions were).
Yeah, but statistical samples are usually based on more then four sets or cases. If this study had checked, say a few dozen search phrases, and was coming back with similar results, I would be a touch more impressed with it. And if he had actually spent more then the apparent 3 minutes every 3 months on this and actually used a couple hundred search phrases AND was still getting the same decay rates, then it might just be indicative of something.
Actually (and unfortunately for any haters of the Evil that lies in the lands of Redmond) Headline News had this lovely little chart on recently, which showed public approval of several companies. Enron and Arthur Anderson had 9 and 11% approval ratings, respectively, while the big "winner" was Microsoft, with something like a 79% approval rating.
Let's face facts here. We might hate Microsoft, but the vast majority of people do not. Good? Bad? Indifferent?
"But sir, no one worries about upsetting a droid." "Droids don't rip people's arms off when they lose. Wookies are known to do that." *Chewbacca puts his hands behind his head and looks smug*
Well, I like Daffy Duck, and I can't stand Jar Jar, so what does that say about your theory?
With Daffy, it's perserverance in the face of adversity (usually caused by his own actions). With Jar Jar, it's just stupidity. IMAO, Anakin should seal his link to the Dark Side by slicing Jar Jar into little bits while laughing maniacally.
Could be a bit of both. I mean, our opinions are generally influenced by what we experience. We build our opinions over time, for the most part, with dramatic experiences having more of an impression then casual ones.
Therefore, if you get a majority of your "tech news" from Slashdot, you're going to most likely (but not always) going to develop an anti-Microsoft attitude. Because, quite frankly, the majority of the Microsoft/Bill Gates/Windows articles on Slashdot either paint their activities in a bad light, are worded to sound bad, or receive so many anti-MS comments that it doesn't matter what they're doing.
And unless you can convince your congresscritter that a large portion of his voting constituency is planning on turning on him faster then a speeding bullet, you probably won't get much in the way of results. Or unless you can convince said congresscritter that you are independently wealthy and planning to contribute to whoever runs against him.
A lot of those congresscritters jump any time a lobbyist says frog because they want to stay on the gravy train of contributions. The best way to change this is a serious overhaul of the laws governing those contributions. Like making an absolute limit of the amount of money any person, organization or corporation can donate, in terms of money, goods, services, etc.
But purple monkeys will fly out of Jon Katz' butt first.
Maybe. Look, one big reason why the XBOX isn't doing so well is that it is the new console on the market. It does not have anywhere near the title list that the PlayStation (1 and 2) are able to claim, and can not really be said to have a runaway hit game to make the console attractive.
Then, there's the price. A lot of people I know aren't going to pay that much for a console that doesn't have that many games out yet. Most of them have said that when it has more games (and assuming said games are worth a shit) they might consider buying it.
If Ballmer can satisfy the shareholders, they will no doubt continue to produce and sell the console. They can afford to lose quite a lot of money on this if it means they will eventually increase their share.
Of course, the fact that several insanely popular game titles are _never_ going to be XBOX exclusives will hurt, but hell, any console has exclusive titles AND shared titles.
You know what I meant. Most school-teachers will not have the know-how to try and recover the information on the hard-drive, so it really doesn't matter how I reformat the silly thing, assuming I don't reduce it to utter uselessness. I just prefer the electromagnet comment.
Still, my point stands. If Windows is no longer the OS on the computer, cannot be recovered from the hard-drive, and another OS (insert random Linux distro) has been installed, Microsoft can yell and scream all it wants, but it is not losing any money on this.
At worst, they are just not gaining any more money. One copy of Windows was sold on the computer. That copy no longer exists. If the donor wants another copy of Windows he can either use a back-up of the OS (which, gee, should be allowed by Fair Use) or he can buy another copy.
Microsoft's greed should not preclude the noble gesture that is getting computers to schools that need them.
Windows almost certainly defines 'machine' differently then most people considering how little you can change on a box running XP before it thinks that you're "stealing" from the Evil Overlords in the Lands of Redmond (where the darkness lies).
Not that the majority of regular/. readers consider anything M$ likes to be of major concern.
Refuse to allow Microsoft employees to enter until and unless they show cause to a judge that there might be a violation. Or arrest them for trespassing. Microsoft does not have the right to enter property just because you have a copy of Windows on your computers.
Hell(tm), schools are usually incredibly restrictive about allowing people onto the grounds who normally do not have a right or obligation to be there. Claim security issues.
Probably because he can qualify his statements with "Yes, a stripped down Windows is now possible, as I have had my elite team of coders working on it for weeks, and now that they've carefully removed all the bloat...."
Um, how? Like Microsoft is going to send someone to every school to count the number of computers? And it's not like the computers are running Windows...
It would be like a health inspector fining a restaurant for having eggs kept too warm when the restaurant doesn't even have eggs.
Inspector: "That's a $200 fine. That area of the kitchen is too warm to store eggs in."
Restaraunt Manager: "But we don't store eggs there. In fact, there isn't an egg in the entire restaurant!"
I: "Doesn't matter. You could store eggs there, and that's all that counts."
If I take a computer I own, format the hard drive with an electromagnet, and donate it to a public school with a free copy of a Linux distro, what the screaming Hell(tm) does it matter that it once had Windows on it?
1) I am not giving them Windows. I am giving them the hardware. 2) I am not encouraging them to steal a copy of Windows in any way, shape or form. 3) Microsoft does not own the computer. They never did. It was my computer, therefore it's entirely my choice what to do with it.
Kierthos
Re:recordable discs outsold CDs for the first time
on
The Culture of CD Burning
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Yeah, I know all the recordable CDs we use at work are obviously used to pirate music. Except for those that we burn clients' files on. Which is 99.9%. (Come and get me Ms. Rosen. I burned a CD of music from artists who can't seem to get a record deal.)
Slashdot Mirror
Oddly enough, several people I know who dl movies also go out and buy the DVDs or VHS tapes. They dl it see if it is any good, and if it is, they buy a copy of their very own.
Considering that for a lot of the films they want, they can't find at Blockbuster, I don't blame them for wanting to make sure a movie is worth it before plunking down $25 or more.
Kierthos
The above is an example of truly astonishing ignorance (and flame-bait).
No, it's not. You cannot truly abuse a system until you know it. Lawyers have years of classes, easy access during school years to Lexis-Nexus (free during law school, after that you pay) where they can look up law cases and precedent, and they generally command more respect in a court of law then someone without a law degree representing themself (pro se).
Just as someone who knows the code, line by line, for a program can perform manipulations of that program much easier then someone who has not studied it, lawyers can easily manipulate the law to their effect.
Kierthos
Oh right. And with only two major parties for the last several decades, we've had such remarkable breakthroughs in legislative wisdom. The IRS may not take 70% of my income, but other parts of the guvmint decide what products I can and can't buy, make laws concerning software that I _thought_ I legitimately owned (but apparently I'm just licensing it), etc.
Frankly, I would welcome a few more major parties in the U.S. if it would lead to less actual laws passing, as each one seems to take away a little more of my freedom.
Kierthos
Because reptiles are cold-blooded and it's damn chilly down there in penguin-land.
Besides, isn't there fossil evidence in Antarctica as well? Hrm. Something lived there once (and no, I'm not talking about H.P. Lovecraft's Elder Things here), and it is already known that when climate and environment changes occur, life changes (and frequently dies off) in response.
Now, in the case of Mars, is there bacteria there? Beats me. NASA has been bolloxing missions for just a little while there, so it's hard to tell for certain. Is there a danger, if Martian bacteria does exist, of it getting back to Earth via a return trip from a manned expedition? Sure. There's also a danger of a giant comet smacking into the Earth and destroying all life as we know it. If that bothers you, pull the covers up over your tin-foil covered head and hide from the nasty bogeyman.
I prefer to have my science without quite so much panic, thank you.
Kierthos
Microsoft reccomends their software to millions of people. And based on the many BSODs I (and my customers get) it sure as Hell(tm) wasn't tested very much.
Kierthos
*nod* South Carolina, as one example, has some similar laws. You can be dismissed for _any_ reason, as long as it isn't an illegal one (i.e. racism, sexism), so you can get fired for being 5 minutes late one time in 5 years of work, but you can't get fired because your Klan member of a boss hates your skin colour.
On the sort of plus side, if any of your previous places of employment are asked for a reference, the "worst" reference they can give is a neutral reference (i.e. "Yes, he worked here.").
Kierthos
Still, it's fscking harsh. Let's say you're one of these IT workers. You've been doing your job, your performance reviews are good, and yet you're being told that because you earn more then 60K a year, you have to take a 50% pay cut?
That is so fsckign bogus...
"Hey, sorry Jim. You're taking it up the ass, but based on this statistical analysis of what we should do to raise our stocks 0.5% (which we hired a syphlitic monkey to do), we have to drastically cut the paychecks of everyone over a certain cap, no matter how little sense it makes. By the way, could you send in Frank, I have to tell him that because he only makes $59,500 a year, he can go ahead and buy that jet-ski he wants."
Just when I thought life could _not_ get wierder then Dilbert......
Kierthos
Unfortunately, no. It's something I saw on TV, not on the Headline News site. And, true, it could easily be biased, as I don't recall them offering by what means the statistics were derived (i.e. how many people they asked, or exactly what the questions were).
Kierthos
How much more do you need to say?
Kierthos
Yeah, but statistical samples are usually based on more then four sets or cases. If this study had checked, say a few dozen search phrases, and was coming back with similar results, I would be a touch more impressed with it. And if he had actually spent more then the apparent 3 minutes every 3 months on this and actually used a couple hundred search phrases AND was still getting the same decay rates, then it might just be indicative of something.
Kierthos
Actually (and unfortunately for any haters of the Evil that lies in the lands of Redmond) Headline News had this lovely little chart on recently, which showed public approval of several companies. Enron and Arthur Anderson had 9 and 11% approval ratings, respectively, while the big "winner" was Microsoft, with something like a 79% approval rating.
Let's face facts here. We might hate Microsoft, but the vast majority of people do not. Good? Bad? Indifferent?
Kierthos
"But sir, no one worries about upsetting a droid."
"Droids don't rip people's arms off when they lose. Wookies are known to do that."
*Chewbacca puts his hands behind his head and looks smug*
Kierthos
Well, I like Daffy Duck, and I can't stand Jar Jar, so what does that say about your theory?
With Daffy, it's perserverance in the face of adversity (usually caused by his own actions). With Jar Jar, it's just stupidity. IMAO, Anakin should seal his link to the Dark Side by slicing Jar Jar into little bits while laughing maniacally.
Kierthos
Could be a bit of both. I mean, our opinions are generally influenced by what we experience. We build our opinions over time, for the most part, with dramatic experiences having more of an impression then casual ones.
Therefore, if you get a majority of your "tech news" from Slashdot, you're going to most likely (but not always) going to develop an anti-Microsoft attitude. Because, quite frankly, the majority of the Microsoft/Bill Gates/Windows articles on Slashdot either paint their activities in a bad light, are worded to sound bad, or receive so many anti-MS comments that it doesn't matter what they're doing.
Kierthos
Yeah, they read them. Maybe.
And unless you can convince your congresscritter that a large portion of his voting constituency is planning on turning on him faster then a speeding bullet, you probably won't get much in the way of results. Or unless you can convince said congresscritter that you are independently wealthy and planning to contribute to whoever runs against him.
A lot of those congresscritters jump any time a lobbyist says frog because they want to stay on the gravy train of contributions. The best way to change this is a serious overhaul of the laws governing those contributions. Like making an absolute limit of the amount of money any person, organization or corporation can donate, in terms of money, goods, services, etc.
But purple monkeys will fly out of Jon Katz' butt first.
Kierthos
Maybe. Look, one big reason why the XBOX isn't doing so well is that it is the new console on the market. It does not have anywhere near the title list that the PlayStation (1 and 2) are able to claim, and can not really be said to have a runaway hit game to make the console attractive.
Then, there's the price. A lot of people I know aren't going to pay that much for a console that doesn't have that many games out yet. Most of them have said that when it has more games (and assuming said games are worth a shit) they might consider buying it.
If Ballmer can satisfy the shareholders, they will no doubt continue to produce and sell the console. They can afford to lose quite a lot of money on this if it means they will eventually increase their share.
Of course, the fact that several insanely popular game titles are _never_ going to be XBOX exclusives will hurt, but hell, any console has exclusive titles AND shared titles.
Kierthos
You know what I meant. Most school-teachers will not have the know-how to try and recover the information on the hard-drive, so it really doesn't matter how I reformat the silly thing, assuming I don't reduce it to utter uselessness. I just prefer the electromagnet comment.
Still, my point stands. If Windows is no longer the OS on the computer, cannot be recovered from the hard-drive, and another OS (insert random Linux distro) has been installed, Microsoft can yell and scream all it wants, but it is not losing any money on this.
At worst, they are just not gaining any more money. One copy of Windows was sold on the computer. That copy no longer exists. If the donor wants another copy of Windows he can either use a back-up of the OS (which, gee, should be allowed by Fair Use) or he can buy another copy.
Microsoft's greed should not preclude the noble gesture that is getting computers to schools that need them.
Kierthos
Oh wait, I want M$ to try and fine someone for this, that way the potential donor can bring a harrassment suit and fraud case against them.
Hey, M$, look over here, I'm giving a computer away... please come and try something.
Kierthos
Windows almost certainly defines 'machine' differently then most people considering how little you can change on a box running XP before it thinks that you're "stealing" from the Evil Overlords in the Lands of Redmond (where the darkness lies).
/. readers consider anything M$ likes to be of major concern.
Not that the majority of regular
Kierthos
Refuse to allow Microsoft employees to enter until and unless they show cause to a judge that there might be a violation. Or arrest them for trespassing. Microsoft does not have the right to enter property just because you have a copy of Windows on your computers.
Hell(tm), schools are usually incredibly restrictive about allowing people onto the grounds who normally do not have a right or obligation to be there. Claim security issues.
Kierthos
Probably because he can qualify his statements with "Yes, a stripped down Windows is now possible, as I have had my elite team of coders working on it for weeks, and now that they've carefully removed all the bloat...."
Kierthos
Um, how? Like Microsoft is going to send someone to every school to count the number of computers? And it's not like the computers are running Windows...
It would be like a health inspector fining a restaurant for having eggs kept too warm when the restaurant doesn't even have eggs.
Inspector: "That's a $200 fine. That area of the kitchen is too warm to store eggs in."
Restaraunt Manager: "But we don't store eggs there. In fact, there isn't an egg in the entire restaurant!"
I: "Doesn't matter. You could store eggs there, and that's all that counts."
Bollocks.
Kierthos
In a word, bullshit.
If I take a computer I own, format the hard drive with an electromagnet, and donate it to a public school with a free copy of a Linux distro, what the screaming Hell(tm) does it matter that it once had Windows on it?
1) I am not giving them Windows. I am giving them the hardware.
2) I am not encouraging them to steal a copy of Windows in any way, shape or form.
3) Microsoft does not own the computer. They never did. It was my computer, therefore it's entirely my choice what to do with it.
Kierthos
Yeah, I know all the recordable CDs we use at work are obviously used to pirate music. Except for those that we burn clients' files on. Which is 99.9%. (Come and get me Ms. Rosen. I burned a CD of music from artists who can't seem to get a record deal.)
Kierthos
No, no, only artists that don't get A's. Oh wait, that's like 90% of music out there now.
Can we copy artist's term papers? What if it's just photocopies, not burning the file to a CD?
Kierthos