I want to see the electrical cord go bye-bye.
Maybe they will come up with some new power source that can eliminate the need to plug the computer into the wall. Maybe they will come up with a new processor that doesn't require the power of today's computers.
I want to see the monitor as we know it today go bye-bye. OLED, paper thin displays. Or some other funky new technology. The monitor is the biggest, heaviest part of the computer. (I still use CRTs)
Unlimited storage. So much effort has been put into software because we have limited storage capabilities. Remember that software back in the early 90's that would double your hard drive space? (Stacker?) We always talk about doubling our storage needs, but what if nanotechnology could give us reliable terabyte storage? Advance that to virtually unlimited storage. Instead of formatting a "drive" you just write the new copy and move on. Built-in versioning and backup. No need to ever erase anything.
I always wonder what we will look back on in 30 years and laugh about, like "I can't believe we had limits on disk space" or "Remember when we had monitors?". Oddly enough, talking about what will be in 10 years, I just purchased a TRS-80 model III, the first computer I programmed on. 48k of memory in it, two 320k floppy drives. You can put about 2000 of those floppies on a CD-R.
'rigor in which MS tests their products before release'.
Hmm... What kind of 'rigor' is that, again? Rigor mortis?
Having been doing software testing for about 10 years now, I can pretty much guess that Microsoft is like most other software places in that lots of things are discovered in test that still make it out the door. I'd like to hear from someone in the test organization at Microsoft to see what *they* think about the quality of the product they test, and how much pull they have in making decisions. I am betting that it is just as much as anywhere else. Most places have no problem in shipping out code that doesn't meet with QA's approval. I've seen it, I've been a part of it. That's business baby. Quality software will get trumped by some promised deadline every time.
Hmm, creatine increases your intelligence and memory, such that you realize that you don't need to be taking creatine.
Hey, here's an idea, how about reading a book!
Seriously, this story is just bad for Slashdot readers for many reasons. Creatine does work, if you *need* it. More on that later. Every so often there seems to be an "Ask Slashdot" question posted by someone who doesn't want to expend a little extra effort to work out, but instead wants some shortcut that they can do while sitting on their ass in front of a computer. Creatine is not the answer for you, and here is why: You have to eventually abandon your shortcuts, and if you don't have a solid regimen, you'll go right back to where you are now. Instead of looking for some magic something-or-other, whether it be for exercise or intelligence, get off your ass (be it the one on your neck or your torso) and get to work! You think Arnold got to where he did because of drugs? And before you say "he took roids!", you have to realize that those gave him the edge. He got where he did because of hard ass, old-fashioned work. Roids alone won't give you that body. Just like taking creatine won't make you smart. And these things, if taken at all, should be to push you over the edge of your natural abilities. They aren't a starting point.
So if you think creatine will make you smarter, you have just taken a step backwards in your intelligence. Creatine will make you smarter if you realize you don't need it to make you smarter.
And yes, I used it for 3 months (1 month on, 1 month off, 1 month on). Did it help my lifting? Yes, somewhat significantly. If you use it, make sure you drink a LOT of water. I was drinking about a gallon a day. You get thirsty because your body needs the water. But eventually I came to the conclusion that the benefits aren't worth the health risks, which aren't fully known. I just know that if there are risks, I don't want to damage my body. If there aren't risks, then the gains aren't really that important to me. What is more important is that I maintain a regular workout schedule to maintain my health. I need to make sure my diet doesn't go to hell. I don't need creatine for that. As I get older, it will be more critical that I have a good regimen in place. There are no shortcuts. Realizing that will make you smarter than any supplement in the long run.
I'm glad to see that the United States doesn't have a monopoly on half-baked, industry-sponsored, wacked-out legislation...
Gee, seems to me that a bunch of non-Americans were laughing at us about DMCA issues. IIRC, things like this would NEVER happen outside of the US because they weren't dominated by capitalism.
[ sound of crickets ]
Yeah, I thought so. Now it isn't so funny, is it? So step up and show us how it is done. Show us how to fight these types of laws. Please, prove to us how things are supposed to be done. In all seriousness, I hope you can, because I want there to be somewhere I can move to when things get totally out of control here.
Clear Channel, Fox, et al are making money precisely because the public voluntarily chooses their programming.
Minor correction - the public voluntarily chooses their programming based on what is available and what is pounded into their brains with advertising.
If it was simply left up to people to decide, then timeslots wouldn't be an issue. Networks can clearly push whatever shows they want, and bury the ones they don't like.
Don't give "people" too much credit.
"A person is smart. People are dumb, dangerous, panicky, stupid animals and you know it." --Agent K, MIB
...a hacker has broken into a Acxiom server....The suspect, now in police custody, was an employee with legitimate access to the information.
So not a hacker then. Or a cracker either, to keep another section of the crowd happy.
*sigh* You should know better than to trust the poster, headline, the commentary, or the summary of any story posted to Slashdot. I know it is odd, but this isn't a news site where "editors" verify things that are posted. As always, RTFA...
Barrett said the individual in police custody is a former employee of one of Acxiom's clients and that the information was stolen while the person had legitimate access to Acxiom servers.
``They used that access to hack into the passwords of other clients,'' she said.
Barrett said the offender gained access by hacking encrypted passwords from clients who access the server. The server, which was outside a firewall, was used ``for clients to transfer files to us and for us to transfer files back to the clients,'' she said.
Barrett said much of the information taken from the server was encrypted and that the risk of identity theft is slim.
I'm guessing that in the end, this will be a big number, but perhaps IBM will go for a settlement that involves SCO execs, bricks, and deep water.
I would opt for a mandatory job for Darl as IBM's Tux mascot who hands out Linux flyers on the street. With a big sign on his back that says "Kick Me, I'm Darl McBride".
SCO announced that they would be attempting to shut down all network servers allowing users to download Linux patches and updates free of charge. They also mentioned that they would be offering a subscription service where users could download updates for $1 per file, and that they would also be resorting to legal action in order to make university network administrators disclose the names of students running illegal Linux systems on campus.
What was this modded Funny? Hell, the way things are going with these asshats at SCO, I wouldn't be surprised if this were their next press release. Yeah, it is a ridiculous statement, but that seems to be their forte.
I really have to wonder if they are being paid to just be embarassing dickheads by some large, Linux-hating corporation. I used to think I was paranoid until the RIAA started extorting money from college kids for writing a search engine, SCO threatens everyone from IBM to Linux users to the government, and Britney Spears is doing PSAs for "artists" rights.
[snip]
Thanks for the info on the various products. Without having purchased them or knowing much about them, it was pretty informative. I do understand the value of good software.
It's comparable to say, spending $600 on a decent guitar or mountain bike or whatever else. It's not like you need a new one every week.
And you bought the guitar to just learn how to play "Mary had a little lamb", and you bought the mountain bike just to learn how to ride a bike.
That is what some people do with Photoshop, they don't use it to its potential. That's a waste of money IMO.
However, I'd say that near anyone doing reasonably serious digital art will find benefits to owning Photoshop. It's an exceedingly flexible tool, versus say, that $300 copy of MS Word.
I think MS Word is very flexible, and you can get your money's worth out of it. At work, I use many of the features - comments, dynamic headers/footers, change tracking, etc. But at home? I think I have it installed on my Windows machine, I am not sure. I only boot it when I want to play Quake. I have OpenOffice installed on my Linux machine, but only opened it to check it out. The only time I need it is when someone sends me an attachment in doc format. I just don't compose any documents at home. I can't imagine that many people need MS Word at home. That is why most people I know have borrowed copies of Office installed at home - just in case they need it.
If the GIMP acted more like...well, any other image editor, it might be an easier sell.
Even Photopaint and Paint Shop Pro are reasonably similar to Photoshop. Painter is also adopting the Photoshop-like interface.
To me, the GIMP might have features and capabilities close to Photoshop (in my experience it doesn't...unusable files and strange stuff like blur also darkening images), but I know how to use Photoshop. Other programs import layered Photoshop documents (After Effects anyone?). Subjectively, I think the interface is *terrible*. That's me, other folks may like it. But it keeps me from using the program, and I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one.
Personally, I think it's OK. I tried Photoshop once, and had trouble with it. I tried The Gimp, and had the same troubles. But I stuck with Gimp because it didn't cost me anything to do so. For Photoshop, I would have had to purchase it. That's a big investment for what I want to use it for. Most people are not power users of image editing software. In that case, the Gimp is a damn fine solution. They'll still have to learn the program though.
As for the cost of Photoshop...it's reasonable. It's a professional tool that's pretty standard. Buy it in a bundle for $1000 (or $500 educational). If you can't afford that, get Paint Shop Pro or Photoshop Elements. Considering it's pretty much a one time major expense coupled with $150 upgrades every 18-24 months, it's not a bad professional or serious hobby use cost. If all you want is to resize a pic for a background or something, obviously you don't need Photoshop. If you stand to make several thousand dollars from a project, $150 for that Photoshop 7 upgrade isn't much...having the right tools is worth quite a bit.
Wow. See, I think $500 for software is pretty expensive, especially if you are a student. Even if you are a serious hobbyist, $1000 seems like a lot of money to me. But I guess it is all relative, I could spend that much in one of my hobbies (but I try not to). So Photoshop is the tool for the pros, and The Gimp may not compare for those purposes. But how does it compare to Pint Shop Pro or Photoshop Elements? You never see any comparisons with those. I'd like to hear someone with experience evaluate these tools against each other. I agree, having the right tools is very important, but there is also tool overkill. This is where people insist on having everything top of the line, simply for the sake of having "top of the line", even if they don't have a clue why they want it.
They don't use Photoshop just because it's the 'standard'. They use it because the user interface is orders of magnitude better than Gimp's. Artists's don't want each and every step they take to take 2-3 extra clicks. They don't want to memorize three million shortcuts, they want an easy to use interface so they can concentrate on the art and get it done quickly. People who make money doing this stuff laugh at suggestions they use Gimp.
First off, Photoshop is the standard because it kicks ass. I didn't mean to imply that it is the standard because it is the only program out there. But I think it is clearly the leader for professionals. And to some degree, the leader does become the defacto standard.
So you do this for a living... let's see, spending a few hundred bucks up front, verses several extra clicks for each and every manipulation you do for 8 hours a day for the next couple years. Hrmmm, not exactly a rough choice is it?
No, I don't do it for a living. And I never suggested not getting Photoshop. Read what I wrote. But do *I* need to spend the money for Photoshop? No, I don't do that for a living. Even if you are reasonably serious about image editing, The Gimp will suit you fine. I just think that people should use what suits their needs. Do I really need to spend the money for Photoshop? My answer, and I think the answer for most people, is no.
The sooner SCO's money pot is drained, the faster this ends. They will either be: Defeated, because someone got to to disprove the "evidence", forced to capitulate, or lose their case(s) by default because they won't be able to afford to continue to fight.
I really really really don't want them to lose because they are out of money. That is pure big-business tactics, and always sticks in my craw. Just because someone doesn't have the funds to fight doesn't mean that they should be defeated. That is the MS way.
I want them to have their asses handed to them fair and square. No backroom deals, no settlements.
Derivative works are more than just inspiration, I can't create a story in the Star Wars universe but I can certainly make one in a *different* galaxy far far away. It's not like any other story involving being in another galaxy would be "tainted" and the IP of George Lucas, just because I saw the movie.
It would only be tainted if Lucas made a prequel to it.
No you shouldn't. I'm not trying to start some Photoshop-Gimp flamewar.
If Gimp was working satisfactory for you until now, then you don't need CMYK. Which is the only fine line difference between them, and user interface, yes.
I really need only RGB and pictures are not that big. During my tests Gimp proved to be more usable than Photoshop in my range of usage. But there's a clear line, printing professional usage can't include use of Gimp, except in some small cases where illustrations come in question.
If you are a graphics illustrator, you don't use The Gimp. You use Photoshop. It is the standard. I don't have a problem with that, but I use The Gimp. I don't do professional work, although The Gimp is pretty darn impressive. It is OK if they both exist, and one is free and the other makes you auction body parts on eBay. (unless you have acquired a copy by other means, which I won't address). If you really NEED Photoshop, then buy it. If you just want a great image editing program, then use Gimp. I know a lot of people have Photoshop simply because it is expensive, and they like to think they have expensive things. But The Gimp will suit 90% of the people who need to edit images.
Go Red Hat. I hope they tie up SCO in court for a nice long time and win their case.
Not me. I hope they kick their asses swiftly and without mercy. It is more decisive that way. Let SCO wallow in the appeals process. The longer this is in the courts, the worse it is for Linux in general.
Some not to strong tape / bluetack to hold screws that you have taken out. After slowly losing more case screws than I care to think I now tape/stick them to the side of the case till I put it back together. Even if I've just open it for a couple of minutes...
I have a small, stainless steel dish that has a good magnet on the back. It is meant to be used when working on your car (which I do) so that you can toss nuts/bolts into it and they stick. It works well on the car because you can stick it to the frame and it works upside down.
I use this thing all the time when I am working on PCs. I suppose you could just use a small magnet instead. Just keep it away from your magnetic storage devices.:-)
I have read several books on this and similar topics, such as The Elegant Universe by Brian Greene. I find them fascinating, but I have a hard time taking it all in. It is hard to really understand this stuff, so I am sure it is harder to try and make it understandable to the general public.
So I have somewhat of a two-part question:
Because the ideas are hard to comprehend even for those who are willing to try and understand it, do you find even more resistence from people with strong religious beliefs?
and part two:
Most of us have been brought up with some kind of religion in our lives, even if those beliefs may have changed. It is obvious that some people have a problem making the distinction between personal beliefs and science, as noted by the so-called "Christian Science" and "Intelligent Design" movements. Do you find that it is hard to separate your own personal religious beliefs from your work? Do you see this as an issue with other people in your field of study?
Are they all wanting the success of GNU/Linux or is it a case of against-Microsoft-anything-will-do?
Or maybe they have come to realize that this Open Source thing is pretty cool. Maybe it has nothing to do with making GNU/Linux as an entity succeed, or about sticking it to Microsoft. Maybe it is just quality software into which it is worthwhile to invest a small amount of their time/money.
see no reason to get up in arms over this. They're using no different criterion to set pricing than they have in the past: consumer demand. This is no more discriminatory than generic peas costing less than the ones with the shiny label.
It is kind of the same concept, but the difference is that it is at the *individual* consumer level. That goes beyond creative pricing. You can be sure that the pricing will be set to be as unfair as possible. That is how things operate, it is always done to the limit of the law. If they can get away with it, they will.
I have a friend who doesn't understand why targeted advertising is a bad thing. He says he doesn't care what information they know about him, and he woulnd't mind getting targeted ads. At that level, I agree with him, but you *know* that it won't stop there, and advertisers will push and push and push. To paraphrase Eddie Murphy in one of his acts:
They take things too far
Give an inch, they take a foot.
Give a foot, they take a yard.
Give a man a rope, he wants to be a cowboy.
If you allow them to get away with something, they will, and take a bit further to test the limits. Advertising is bad enough already, they don't need encouragement like this. If we allow them to do targeted advertising, we are asking for whatever happens next.
Two of the ideas that Microsoft presented at this expo, both of which are mentioned in the Seattle Times article, are ideas or inventions that have already been invented by other people!
"Microsoft Research" is the industry term more commonly known as the "Purchasing Department".
The RIAA isn't going after people because it finds files on their hard drive, it goes after people because it sees them sharing these files online, unencrypted. This technology is worthless against the RIAA in that respect.
So encrypt your MP3 files.
I always wondered why people didn't do this. Wrap each shared MP3 in a password protected zip. Would you be liable for distributing encrypted MP3s? Technically, you took measures to make sure nobody else could use them.* (You put them on the net so you could access them from anywhere.) For anyone to prove they were copyrighted, they'd have to crack your password, which would be illegal and probably a DMCA violation. I know there was the whole "pig latin encryption" of the filenames, but that was just in good fun instead of any kind of real protection.
* Nobody said you have to use an extremely difficult password to crack. "riaasucks" would do nicely.:-)
Slashdot Mirror
I want to see the electrical cord go bye-bye. Maybe they will come up with some new power source that can eliminate the need to plug the computer into the wall. Maybe they will come up with a new processor that doesn't require the power of today's computers.
I want to see the monitor as we know it today go bye-bye. OLED, paper thin displays. Or some other funky new technology. The monitor is the biggest, heaviest part of the computer. (I still use CRTs)
Unlimited storage. So much effort has been put into software because we have limited storage capabilities. Remember that software back in the early 90's that would double your hard drive space? (Stacker?) We always talk about doubling our storage needs, but what if nanotechnology could give us reliable terabyte storage? Advance that to virtually unlimited storage. Instead of formatting a "drive" you just write the new copy and move on. Built-in versioning and backup. No need to ever erase anything.
I always wonder what we will look back on in 30 years and laugh about, like "I can't believe we had limits on disk space" or "Remember when we had monitors?". Oddly enough, talking about what will be in 10 years, I just purchased a TRS-80 model III, the first computer I programmed on. 48k of memory in it, two 320k floppy drives. You can put about 2000 of those floppies on a CD-R.
Having been doing software testing for about 10 years now, I can pretty much guess that Microsoft is like most other software places in that lots of things are discovered in test that still make it out the door. I'd like to hear from someone in the test organization at Microsoft to see what *they* think about the quality of the product they test, and how much pull they have in making decisions. I am betting that it is just as much as anywhere else. Most places have no problem in shipping out code that doesn't meet with QA's approval. I've seen it, I've been a part of it. That's business baby. Quality software will get trumped by some promised deadline every time.
Hey, here's an idea, how about reading a book!
Seriously, this story is just bad for Slashdot readers for many reasons. Creatine does work, if you *need* it. More on that later. Every so often there seems to be an "Ask Slashdot" question posted by someone who doesn't want to expend a little extra effort to work out, but instead wants some shortcut that they can do while sitting on their ass in front of a computer. Creatine is not the answer for you, and here is why: You have to eventually abandon your shortcuts, and if you don't have a solid regimen, you'll go right back to where you are now. Instead of looking for some magic something-or-other, whether it be for exercise or intelligence, get off your ass (be it the one on your neck or your torso) and get to work! You think Arnold got to where he did because of drugs? And before you say "he took roids!", you have to realize that those gave him the edge. He got where he did because of hard ass, old-fashioned work. Roids alone won't give you that body. Just like taking creatine won't make you smart. And these things, if taken at all, should be to push you over the edge of your natural abilities. They aren't a starting point.
So if you think creatine will make you smarter, you have just taken a step backwards in your intelligence. Creatine will make you smarter if you realize you don't need it to make you smarter.
And yes, I used it for 3 months (1 month on, 1 month off, 1 month on). Did it help my lifting? Yes, somewhat significantly. If you use it, make sure you drink a LOT of water. I was drinking about a gallon a day. You get thirsty because your body needs the water. But eventually I came to the conclusion that the benefits aren't worth the health risks, which aren't fully known. I just know that if there are risks, I don't want to damage my body. If there aren't risks, then the gains aren't really that important to me. What is more important is that I maintain a regular workout schedule to maintain my health. I need to make sure my diet doesn't go to hell. I don't need creatine for that. As I get older, it will be more critical that I have a good regimen in place. There are no shortcuts. Realizing that will make you smarter than any supplement in the long run.
Gee, seems to me that a bunch of non-Americans were laughing at us about DMCA issues. IIRC, things like this would NEVER happen outside of the US because they weren't dominated by capitalism.
[ sound of crickets ]
Yeah, I thought so. Now it isn't so funny, is it? So step up and show us how it is done. Show us how to fight these types of laws. Please, prove to us how things are supposed to be done. In all seriousness, I hope you can, because I want there to be somewhere I can move to when things get totally out of control here.
Minor correction - the public voluntarily chooses their programming based on what is available and what is pounded into their brains with advertising.
If it was simply left up to people to decide, then timeslots wouldn't be an issue. Networks can clearly push whatever shows they want, and bury the ones they don't like.
Don't give "people" too much credit.
"A person is smart. People are dumb, dangerous, panicky, stupid animals and you know it." --Agent K, MIB
... and call it iKaramba. ...
[Tumbleweed rolls past]
I'll see myself out
I believe I had a hat!
[ hat is thrown into the street ]
He he. SUCKERS!
[ runs off with hat ]
So not a hacker then. Or a cracker either, to keep another section of the crowd happy.
*sigh* You should know better than to trust the poster, headline, the commentary, or the summary of any story posted to Slashdot. I know it is odd, but this isn't a news site where "editors" verify things that are posted. As always, RTFA...
I would opt for a mandatory job for Darl as IBM's Tux mascot who hands out Linux flyers on the street. With a big sign on his back that says "Kick Me, I'm Darl McBride".
What was this modded Funny? Hell, the way things are going with these asshats at SCO, I wouldn't be surprised if this were their next press release. Yeah, it is a ridiculous statement, but that seems to be their forte.
I really have to wonder if they are being paid to just be embarassing dickheads by some large, Linux-hating corporation. I used to think I was paranoid until the RIAA started extorting money from college kids for writing a search engine, SCO threatens everyone from IBM to Linux users to the government, and Britney Spears is doing PSAs for "artists" rights.
Thanks for the info on the various products. Without having purchased them or knowing much about them, it was pretty informative. I do understand the value of good software.
It's comparable to say, spending $600 on a decent guitar or mountain bike or whatever else. It's not like you need a new one every week.
And you bought the guitar to just learn how to play "Mary had a little lamb", and you bought the mountain bike just to learn how to ride a bike. That is what some people do with Photoshop, they don't use it to its potential. That's a waste of money IMO.
However, I'd say that near anyone doing reasonably serious digital art will find benefits to owning Photoshop. It's an exceedingly flexible tool, versus say, that $300 copy of MS Word.
I think MS Word is very flexible, and you can get your money's worth out of it. At work, I use many of the features - comments, dynamic headers/footers, change tracking, etc. But at home? I think I have it installed on my Windows machine, I am not sure. I only boot it when I want to play Quake. I have OpenOffice installed on my Linux machine, but only opened it to check it out. The only time I need it is when someone sends me an attachment in doc format. I just don't compose any documents at home. I can't imagine that many people need MS Word at home. That is why most people I know have borrowed copies of Office installed at home - just in case they need it.
Personally, I think it's OK. I tried Photoshop once, and had trouble with it. I tried The Gimp, and had the same troubles. But I stuck with Gimp because it didn't cost me anything to do so. For Photoshop, I would have had to purchase it. That's a big investment for what I want to use it for. Most people are not power users of image editing software. In that case, the Gimp is a damn fine solution. They'll still have to learn the program though.
As for the cost of Photoshop...it's reasonable. It's a professional tool that's pretty standard. Buy it in a bundle for $1000 (or $500 educational). If you can't afford that, get Paint Shop Pro or Photoshop Elements. Considering it's pretty much a one time major expense coupled with $150 upgrades every 18-24 months, it's not a bad professional or serious hobby use cost. If all you want is to resize a pic for a background or something, obviously you don't need Photoshop. If you stand to make several thousand dollars from a project, $150 for that Photoshop 7 upgrade isn't much...having the right tools is worth quite a bit.
Wow. See, I think $500 for software is pretty expensive, especially if you are a student. Even if you are a serious hobbyist, $1000 seems like a lot of money to me. But I guess it is all relative, I could spend that much in one of my hobbies (but I try not to). So Photoshop is the tool for the pros, and The Gimp may not compare for those purposes. But how does it compare to Pint Shop Pro or Photoshop Elements? You never see any comparisons with those. I'd like to hear someone with experience evaluate these tools against each other. I agree, having the right tools is very important, but there is also tool overkill. This is where people insist on having everything top of the line, simply for the sake of having "top of the line", even if they don't have a clue why they want it.
First off, Photoshop is the standard because it kicks ass. I didn't mean to imply that it is the standard because it is the only program out there. But I think it is clearly the leader for professionals. And to some degree, the leader does become the defacto standard.
So you do this for a living... let's see, spending a few hundred bucks up front, verses several extra clicks for each and every manipulation you do for 8 hours a day for the next couple years. Hrmmm, not exactly a rough choice is it?
No, I don't do it for a living. And I never suggested not getting Photoshop. Read what I wrote. But do *I* need to spend the money for Photoshop? No, I don't do that for a living. Even if you are reasonably serious about image editing, The Gimp will suit you fine. I just think that people should use what suits their needs. Do I really need to spend the money for Photoshop? My answer, and I think the answer for most people, is no.
I really really really don't want them to lose because they are out of money. That is pure big-business tactics, and always sticks in my craw. Just because someone doesn't have the funds to fight doesn't mean that they should be defeated. That is the MS way.
I want them to have their asses handed to them fair and square. No backroom deals, no settlements.
It would only be tainted if Lucas made a prequel to it.
If you are a graphics illustrator, you don't use The Gimp. You use Photoshop. It is the standard. I don't have a problem with that, but I use The Gimp. I don't do professional work, although The Gimp is pretty darn impressive. It is OK if they both exist, and one is free and the other makes you auction body parts on eBay. (unless you have acquired a copy by other means, which I won't address). If you really NEED Photoshop, then buy it. If you just want a great image editing program, then use Gimp. I know a lot of people have Photoshop simply because it is expensive, and they like to think they have expensive things. But The Gimp will suit 90% of the people who need to edit images.
Not me. I hope they kick their asses swiftly and without mercy. It is more decisive that way. Let SCO wallow in the appeals process. The longer this is in the courts, the worse it is for Linux in general.
I have a small, stainless steel dish that has a good magnet on the back. It is meant to be used when working on your car (which I do) so that you can toss nuts/bolts into it and they stick. It works well on the car because you can stick it to the frame and it works upside down.
I use this thing all the time when I am working on PCs. I suppose you could just use a small magnet instead. Just keep it away from your magnetic storage devices. :-)
So I have somewhat of a two-part question:
Because the ideas are hard to comprehend even for those who are willing to try and understand it, do you find even more resistence from people with strong religious beliefs?
and part two:
Most of us have been brought up with some kind of religion in our lives, even if those beliefs may have changed. It is obvious that some people have a problem making the distinction between personal beliefs and science, as noted by the so-called "Christian Science" and "Intelligent Design" movements. Do you find that it is hard to separate your own personal religious beliefs from your work? Do you see this as an issue with other people in your field of study?
Or maybe they have come to realize that this Open Source thing is pretty cool. Maybe it has nothing to do with making GNU/Linux as an entity succeed, or about sticking it to Microsoft. Maybe it is just quality software into which it is worthwhile to invest a small amount of their time/money.
It is kind of the same concept, but the difference is that it is at the *individual* consumer level. That goes beyond creative pricing. You can be sure that the pricing will be set to be as unfair as possible. That is how things operate, it is always done to the limit of the law. If they can get away with it, they will.
I have a friend who doesn't understand why targeted advertising is a bad thing. He says he doesn't care what information they know about him, and he woulnd't mind getting targeted ads. At that level, I agree with him, but you *know* that it won't stop there, and advertisers will push and push and push. To paraphrase Eddie Murphy in one of his acts:
They take things too far
Give an inch, they take a foot.
Give a foot, they take a yard.
Give a man a rope, he wants to be a cowboy.
If you allow them to get away with something, they will, and take a bit further to test the limits. Advertising is bad enough already, they don't need encouragement like this. If we allow them to do targeted advertising, we are asking for whatever happens next.
I was surprised to see this on Slashdot, I know the mouse mod is two full years old. Check the date at the bottom, Aug 2001.
This is the funniest goddamn thing I have ever read on Slashdot.
Bravo. 1 million mod points to you.
WEPOS is the Warcraft, E-Mail, Porn Operating System.
" Your ideas are intriguing and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter."
"Microsoft Research" is the industry term more commonly known as the "Purchasing Department".
So encrypt your MP3 files.
I always wondered why people didn't do this. Wrap each shared MP3 in a password protected zip. Would you be liable for distributing encrypted MP3s? Technically, you took measures to make sure nobody else could use them.* (You put them on the net so you could access them from anywhere.) For anyone to prove they were copyrighted, they'd have to crack your password, which would be illegal and probably a DMCA violation. I know there was the whole "pig latin encryption" of the filenames, but that was just in good fun instead of any kind of real protection.
* Nobody said you have to use an extremely difficult password to crack. "riaasucks" would do nicely. :-)