Unless:
It causes harm to someone.
It is a direct threat to personal well-being.
It violates someone's intellectual property.
It could possibly be used to violate someone's intellectual property.
It is construed by someone to be offensive in some way.
It is degrading to some group of people to which you do not belong, unless it is derogatory to a group that is the majority. Then it's ok.
It is, in some way, derogatory towards a corporate entity.
It somehow inhibits someone else from possibly making some money, in some way, at some time, at some place, that will be disclosed at your trial.
Magnepans don't necessarily require more power than other speakers, assuming similar efficiency, but require an amplifier who's outputs work well with an extremely capacitive load. Magnepans sound like they're made of oatmeal when powered by your typical Japanese receiver.
Some companies stretch the film over different-sized frames to create panels that generate different ranges of frequency. The Martin Logan CLS has three different regions on the panel.
Martin Logan has been producing electrostatic speakers that are made with a transparent mylar film for decades. A thin layer of conductive material is deposited on the film. The film is attached to a frame and wires run along the side of the film to carry the signal. A high frequency static field is generated on either side of the panel, which, obviously, creates vibration when voltage is applied.
Also, Quad produced an electrostatic loudspeaker in the late 50's, which, I believe, is still made, in some form, today.
Nobody has forgotten anything, regarding consoles. Other than the early adopters, the console crowd largely buys from the vendor with the most/best games. Sega never had a chance with the Dreamcast because Sega could never get enough quality titles to market, which is exactly what hurt N64. Sony, a newcomer in the market, had a flood of good games and they now own the market. With the backward compatability of of the PS2 console Sony has made sure that they will; continue to own the market.
The only hope Microsoft has is if they can buy sony, or if they make Xbox games playable on a PC.
OSX server will run on almost any PCI Macintosh. I have loaded OSX on a Macintosh 8600, 9500, and 7500, which means that it will probably run on a 7600, 8500, 9600, Daystar Genesis MP systems, and others.
Yes, I agree it's unfair. But, remember this: Youths are generally only half as smart as they think they are, and twice as smart as their bosses think they are. There's a happy medium to this, luckily. It's called your 20's.
I have a similar problem to yours, so I can symathize with you. I have no college education. Can anyone relate to this situation? I contribute as much as anyone else, my work is at least as good as the average of my peers, and I my ideas still get passed on until everyone else's ideas fail.
My advice is to work as hard as you can so that you can retire young and not have to deal with any of this nonsense. The corporate world sucks...so, enjoy your life.
At least they asked VA Linux to remove the material and didn't immediately go to court. Given the level of competency of most Macintosh users (this is not a slam), I can see why Apple would be concerned about, not a simlilar product necessarily, but a visual clone of their product before their product has been released. It is somewhat reasonable to assume that some potential users will confuse Apple's Public Source license with "open source", which is the first level of confusion. Also, the GUI (Aqua) for OSX is similar in nature to X and a window manager, which is what "Themes" is all about. The themes in question are not similar products, from the screenshots, they are identical products. This is the second level of confusion. AFAIK, the primary unfree, or non-public part of OSX is Aqua. The reference to Apple's suit against Microsoft for a similar look and feel does not apply here. If a user (don't ask me about the conditions under which this might occur) downloaded and used this visual clone, it would not operate in a manner concurrent with claims from Apple. This could potentially have negative effects on the perception of Apple's future product.
It is difficult for many open source advocates to understand a decision like this from a company who seems to be moving in the right direction, but you have to remember that Apple, as a company, has to follow a different set of rules. Investors in Apple did not jump in because Apple is a "bleeding edge, open source, Linux, dot-com" machine, they did so for the same reasons someone would invest in Oracle, Sun, IBM, etc. Apple did not do Public Source to contribute to the "movement", they did it to contribute to their bottom line. Although Apple may be a better company than they were, the are still Apple and they are still looking out for themselves.
The fact is that the article was unnecessary. It seems to be a plea to rectify the "unfairness" of the Linux community for not embracing Intel's new chip with proper fervor. BIG DEAL!! Intel has an inflated ego brimming with self-importance. Did you ever stop to think that if only "users", market ANALysts and Intel loves Intel when most Slashdot readers could care less, maybe there's not all that much to get excited about.
The fact of the matter is that Linux is a kernel and it does work on the P4. What supposedly doesn't, are some of the distributions. By definition, "Linux" can't look bad because the kernel works.
Intel seems to speculate that Linux users are apt to purchase the P4 as soon as it hits the shelves. This is, most likely, not the case and certainly not news worthy. Linux users, and especially *nix users, are likely to review a hardware compatibility list before they throw down for a new piece of hardware.
IMHO, it is typical of Intel to place excessive value on their rollouts and generate hype at any opportunity. Their opinion of the importance of their own products is far more lofty than the reality of it.
If your office has florescent lights (as most do), put your monitor on a stand so that the middle of the display is at eye level and get a hood for your monitor that protrudes at least six from the front of the CRT and is black.
This solved the nauseous feeling I when I didn't take a short break from staring at my monitor every hour.
Music on the radio is advertising, in a way. People are more likely to buy music by artists they've heard of. And hearing a song on the radio is exposure of an artist. Even though I listen to the radio for enjoyment, when I hear a song I enjoy, I consider its purchase. That's advertising. The intent may not have been so, but that's what it is.
Expecting CD sales or concerts to subsidise broadcast radio, especially in the age of Napster, is unreasonable and unfair.
Broadcast radio (in the US) is subsidised by commercial advertising. CD sales is a byproduct of radio listening, whether it's broadcast or internet radio.
Slashdot Mirror
Nothing like a blatant lie. Too late now...
m l
http://slashdot.org/articles/00/12/14/1826208.sht
is a God-given right that Americans enjoy.
Unless:
It causes harm to someone.
It is a direct threat to personal well-being.
It violates someone's intellectual property.
It could possibly be used to violate someone's intellectual property.
It is construed by someone to be offensive in some way.
It is degrading to some group of people to which you do not belong, unless it is derogatory to a group that is the majority. Then it's ok.
It is, in some way, derogatory towards a corporate entity.
It somehow inhibits someone else from possibly making some money, in some way, at some time, at some place, that will be disclosed at your trial.
Am I forgetting something?
The article mentions the use of duct tape, but the didn't mention which side is up.
Somebody set up us the bomb
Magnepans don't necessarily require more power than other speakers, assuming similar efficiency, but require an amplifier who's outputs work well with an extremely capacitive load. Magnepans sound like they're made of oatmeal when powered by your typical Japanese receiver.
Some companies stretch the film over different-sized frames to create panels that generate different ranges of frequency. The Martin Logan CLS has three different regions on the panel.
Martin Logan has been producing electrostatic speakers that are made with a transparent mylar film for decades. A thin layer of conductive material is deposited on the film. The film is attached to a frame and wires run along the side of the film to carry the signal. A high frequency static field is generated on either side of the panel, which, obviously, creates vibration when voltage is applied.
Also, Quad produced an electrostatic loudspeaker in the late 50's, which, I believe, is still made, in some form, today.
Cool! We can step on the cable and disrupt networking. It's my childhood all over again!
Nobody has forgotten anything, regarding consoles. Other than the early adopters, the console crowd largely buys from the vendor with the most/best games. Sega never had a chance with the Dreamcast because Sega could never get enough quality titles to market, which is exactly what hurt N64. Sony, a newcomer in the market, had a flood of good games and they now own the market. With the backward compatability of of the PS2 console Sony has made sure that they will; continue to own the market.
The only hope Microsoft has is if they can buy sony, or if they make Xbox games playable on a PC.
They are, after all, a bunch of users.
OSX server will run on almost any PCI Macintosh. I have loaded OSX on a Macintosh 8600, 9500, and 7500, which means that it will probably run on a 7600, 8500, 9600, Daystar Genesis MP systems, and others.
If you don't like what's in Hustler, don't buy one. I guess France doesn't subscribe to the theory of Freedom of Speech.
Yes, I agree it's unfair. But, remember this: Youths are generally only half as smart as they think they are, and twice as smart as their bosses think they are. There's a happy medium to this, luckily. It's called your 20's.
I have a similar problem to yours, so I can symathize with you. I have no college education. Can anyone relate to this situation? I contribute as much as anyone else, my work is at least as good as the average of my peers, and I my ideas still get passed on until everyone else's ideas fail.
My advice is to work as hard as you can so that you can retire young and not have to deal with any of this nonsense. The corporate world sucks...so, enjoy your life.
We should do an EMP over the Middle East. Do you think we could hear the "Awwwwww" from here?
700 Free hours of cable every month! Too bad Time-Warner doesn't do long distance.
At least they asked VA Linux to remove the material and didn't immediately go to court. Given the level of competency of most Macintosh users (this is not a slam), I can see why Apple would be concerned about, not a simlilar product necessarily, but a visual clone of their product before their product has been released. It is somewhat reasonable to assume that some potential users will confuse Apple's Public Source license with "open source", which is the first level of confusion. Also, the GUI (Aqua) for OSX is similar in nature to X and a window manager, which is what "Themes" is all about. The themes in question are not similar products, from the screenshots, they are identical products. This is the second level of confusion. AFAIK, the primary unfree, or non-public part of OSX is Aqua. The reference to Apple's suit against Microsoft for a similar look and feel does not apply here. If a user (don't ask me about the conditions under which this might occur) downloaded and used this visual clone, it would not operate in a manner concurrent with claims from Apple. This could potentially have negative effects on the perception of Apple's future product.
It is difficult for many open source advocates to understand a decision like this from a company who seems to be moving in the right direction, but you have to remember that Apple, as a company, has to follow a different set of rules. Investors in Apple did not jump in because Apple is a "bleeding edge, open source, Linux, dot-com" machine, they did so for the same reasons someone would invest in Oracle, Sun, IBM, etc. Apple did not do Public Source to contribute to the "movement", they did it to contribute to their bottom line. Although Apple may be a better company than they were, the are still Apple and they are still looking out for themselves.
The fact is that the article was unnecessary. It seems to be a plea to rectify the "unfairness" of the Linux community for not embracing Intel's new chip with proper fervor. BIG DEAL!! Intel has an inflated ego brimming with self-importance. Did you ever stop to think that if only "users", market ANALysts and Intel loves Intel when most Slashdot readers could care less, maybe there's not all that much to get excited about.
The fact of the matter is that Linux is a kernel and it does work on the P4. What supposedly doesn't, are some of the distributions. By definition, "Linux" can't look bad because the kernel works.
Intel seems to speculate that Linux users are apt to purchase the P4 as soon as it hits the shelves. This is, most likely, not the case and certainly not news worthy. Linux users, and especially *nix users, are likely to review a hardware compatibility list before they throw down for a new piece of hardware.
IMHO, it is typical of Intel to place excessive value on their rollouts and generate hype at any opportunity. Their opinion of the importance of their own products is far more lofty than the reality of it.
If your office has florescent lights (as most do), put your monitor on a stand so that the middle of the display is at eye level and get a hood for your monitor that protrudes at least six from the front of the CRT and is black.
This solved the nauseous feeling I when I didn't take a short break from staring at my monitor every hour.
NT
10GHz will only matter if you can feed the processor. I still see Athlon 1GHz systems being sold with 5400RPM drives and 128MB of RAM.
It's like a Ferarri with a lawn mower engine.
Music on the radio is advertising, in a way. People are more likely to buy music by artists they've heard of. And hearing a song on the radio is exposure of an artist. Even though I listen to the radio for enjoyment, when I hear a song I enjoy, I consider its purchase. That's advertising. The intent may not have been so, but that's what it is. Expecting CD sales or concerts to subsidise broadcast radio, especially in the age of Napster, is unreasonable and unfair. Broadcast radio (in the US) is subsidised by commercial advertising. CD sales is a byproduct of radio listening, whether it's broadcast or internet radio.
Great! Now I have to change my sig...*grumbles*
Actually, you're sick of uninformed people.
If this were a democracy, we would all vote on it, which we are not doing. Hence they don't have to do what we "think" is right.
They do if they want to get reelected.
That only applies if we idiots a stupid enough not to reelect them.
AFAIK, Ted Kennedy is still in office.