So basically you are too lazy to look for entertainment - you want it delivered on a silver plate. And it isn't good enough that this service is free - you think that it should also have free unrestricted copy for your personal use.
What was it that the recording industry was acting like again?;)
You're right that any dude saying X is better than Y doesn't have much merit, especially when you are comparing features from different systems, because the interaction will all the other features factors into their usefullness.
Except that in this case it isn't entirely opinion. The Apple HCI group spend a good deal of time and money and did real research, and found empirically that doing things certain ways does improve the interface.
And the entire time they had to fight kicking and screaming against Jobs who didn't want to listen to them because he thought his opinion was better than their facts.
If you want to piss off a real interface designer, just tell them that thier work might is based on their opinion and yours is just as good as theirs. That's like telling a biologist that evolution is just their opinion.
No, make it locked period. There is no advantage whatsoever to having a moving doc. Why put in a "make my interface less usable" checkbox? And why make that checkbox checked by default? It is good to put in options when there is trade-off between two factors, because those factors may have different importance to different users. But I see no trade-off here. Just lock the dock (spock).
PS, for those who asked: locked means that the doc is anchored to one corner and does not move. Suppose it was ancored to the bottom right corner. Put all the unremovable items (trash etc) rightmost followed by the user shortcut icons, followed by dynamic items (other launched apps, minimized windows). Oh and put the most used static item (probably trash can) in the far corner. Then the unremovable items would never change position, and the user shortcuts would only change position when you change them. As it is now everything moves everytime you do do anything.
Yeah, but it really isn't any harder to steal peoples's credit card number and use that for gas.
Credit cards do have a strange sort of security. They put very little effort into preventing fraudulent charges and rely instead on catching fraud when it happens. If someone tried to sell me on this idea of security when it first came out, I would never have listened to them, but it does appear to work quite well.
Exactly. The source of this common misunderstanding was some calculations that people did a while back looking at the feasability study seeing if that large "solar plant" (the one with a bunch of reflectors all going to a single collector in the center), could be completely self containing. The result was that it couldn't because if solar was your only form of energy you would end up loosing alot of energy when converting it to various forms. Transportation was a particular problem - you waste alot of energy converting solar energy to a form that can be used by a train or semi.
So kwh-for-kwh solar does recoup at least 5x the energy that you put into it. And at the same time it does have a negative emergy ratio (note the m). What that means is that solar is great as a supplemental power source, but we need to find another energy source to power things like transportation.
I'm not certain what effect if any this has on the development of the software. To correct several misinformed posts: As the article mentions Red Hat stopped development on the project in 2002. The community continued which is why you see new releases after then. Second, the software was already open source - the licence has not changed. What has changed is that they given copyright over to FSF. The reason for this is that it is easier from a legal standpoint for the copyright of a project to be held by a single entity who can defend the entire project rather than each little peice being copyright of the respective authors. Since Redhat was no longer actively developing eCos, it made since for them to turn over the copyright to someone else. But unless people were resistant to contribute because RedHat still maintained copyright, I don't see how this will give the project new life. What may help more is having the fact that the project has a new maintainer (and the front-page slashdot article won't hurt either;)
But as far as Apple is concerned it is. They will still making money off of every HP-Pod sold, and the things are being sold on their terms - not like a free-market clone. So HP really isn't competing with them - they are cooperating to greatly increasing Apple's visability and market share, and in exchange they get to make blue iPods with their name on it, get a little bit of profit, (and be seen in the light of Apple's coolness:)
While there are probably a few people who will think that it is a uniquely HP product, I'm pretty sure that most people will clue-in when it uses Apple's software to connect to Apple's store, shows an Apple logo at boot up, and looks like an Apple product.
AFAIC, only iPod can support the m4p file format. There were rumors that one of the Nokia phones could, but I think that that ended up being tracked down to a typo. I know that none of the Panasonic players can support it.
If you think about, it since iTMS is being subsidized by iPod sales, if Apple were to allow others to make m4p players they would have people buying stuff off of iTMS (which costs Apple money) and playing it on less expensive third party players (which earns Apple nothing). Coupled with Apples past behavior, it is my opinion that they will avoid iPod clones for as long as possible.
If I am incorrect it would be good to know. I really like Apple's work, but am always wary of them because Jobs has a history of being just as agressive as Gates, and even more reluctant to standardize.
AAC isn't a proprietary Apple technology, and there are other AAC players available.
I am sick and tired of this Red Herring of an argument.
It doesn't matter if Apple used the "ultra supreme, open standard, endorsed by RMS, JWZ, and YHWH file format", the second they encrypt it using proprietary DRM, it becomes proprietary. Period. Can I play it on my standards-based AAC player? No, therefore it is not an open standard. It is embraced and extended.
Second, it is irrelevent that iTunes the software can rip, and play strait AAC and burn m4p to CD. MusicMatch's software can rip, and play straid mp3 and burn DRM'ed WMA to CD. Does that make the WMA good? Then why does Apple doing it make m4p good?
Please stop using this argument. It is a half-truth and you will end up decieving some poor dude into thinking that he can play iTMS music on something other than iTunes and iPod.
I really have to agree that m00nun1t has a point. Be honest with yourselves and think about how we would we be reacting if the situations were swapped. We would be accusing Microsoft of embracing and extending the AAC file format with their fairplay DRM. We would attack them of vendor lock-in by bundling iTunes on all version of their OS, and not licencing the DRM to other companies. We would attack them for their anti-competitive vertical integration, and plans to dominate the market. And we would be weakly praising Apple for at least being a little more cooperative with their proprietary file format.
Second, about the openness of file formats I would rank them from best to worst as such:
ogg = completely open standard mp3, m4a = open standards, but patent encumbered wma = proprietary, but widely licenced m4p = proprietary, no 3rd party licences (yet) Now I can can convert between any of these formats but I will loose quality in doing so. In order to listen to the music in the quality that I purchased it I have to stick with players that can play that file format. Apple's m4p provides the least amount of options for that case, and is the least open.
I do recognise that they had to have DRM to appease the Record Labels. But I don't know that they would get rid of the DRM if they could. Remember, Apple is subsidizing iTMS off the sales of their iPods and dropping the DRM would open the market up for competition. Then you have a bunch of people buying music off iTMS (which costs Apple money) and playing them on less expensive third party AAC-players. Knowing Apple, they will resist clones for as long as possible.
I promise you if the tables were turned we would not be giving Microsoft the credit that we are giving Apple, and if you look at history, Jobs really is no more commited to open standards than Gates. I like the work Apple does, but I am very reluctant to invest my money into a music collection where my continued listening is entirely dependant on a single company - that's the whole point of an open standard after all. Especially when higher quality, more open alternatives exist at comparable prices.
The codecs various were made available under various licences. MPlayer is redistributing them in violation of those licences.
MPlayer released it's code under a licence. Kiss is redistributing it in violation of the licence.
What is the difference? The fact that the codecs did not require money in exchange for a licence does not change the fact that you have no right to use them except as specified in the licence. The exact same holds for the mplayer source.
MPlayer is the last open source project that needs to be giving lectures on breaking licences. The only thing that makes their project usefull are the dll's which they redistribute, the legality of which is iffy at best.
While thier claim of GPL violation may be completely legitimate, the first rule when breaking the law is you don't go calling the authorities if you get screwed.
Because matter is the minority substance in space, it will be space that is trying to displace matter.
To clarify - water is not trying to displace air because it is a minority substance, but because it is a less dense substance. The water pressure at a point is caused by all the water above that point pushing down (because of gravity). Therefore the water pressure at the bottom of the bubble is greater than the pressure at the top of the bubble, because there is more water above it, at the bottom than at the top.
Therefore the net force on the bubble due to water pressure is in the upward direction. The force of gravity on the bubble is not enough to counter this, and thus the total net force is still in the upward direction and so the bubble moves up.
The important part is that the only thing that causes the bubble to move is a difference in water pressure on one side of the bubble compared to the other.
But, what happens when you have two solid objects floating in space? Eventually, they will move toward each other because now the amount of space between the two objects is superseded by the increase in combined proportional mass relative to the two objects (however, the space on other side of both objects is now the majority).
Why? What causes this? And as far as bubble movement is concerned the only possible cause is differences in water pressure.
Say you had a bubble in some water. The water pressure to the left and right of it would be the same. Now place another bubble directly to the left of it. There is no reason for the water pressure between the two bubbles to suddenly drop. And yet that is what would have to happen if the bubbles were to be attracted to one another.
Furthermore, if two bubbles were moving towards each other this would cause the pressure between them to increase, which would actually apply a force to slow them down. The opposite would occur if bubbles are moving away from one another. So water pressure actually dampers any motion between bubbles.
In conclusion a pressure model does not predict an attractive force between two objects varying soley according to their their mass and distance from one another, which is what emperical gravity measurements tell us. Furthermore, it does predict a force which which is a result of their relative velocities, which is something we don't see in emperical data.
Sorry if I explained a lot of things you already understand but it's impossible for me to be aware of what you understand, since I don't know you.
Amendum. If a bubble was traveling through up through the water you might expect lower pressure than normal on either side of the bubble due to the movement of the water (simular to how a carburator works). However (at best - I haven't thought this through) this would only allow for attraction of bubbles perpendicular to their velocity vector, and would thus still not model gravity as we see it. Even stranger is that the potential force of "gravity" would be weaker the further you got from the center of the universe, since the matter-bubbles would be traveling more slowly (less space-gravity means less difference in pressure, hence less force). Another sticky point include the fact that it would create a canonical reference frame much like the concept of ether did, and would likely contradict relativity in many cases.
Re:Gravity doesn't pull, but rather pushes.
on
Double Pulsar Discovered
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Interesting idea...
If I understand you correctly, you are proposing that gravity is property of space, not matter. In this idea space is attracted to space, and as a result the center of the universe is the center of "space mass", and has the highest amount of space presure. The effect that we see is that matter (which has a lower space-density) is displaced by space away from the center, and towards the outer edges. Is this correct?
Now this model would (qualitatively at least) predict that space pressure would cause matter to move away from its (spaces's) center, and that space-presure would form planets in spheres (matter bubbles). Where the model falls apart in my eyes is that it does not predict that orbits are possible. Space pressure would not cause two matter bubbles to be attracted to one another over a distance, and that is precicly what we observe in an orbit - one matter bubble has continous force being applied to it in the direction of the other bubble.
You are looking at it like a vacation. Think of it instead as the ultimate telecomute:
* You don't have to pay rent * You don't have to shower * You get to live off ramen noodles * The company pager is futile * You have the biggest most scenic office window ever.
The difference is that the tax code explicitly allows you to file on behalf of someone else, while the terms of the Microsoft settlement explicitly disallow it.
msfreepc.com was telling people they could do something which they did not have the right to do. (The loan aspect of it was fine, the filling aspect was the problem)
No they don't have the same kernel. Every single distro uses a modified version of Linux, which makes it extremely difficult to distribute binary drivers. Whether this is good or bad left as an exercize for the reader. Red hat especially. They have so many patched applied to their default kernal that is is a nightmare to try and compile a your own kernal (say you have your own patches that you need to use) and still have have third party drivers work.
Given how much Japanese Companies love their proprietary solutions (think Sony), binary drivers are probably a high priority for them.
Also, the MemoryStick media that they back (and surely put in this laptop) is much more expensive than CF or SD or anything else.
Also remember that one of the main reasons that MemorySticks are more expensive is that it they are proprietary, while the CompactFlash interface (form factor / pinout / comunication protocol) is an open standard. I don't know if SD is proprietary or not.
Also, since CF has the contoller on the chip not the reader, it allows a lot of flexability in terms of the actual technology used to implement it, providing more opportunity to adapt for the future than both Sony MemorySticks or SD.
I had and entirely different opinion about Philosophy of Science when I took it. The purpose of the class from my point of view was to clearly draw boudries of what was scientific, and what was not. As well as what could things could be answered by science and what things could not. There are many ideas which cannot be proven one way or another - for example the existence of free will. Therefore any ideas about whether free will exists or doesn't is an opinion. Now it's one thing to believe something contrary to science, but it's quite another to have opinions on things which are orthoganal to science.
At my school it was not required, but I felt it should have been, or even better covered briefly at the high school level. I have known way too many scientists that treat their opinions on god and free will as though it were scientific fact, and will ridicule anyone who thinks differently. Falsely attributing a personal opinion to science is just as dangerous as attibuting a personal opinion to a higher power. It gives one's words more power than they should have. Furthermore, it hurts science to allow non-scientific beliefs into the collective cannon.
My philosphy of science class made me both more rigorous when it comes to scientific matters, and more tolerent when it comes to non-scientific ones. I considered both of these effects to be greatly benificial.
Hmm, this is a interesting idea - lemme play devil's advocate. While emperical data is solid (if taken the correct context), there may very well be different models (ie theorems) that fit the emperical data, and thus provide valid alternative views of the world. Furthermore, scientists don't concider Newtonian physics to be invalid, but rather an aproximation usefull for a(n extremely common) special case. In fact quantum mechanics and general relativity are also incomplete, but we don't know what they are approximations of. Lastly, many scientists are of the opinion that the models of quantem mechanics may likely not directly correspond to real things in the real world, but are mearly an insanely good model.
If theory A correctly models a proper superset of the situations that theory B does, then it is obvious that theory A is more complete and thus more valid than theory B. But suppose there is another theory C which is also models a subset of the situations that theory A does, but a somewhat different subset than theory B. How do we determine the relative validity of models B and C? This is exacly the case that we have with general relativity and quantum mechanics - alternate incomplete truths. Given this, I could see it being very possible that there are models that were created by different cultures through-out time that could be concidered equally valid as european models. Studying these might even give us ideas on how to reformulate our current theories, which may in turn lead to a creative insight that extends our current theories. Looking at things from a different perspective often does that.
I have never read any postmodernist "alternative scientific truths", so this may not be what they are advocating. If they are claiming that A and B are equaly valid even though one obviosly models things more acurately than the other, then in that case I whole-heartedly agree that they are stupid-heads. But the concept in general is not invalid.
So? Computer prices keep dropping while software prices have not.
Right now, MS Windows + Office costs almost as much as computer does. Since an OS and office suite is pretty much required for a computer to be usefull, this is the same as giving them a $300 dollar discount on the computer, which lowers the barrier for entry significantly. In a few years, a computer will not be an economic burden for anyone living in a first world country.
$500 Decent Computer $200 Decent Monitor
$200 MS Windows XP Home Edition $300 MS Office 2003 Standard
Slashdot Mirror
So basically you are too lazy to look for entertainment - you want it delivered on a silver plate. And it isn't good enough that this service is free - you think that it should also have free unrestricted copy for your personal use.
;)
What was it that the recording industry was acting like again?
The astronauts should do what the rest of do when we need money for long road trips - donate plasma.
You're right that any dude saying X is better than Y doesn't have much merit, especially when you are comparing features from different systems, because the interaction will all the other features factors into their usefullness.
Except that in this case it isn't entirely opinion. The Apple HCI group spend a good deal of time and money and did real research, and found empirically that doing things certain ways does improve the interface.
And the entire time they had to fight kicking and screaming against Jobs who didn't want to listen to them because he thought his opinion was better than their facts.
If you want to piss off a real interface designer, just tell them that thier work might is based on their opinion and yours is just as good as theirs. That's like telling a biologist that evolution is just their opinion.
Make it lockable
No, make it locked period. There is no advantage whatsoever to having a moving doc. Why put in a "make my interface less usable" checkbox? And why make that checkbox checked by default? It is good to put in options when there is trade-off between two factors, because those factors may have different importance to different users. But I see no trade-off here. Just lock the dock (spock).
PS, for those who asked: locked means that the doc is anchored to one corner and does not move. Suppose it was ancored to the bottom right corner. Put all the unremovable items (trash etc) rightmost followed by the user shortcut icons, followed by dynamic items (other launched apps, minimized windows). Oh and put the most used static item (probably trash can) in the far corner. Then the unremovable items would never change position, and the user shortcuts would only change position when you change them. As it is now everything moves everytime you do do anything.
Yeah, but it really isn't any harder to steal peoples's credit card number and use that for gas.
Credit cards do have a strange sort of security. They put very little effort into preventing fraudulent charges and rely instead on catching fraud when it happens. If someone tried to sell me on this idea of security when it first came out, I would never have listened to them, but it does appear to work quite well.
Exactly. The source of this common misunderstanding was some calculations that people did a while back looking at the feasability study seeing if that large "solar plant" (the one with a bunch of reflectors all going to a single collector in the center), could be completely self containing. The result was that it couldn't because if solar was your only form of energy you would end up loosing alot of energy when converting it to various forms. Transportation was a particular problem - you waste alot of energy converting solar energy to a form that can be used by a train or semi.
So kwh-for-kwh solar does recoup at least 5x the energy that you put into it. And at the same time it does have a negative emergy ratio (note the m). What that means is that solar is great as a supplemental power source, but we need to find another energy source to power things like transportation.
I'm not certain what effect if any this has on the development of the software. To correct several misinformed posts: As the article mentions Red Hat stopped development on the project in 2002. The community continued which is why you see new releases after then. Second, the software was already open source - the licence has not changed. What has changed is that they given copyright over to FSF. The reason for this is that it is easier from a legal standpoint for the copyright of a project to be held by a single entity who can defend the entire project rather than each little peice being copyright of the respective authors. Since Redhat was no longer actively developing eCos, it made since for them to turn over the copyright to someone else. But unless people were resistant to contribute because RedHat still maintained copyright, I don't see how this will give the project new life. What may help more is having the fact that the project has a new maintainer (and the front-page slashdot article won't hurt either ;)
But as far as Apple is concerned it is. They will still making money off of every HP-Pod sold, and the things are being sold on their terms - not like a free-market clone. So HP really isn't competing with them - they are cooperating to greatly increasing Apple's visability and market share, and in exchange they get to make blue iPods with their name on it, get a little bit of profit, (and be seen in the light of Apple's coolness :)
While there are probably a few people who will think that it is a uniquely HP product, I'm pretty sure that most people will clue-in when it uses Apple's software to connect to Apple's store, shows an Apple logo at boot up, and looks like an Apple product.
AFAIC, only iPod can support the m4p file format. There were rumors that one of the Nokia phones could, but I think that that ended up being tracked down to a typo. I know that none of the Panasonic players can support it.
If you think about, it since iTMS is being subsidized by iPod sales, if Apple were to allow others to make m4p players they would have people buying stuff off of iTMS (which costs Apple money) and playing it on less expensive third party players (which earns Apple nothing). Coupled with Apples past behavior, it is my opinion that they will avoid iPod clones for as long as possible.
If I am incorrect it would be good to know. I really like Apple's work, but am always wary of them because Jobs has a history of being just as agressive as Gates, and even more reluctant to standardize.
AAC isn't a proprietary Apple technology, and there are other AAC players available.
I am sick and tired of this Red Herring of an argument.
It doesn't matter if Apple used the "ultra supreme, open standard, endorsed by RMS, JWZ, and YHWH file format", the second they encrypt it using proprietary DRM, it becomes proprietary. Period. Can I play it on my standards-based AAC player? No, therefore it is not an open standard. It is embraced and extended.
Second, it is irrelevent that iTunes the software can rip, and play strait AAC and burn m4p to CD. MusicMatch's software can rip, and play straid mp3 and burn DRM'ed WMA to CD. Does that make the WMA good? Then why does Apple doing it make m4p good?
Please stop using this argument. It is a half-truth and you will end up decieving some poor dude into thinking that he can play iTMS music on something other than iTunes and iPod.
I really have to agree that m00nun1t has a point. Be honest with yourselves and think about how we would we be reacting if the situations were swapped. We would be accusing Microsoft of embracing and extending the AAC file format with their fairplay DRM. We would attack them of vendor lock-in by bundling iTunes on all version of their OS, and not licencing the DRM to other companies. We would attack them for their anti-competitive vertical integration, and plans to dominate the market. And we would be weakly praising Apple for at least being a little more cooperative with their proprietary file format.
Second, about the openness of file formats I would rank them from best to worst as such:
ogg = completely open standard
mp3, m4a = open standards, but patent encumbered
wma = proprietary, but widely licenced
m4p = proprietary, no 3rd party licences (yet)
Now I can can convert between any of these formats but I will loose quality in doing so. In order to listen to the music in the quality that I purchased it I have to stick with players that can play that file format. Apple's m4p provides the least amount of options for that case, and is the least open.
I do recognise that they had to have DRM to appease the Record Labels. But I don't know that they would get rid of the DRM if they could. Remember, Apple is subsidizing iTMS off the sales of their iPods and dropping the DRM would open the market up for competition. Then you have a bunch of people buying music off iTMS (which costs Apple money) and playing them on less expensive third party AAC-players. Knowing Apple, they will resist clones for as long as possible.
I promise you if the tables were turned we would not be giving Microsoft the credit that we are giving Apple, and if you look at history, Jobs really is no more commited to open standards than Gates. I like the work Apple does, but I am very reluctant to invest my money into a music collection where my continued listening is entirely dependant on a single company - that's the whole point of an open standard after all. Especially when higher quality, more open alternatives exist at comparable prices.
No I don't see a difference.
The codecs various were made available under various licences. MPlayer is redistributing them in violation of those licences.
MPlayer released it's code under a licence. Kiss is redistributing it in violation of the licence.
What is the difference? The fact that the codecs did not require money in exchange for a licence does not change the fact that you have no right to use them except as specified in the licence. The exact same holds for the mplayer source.
MPlayer is the last open source project that needs to be giving lectures on breaking licences. The only thing that makes their project usefull are the dll's which they redistribute, the legality of which is iffy at best.
While thier claim of GPL violation may be completely legitimate, the first rule when breaking the law is you don't go calling the authorities if you get screwed.
Because matter is the minority substance in space, it will be space that is trying to displace matter.
To clarify - water is not trying to displace air because it is a minority substance, but because it is a less dense substance. The water pressure at a point is caused by all the water above that point pushing down (because of gravity). Therefore the water pressure at the bottom of the bubble is greater than the pressure at the top of the bubble, because there is more water above it, at the bottom than at the top.
Therefore the net force on the bubble due to water pressure is in the upward direction. The force of gravity on the bubble is not enough to counter this, and thus the total net force is still in the upward direction and so the bubble moves up.
The important part is that the only thing that causes the bubble to move is a difference in water pressure on one side of the bubble compared to the other.
But, what happens when you have two solid objects floating in space? Eventually, they will move toward each other because now the amount of space between the two objects is superseded by the increase in combined proportional mass relative to the two objects (however, the space on other side of both objects is now the majority).
Why? What causes this? And as far as bubble movement is concerned the only possible cause is differences in water pressure.
Say you had a bubble in some water. The water pressure to the left and right of it would be the same. Now place another bubble directly to the left of it. There is no reason for the water pressure between the two bubbles to suddenly drop. And yet that is what would have to happen if the bubbles were to be attracted to one another.
Furthermore, if two bubbles were moving towards each other this would cause the pressure between them to increase, which would actually apply a force to slow them down. The opposite would occur if bubbles are moving away from one another. So water pressure actually dampers any motion between bubbles.
In conclusion a pressure model does not predict an attractive force between two objects varying soley according to their their mass and distance from one another, which is what emperical gravity measurements tell us. Furthermore, it does predict a force which which is a result of their relative velocities, which is something we don't see in emperical data.
Sorry if I explained a lot of things you already understand but it's impossible for me to be aware of what you understand, since I don't know you.
Amendum. If a bubble was traveling through up through the water you might expect lower pressure than normal on either side of the bubble due to the movement of the water (simular to how a carburator works). However (at best - I haven't thought this through) this would only allow for attraction of bubbles perpendicular to their velocity vector, and would thus still not model gravity as we see it. Even stranger is that the potential force of "gravity" would be weaker the further you got from the center of the universe, since the matter-bubbles would be traveling more slowly (less space-gravity means less difference in pressure, hence less force). Another sticky point include the fact that it would create a canonical reference frame much like the concept of ether did, and would likely contradict relativity in many cases.
Interesting idea ...
If I understand you correctly, you are proposing that gravity is property of space, not matter. In this idea space is attracted to space, and as a result the center of the universe is the center of "space mass", and has the highest amount of space presure. The effect that we see is that matter (which has a lower space-density) is displaced by space away from the center, and towards the outer edges. Is this correct?
Now this model would (qualitatively at least) predict that space pressure would cause matter to move away from its (spaces's) center, and that space-presure would form planets in spheres (matter bubbles). Where the model falls apart in my eyes is that it does not predict that orbits are possible. Space pressure would not cause two matter bubbles to be attracted to one another over a distance, and that is precicly what we observe in an orbit - one matter bubble has continous force being applied to it in the direction of the other bubble.
You are looking at it like a vacation. Think of it instead as the ultimate telecomute:
:)
* You don't have to pay rent
* You don't have to shower
* You get to live off ramen noodles
* The company pager is futile
* You have the biggest most scenic office window ever.
Sounds like a geeks dream to me
The difference is that the tax code explicitly allows you to file on behalf of someone else, while the terms of the Microsoft settlement explicitly disallow it.
msfreepc.com was telling people they could do something which they did not have the right to do. (The loan aspect of it was fine, the filling aspect was the problem)
No they don't have the same kernel. Every single distro uses a modified version of Linux, which makes it extremely difficult to distribute binary drivers. Whether this is good or bad left as an exercize for the reader. Red hat especially. They have so many patched applied to their default kernal that is is a nightmare to try and compile a your own kernal (say you have your own patches that you need to use) and still have have third party drivers work.
Given how much Japanese Companies love their proprietary solutions (think Sony), binary drivers are probably a high priority for them.
Also, the MemoryStick media that they back (and surely put in this laptop) is much more expensive than CF or SD or anything else.
Also remember that one of the main reasons that MemorySticks are more expensive is that it they are proprietary, while the CompactFlash interface (form factor / pinout / comunication protocol) is an open standard. I don't know if SD is proprietary or not.
Also, since CF has the contoller on the chip not the reader, it allows a lot of flexability in terms of the actual technology used to implement it, providing more opportunity to adapt for the future than both Sony MemorySticks or SD.
I had and entirely different opinion about Philosophy of Science when I took it. The purpose of the class from my point of view was to clearly draw boudries of what was scientific, and what was not. As well as what could things could be answered by science and what things could not. There are many ideas which cannot be proven one way or another - for example the existence of free will. Therefore any ideas about whether free will exists or doesn't is an opinion. Now it's one thing to believe something contrary to science, but it's quite another to have opinions on things which are orthoganal to science.
At my school it was not required, but I felt it should have been, or even better covered briefly at the high school level. I have known way too many scientists that treat their opinions on god and free will as though it were scientific fact, and will ridicule anyone who thinks differently. Falsely attributing a personal opinion to science is just as dangerous as attibuting a personal opinion to a higher power. It gives one's words more power than they should have. Furthermore, it hurts science to allow non-scientific beliefs into the collective cannon.
My philosphy of science class made me both more rigorous when it comes to scientific matters, and more tolerent when it comes to non-scientific ones. I considered both of these effects to be greatly benificial.
Hmm, this is a interesting idea - lemme play devil's advocate. While emperical data is solid (if taken the correct context), there may very well be different models (ie theorems) that fit the emperical data, and thus provide valid alternative views of the world. Furthermore, scientists don't concider Newtonian physics to be invalid, but rather an aproximation usefull for a(n extremely common) special case. In fact quantum mechanics and general relativity are also incomplete, but we don't know what they are approximations of. Lastly, many scientists are of the opinion that the models of quantem mechanics may likely not directly correspond to real things in the real world, but are mearly an insanely good model.
If theory A correctly models a proper superset of the situations that theory B does, then it is obvious that theory A is more complete and thus more valid than theory B. But suppose there is another theory C which is also models a subset of the situations that theory A does, but a somewhat different subset than theory B. How do we determine the relative validity of models B and C? This is exacly the case that we have with general relativity and quantum mechanics - alternate incomplete truths. Given this, I could see it being very possible that there are models that were created by different cultures through-out time that could be concidered equally valid as european models. Studying these might even give us ideas on how to reformulate our current theories, which may in turn lead to a creative insight that extends our current theories. Looking at things from a different perspective often does that.
I have never read any postmodernist "alternative scientific truths", so this may not be what they are advocating. If they are claiming that A and B are equaly valid even though one obviosly models things more acurately than the other, then in that case I whole-heartedly agree that they are stupid-heads. But the concept in general is not invalid.
It really is a link to wil weaton's website. Please give ChrisN79's karma a good what for.
So? Computer prices keep dropping while software prices have not.
Right now, MS Windows + Office costs almost as much as computer does. Since an OS and office suite is pretty much required for a computer to be usefull, this is the same as giving them a $300 dollar discount on the computer, which lowers the barrier for entry significantly. In a few years, a computer will not be an economic burden for anyone living in a first world country.
$500 Decent Computer
$200 Decent Monitor
$200 MS Windows XP Home Edition
$300 MS Office 2003 Standard
Or perhaps it has something to do with the fact that sunlight does not have much blue in it because it is scattered in the atmosphere.
What you should do is get yourself a computer with a 12VDC power input.
Wouldn't any laptop satisfy this requirement since the AC-DC power adaptor is external?