... would find a way to relate this not in any way to Apple.
Apple simply does not figure in most of the markets where HP moves, while in the other hand HP could encroach into Apple's markets (they compete against each other in all of Apple's computer lines).
Film and video equipment is spiralling down in price (it is all electronics after all). And ideas are a dime a dozen (really, everybody and his dog are creative. People: creativity is a human trait, not a skill reserved to the relations of BBC and Production Companies' moguls).
If you pay £20 000 000 to somebody like Jonathan Ross, for a frankly mediocre variety show (which amounts to little more than a PR exercies for the latest singer, starlet or celebrity de jour) you can easily pay £1 000 000 to somebody else to make the same crappy show (really, is that guy really that good?) and use the other £19 mill to produce 19 1 hour programmes at 1 million a pop.
1 million is certainly little, but is not peanuts. And like that you could skim through the BBC's budget and find out that the savings are there for the taking.
The BBC would be perfectly fine, it just lacks the people with the courage to make it much better than it currently is.
Please tell me something. When you buy something do you buy from somebody that imposes asinine terms on you or from somebody that accommodates your needs?
In the case of the BBC one of the overwhelming needs should be that any content produced should be very accessible, with no restrictions at all, and that people should be free to do whatever they want with the content. In other words, it is time the BBC thinks more about their pay masters rather than its providers. What a novel concept!
They could do that, some Production companies would politely decline (because they want to continue living from the copyright gravy train) but some others would come forward and produce work in those terms, finding ways to make a profit.
Perhaps the productions would become more expensive (I doubt it, filming equipment is coming down in price dramatically, so again, unless the precious "creative" people just want to enrich themselves, I fail to see why producing work that would be freely released later should affect them), but again, most of the BBC output is crap (Jonathan Ross, anything with Russell Brand, and the innumerable quiz shows), so maybe it would not be a bad idea to concentrate the minds of production companies by stopping them living of perpetual copyrights.
But I will tell you why this will not happen. The relationship between the bosses in the BBC (hundreds of them!) and the production companies is incestuous in nature. People that work in the BBC jump to work into Production companies and vice versa, and then the ones are the friends of the others.
What hope there is that the BBC will look after the interests of its paymasters when in reality the interests of all the parties involved are elsewhere?
It is only by means of strict regulation and legal enforcement, that the BBC will do what it ought to do, and if they don't do it soon, they will be forced to anyway when the generation of people that understand copyright by the sham it is, achieve positions of political power.
Writing is a service, and there is no reason whatsoever why it can't be paid in advance for. Oh wait, as a matter of fact it is , which is why the payments writers get for writing are just called that: advances. Silly me, what do I know.
There are many risky ways to earn a living, and many people before copyright wrote great works of art without worrying much about copyright, but rather for other reasons. Or do you think that Homer cared much about such a concept?
Good enlightening literature will always be written, copyright or not, because there will always be people wanting to communicate with their fellow human beings without necessarily looking at the state of their wallet first (as a matter of fact this is how most writers approach their work, a select very few actually make a living from writing, all the others just write in the hope of being published but are under no illusions that they will be economically independent thanks to their writing).
It is all well and good that your heart is bleeding for these uncomprehended artists, until you realise that a few weeks of work guarantees many of them decades of earnings without them ever moving a single finger any more.
The tragic thing is that actually artists are not the ones deriving much from the abusive copyright terms, but rather music labels, film mega corporations, mammoth editorial houses, and the nascent influential big game makers.
Before copyright became a matter of mummification, you could expect that an artists would enjoy the labours of their work for a reasonable, short period of time, before the public at large could use those works, never created in a vacuum, in order to create new works that enriched us all.
It is monumentally ignorant to have a dig at patronage as a means to promote the arts that could bypass copyright altogether, for the simple reason that it is proven to work.
Most of the classical music prior to the invention of the phonograph was made under patronage of the rich and powerful. Prior to that, religious intent provided enough incentive to create some of the most impressive works of art ever envisaged.
In our time money talks, so there is nothing stopping people organizing syndicates to pay creative people that have probed themselves to be worth paying attention to by means of free content.
The natural state of affairs for human progress has always been cooperation, sharing of ideas and improvement of the ideas of others.
It is only recently in human history that we have been compelled to stop progress by slowing down, in purpose, how ideas are used. This is just sheer madness.
Sooner or later the abusive copyright (and patent) terms that big corporations are lobbied for will be repelled, in their place we will have reaonslbe terms that provide incentive for creative people for a short term, releasing human knowledge to be used by all.
That day the EU confiscates all of Oracle's assets in Europe, mandates that their copyrights are no longer valid, puts in trial as many Oracle's executives as possible, starts a massive migration from all kind of companies, even US based ones but with EU interests, to something else.
Yeah, if we are going to portray stupid scenarios I can also get carried away.
When you buy the Sparc monster you get all the necessary software in order to partition your machine as needed.
With your 10 Intel machines, please pray tell me, how do you assign two of them to the same virtual server? (including memory, disk and network capacity).
I understand that reading Slashdot is done quickly and under pressure (you should be working after all), so I wonder what kind of service people provide to their costumers/users/business partners when they can't adhere to the specifications of a given request.
First of all the questioner specifically says that he has bad memory, so point number one of your reply is out of context already.
Then later on he says he does not want a solution tied to Firefox, but then you helpfully proceed to tie a solution to Firefox.
So the guys at Google, could not be bothered to, er, google for "go language" or "go programming language" out of politeness, so the other guy has to suck it up for being just him, a one man band.
The rational thing to do is to check first the licensing of any software you are not writing yourself.
Of course the most rational thing would be to use GPLed software as needed and comply with the requirements, but it is Microsoft we are talking about here.
... but the quality of the replies is frankly appalling.
The amount of snide remarks about decision makers in any company, regardless of the side, just goes to probe that "the hungry's favourite topic of conversation is bread".
In other words, if you think you are so clever, why are you not running your own company?
The first step to provide important information to your bosses, peers and users is that you approach them with the respect they deserve.
In big companies (what is big to you? I am talking multinational corporations with as many employees as small towns) your bosses know exactly what they want to know and they will let you know.
Nowadays they may be even legally liable to know things in the technical side of the business.
I have never worn a neck tie all my life, that is not to say I am not presentable, my shoes clean, I dress smart casual where everybody else normally wears neck tie.
My professionalism is my introduction card, punctuality, efficiency, attention to detail, etc. is what earn me the respect of my business superiors.
And sometimes my hear is quite long, no pony tail long, but long, but it is clean and combed.
In synthesis your stupid stereotype may not be as applicable as you think.
Do you know what the high end Sparc machines can do?
I am sure that the terminology does not even exist in Intel-AMD processors, because they simply can't scale in the same way. You would have to look perhaps at IBM or HP.
Certainly an SPARC desktop will be soon a thing of the past, but in the high end arena SPARC can't be touched.
100 years ago and more, people were not fat, and were free from most of obesity related ailments.
What changed?
It wasn't food until very recently, if at all.
The most dramatic change is that most people in developed countries do sedentary jobs now.
Same food, less exercise = fatter people.
And now is even worse: fatter food, less exercise = even fatter people.
I didn't RTFA naturally, but then they say that they didn't change the people's diet, do they mean they rigorously made sure they ate exactly the same or that they didn't check at all?
And in any case, if people actually lost weight while exercising more and eating the same, how it comes that exercise does not reduce weight?
The summary says they lost *in average* seven pounds in 3 months.
So in one year they may lose 28 pounds! (or around 14 kg for people living in civilized countries).
That is what a lifestyle change is all about: change your habits and the gains will come slowly.
Some studies need to try harder, because at least in this case the numbers say one thing, but the results seem to be interpreted in a completely different way.
I will let know my triathlete mates know that those 800-1000 extra calories a day they burn by cycling, running and swimming while they train is a figment of their imagination (while having a nice meal, eating pretty much whatever they want and looking in top condition).
Slashdot Mirror
... would find a way to relate this not in any way to Apple.
Apple simply does not figure in most of the markets where HP moves, while in the other hand HP could encroach into Apple's markets (they compete against each other in all of Apple's computer lines).
Film and video equipment is spiralling down in price (it is all electronics after all). And ideas are a dime a dozen (really, everybody and his dog are creative. People: creativity is a human trait, not a skill reserved to the relations of BBC and Production Companies' moguls).
If you pay £20 000 000 to somebody like Jonathan Ross, for a frankly mediocre variety show (which amounts to little more than a PR exercies for the latest singer, starlet or celebrity de jour) you can easily pay £1 000 000 to somebody else to make the same crappy show (really, is that guy really that good?) and use the other £19 mill to produce 19 1 hour programmes at 1 million a pop.
1 million is certainly little, but is not peanuts. And like that you could skim through the BBC's budget and find out that the savings are there for the taking.
The BBC would be perfectly fine, it just lacks the people with the courage to make it much better than it currently is.
Please tell me something. When you buy something do you buy from somebody that imposes asinine terms on you or from somebody that accommodates your needs?
In the case of the BBC one of the overwhelming needs should be that any content produced should be very accessible, with no restrictions at all, and that people should be free to do whatever they want with the content. In other words, it is time the BBC thinks more about their pay masters rather than its providers. What a novel concept!
They could do that, some Production companies would politely decline (because they want to continue living from the copyright gravy train) but some others would come forward and produce work in those terms, finding ways to make a profit.
Perhaps the productions would become more expensive (I doubt it, filming equipment is coming down in price dramatically, so again, unless the precious "creative" people just want to enrich themselves, I fail to see why producing work that would be freely released later should affect them), but again, most of the BBC output is crap (Jonathan Ross, anything with Russell Brand, and the innumerable quiz shows), so maybe it would not be a bad idea to concentrate the minds of production companies by stopping them living of perpetual copyrights.
But I will tell you why this will not happen. The relationship between the bosses in the BBC (hundreds of them!) and the production companies is incestuous in nature. People that work in the BBC jump to work into Production companies and vice versa, and then the ones are the friends of the others.
What hope there is that the BBC will look after the interests of its paymasters when in reality the interests of all the parties involved are elsewhere?
It is only by means of strict regulation and legal enforcement, that the BBC will do what it ought to do, and if they don't do it soon, they will be forced to anyway when the generation of people that understand copyright by the sham it is, achieve positions of political power.
Writing is a service, and there is no reason whatsoever why it can't be paid in advance for. Oh wait, as a matter of fact it is , which is why the payments writers get for writing are just called that: advances. Silly me, what do I know.
There are many risky ways to earn a living, and many people before copyright wrote great works of art without worrying much about copyright, but rather for other reasons. Or do you think that Homer cared much about such a concept?
Good enlightening literature will always be written, copyright or not, because there will always be people wanting to communicate with their fellow human beings without necessarily looking at the state of their wallet first (as a matter of fact this is how most writers approach their work, a select very few actually make a living from writing, all the others just write in the hope of being published but are under no illusions that they will be economically independent thanks to their writing).
It is all well and good that your heart is bleeding for these uncomprehended artists, until you realise that a few weeks of work guarantees many of them decades of earnings without them ever moving a single finger any more.
The tragic thing is that actually artists are not the ones deriving much from the abusive copyright terms, but rather music labels, film mega corporations, mammoth editorial houses, and the nascent influential big game makers.
Before copyright became a matter of mummification, you could expect that an artists would enjoy the labours of their work for a reasonable, short period of time, before the public at large could use those works, never created in a vacuum, in order to create new works that enriched us all.
It is monumentally ignorant to have a dig at patronage as a means to promote the arts that could bypass copyright altogether, for the simple reason that it is proven to work.
Most of the classical music prior to the invention of the phonograph was made under patronage of the rich and powerful. Prior to that, religious intent provided enough incentive to create some of the most impressive works of art ever envisaged.
In our time money talks, so there is nothing stopping people organizing syndicates to pay creative people that have probed themselves to be worth paying attention to by means of free content.
The natural state of affairs for human progress has always been cooperation, sharing of ideas and improvement of the ideas of others.
It is only recently in human history that we have been compelled to stop progress by slowing down, in purpose, how ideas are used. This is just sheer madness.
Sooner or later the abusive copyright (and patent) terms that big corporations are lobbied for will be repelled, in their place we will have reaonslbe terms that provide incentive for creative people for a short term, releasing human knowledge to be used by all.
That day the EU confiscates all of Oracle's assets in Europe, mandates that their copyrights are no longer valid, puts in trial as many Oracle's executives as possible, starts a massive migration from all kind of companies, even US based ones but with EU interests, to something else.
Yeah, if we are going to portray stupid scenarios I can also get carried away.
What are you going to run on those Intel boxes?
Windows Vista?
When you buy the Sparc monster you get all the necessary software in order to partition your machine as needed.
With your 10 Intel machines, please pray tell me, how do you assign two of them to the same virtual server? (including memory, disk and network capacity).
I'll keep pointing out replies like this until people get it (i.e. maybe never)
"Memorizing isn't hard"
Memorizing is a completely personal ability, some people are better than others than it, and some other simply don't want to do it.
So what about trying to give answers to the questions as it was posted? (you know, reading comprehension is not hard ....)
"Keeping them in my brain is a prescription for disaster, as my brain is increasingly leaky"
Which other helpful advice do you have in offer?
... because you are not reading what the poster is asking.
I understand that reading Slashdot is done quickly and under pressure (you should be working after all), so I wonder what kind of service people provide to their costumers/users/business partners when they can't adhere to the specifications of a given request.
First of all the questioner specifically says that he has bad memory, so point number one of your reply is out of context already.
Then later on he says he does not want a solution tied to Firefox, but then you helpfully proceed to tie a solution to Firefox.
Wakey, wakey!
I suppose that need a bit of explaining to you.
....Solaris? .... my mobile phone? .... my PDA?
Should I go on?
So the guys at Google, could not be bothered to, er, google for "go language" or "go programming language" out of politeness, so the other guy has to suck it up for being just him, a one man band.
What a wonderful concept of decency and fairness.
The rational thing to do is to check first the licensing of any software you are not writing yourself.
Of course the most rational thing would be to use GPLed software as needed and comply with the requirements, but it is Microsoft we are talking about here.
... but the quality of the replies is frankly appalling.
The amount of snide remarks about decision makers in any company, regardless of the side, just goes to probe that "the hungry's favourite topic of conversation is bread".
In other words, if you think you are so clever, why are you not running your own company?
The first step to provide important information to your bosses, peers and users is that you approach them with the respect they deserve.
A Sys Admin is not supposed to be messing about with the business data.
That would actually be against the law.
In which companies is the same person doing both jobs?
Very small ones I suppose, so even there the big boss would know what is more important in the overall picture.
In big companies (what is big to you? I am talking multinational corporations with as many employees as small towns) your bosses know exactly what they want to know and they will let you know.
Nowadays they may be even legally liable to know things in the technical side of the business.
I have never worn a neck tie all my life, that is not to say I am not presentable, my shoes clean, I dress smart casual where everybody else normally wears neck tie.
My professionalism is my introduction card, punctuality, efficiency, attention to detail, etc. is what earn me the respect of my business superiors.
And sometimes my hear is quite long, no pony tail long, but long, but it is clean and combed.
In synthesis your stupid stereotype may not be as applicable as you think.
Do you know what the high end Sparc machines can do?
I am sure that the terminology does not even exist in Intel-AMD processors, because they simply can't scale in the same way. You would have to look perhaps at IBM or HP.
Certainly an SPARC desktop will be soon a thing of the past, but in the high end arena SPARC can't be touched.
If you abuse your body for years to no end, you will need the will to put things right for a very similar amount of time.
As long as people want magic formulas there will be people out there willing to sell the necessary snake oil.
100 years ago and more, people were not fat, and were free from most of obesity related ailments.
What changed?
It wasn't food until very recently, if at all.
The most dramatic change is that most people in developed countries do sedentary jobs now.
Same food, less exercise = fatter people.
And now is even worse: fatter food, less exercise = even fatter people.
I didn't RTFA naturally, but then they say that they didn't change the people's diet, do they mean they rigorously made sure they ate exactly the same or that they didn't check at all?
And in any case, if people actually lost weight while exercising more and eating the same, how it comes that exercise does not reduce weight?
The summary says they lost *in average* seven pounds in 3 months.
So in one year they may lose 28 pounds! (or around 14 kg for people living in civilized countries).
That is what a lifestyle change is all about: change your habits and the gains will come slowly.
Some studies need to try harder, because at least in this case the numbers say one thing, but the results seem to be interpreted in a completely different way.
I will let know my triathlete mates know that those 800-1000 extra calories a day they burn by cycling, running and swimming while they train is a figment of their imagination (while having a nice meal, eating pretty much whatever they want and looking in top condition).