I find it hard to believe the XBox you mention caught on fire
Me too, but it's not beyond the bounds of possibility. For example:
There is no flow of air over the hard drive in the Xbox. In fact, it is mounted on a plastic tray over the CPU and IGP meaning that if anything, it's in the worst possible place from a cooling standpoint
Or it could have been damaged in shipping. There's a lot in there to fall apart and short, and I'll bet they didn't kick the crap out of too many of the development systems to check their robustness.
Although the use of only a single platter can arguably reduce the damage incurred by dropping the system, the fact remains that the plastic tray that holds the hard drive does not do a very good job of absorbing shocks. In other words don't drop your Xbox.
If the US turns into a police state, other people will turn against them more than they already do
Which means what? That we'll move from griping to full blown bitching?
As long as the bread and circusses flow, we (you and me and her) will do nothing except grumble. I live in a suburban idyll, I'll bet you do too, and while I hate the way government is going, I'm not throwing away my fat, lazy life to take arms against a sea of minor and largely theoretical inconveniences just yet.
Once they've written the software, each particular copy only costs them the price of a CDR [...] they essentially print money: money in the form of a tax-writeoff
Dear Bill, please find enclosed $1.1 billion worth of unused Microsoft operating systems and applications that I would like to return for a refund, as per the licensing on the shrink wraps. I'm sure you make very nice software, but the school roof is leaking.
And what does it cost them? A "virtual" $1.1 billion. They're giving software to people that probably wouldn't have bought it in the first place
Dear Microsoft, I have $1.1 billion worth of unused Microsoft operating systems and applications that I would like to return for a refund, as per the licensing on the shrink wraps. I'm sure you make very nice software, but the school roof is leaking.
Timmy [...] no amount of navigational assistance will help those pilots who die because they run out of fuel. Or who die because they buzz Mom and Dad's farm, low and slow, suddenly find themselves in a stall they'll never recover from
What's with the diminitive names, Pongy?
If aircraft crash survivability matched the work put into cars over the years, we'd already mandate the parachute recovery systems you mentioned, along with substantial airbags on light aircraft, which goes some way to addressing your concerns. We have chosen not to do that. We have chosen to focus on expensive and ongoing rigorous preventative mechanical maintenance, which doesn't do a thing to help those pilots who suffer from the primary causes of terminal idiot rash that you mentioned.
If the Airbus A3x0 series can have a fly by wire autopilot that overrides the pilot and doesn't let him buzz the farm, why not light aircraft? Sure, it costs more, but in capital expenditure, which isn't the primary cost of flying.
Your argument is that flying is hard, and that the sky is already full of bumbling pilots. Fine, but that's an argument for stricter license tests. You haven't made any kind of cogent argument against the flight aids in the article, other than to say that the idiots who shouldn't be in the air now will find new and exciting ways to crash.
Yes it was. The bydrogen didn't explode; it burned off rapidly and upwards. Unfortunately, the Hindenburgh was covered in aluminium based paint. Once you ignite aluminium, it burns with a dreadful intensity; it can be found in rocket fuel, napalm and thermite. The combination of hydrogen and aluminium was about sensible as that of aviation gasoline and aluminium in today's airliners, as we found out on September the 11th.
Of the ninety seven people on the Hindenburgh, thirty six died. That's pretty good odds for an exploding aircraft.
How does the XBox (a 733 Celeron with an nvidia GPU) allow Microsoft to move to new hardware? It's just a PC in a fancy case
(Xbox is a full PIII, ironic as it's now deceased as a mainstream chip). One of the important differences is that is has a true single memory architecture (system and display) rather than the inefficient PCI or AGP busses. Not a big jump, but I'd find that a welcome development in general purpose boxen.
he can't attack open source software as a whole. As long a people want to develop freely available software, they will, and there is absolutely nothing he can do to stop this
Microsoft (and/or the RIAA or MPAA) can buy enough laws to ensure that you'll be able to develop anything you like - as long as you pass the background check, ace the "shareholder value ethics" test, pay the fee, and get the appropriate license.
You think I'm wrong? I'll bet you fifty bucks against the cost of obtaining a development license in 2010 that I'm not.
Linux? That seditious and hopelessly insecure and anti-American operating system that's used by a few carefully licensed researchers, but mostly illegally by paedophiles, drug dealers, terrorists, and really dangerous scum like copyright pirates?
Give it ten years and see if that language is the norm, and Linux has been legislated out of the hands of the US community. That's how Microsoft can "win". They can buy enough politicians and enough laws so that there's only one player in the game in the US, and the rest of the world can go screw itself.
Fortunately, I live in the "rest of the world". Unfortunately, I live in the UK, so I'll probably have (legal) access to Linux for only a few years more than the US does, once we jump on the bandwagon.
After Bill's death, practically all of his vast fortune will go to charity
Not if he has himself frozen in carbonite until medical science catches up with his ailments.
Bill isn't doing this to improve his image; he could've done that with a fraction of the money.
Alternatively, Bill could afford a lot more right now. If his wealth is all going to chaaardity, and he can't possibly spend a fraction of it in his lifetime, what's he waiting for?
Microsoft's business practices notwithstanding, accusing him of avarice is misguided
He used to be avaricious. Now that he is already wealthy on an incalculable scale, his priorities have changed. That's commendable and his contributions so far have been astounding, but let's wait and see if he does actually make good on all of his future promises before granting him that sainthood, huh?
I thought Saudi Arabia were our friends, so what are they doing with a regime run by an hereditary leasder and a largely incumbent political class, monitoring their citizens and trying to route and filter all information through a few central sources?
What's that you say? No, I'm talking about Saudi Arabia, not the USA. Why would you think I was talking about... Huh? What? You say I could have been describing the USA? Now I'm really confused!
Oh, wait, I think that I see. It's OK to have a benevolent dictatorship, right, one that's enacting extreme measures in the short term for the good of its citizens? It is? I'm glad to hear that. Wait, is it OK for me to say that? It is? Phew! But hang on, don't all dictators view themselves as benevolent and as acting for the greater good of their peo- (ack, gaa)
I socialise with friends that used to be colleagues in ex-workplaces, and I'll count some of my current colleagues as friends and socialise with them - after we no longer work together, which likely won't be long in the current economic climate.
I have a laugh inside the workplace with my current colleages, but I don't see them outside work, nor do I go to work outings, nor even attend the regular and mandatory "Whoo yeah! Go us! We da best! We one big family!" pep talks (I choose to invest that time in boosting my morale by messengering my actual friends and family).
Work is the place where I get paid to provide services. It's not a substitute for friends and family, and I won't be drawn into that mindset, nor will I stay in work mode for one moment more than I'm paid for (which inevitably happens to a greater or lesser extent when you socialise with colleagues). If I enjoyed work, I'd do it for nothing, which is pretty much what I did as a games programmer. Been there, done that, got the T-shirt, bought into the whole "We're doing something special! We're special people!" bunk, got screwed, moved on, stayed in touch with the actual good guys.
To paraphrase the great philospher Eric of Cartman: "I'm going over hyah, you guys can go over thyah. Hyah. Thyah."
Thanks for the response. I agree with you on the facts of this case (such as they are, and we have to bear in mind the vested interests of both sides), I just come to a different conclusion. I believe that JK Rowling did knowingly lift names from Nancy Stouffer (whether she had read the books or not is another issue), and in a close enough context to be regarded as plagiarism.
I see it as a minor infringement that could be solved with a simple acknowledgement with no financial payment, but her denial is (to my eyes) morally repugnant. I also choose to believe that the balance of probability (civil law issue, this isn't a "beyond all reasonable doubt" case) is that JK Rowling's Harry Potter is influenced strongly by D.C. Comic's "Books of Magic". Note that I don't say "Neil Gaiman's Books of Magic", as Neil Gaiman has sold all rights to D.C. Comics, and so his declination to contest this intellectual property is irrelevant.
By the way, even though we disagree, I respect your position and arguments, and if I could, I'd mod you as informative.
The poster above who said you probably don't get the irony was right on. Hint: it's not about the "Linux" part
I get it, I'm just not going to bite or throw a hissy fit or get into an argument over it (perhaps you should consider that anyone claiming to use just "Linux" is less likely to be considering the issue and getting the point). Calm and clear. Educate, don't berate. Although if I'm being properly attributive, I should really say that I run KDE/X/GNU/Linux.;-)
Why do we need anonymizing services (essentially hacks) when excellent substitutes are in the works? Projects like Freenet
In the works, as you say. If you're a Freenet developer working in an oppressive anti-privacy regime like China, the UK or the USA, can you (currently and effectively) use Freenet to discuss Freenet development?
Until then, anonymity is a huge boon for "criminals"; and by that I mean not just what the FBI means by criminals, I mean people doing ethical work that has been criminalised in some extreme and corrupt jurisdictions. Oh, wait, maybe I do mean what the FBI means...
If you don't, as they say on public radio, nobody else will.
But even if you do chip in, other people might not (they tend not to online), and you can kiss your one annual subscription/donation goodbye. It's this last point that really puts me off paying up front for online services (many of them do ask for annual or multi-month commitments), even though I do agree with your point that if you use and don't pay, you're complicit in kiling them.
I'd be more inclined to pay monthly in arrears for services that I've already used. Sure, that's not such a good deal for the service, but it might be the best way for them to survive.
We've seen time and time again that groups of people sending mail to government officals has made no effect in even the most insignificant issues.
Mailing anthrax provokes an instant response; the government runs for the hills then picks a dusty country far away full of strange looking people, and bombs the crap out of the economic infrastructure of it. This isn't funny, it's deeply, agonisingly sad.
Where is the evidence that [...] any of the Orwellian measures being proposed, had they been in place, would have actually prevented these atrocities?
Come on, it's plainly obvious how it would have worked:
Swarthy Man carrying Large Bag Marked "Bomb": I'd like a one way ticket from Boston to Los Angeles. Here is my valid passport and payment. When does that flight board, please?
Minimum Wage but Really Highly Trained Receptionist: I'm sorry, Sir, that information is classified.
Swarthy Man carrying Large Bag Marked "Bomb": Curses, foiled again.
Minimum Wage but Really Highly Trained Receptionist: By the way, Sir, I notice that you ticked the "I am a terrorist" box. Please wait there while I call security
Swarthy Man carrying Large Bag Marked "Bomb": Damn you tricksey infidels and your impenetrable security measures!
Your rights? Is it your right, for instance, to know the exact path and time of the Presidents limo for the next year? How about its weaknesses?
Of course not! The President, Praise be to Him, and His Congress and His Senate are to be exalted and protected. It is vital to We, The Little People that our hereditary Political Class are allowed to continue doing so without danger or threat of interruption. If only we could do something about the annoying 10% turnover of incumbents are well, we might have enable our Political Class to be truly effective.
It may be true that some legitimate information may be temporarily unavailable, but it may require substantial time to sort through all of it to make those distinctions, in the mean time, terrorists can have their way with us
How temporary is the destruction of knowlege? How long are we to live as though we are in imminent danger? I know! I'll ask my Elected Representative (even though I voted for the other guy), always assuming that His armed guards allow me into His fortress home carrying an identical weapon to theirs. While I'm there, I'll also bring up His anti-gun policies, assuming His bodyguards allow me to.
Government of the People, by the People, and for the People. We never quite got there, did we.
My son started reading them at the age of six. He is now nine and has read each of the four books at least a half-dozen times on his own. I'm not sure why.
Because they're enjoyable and easy to read. Has he read any other books during this time? If he played the same computer game over and over, would you be concerned?
But the books remind me of how much I enjoyed Tolkien, Heinlein, et. al
Myself also. The important difference was that these books spurred me on to try other authors and other genres. I'm rather concerned that Harry Potter books only lead to more Harry Potter books, and now to movies and merchandise. I'm not seeing anything to contradict that here or elsewhere, other than crossed fingers.
Once again for luck: Harry Potter is better than nothing. But it's just a damn shame that it seems to be the end of the road for so many readers.
You kinda have to view the Potter books like a gateway drug. Even if the books themselves are just middle of the road, they do get kids to read and given the right guidance, those same kids may then decide to try something else
That's my hope, and why I suggested alternatives. However, the amount of venom that provokes leads me to wonder if Harry Potter will lead to anything except more Harry Potter.
Any book that reaches this level of popularity is going to be scooped up by the media/toy companies.
Calvin and Hobbes never was (rather, it was briefly, but Bill Watterson bought back the rights at great personal expense). Authors choose to sell rights. Just because nearly everyone does it doesn't mean that it's the only way to go, or that it's something to be admired.
Why does it seem that any OS other than Windows is subversive these days?
Because promotion of that view is paid for by Microsoft and the RIAA and MPAA. For subversive, substitute dangerous, elitist, unpatriotic or just good old strange, different or wierd.
My point is that even if you're happy with what you've got, and even if all your friends are happy, you can still try other things (other books, other OS's) and see if there's something out there that you might like even more
Slashdot Mirror
Me too, but it's not beyond the bounds of possibility. For example:
Or it could have been damaged in shipping. There's a lot in there to fall apart and short, and I'll bet they didn't kick the crap out of too many of the development systems to check their robustness.
Don't have it shipped by UPS, in other words. ;-)
Which means what? That we'll move from griping to full blown bitching?
As long as the bread and circusses flow, we (you and me and her) will do nothing except grumble. I live in a suburban idyll, I'll bet you do too, and while I hate the way government is going, I'm not throwing away my fat, lazy life to take arms against a sea of minor and largely theoretical inconveniences just yet.
Turns out that we're both wrong. ;-)
Dear Bill, please find enclosed $1.1 billion worth of unused Microsoft operating systems and applications that I would like to return for a refund, as per the licensing on the shrink wraps. I'm sure you make very nice software, but the school roof is leaking.
Dear Microsoft, I have $1.1 billion worth of unused Microsoft operating systems and applications that I would like to return for a refund, as per the licensing on the shrink wraps. I'm sure you make very nice software, but the school roof is leaking.
What's with the diminitive names, Pongy?
If aircraft crash survivability matched the work put into cars over the years, we'd already mandate the parachute recovery systems you mentioned, along with substantial airbags on light aircraft, which goes some way to addressing your concerns. We have chosen not to do that. We have chosen to focus on expensive and ongoing rigorous preventative mechanical maintenance, which doesn't do a thing to help those pilots who suffer from the primary causes of terminal idiot rash that you mentioned.
If the Airbus A3x0 series can have a fly by wire autopilot that overrides the pilot and doesn't let him buzz the farm, why not light aircraft? Sure, it costs more, but in capital expenditure, which isn't the primary cost of flying.
Your argument is that flying is hard, and that the sky is already full of bumbling pilots. Fine, but that's an argument for stricter license tests. You haven't made any kind of cogent argument against the flight aids in the article, other than to say that the idiots who shouldn't be in the air now will find new and exciting ways to crash.
Yes it was. The bydrogen didn't explode; it burned off rapidly and upwards. Unfortunately, the Hindenburgh was covered in aluminium based paint. Once you ignite aluminium, it burns with a dreadful intensity; it can be found in rocket fuel, napalm and thermite. The combination of hydrogen and aluminium was about sensible as that of aviation gasoline and aluminium in today's airliners, as we found out on September the 11th.
Of the ninety seven people on the Hindenburgh, thirty six died. That's pretty good odds for an exploding aircraft.
Er, the answer's in the question, Bill. A hobbyist.
Well, that's honest enough at least. Appropriate, extend, control. Bill learned that lesson early.
Thanks for posting this, and good luck with preserving it in the face of Bill's historical revision. Best wishes for your karma.
(Xbox is a full PIII, ironic as it's now deceased as a mainstream chip). One of the important differences is that is has a true single memory architecture (system and display) rather than the inefficient PCI or AGP busses. Not a big jump, but I'd find that a welcome development in general purpose boxen.
Microsoft (and/or the RIAA or MPAA) can buy enough laws to ensure that you'll be able to develop anything you like - as long as you pass the background check, ace the "shareholder value ethics" test, pay the fee, and get the appropriate license.
You think I'm wrong? I'll bet you fifty bucks against the cost of obtaining a development license in 2010 that I'm not.
Linux? That seditious and hopelessly insecure and anti-American operating system that's used by a few carefully licensed researchers, but mostly illegally by paedophiles, drug dealers, terrorists, and really dangerous scum like copyright pirates?
Give it ten years and see if that language is the norm, and Linux has been legislated out of the hands of the US community. That's how Microsoft can "win". They can buy enough politicians and enough laws so that there's only one player in the game in the US, and the rest of the world can go screw itself.
Fortunately, I live in the "rest of the world". Unfortunately, I live in the UK, so I'll probably have (legal) access to Linux for only a few years more than the US does, once we jump on the bandwagon.
Not if he has himself frozen in carbonite until medical science catches up with his ailments.
Alternatively, Bill could afford a lot more right now. If his wealth is all going to chaaardity, and he can't possibly spend a fraction of it in his lifetime, what's he waiting for?
He used to be avaricious. Now that he is already wealthy on an incalculable scale, his priorities have changed. That's commendable and his contributions so far have been astounding, but let's wait and see if he does actually make good on all of his future promises before granting him that sainthood, huh?
I thought Saudi Arabia were our friends, so what are they doing with a regime run by an hereditary leasder and a largely incumbent political class, monitoring their citizens and trying to route and filter all information through a few central sources?
What's that you say? No, I'm talking about Saudi Arabia, not the USA. Why would you think I was talking about... Huh? What? You say I could have been describing the USA? Now I'm really confused!
Oh, wait, I think that I see. It's OK to have a benevolent dictatorship, right, one that's enacting extreme measures in the short term for the good of its citizens? It is? I'm glad to hear that. Wait, is it OK for me to say that? It is? Phew! But hang on, don't all dictators view themselves as benevolent and as acting for the greater good of their peo- (ack, gaa)
Frivilous and predatory patent filings for all of these inventions by J. Random Mega Corp in 2002. And probably for the crystal ball as well.
I socialise with friends that used to be colleagues in ex-workplaces, and I'll count some of my current colleagues as friends and socialise with them - after we no longer work together, which likely won't be long in the current economic climate.
I have a laugh inside the workplace with my current colleages, but I don't see them outside work, nor do I go to work outings, nor even attend the regular and mandatory "Whoo yeah! Go us! We da best! We one big family!" pep talks (I choose to invest that time in boosting my morale by messengering my actual friends and family).
Work is the place where I get paid to provide services. It's not a substitute for friends and family, and I won't be drawn into that mindset, nor will I stay in work mode for one moment more than I'm paid for (which inevitably happens to a greater or lesser extent when you socialise with colleagues). If I enjoyed work, I'd do it for nothing, which is pretty much what I did as a games programmer. Been there, done that, got the T-shirt, bought into the whole "We're doing something special! We're special people!" bunk, got screwed, moved on, stayed in touch with the actual good guys.
To paraphrase the great philospher Eric of Cartman: "I'm going over hyah, you guys can go over thyah. Hyah. Thyah."
Thanks for the response. I agree with you on the facts of this case (such as they are, and we have to bear in mind the vested interests of both sides), I just come to a different conclusion. I believe that JK Rowling did knowingly lift names from Nancy Stouffer (whether she had read the books or not is another issue), and in a close enough context to be regarded as plagiarism.
I see it as a minor infringement that could be solved with a simple acknowledgement with no financial payment, but her denial is (to my eyes) morally repugnant. I also choose to believe that the balance of probability (civil law issue, this isn't a "beyond all reasonable doubt" case) is that JK Rowling's Harry Potter is influenced strongly by D.C. Comic's "Books of Magic". Note that I don't say "Neil Gaiman's Books of Magic", as Neil Gaiman has sold all rights to D.C. Comics, and so his declination to contest this intellectual property is irrelevant.
By the way, even though we disagree, I respect your position and arguments, and if I could, I'd mod you as informative.
I get it, I'm just not going to bite or throw a hissy fit or get into an argument over it (perhaps you should consider that anyone claiming to use just "Linux" is less likely to be considering the issue and getting the point). Calm and clear. Educate, don't berate. Although if I'm being properly attributive, I should really say that I run KDE/X/GNU/Linux. ;-)
In the works, as you say. If you're a Freenet developer working in an oppressive anti-privacy regime like China, the UK or the USA, can you (currently and effectively) use Freenet to discuss Freenet development?
Until then, anonymity is a huge boon for "criminals"; and by that I mean not just what the FBI means by criminals, I mean people doing ethical work that has been criminalised in some extreme and corrupt jurisdictions. Oh, wait, maybe I do mean what the FBI means...
But even if you do chip in, other people might not (they tend not to online), and you can kiss your one annual subscription/donation goodbye. It's this last point that really puts me off paying up front for online services (many of them do ask for annual or multi-month commitments), even though I do agree with your point that if you use and don't pay, you're complicit in kiling them.
I'd be more inclined to pay monthly in arrears for services that I've already used. Sure, that's not such a good deal for the service, but it might be the best way for them to survive.
Mailing anthrax provokes an instant response; the government runs for the hills then picks a dusty country far away full of strange looking people, and bombs the crap out of the economic infrastructure of it. This isn't funny, it's deeply, agonisingly sad.
Come on, it's plainly obvious how it would have worked:
Of course not! The President, Praise be to Him, and His Congress and His Senate are to be exalted and protected. It is vital to We, The Little People that our hereditary Political Class are allowed to continue doing so without danger or threat of interruption. If only we could do something about the annoying 10% turnover of incumbents are well, we might have enable our Political Class to be truly effective.
How temporary is the destruction of knowlege? How long are we to live as though we are in imminent danger? I know! I'll ask my Elected Representative (even though I voted for the other guy), always assuming that His armed guards allow me into His fortress home carrying an identical weapon to theirs. While I'm there, I'll also bring up His anti-gun policies, assuming His bodyguards allow me to.
Government of the People, by the People, and for the People. We never quite got there, did we.
Because they're enjoyable and easy to read. Has he read any other books during this time? If he played the same computer game over and over, would you be concerned?
Myself also. The important difference was that these books spurred me on to try other authors and other genres. I'm rather concerned that Harry Potter books only lead to more Harry Potter books, and now to movies and merchandise. I'm not seeing anything to contradict that here or elsewhere, other than crossed fingers.
Once again for luck: Harry Potter is better than nothing. But it's just a damn shame that it seems to be the end of the road for so many readers.
That's my hope, and why I suggested alternatives. However, the amount of venom that provokes leads me to wonder if Harry Potter will lead to anything except more Harry Potter.
Calvin and Hobbes never was (rather, it was briefly, but Bill Watterson bought back the rights at great personal expense). Authors choose to sell rights. Just because nearly everyone does it doesn't mean that it's the only way to go, or that it's something to be admired.
Because promotion of that view is paid for by Microsoft and the RIAA and MPAA. For subversive, substitute dangerous, elitist, unpatriotic or just good old strange, different or wierd.
My point is that even if you're happy with what you've got, and even if all your friends are happy, you can still try other things (other books, other OS's) and see if there's something out there that you might like even more