ALERT: Security cameras have determined that your daughter has invited friends in for alcohol and sex. Would you like to:
(a) Shut off the electricity (b) Lock the doors to keep out further visitors (c) Place the burglar alarm into continuous operation (d) Start the custom "Scream" apparatus to spur an evacuation?
"Well, Microsoft has been identified as a monopolist, so they have to play by a different set of rules."
I see people trot out this line every single time someone suggests that Microsoft be allowed something resembling the rights of other corporations. It's a broad, sweeping statement which essentially says that since Microsoft was designated a monopolist, the government can arbitrarily restrict their practices as they see fit, with barely adequate explanations. It's also completely irrational. Yes, Microsoft was identified as a monopolist. The result? They've had to change some of their practices and submit themselves to an increased level of oversight from various government institutions. It does not mean that they have given up all normal, reasonable corporate rights that are in the possession of every other company. The vitriolic hatred for Microsoft on Slashdot makes some people think that any restriction on Microsoft is a good one - that they should be hampered in the course of normal business as much as possible, and screw any idea of fairness. Some might say that this was only justice, since Microsoft presumably didn't allow fairness to competitors and that's why they were convicted. Well, it may fit your personal sense of justice, but legally it's not. The legal system has already meted out its brand of justice, which, materially, is the only one that matters. And the legal system didn't say that Microsoft must be obstructed in business whenever possible, at every turn. They still retain the right to play by established legal rules - and, being a paranoid, highly successful company, they're going to exploit those wherever they can. You might not like it, but it's their right.
"Well, Microsoft has been identified as a monopolist, so they have to play by a different set of rules."
I see people trot out this line every single time someone suggests that Microsoft be allowed something resembling the rights of other corporations. It's a broad, sweeping statement which essentially says that since Microsoft was designated a monopolist, the government can arbitrarily restrict their practices as they see fit, with barely adequate explanations.
It's also completely irrational. Yes, Microsoft was identified as a monopolist. The result? They've had to change some of their practices and submit themselves to an increased level of oversight from various government institutions. It does not mean that they have given up all normal, reasonable corporate rights that are in the possession of every other company. The vitriolic hatred for Microsoft on Slashdot makes some people think that any restriction on Microsoft is a good one - that they should be hampered in the course of normal business as much as possible, and screw any idea of fairness. Some might say that this was only justice, since Microsoft presumably didn't allow fairness to competitors and that's why they were convicted. Well, it may fit your personal sense of justice, but legally it's not. The legal system has already meted out its brand of justice, which, materially, is the only one that matters. And the legal system didn't say that Microsoft must be obstructed in business whenever possible, at every turn. They still retain the right to play by established legal rules - and, being a paranoid, highly successful company, they're going to exploit those wherever they can. You might not like it, but it's their right.
Others will add trivial patches to create the 2.6.x.y releases. Linus cautions that the task of maintaining a 2.6.x.y tree is not going to be enjoyable.
and spearheaded not by Steve Jobs (he actually lobbied against the Mac project at one point)
It's interesting to think of what might have happened if the Mac had never come to fruition and Apple had just pursued the evolution of the Apple II line.
The article indicates that Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) and Barbara Boxer (D-CA) are the primary proponents of this bill - though I'm sure Kerry also supports it.
"For the next twenty years I'll sit in a big box called a cubicle. It's like a restroom stall but with lower walls. I spend most of my time hoping the electromagnetic fields from my office equipment aren't killing me."
This is somewhat believable. I'd wager that average college students would be a prime target for the Mac Mini, as well - unlike Apple's laptops, it doesn't cost a mint, and its size would be a great advantage for students living in space-challenged dorm rooms. Most of the software they'd need would be on it, too. Your usual non-computer-geeky college kid would play games on their console, not their computer, and the Mac has Microsoft Office and fine Internet capabilities. Colleges use plenty of specialized software (e.g. statistics packages) but most kids go to the labs to use that stuff rather than bothering to acquire their own copies. If the Mini can make a successful tie-in with the iPod in the minds of this particular target audience, then Apple stands a fighting chance of boosting its market share at least with that segment.
Apple is very good at marketing perceived value (iMac, iPod, etc.) as opposed to embedded value (the way Microsoft pushes most of their products). I'd say that perceived value is what matters a lot in the impressionable minds of young students.
I've heard people praise Straczynski's writing to the high heavens. I just don't get it. I don't care about the cheesy CG effects or corny music; it's the parts between the interstitials that set my teeth on edge.
Yeah, I already skipped through most of the first season. I'm now well into the third season,
So... you didn't see most of the first season, and aren't even finished with the third. B5's story spans all five seasons and is the best thing about the show that casual and diehard fans name time and time again. The story, which you have seen less than two-fifths of, and so it gets a passing mention of...
There's a lot good to be said about it...followed by the statement:
though I've seen others do it better.
You haven't even seen the whole story - how can you say for sure that someone else has done it better? You don't even fully know what it is that you're comparing!
Then you expound on the acting for a while after that. Yes, there is an acknowledged inconsistent quality in the acting.
I'm an actor and director myself.
In the IMDb, are you? Not that this means everything, but honestly, anyone can be "an actor an director." Whether you've made anything worth a damn to anyone but yourself is a totally different story.
I've heard people praise Straczynski's writing to the high heavens. I just don't get it.
Of course you don't. You haven't even finished half the story.
can somebody explain to me why I shouldn't consider the failure of this to become a movie anything other than a benefit to mankind?
Because you've barely seen anything of the series and therefore cannot make an informed judgment. Is that a good enough explanation?
Slashdot Mirror
Time and again they learn that our legal system is totaly incapable of punishment or correction for mega corporation like them.
Enron would like to disagree with you.
Mr. Stevenson said he had hired a programmer, whom he would not identify, to add the list sign-up function to the sites.
But why? It's not like we'd want to bludgeon, or bitchslap, or ambush, or lynch the programmer.
Parents out of the house...
*Beep, beep, beep!*
ALERT: Security cameras have determined that your daughter has invited friends in for alcohol and sex. Would you like to:
(a) Shut off the electricity
(b) Lock the doors to keep out further visitors
(c) Place the burglar alarm into continuous operation
(d) Start the custom "Scream" apparatus to spur an evacuation?
worked with Ranganathan to develop software that monitors a PDA's screen when it is in use and automatically dims the unimportant pixels.
Occasionally I get devices from companies that have proactively singled out these unimportant pixels.
...that the only P2P client I use didn't even need to be reviewed. :)
(It rhymes with "BitTorrent.")
to start with good people, to make something customers actually want, and to spend as little money as possible.
"Check with the Patent Office beforehand" should definitely be in there.
"Well, Microsoft has been identified as a monopolist, so they have to play by a different set of rules."
I see people trot out this line every single time someone suggests that Microsoft be allowed something resembling the rights of other corporations. It's a broad, sweeping statement which essentially says that since Microsoft was designated a monopolist, the government can arbitrarily restrict their practices as they see fit, with barely adequate explanations. It's also completely irrational. Yes, Microsoft was identified as a monopolist. The result? They've had to change some of their practices and submit themselves to an increased level of oversight from various government institutions. It does not mean that they have given up all normal, reasonable corporate rights that are in the possession of every other company. The vitriolic hatred for Microsoft on Slashdot makes some people think that any restriction on Microsoft is a good one - that they should be hampered in the course of normal business as much as possible, and screw any idea of fairness. Some might say that this was only justice, since Microsoft presumably didn't allow fairness to competitors and that's why they were convicted. Well, it may fit your personal sense of justice, but legally it's not. The legal system has already meted out its brand of justice, which, materially, is the only one that matters. And the legal system didn't say that Microsoft must be obstructed in business whenever possible, at every turn. They still retain the right to play by established legal rules - and, being a paranoid, highly successful company, they're going to exploit those wherever they can. You might not like it, but it's their right.
"Well, Microsoft has been identified as a monopolist, so they have to play by a different set of rules."
I see people trot out this line every single time someone suggests that Microsoft be allowed something resembling the rights of other corporations. It's a broad, sweeping statement which essentially says that since Microsoft was designated a monopolist, the government can arbitrarily restrict their practices as they see fit, with barely adequate explanations.
It's also completely irrational. Yes, Microsoft was identified as a monopolist. The result? They've had to change some of their practices and submit themselves to an increased level of oversight from various government institutions. It does not mean that they have given up all normal, reasonable corporate rights that are in the possession of every other company. The vitriolic hatred for Microsoft on Slashdot makes some people think that any restriction on Microsoft is a good one - that they should be hampered in the course of normal business as much as possible, and screw any idea of fairness. Some might say that this was only justice, since Microsoft presumably didn't allow fairness to competitors and that's why they were convicted. Well, it may fit your personal sense of justice, but legally it's not. The legal system has already meted out its brand of justice, which, materially, is the only one that matters. And the legal system didn't say that Microsoft must be obstructed in business whenever possible, at every turn. They still retain the right to play by established legal rules - and, being a paranoid, highly successful company, they're going to exploit those wherever they can. You might not like it, but it's their right.
"(I'll) tell you how you know you're a Wikipedian," he said. "You read any nonfiction book from the index end first. (And you think)...
"...It's a good thing I don't have friends - then I wouldn't be able to do this!"
Ah, remember when the release of a Netscape mattered?
For me, it went something like this:
Netscape 1.0: Hey, cool! This World Wide Web thing is awesome!
Netscape 2.0: Backgrounds! Word!
Netscape 3.0: Different fonts, better frames, more plug-ins... keep it coming!
Netscape 4.0: Why won't these links work? *click click click click* Grrrr...
Netscape 6.0: Oh God.
Netscape 7.0: Whatever, I'm using IE now.
Netscape 8.0: Whatever, I'm using Firefox now.
Others will add trivial patches to create the 2.6.x.y releases. Linus cautions that the task of maintaining a 2.6.x.y tree is not going to be enjoyable.
2.6.x...
2.6.x.y...
2.6.x.y.z...
Kind of a Zeno's Paradox, isn't it?
Does Netscape even really count anymore? They're no longer independent, nor are they even influential, for crying out loud.
and spearheaded not by Steve Jobs (he actually lobbied against the Mac project at one point)
It's interesting to think of what might have happened if the Mac had never come to fruition and Apple had just pursued the evolution of the Apple II line.
The article indicates that Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) and Barbara Boxer (D-CA) are the primary proponents of this bill - though I'm sure Kerry also supports it.
"For the next twenty years I'll sit in a big box called a cubicle. It's like a restroom stall but with lower walls. I spend most of my time hoping the electromagnetic fields from my office equipment aren't killing me."
This is somewhat believable. I'd wager that average college students would be a prime target for the Mac Mini, as well - unlike Apple's laptops, it doesn't cost a mint, and its size would be a great advantage for students living in space-challenged dorm rooms. Most of the software they'd need would be on it, too. Your usual non-computer-geeky college kid would play games on their console, not their computer, and the Mac has Microsoft Office and fine Internet capabilities. Colleges use plenty of specialized software (e.g. statistics packages) but most kids go to the labs to use that stuff rather than bothering to acquire their own copies. If the Mini can make a successful tie-in with the iPod in the minds of this particular target audience, then Apple stands a fighting chance of boosting its market share at least with that segment.
Apple is very good at marketing perceived value (iMac, iPod, etc.) as opposed to embedded value (the way Microsoft pushes most of their products). I'd say that perceived value is what matters a lot in the impressionable minds of young students.
It has "Fire" in its name and it's red! Is Ati trying to create its own ill omens?
I've heard people praise Straczynski's writing to the high heavens. I just don't get it. I don't care about the cheesy CG effects or corny music; it's the parts between the interstitials that set my teeth on edge.
...followed by the statement:
Yeah, I already skipped through most of the first season. I'm now well into the third season,
So... you didn't see most of the first season, and aren't even finished with the third. B5's story spans all five seasons and is the best thing about the show that casual and diehard fans name time and time again. The story, which you have seen less than two-fifths of, and so it gets a passing mention of...
There's a lot good to be said about it
though I've seen others do it better.
You haven't even seen the whole story - how can you say for sure that someone else has done it better? You don't even fully know what it is that you're comparing!
Then you expound on the acting for a while after that. Yes, there is an acknowledged inconsistent quality in the acting.
I'm an actor and director myself.
In the IMDb, are you? Not that this means everything, but honestly, anyone can be "an actor an director." Whether you've made anything worth a damn to anyone but yourself is a totally different story.
I've heard people praise Straczynski's writing to the high heavens. I just don't get it.
Of course you don't. You haven't even finished half the story.
can somebody explain to me why I shouldn't consider the failure of this to become a movie anything other than a benefit to mankind?
Because you've barely seen anything of the series and therefore cannot make an informed judgment. Is that a good enough explanation?
Man, I hope Jon Stewart's wasn't in there!
Oh wait...
I really hope Microsoft, having recently released that beta of AntiSpyware, gets one of these letters.
iDownload won't even know what hit them.
Meanwhile, the devs are working fairly furiously to get it back up
;)
Don't worry, we'll take care of your backup servers in the meantime.
Coincidentally, the foundation is in the middle of a fundraising drive to pay for new servers.
"You see, guys? This is what could happen if we ever ran out of money. Now cough up some dough!"
my usage doesn't really justify paying $40-$50 each month for hundreds of kb/s
Cancel your cable TV subscription and get BitTorrent. Your broadband cost will suddenly be justified.
sports-minded geeks
Who what now?
"I prescribe disease-riddled hookers. Take one after every meal."