Or, I could be a coward and reply anonymously . ..
Or, I could realize that I have just wasted many minutes of my life futiley responding to trolls who don't know better. Now I remember why I don't usually talk to mac users, never mind asking them a reasonable question for which they can give me no satisfactory answer. Instead, they like to use ad hominem to "win" their position.
1. Get a lawyer, preferably one who specializes in these things (patent attorney). Duh.
2. Ask for proof, ie specific citations as to what code is infringing and what patent numbers it is infringing upon.
While #1 is very important in this case, I can't stress #2 enough under any circumstances! People these days are far too gullible and don't question enough. I mean, can you believe that gullible isn't even in the dictionary?
You are receiving it, but you clearly are not getting it.
So sayeth the mac elitists. Look, I've been working with macs for a long time. Hell, I was an admin for a whole lab of em'! And I'm fairly certain I "got it" a long time ago, when it was made blatantly obvious to me that macs aren't sold on technological merits, but on design, fashion and raving fanatical devotion.
I don't mind apple so much; it's their fan club I can't stand. Honestly, I can't see a good reason to switch to a mac, and I just don't want to have to listen to the jabberjawing of their constituency. Is that so much to ask?
Yes, I know of Yellow Dog Linux. I have a t-shirt of theirs I received from their CEO. None of what you said answers my question: why does an article that discusses IBM and Linux, and has no mention of apple, end up in apple.slashdot.org?
Oooh, have any more witty repartee? I just can't seem to get enough of your brilliant insights to my personality, and based on only one of my postings no less.
How does this have anything *at all* to do with Apple? Also, why does story filtering for the front page no longer work? I turned off stories from the Apple section (twice) and I still see them!
And where is the evidence for this? Can we see the raw data they based their study on? No? Then I guess there is nothing to see here, just another "research firm" making claims they can't back up.
I don't normally respond to trolls, but what the heck . ..
This is modded 5 Insightful???????
insightful, adj : exhibiting insight or clear and deep perception;
I perceive that Bill O'Reilly, as portrayed on his self-produced show, "The O'Reilly Factor", is consistantly inflammatory and hostile towards his guests. He also has a habit of insulting people who disagree with him. I also perceive that shit consistantly comes out of my ass. Therefore, I have made an insightful observation.
(snipped long theory of "groupthink" and leftist conspiracy)
Look, I won't disagree that the majority of people on slashdot have leftist leanings. But a lot of people here are also conservatives when it comes to finance and right to bear arms. Then there's a whole smattering of opinions in between.
Then there's people like you.
I will never truly know if you are a troll, or just some paranoid right-winger. Either way, I don't really care. That's not to say I discount your opinion entirely. But unless you can back it up with some facts or logic, I have no motivation to consider your ideas once they are discredited.
Don't like the political winds of slashdot? Go form your own site where you can practice the same "evolution" of "groupthink" in whatever direction you want. Want to see ALL the opinions instead of the most popular left leaning ones? Just read at Score: -1, and you'll quickly see why I put people like you in my Foes list with an automatic -2 to their comment's Scores, then read only at a Score: 5.
I agree with all of Slashdotia when I say that Fox News is conservative. If any of you think that the Daily Show isn't biased, you are wrong.
Um, duh? I never said The Daily Show wasn't liberal. The thing that they keep my respect with is that they poke fun at *everyone* liberal and conservative almost equally.
Nothing is completely unbiased or fair and balanced, and The Daily Show isn't claiming to be any of these things. Yet they come closer to these ideals than anyone else reporting "news" on television that I have seen.
I love the Daily Show, but if that is what passes for requiring thought then I feel really bad about the mental state of our society.
Agreed, but I think I may have not clarified that statement enough: what I was referring to was when John does the whole headlines thing, with each headline followed closely by a zinger. People unfamiliar with this format have often confused what John says as really happening, and since truth can be stranger than fiction, it's not too hard to imagine someone taking it seriously. It takes a bit of discernment not normally practiced by TV viewers to realize where the "real" news ends and the joke begins.
I'll grant you that other segments of the show are very sophomoric. They have been my least favorite parts for a long time now, but I guess they keep someone amused, so I keep watching and enjoying the headlines. I do like the interviews, though, as they are very candid, unscripted, and not confrontational. It's a nice change from hateful programs like O'Reilly's, or tame scripted ones like presidential debates.
CNN.com has an interesting article about some deragatory comments made about Daily Show viewers by Bill O'Reilly and how Comedy Central reacted. They not only proved that the Daily Show viewers are better informed than viewers of his show, but they are also more informed than viewers of Jay Leno and David Lettermen.
This is not surprising for two reasons: first, Bill O'Reilly saying something derogatory about anyone is about as novel as shit coming out of my ass. He's the Rush Limbaugh of TV: extremely close minded and very inflammatory to those who don't agree with him.
Second, anyone who watches The Daily Show has to be pretty open minded and independent thinking. The Daily Show pokes fun at everyone: Republicans, Democrats and even themselves! Their brand of humor also takes a little bit more thought, so those who don't "get it" usually stop watching.
Torvalds: most influential in *actual* technology.
I'm not saying that Microsoft or Apple don't have any effect on technology, but anyone who thinks that Jobs or Gates are ubergeeks are deluding themselves.
I (and probably others) will be lurking here to answer any questions you guys have, I hope that no one is offended by that.
I know I won't be offended by that. Most slashdotters assume that the companies they discuss have representatives, either official or otherwise, at least listening in to threads here. Is it ego? Maybe, but anyone with some common sense can tell you that it's good to listen to your customers if you want to stay in business. Actually responding to customers on their "home turf" makes them feel more comfortable, willing to be honest, and (usually) instills a sense of goodwill towards the company in question. Any PR flack who thinks otherwise needs to go back to PR school (not that I'm an expert in PR, but I know what I like in companies I custom).
I for one will be buying this game, not just because it's made for Linux, although that is a pre-requisite, but it looks like it will be worth my money, and I want to support more software (including games) being developed for Linux. Mind you, I have never bought a game just because it's made for Linux, but I am always more than happy to support Linux game companies when they make a game I want to play. Thank you for your time and effort involved in supporting Linux, and I hope to be a customer of yours again (ie I hope you keep making games for Linux).
I think the main reason many people would like to move to space if they could is the same reason many left Europe for the New World: to escape opression, to start anew. Earth no longer feels like it's big enough to do this. Space, though - well, it's pretty big.
I think you've hit the nail right on the head.
When I was in high school, I would hang out in the computer lab during lunch. Why? Well, there were a couple of reaons, not the least of which was because there were computers to play with. But another important reason is that none of the jocks, popular people or teachers/administrators (excepting the computer teacher) were there.
Now, out in the "real world", I have nowhere to run, nowhere to go if I want to "play with" computers. When I voice my dissatisfaction with current events, I'm told by some so-called patriots "if you don't like it, leave". Where? Where the fuck am I supposed to go? There's nowhere left to go on this planet. This nation (America) is about as free as one can find, but it's still not free enough.
Maybe another Earth like planet would be nice, but don't have the means to get there. Hmm, maybe if we convince them to make a penal colony on the moon, then commit a crime (like watching DVDs on Linux) to get deported . .."The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" anyone?
Hmm, not a bad post, but a little off (as in smells funny) in some places. Let's take it piece by piece , shall we?
Are you saying science is a substitute for religion, or those who practice religion should be dismissed as scientists?
Well, I'm not saying that religionists should be dismissed from science, especially since it's not really a problem anyway . ..
By one count there are some 700 scientists with respectable academic credentials(out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science, the general theory that complex life forms did not evolve but appeared "abruptly." - Newsweek, June 29, 1987, pg. 23
So, I think the problem solves itself:)
President Bush's actions in expanding the funding of NSF, NASA and many other agencies suggest that he is pro-science.
So that would be why the Union of Concerned Scientists is concerned about Bush's science policies? Of course, Bush giving money to help science could be seen in the same way as Gates giving money to computer science: they could do so much more good if they actually focused on using their time and efforts closer to home than giving out money to look good.
Would you have said the same thing about Jimmy Carter who was also devoutly Christian? How about Albert Einstein who was a practicing Jew, or Donald Knuth who is a devout Lutheran.
I'm don't know about Carter or Knuth, but I know that Einstein was _not_ religious, and I quote:
It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.
-- Albert Einstein
I'm getting sick and tired of people trotting out the old "but Einstein was religious!" argument, especially when it's not true.
The theory that a vote for Nader/Badnarik is a vote for Bush stems from the idea that people who vote for change are probably voting for Kerry and not for Bush. So, by voting for a third-party, you're effectively taking a vote away from Kerry.
While I realize that the above may not be your personal opinion, I have to say to everyone who holds this opinion: fuck you.
I've heard this crap argument from everyone from friends to my own father (who raised me as a social liberal, fiscal conservative), and I have one thing to say in response to it: YOU are stealing votes from third party candidates. I for one can't, in good conscience, vote for Bush OR Kerry. And while you might trumpet the lesser of two evils, I pity you for your shortsightedness and lack of character.
Snappy Answers to Stupid Questions
on
Is IP Property?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Q: Is IP Property?
A: No.
That's the short answer. The long answer is that while many people would like you to believe in "intellectual property", it has no support in nature or law. Copyrights, trademarks and patents are very different things, and are only in existence because we as a society (of the people), through the government (by the people), have decided that it is beneficial to society (for the people) to encourage people to create by giving them financial incentive to do so. There is no such thing as "intellectual property". There is copyright, patent and trademarks. Lumping them all together is not only foolhardy, but short sighted and misleading.
Step 1: Go to http://www.mikx.de/scrollbar/ Step 2: Drag the scrollbar down a bit and let go Step 3: Start -> Programs -> Startup
Hmm, I tried this in Mozilla on my Debian GNU/Linux box, and nothing happened. Am I missing something? Should I be using Konqueror? Also, where is this "Start -> Programs -> Startup" you speak of?
Slashdot Mirror
A: No. See my sig. Next question.
Or, I could realize that I have just wasted many minutes of my life futiley responding to trolls who don't know better. Now I remember why I don't usually talk to mac users, never mind asking them a reasonable question for which they can give me no satisfactory answer. Instead, they like to use ad hominem to "win" their position.
1. Get a lawyer, preferably one who specializes in these things (patent attorney). Duh.
2. Ask for proof, ie specific citations as to what code is infringing and what patent numbers it is infringing upon.
While #1 is very important in this case, I can't stress #2 enough under any circumstances! People these days are far too gullible and don't question enough. I mean, can you believe that gullible isn't even in the dictionary?
So sayeth the mac elitists. Look, I've been working with macs for a long time. Hell, I was an admin for a whole lab of em'! And I'm fairly certain I "got it" a long time ago, when it was made blatantly obvious to me that macs aren't sold on technological merits, but on design, fashion and raving fanatical devotion.
I don't mind apple so much; it's their fan club I can't stand. Honestly, I can't see a good reason to switch to a mac, and I just don't want to have to listen to the jabberjawing of their constituency. Is that so much to ask?
Yes, I know of Yellow Dog Linux. I have a t-shirt of theirs I received from their CEO. None of what you said answers my question: why does an article that discusses IBM and Linux, and has no mention of apple, end up in apple.slashdot.org?
Except I'm still getting it.
Oooh, have any more witty repartee? I just can't seem to get enough of your brilliant insights to my personality, and based on only one of my postings no less.
How does this have anything *at all* to do with Apple? Also, why does story filtering for the front page no longer work? I turned off stories from the Apple section (twice) and I still see them!
And where is the evidence for this? Can we see the raw data they based their study on? No? Then I guess there is nothing to see here, just another "research firm" making claims they can't back up.
Mea culpa, mea culpa. I misread the 21st amendment. Mods, please mod my post down.
Mea culpa, mea culpa. I misread the 21st amendment. Mods, please mod my post down. Rufus88, please accept my apology.
I perceive that Bill O'Reilly, as portrayed on his self-produced show, "The O'Reilly Factor", is consistantly inflammatory and hostile towards his guests. He also has a habit of insulting people who disagree with him. I also perceive that shit consistantly comes out of my ass. Therefore, I have made an insightful observation.
Look, I won't disagree that the majority of people on slashdot have leftist leanings. But a lot of people here are also conservatives when it comes to finance and right to bear arms. Then there's a whole smattering of opinions in between.
Then there's people like you.
I will never truly know if you are a troll, or just some paranoid right-winger. Either way, I don't really care. That's not to say I discount your opinion entirely. But unless you can back it up with some facts or logic, I have no motivation to consider your ideas once they are discredited.
Don't like the political winds of slashdot? Go form your own site where you can practice the same "evolution" of "groupthink" in whatever direction you want. Want to see ALL the opinions instead of the most popular left leaning ones? Just read at Score: -1, and you'll quickly see why I put people like you in my Foes list with an automatic -2 to their comment's Scores, then read only at a Score: 5.
Um, duh? I never said The Daily Show wasn't liberal. The thing that they keep my respect with is that they poke fun at *everyone* liberal and conservative almost equally.
Nothing is completely unbiased or fair and balanced, and The Daily Show isn't claiming to be any of these things. Yet they come closer to these ideals than anyone else reporting "news" on television that I have seen.
Last I checked, Jobs was not the brains behind the Apple I, nor did Bill Gates create BASIC. Try again.
Except that it *didn't* stop the so-called "crime". Ever heard of a gin joint? Study some history, you might learn something.
Agreed, but I think I may have not clarified that statement enough: what I was referring to was when John does the whole headlines thing, with each headline followed closely by a zinger. People unfamiliar with this format have often confused what John says as really happening, and since truth can be stranger than fiction, it's not too hard to imagine someone taking it seriously. It takes a bit of discernment not normally practiced by TV viewers to realize where the "real" news ends and the joke begins.
I'll grant you that other segments of the show are very sophomoric. They have been my least favorite parts for a long time now, but I guess they keep someone amused, so I keep watching and enjoying the headlines. I do like the interviews, though, as they are very candid, unscripted, and not confrontational. It's a nice change from hateful programs like O'Reilly's, or tame scripted ones like presidential debates.
This is not surprising for two reasons: first, Bill O'Reilly saying something derogatory about anyone is about as novel as shit coming out of my ass. He's the Rush Limbaugh of TV: extremely close minded and very inflammatory to those who don't agree with him.
Second, anyone who watches The Daily Show has to be pretty open minded and independent thinking. The Daily Show pokes fun at everyone: Republicans, Democrats and even themselves! Their brand of humor also takes a little bit more thought, so those who don't "get it" usually stop watching.
There is no spirit world.
Jobs: most influential in fashion.
Torvalds: most influential in *actual* technology.
I'm not saying that Microsoft or Apple don't have any effect on technology, but anyone who thinks that Jobs or Gates are ubergeeks are deluding themselves.
I know I won't be offended by that. Most slashdotters assume that the companies they discuss have representatives, either official or otherwise, at least listening in to threads here. Is it ego? Maybe, but anyone with some common sense can tell you that it's good to listen to your customers if you want to stay in business. Actually responding to customers on their "home turf" makes them feel more comfortable, willing to be honest, and (usually) instills a sense of goodwill towards the company in question. Any PR flack who thinks otherwise needs to go back to PR school (not that I'm an expert in PR, but I know what I like in companies I custom).
I for one will be buying this game, not just because it's made for Linux, although that is a pre-requisite, but it looks like it will be worth my money, and I want to support more software (including games) being developed for Linux. Mind you, I have never bought a game just because it's made for Linux, but I am always more than happy to support Linux game companies when they make a game I want to play. Thank you for your time and effort involved in supporting Linux, and I hope to be a customer of yours again (ie I hope you keep making games for Linux).
I think you've hit the nail right on the head.
When I was in high school, I would hang out in the computer lab during lunch. Why? Well, there were a couple of reaons, not the least of which was because there were computers to play with. But another important reason is that none of the jocks, popular people or teachers/administrators (excepting the computer teacher) were there.
Now, out in the "real world", I have nowhere to run, nowhere to go if I want to "play with" computers. When I voice my dissatisfaction with current events, I'm told by some so-called patriots "if you don't like it, leave". Where? Where the fuck am I supposed to go? There's nowhere left to go on this planet. This nation (America) is about as free as one can find, but it's still not free enough.
Maybe another Earth like planet would be nice, but don't have the means to get there. Hmm, maybe if we convince them to make a penal colony on the moon, then commit a crime (like watching DVDs on Linux) to get deported . .
Well, I'm not saying that religionists should be dismissed from science, especially since it's not really a problem anyway . .
So, I think the problem solves itself
So that would be why the Union of Concerned Scientists is concerned about Bush's science policies? Of course, Bush giving money to help science could be seen in the same way as Gates giving money to computer science: they could do so much more good if they actually focused on using their time and efforts closer to home than giving out money to look good.
I'm don't know about Carter or Knuth, but I know that Einstein was _not_ religious, and I quote:
I'm getting sick and tired of people trotting out the old "but Einstein was religious!" argument, especially when it's not true.
While I realize that the above may not be your personal opinion, I have to say to everyone who holds this opinion: fuck you.
I've heard this crap argument from everyone from friends to my own father (who raised me as a social liberal, fiscal conservative), and I have one thing to say in response to it: YOU are stealing votes from third party candidates. I for one can't, in good conscience, vote for Bush OR Kerry. And while you might trumpet the lesser of two evils, I pity you for your shortsightedness and lack of character.
A: No.
That's the short answer. The long answer is that while many people would like you to believe in "intellectual property", it has no support in nature or law. Copyrights, trademarks and patents are very different things, and are only in existence because we as a society (of the people), through the government (by the people), have decided that it is beneficial to society (for the people) to encourage people to create by giving them financial incentive to do so. There is no such thing as "intellectual property". There is copyright, patent and trademarks. Lumping them all together is not only foolhardy, but short sighted and misleading.
See the Disinfopedia article and the Wikipedia article for more details.
Hmm, I tried this in Mozilla on my Debian GNU/Linux box, and nothing happened. Am I missing something? Should I be using Konqueror? Also, where is this "Start -> Programs -> Startup" you speak of?
(I don't normally respond to myself, but I didn't think of this alternative until it was too late)