Well this certainly is out of the question for the Linux kernel and even most free/open software. With so many contributors and no central authority it would be a herculean task to get everyone to sign off on a commercial licensed version.
One has to wonder however how much cash a commercial license for some projects would bring in allowing for the funding and development for the free/open version.
The makers of the report make the grand claim that "Our panel preferred prints produced with third-party inks over those produced with manufacturer's own products."
But also state: "A comment that was made by several of our panellists was that many of the prints were of very similar quality and quite difficult to differentiate between."
The only printer I really care about is the HP one, for personal reasons. In looking at the charts for it the HP ink received an average score of 43.55, the CartridgeWorld average was 44.12 (0.57 difference), The InkTecShop cartridge had problems (no yellow, second cartridge had to be cleaned 3 times) and received a 34.83 score, JetTec came out with 41.52, and Green Tech with 35.40.
My conclusions: 2 brands didn't come close and/or had problems, 2 others were comparable but were "difficult to differentiate between" and fall within the realm of a couple points of deviation and error.
Bottom line: I don't print a lot so the cost doesn't really matter to me and I know HP isn't going to get pissy about my warranty if I use their cartridges.
Alright, so the purpose of patents isn't to forward the condition of man (invention), but it's to encourage invention (forwarding the condition of man).
What?
I think you are confused between the purpose of patents and how the system is set up to achieve that goal.
Verizons patents should be deemed invalid. Please show me anyone at all, let alone someone who "understands the technical field of the invention", who thinks that getting phone calls placed over the internet to interact with the PSTN is non-obvious and worthy of a patent.
Same reason why I can't buy LOST episodes through iTunes in Canada.
Companies don't want our money so they throw up all these bullshit geo-political legal roadblocks to prevent us from giving it to them. It's the only thing that makes any sense.
The Mac Pro's firmware update fixed some issues with the SMC and the BIOS emulation's SATA state. It did not ADD the BIOS emulation module, it has been there since day one.
The one thing to understand here is that you don't really need Boot Camp to run other operating systems. Intel macs will boot, install and run other intel OS's just fine without it. All Boot Camp does is gives you a pretty interface to partition your drive and makes a nice CD with all the Windows drivers on it for you.
Akamai actually is an argument FOR net-neutrality, for without net-neutrality Akamai wouldn't exist. Carriers would ask Akamai to pay even more for "premium bandwidth" and just offer the services direct to cnn.com themselves cutting Akamai out of the picture.
Although, the whole Baltar is-he-or-isn't-he thing is getting dragged on too far long, and I can't see a way for that to be answered that ISN'T disappointing.
It's already been answered. If he was a cylon he would have been infected when he went on the infected base star. He wasn't. If that wasn't enough confirmation for you then how about this: why would the cylons let him go to the infected base star knowing he would return if he could be infected?
Being an old school mech pilot who has purchased every mechwarrior game since crescent hawks (and subsequently competitively played them online for over a decade) I have to really disagree. Customization in Mech2 far outweighed the craptastic hard point system in Mech3. In fact Mech3 was a joke. The single player was OK, the multiplayer was horrible, the customization aspects were junk and no real community formed for that particular game. Mech4 was lightyears better but still not as good as Mech2 would have been with updated graphics and network play.
As single player games on their own, without having a vested interest in Battletech I can see people liking Mech3 over Mech2 but when all is said and done Microsoft screwed Battletech fans.
So yes, I would give significantly more weight to a Linux that has MS's stamp of approval.
Right, because ATM's, Point of Sale machines, electronic billboards, fight schedule displays and many other business related machines running on MS software has such a proven track record. There certainly aren't any examples around of them failing.
Your logic also makes encryption evil. Is anyone who uses encryption being evil, because they are controlling access to their thoughts, ideas and communications?
"Evil" is a very strong word. Using it to describe things that are merely bad or annoying, devalues the word.
DRM is not simply bad, annoying or an inconvenience. DRM is evil. DRM enables access controls to information, our culture, our lives, our very thoughts.
DRM was created by greedy evil people whose sole goal was to be the gatekeepers to all information. If these people had their way you would be paying them every time you opened a book, viewed a web page, drew a likeness of their characters, hummed their song in your shower or recalled a scene from their movies!
DRM is based on the same fallacy that all "intellectual property" is based on: that someone can own an idea. The problem with that is the same problem with digital copying: an idea can be shared infinitely without depriving anyone of it.
You see DRM as only affecting music and movies. That may be the case now however what about the future? Fair Use exempts copying for academic research, what happens when a school teacher giving a lesson about volcanoes tries to print out information about the pacific ring to share with his class and his DVD copy of the encyclopedia britannica will only let him print one copy, total, for any article? Simply copy it you say? His cannon copy machine has built in DRM to prevent "unauthorized" copying of DRM'd materials.
This is not as far off as you think. If the megacorps have their way no one will be able to access any information without going thought them, and subsequently paying them money, first.
Well, here is your assumption you denied having in your previous comments: "needs and wants which are consistent to all beings.". In my religion this assumption is not valid.
I see, so in your religion the definition of words change meaning to suit you? A human NEEDS air to breathe. A human WANTS to find happiness. A NEED is a requirement, a WANT is a wish. The words NEED and WANT do not change meaning depending on their subject. This is not an assumption.
Let me break it down further for you, I see you are having trouble with logic:
1. An all powerful Creator has no NEED for worshipers as He is all powerful. This guy is all powerful and in your words "so far beyond humanity". He can do anything he wants. He doesn't need air, food, sleep, anything. Why would he need worshipers? He doesn't.
2. If an all powerful Creator WANTED worshipers and decided to create them they would be perfect beings who would worship him without question. Alright, so if he doesn't need worshipers lets assume your religion is correct and we were created to worship Him. That means he must have wanted worshipers. Well if an all powerful being wanted worshipers he would make the best worshipers he could, not a bunch of ragtag people like us who can't agree on anything. He wouldn't make a salad, he wouldn't make an airplane, he wouldn't make people who disagree about everything, he would make perfect worshipers who would all believe in him.
3. No person on earth is perfect and not everyone believes in one faith. Well, we know that nobody here is perfect and not everyone believes in the same deity or even any deity at all so this baloney about us being created as worshipers is just that, baloney.
This being said there are only three possibilities about the motive of the Creator: 1. We were created for a purpose other than worshiping the Creator. Maybe we were created not to simply be worshipers but to experience life? Maybe we were created as entertainment for this creator? Islam and Christianities option: Maybe we are part of this huge cruel game in which we follow a set number of ridiculous rules or are tortured for eternity? The guy who set that up doesn't seem like he loves us very much so I refuse to play that game. It is impossible for us to know the real reason we were created if indeed we were created.
2. There is no Creator. Maybe there is no invisible friend, he sure hasn't made himself known to us.
3. The Creator is not all powerful. Perhaps this creator isn't all powerful but draws its power from our worship? Maybe the creator is another race of beings not of this world? Who knows.
Continue to deny logic all you wish, that is your choice. Do not tell me I am making assumptions as I am not.
Finally, some rational thought. Agreed, an all powerful Creator doesn't need anything as He is all powerful. So that turns us to WANT:
2. If an all powerful Creator wanted worshipers and decided to create them they would be perfect beings who would worship him without question. 3. No person on earth is perfect and not everyone believes in one faith.
I think at this point I can just repeat my arguments again, since you seem to be applying again antropomorphic arguments to Creator.
No, I am not. I am applying basic logic about needs and wants which are consistent to all beings.
An all powerful Creator would not need for anything as He would be all powerful. Therefore if we were created to worship him he WANTED us. If an all powerful Creator WANTED worshipers he would create perfect beings who would all worship him, remember, he is all powerful, he could do this! Nobody on earth is perfect, and not everyone believes in the same Creator, some people don't even believe in ANY creator, therefore we were not created by an all powerful Creator for the purpose of worshiping him!
If the Creator is the one described by Islam then he is a cruel being playing a game with the lives of his creations. "Worship me or be in pain for eternity". This is not the kind of Creator who deserves any worship or respect.
You comparing a human to the Deity. Deity is not human.
Oh, I see, so a deity which is so far beyond humanity that we cannot comprehend it requires human worshipers? That is like saying humans need ants to worship them. It is ridiculous. Have you ever even thought about why a deity so far beyond humanity would even care about humanity at all?
This goes back to:
1. An all powerful Creator has no need for worshipers as He is all powerful. 2. If an all powerful Creator wanted worshipers and decided to create them they would be perfect beings who would worship him without question. 3. No person on earth is perfect and not everyone believes in one faith.
Most important is what He tells us to do and what He might do to us if we won't behave.
Propaganda written by the ruling class at the time to seize power over the masses and subdue them. To fill them with fear. Fear is the mind killer. The west has been waking up and realizing this truth about religion which is why we have secular societies which you yourself admit are more free.
Please try to think more abstract than parent-child analogy. I know you are capable of that.
Open your mind to the possibility. Do not dismiss it out of hand. Think logically. I know you are capable of that.
Slashdot Mirror
You are not prepared!
Well this certainly is out of the question for the Linux kernel and even most free/open software. With so many contributors and no central authority it would be a herculean task to get everyone to sign off on a commercial licensed version.
One has to wonder however how much cash a commercial license for some projects would bring in allowing for the funding and development for the free/open version.
Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk, but lives on the planet Endor. Now think about it, that does not make sense!
I'm pretty sure he was talking about the ink cartridges, not the printer.
HP releases ink cartridge page yield using ISO standard pages at http://www.hp.com/pageyield
The makers of the report make the grand claim that "Our panel preferred prints produced with third-party inks over those produced with manufacturer's own products."
But also state: "A comment that was made by several of our panellists was that many of the prints were of very similar quality and quite difficult to differentiate between."
The only printer I really care about is the HP one, for personal reasons. In looking at the charts for it the HP ink received an average score of 43.55, the CartridgeWorld average was 44.12 (0.57 difference), The InkTecShop cartridge had problems (no yellow, second cartridge had to be cleaned 3 times) and received a 34.83 score, JetTec came out with 41.52, and Green Tech with 35.40.
My conclusions: 2 brands didn't come close and/or had problems, 2 others were comparable but were "difficult to differentiate between" and fall within the realm of a couple points of deviation and error.
Bottom line: I don't print a lot so the cost doesn't really matter to me and I know HP isn't going to get pissy about my warranty if I use their cartridges.
Alright, so the purpose of patents isn't to forward the condition of man (invention), but it's to encourage invention (forwarding the condition of man).
What?
I think you are confused between the purpose of patents and how the system is set up to achieve that goal.
Verizons patents should be deemed invalid. Please show me anyone at all, let alone someone who "understands the technical field of the invention", who thinks that getting phone calls placed over the internet to interact with the PSTN is non-obvious and worthy of a patent.
Hey dissy,
:)
I was on the other day, no one was around....
I have a mac mini and a mac pro.
Please, continue to have "Months of Apple Bugs", hell, make it every month! The more you force Apple to patch the more secure my mac will be.
Same reason why I can't buy LOST episodes through iTunes in Canada.
Companies don't want our money so they throw up all these bullshit geo-political legal roadblocks to prevent us from giving it to them. It's the only thing that makes any sense.
My computer is kinda beefy: 2x 2.66GHz Core2Duo Xeons, 2GB of RAM, Radeon x1900XT 512MB. (otherwise known as a Mac Pro).
WinXP runs extremely well, Vista runs slower, MacOS X blazes.
Startup times to desktop are the real noticeable factor: MacOS X - 12 seconds, XP - 38 seconds, Vista - 63 seconds.
Not only that, but by the time Vista is loaded it's already chewed up 650MB of RAM, XP is not even half that, MacOS X is but a quarter.
I think you can tell where I like to stay most of the time...
The Mac Pro's firmware update fixed some issues with the SMC and the BIOS emulation's SATA state. It did not ADD the BIOS emulation module, it has been there since day one.
Please tell me why I was able to install windows on a second hard drive on my Mac Pro without downloading, installing or touching boot camp.
The one thing to understand here is that you don't really need Boot Camp to run other operating systems. Intel macs will boot, install and run other intel OS's just fine without it. All Boot Camp does is gives you a pretty interface to partition your drive and makes a nice CD with all the Windows drivers on it for you.
Akamai actually is an argument FOR net-neutrality, for without net-neutrality Akamai wouldn't exist. Carriers would ask Akamai to pay even more for "premium bandwidth" and just offer the services direct to cnn.com themselves cutting Akamai out of the picture.
Although, the whole Baltar is-he-or-isn't-he thing is getting dragged on too far long, and I can't see a way for that to be answered that ISN'T disappointing.
It's already been answered. If he was a cylon he would have been infected when he went on the infected base star. He wasn't. If that wasn't enough confirmation for you then how about this: why would the cylons let him go to the infected base star knowing he would return if he could be infected?
Mech3 was actually Microsoft/Microprose/Zipper. It was certainly not Activision.
Being an old school mech pilot who has purchased every mechwarrior game since crescent hawks (and subsequently competitively played them online for over a decade) I have to really disagree. Customization in Mech2 far outweighed the craptastic hard point system in Mech3. In fact Mech3 was a joke. The single player was OK, the multiplayer was horrible, the customization aspects were junk and no real community formed for that particular game. Mech4 was lightyears better but still not as good as Mech2 would have been with updated graphics and network play.
As single player games on their own, without having a vested interest in Battletech I can see people liking Mech3 over Mech2 but when all is said and done Microsoft screwed Battletech fans.
Here's some prior art: dialpad in 1999.
So yes, I would give significantly more weight to a Linux that has MS's stamp of approval.
Right, because ATM's, Point of Sale machines, electronic billboards, fight schedule displays and many other business related machines running on MS software has such a proven track record. There certainly aren't any examples around of them failing.
Your logic also makes encryption evil. Is anyone who uses encryption being evil, because they are controlling access to their thoughts, ideas and communications?
You miss the point completely.
"Evil" is a very strong word. Using it to describe things that are merely bad or annoying, devalues the word.
DRM is not simply bad, annoying or an inconvenience. DRM is evil. DRM enables access controls to information, our culture, our lives, our very thoughts.
DRM was created by greedy evil people whose sole goal was to be the gatekeepers to all information. If these people had their way you would be paying them every time you opened a book, viewed a web page, drew a likeness of their characters, hummed their song in your shower or recalled a scene from their movies!
DRM is based on the same fallacy that all "intellectual property" is based on: that someone can own an idea. The problem with that is the same problem with digital copying: an idea can be shared infinitely without depriving anyone of it.
You see DRM as only affecting music and movies. That may be the case now however what about the future? Fair Use exempts copying for academic research, what happens when a school teacher giving a lesson about volcanoes tries to print out information about the pacific ring to share with his class and his DVD copy of the encyclopedia britannica will only let him print one copy, total, for any article? Simply copy it you say? His cannon copy machine has built in DRM to prevent "unauthorized" copying of DRM'd materials.
This is not as far off as you think. If the megacorps have their way no one will be able to access any information without going thought them, and subsequently paying them money, first.
Well, here is your assumption you denied having in your previous comments: "needs and wants which are consistent to all beings.". In my religion this assumption is not valid.
I see, so in your religion the definition of words change meaning to suit you? A human NEEDS air to breathe. A human WANTS to find happiness. A NEED is a requirement, a WANT is a wish. The words NEED and WANT do not change meaning depending on their subject. This is not an assumption.
Let me break it down further for you, I see you are having trouble with logic:
1. An all powerful Creator has no NEED for worshipers as He is all powerful.
This guy is all powerful and in your words "so far beyond humanity". He can do anything he wants. He doesn't need air, food, sleep, anything. Why would he need worshipers? He doesn't.
2. If an all powerful Creator WANTED worshipers and decided to create them they would be perfect beings who would worship him without question.
Alright, so if he doesn't need worshipers lets assume your religion is correct and we were created to worship Him. That means he must have wanted worshipers. Well if an all powerful being wanted worshipers he would make the best worshipers he could, not a bunch of ragtag people like us who can't agree on anything. He wouldn't make a salad, he wouldn't make an airplane, he wouldn't make people who disagree about everything, he would make perfect worshipers who would all believe in him.
3. No person on earth is perfect and not everyone believes in one faith.
Well, we know that nobody here is perfect and not everyone believes in the same deity or even any deity at all so this baloney about us being created as worshipers is just that, baloney.
This being said there are only three possibilities about the motive of the Creator:
1. We were created for a purpose other than worshiping the Creator.
Maybe we were created not to simply be worshipers but to experience life? Maybe we were created as entertainment for this creator? Islam and Christianities option: Maybe we are part of this huge cruel game in which we follow a set number of ridiculous rules or are tortured for eternity? The guy who set that up doesn't seem like he loves us very much so I refuse to play that game. It is impossible for us to know the real reason we were created if indeed we were created.
2. There is no Creator.
Maybe there is no invisible friend, he sure hasn't made himself known to us.
3. The Creator is not all powerful.
Perhaps this creator isn't all powerful but draws its power from our worship? Maybe the creator is another race of beings not of this world? Who knows.
Continue to deny logic all you wish, that is your choice. Do not tell me I am making assumptions as I am not.
Finally, some rational thought. Agreed, an all powerful Creator doesn't need anything as He is all powerful. So that turns us to WANT:
2. If an all powerful Creator wanted worshipers and decided to create them they would be perfect beings who would worship him without question.
3. No person on earth is perfect and not everyone believes in one faith.
I think at this point I can just repeat my arguments again, since you seem to be applying again antropomorphic arguments to Creator.
No, I am not. I am applying basic logic about needs and wants which are consistent to all beings.
An all powerful Creator would not need for anything as He would be all powerful. Therefore if we were created to worship him he WANTED us. If an all powerful Creator WANTED worshipers he would create perfect beings who would all worship him, remember, he is all powerful, he could do this! Nobody on earth is perfect, and not everyone believes in the same Creator, some people don't even believe in ANY creator, therefore we were not created by an all powerful Creator for the purpose of worshiping him!
If the Creator is the one described by Islam then he is a cruel being playing a game with the lives of his creations. "Worship me or be in pain for eternity". This is not the kind of Creator who deserves any worship or respect.
You comparing a human to the Deity. Deity is not human.
Oh, I see, so a deity which is so far beyond humanity that we cannot comprehend it requires human worshipers? That is like saying humans need ants to worship them. It is ridiculous. Have you ever even thought about why a deity so far beyond humanity would even care about humanity at all?
This goes back to:
1. An all powerful Creator has no need for worshipers as He is all powerful.
2. If an all powerful Creator wanted worshipers and decided to create them they would be perfect beings who would worship him without question.
3. No person on earth is perfect and not everyone believes in one faith.
Most important is what He tells us to do and what He might do to us if we won't behave.
Propaganda written by the ruling class at the time to seize power over the masses and subdue them. To fill them with fear. Fear is the mind killer. The west has been waking up and realizing this truth about religion which is why we have secular societies which you yourself admit are more free.
Please try to think more abstract than parent-child analogy. I know you are capable of that.
Open your mind to the possibility. Do not dismiss it out of hand. Think logically. I know you are capable of that.