Well, it needs to be broken up again, so your generation can enjoy the spectacle too. Hopefully instead of breaking it up geographically (which was a fairly stupid idea that didn't really help anything), they'll break it up by services, and the company that owns the phone lines will be prohibited from running any kind of service on them.
I don't expect anything like this to happen within the next couple of decades. Before then, AT&T will have bought both Qwest and Verizon (although I'm not yet sure which one they'll buy first).
I thought that even the police have to get a judge to authorize a warrant to search - and only if there is reasonable grounds against an individual (not the populace of whole country). Well sure, if they're going to follow the law - but since nobody's gonna make them, why should they bother with all that messy paperwork? It's so much easier to just do it, and hope the mainstream media won't care, so the general public won't be aware of it. Seems to have worked so far.
That's actually good, because people associate the AT&T name with telecom monopoly. Only the people who are old enough to remember life before the breakup of the Baby Bells. I'm 28, and that was before my time. Most people younger than me probably aren't even aware of it.
They bought up most of the old Baby Bells, which includes many staff, and many of the same level managers as from AT&T. They had already done that before they bought AT&T, though.
Spam filters like Spamassassin actually work remarkably well. Yep, and I still get buckets of spam that my complex maze of filters doesn't catch. Now imagine how much copyrighted content will slip past AT&T's filters...
It astounds me that Apple flips the bird to all of the Windows UI conventions for marketing purposes and nobody seems to care. Everything from their own anti-aliasing algorithm for text, their own custom widgets, to windows that you can only resize from the right corner. Of course, many legit Windows applications do the same thing, but it seems highly hypocritical of Apple to say, "you should stick to conventions when designing UIs" and then hardcode their own ideas in when developing on another platform. You're obviously not a Mac user! You'd be far less astounded by this if you understood that Apple has a history of flipping the bird to all of the Mac UI conventions for marketing purposes. I'd say this dates back to about QuickTime 4. Eventually, Apple documented some of their own UI abuses, such as the arbitrary use of the brushed metal theme instead of the standard Aqua theme. It sounds like Leopard will have some convergence between new Mac UI guidelines and the actual UI of Apple's new apps, though, which will be good!
Ask them, IE 5 WAS ported with the windows theme. It wasnt until Office X that the MBU started designing things more along the lines of the Mac ascetic but even then, you can tell its a windows program. As a long time Mac user, I can tell you that this is complete nonsense. Early versions of IE/Mac looked absolutely nothing like IE/Windows, which has always looked like complete crap by comparison. Later versions of IE/Mac added pretty translucent buttons in multiple iMac colors.
IE/Mac never looked or felt like a Windows app. It always felt like a Microsoft Mac app. (Remember that there have been Microsoft Mac apps since before there was Windows.)
While I agree that iTunes should be available as a separate download that doesn't include QuickTime, the fact that QuickTime is included isn't bloat. iTunes relies heavily on QuickTime, and absolutely cannot function without it. Just because you never use the QuickTime Player doesn't mean you aren't using QuickTime.
How many OS X users (other than slashdot readers) will care in the slightest about the underlying filesystem? I'd imagine a significant number of the attendees at next week's WorldWide DEVELOPER Conference would be interested in the filesystem, and that's where Jobs would be making any surprise announcements about it.
He's not happy that it broke, he's happy that it broke under warranty, before the one-year warranty was up. After the warranty runs out, a lot of Mac hardware problems aren't cost-effective to fix; you're better off just buying a new one.
my $music='Art'; my($swing,$rock)=q s/hacker/perfor mer/; # another creator of art... my $blues=~/^.(\w+).*#\s(\w+)/; my $jazz=substr((grep m($music)=>qx($^X$,-v))[$[],$?,scalar @_); my $pop=eval qq("\\@_");
that's my song!!!! you'll be hearing from my lawyers. If you think those are your lyrics, I'll see you in court. If you think any of the rest is yours, you're simply wrong. You can't claim copyright on those chords any more than I can.
Ah, I had forgotten about that, but I seem to recall thinking that it was mostly an alien thing, something that certain aliens somehow had the ability to do, not something humans on earth were supposed to try to achieve via enlightenment. I don't have a problem with aliens that inhabit another plane of existence; my brain just rejects the idea that we can get there ourselves just by thinking about it a certain way, at which point our physical bodies will disappear into a blob of light.
There, I've just written some chords for a song I made up. But you know what? Those chords are NOT COPYRIGHTABLE. The lyrics are (and if you record and distribute a song with these lyrics without paying me royalties, I'll come after you). The melody is, but I haven't written that down. The arrangement is (harmonies, instrumentation, etc.) but I haven't written that down either. The chords themselves are not. This is data, information about how the song is put together - not art.
By the way, this particular series of chords (transposed into all 24 major and minor keys) is used in hundreds if not THOUSANDS of different songs.
No, I am suggesting that because Paul is human, his writings are not unchallengable. Learn to fucking read. Were not the other writers of the Bible similarly human?
Of course I know that; I quoted it because it's the most commonly used modern translation. This I don't understand. If you believe that the bible is the word of God shouldn't you be *extremely* angry at the idea of a distorted version being circulated? Rather than quoting it shouldn't you be condemning it? I wasn't really serious when I agreed with you about the NIV. I'm aware of the criticism, but I don't personally consider the NIV to be significantly more distorted than any other translation. It's simply not possible to translate from one language to another completely different language, conveying the same meaning that the original intended while simultaneously remaining literally accurate to the actual text. The NASB sometimes errs on the side of translating the literal text (at the expense of making the meaning less clear), while the NIV sometimes errs on the side of getting the meaning across (at the expense of literal accuracy). Taken to an extreme is The Message, which attempts to convey the meaning with very little regard for the actual text, which would be a decent idea if it weren't for all the parts that are actually harder to read than the more literal translations (GOD-OF-THE-ANGEL-ARMIES and all that). Going to the opposite extreme, I have a copy of the New Testament with the text in Greek, with an English translation underneath it (and the KJV in fine print in the margin for reference).
My point was, if you don't like the translation I picked, feel free to look it up in another one.
I'm not complaining about the NIV version of Romans, I'm complaining about *you* trying to quote that passage while also proposing the unchristian "greed is good" doctrine of Predestination. What is your interpretation of John 6:65?
"And He was saying, 'For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father.'" (NASB)
"And he said, 'Because of this I have said to you - No one is able to come unto me, if it may not have been given him from my Father.'" (YLT)
Again, please feel free to use whatever translation you like, or go straight to the Greek if you're able to do so.
Also, what did you mean by calling Predestination a "greed is good" doctrine?
I always thought ascension was just a cheap trick they thought up as a way to kill Michael Shanks' character without actually killing him, although of course they milked it later. Other sci-fi shows have had similar ideas, but the whole concept of learning how to evolve into a state of pure energy is pretty absurd, and I have trouble suspending my disbelief for that kind of crap.
Applications, applications, applications, applications. You can't run Mac applications on Linux. That doesn't mean it wouldn't be nice to have some more of Linux's features available on Mac OS X.
This is a test of basic functionality. If mom can't make a call, that's a bad sign. If she can, it only means the device is a usable phone. The implication here is that many current "smart phones" fail this basic test, and therefore a lot of consumers won't buy them, because they can't figure out how to make them work when they see them in the store. If the iPhone passes this test while most other "smart phones" on the market fail, the iPhone will sell like hotcakes.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't expect anything like this to happen within the next couple of decades. Before then, AT&T will have bought both Qwest and Verizon (although I'm not yet sure which one they'll buy first).
AT&T has a lot of money.
Does that answer your question?
IE/Mac never looked or felt like a Windows app. It always felt like a Microsoft Mac app. (Remember that there have been Microsoft Mac apps since before there was Windows.)
try this
While I agree that iTunes should be available as a separate download that doesn't include QuickTime, the fact that QuickTime is included isn't bloat. iTunes relies heavily on QuickTime, and absolutely cannot function without it. Just because you never use the QuickTime Player doesn't mean you aren't using QuickTime.
He's not happy that it broke, he's happy that it broke under warranty, before the one-year warranty was up. After the warranty runs out, a lot of Mac hardware problems aren't cost-effective to fix; you're better off just buying a new one.
This guy is a public figure. In order to successfully claim libel, he must prove malice. An algorithm can't have malice against him in particular.
Sure it can. This one probably doesn't, but if it does, he'll win his libel suit.Of course, if the algorithm does have malice against him, it didn't get that way by accident.
You forgot that BellSouth is now part of "the new AT&T", which is much more evil than BellSouth used to be.
Thank you. Here's another (less concise) JAPH, vaguely topical (remove the extra space from "performer"):
r mer/; # another creator of art...
#!/usr/bin/perl
use strict;
use warnings;
($,,$",$_,@_)=reverse qw(164 163 165 112),",\n",split '','\ ';
my $music='Art';
my($swing,$rock)=q
s/hacker/perfo
my $blues=~/^.(\w+).*#\s(\w+)/;
my $jazz=substr((grep m($music)=>qx($^X$,-v))[$[],$?,scalar @_);
my $pop=eval qq("\\@_");
print $pop, $rock, $jazz, $swing;
print;
Ah, I had forgotten about that, but I seem to recall thinking that it was mostly an alien thing, something that certain aliens somehow had the ability to do, not something humans on earth were supposed to try to achieve via enlightenment. I don't have a problem with aliens that inhabit another plane of existence; my brain just rejects the idea that we can get there ourselves just by thinking about it a certain way, at which point our physical bodies will disappear into a blob of light.
A
Blah blah blah blah-dy blah blah blah,
D A
Blah blah blah blah-dy blah blah blah.
D
Blah blah-dy blah blah, blah blah blah,
A
Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.
E7 D
Blah, blah blah; blah blah blah.
A
Blah! Blah blah blah.
There, I've just written some chords for a song I made up. But you know what? Those chords are NOT COPYRIGHTABLE. The lyrics are (and if you record and distribute a song with these lyrics without paying me royalties, I'll come after you). The melody is, but I haven't written that down. The arrangement is (harmonies, instrumentation, etc.) but I haven't written that down either. The chords themselves are not. This is data, information about how the song is put together - not art.
By the way, this particular series of chords (transposed into all 24 major and minor keys) is used in hundreds if not THOUSANDS of different songs.
512x342
My point was, if you don't like the translation I picked, feel free to look it up in another one. I'm not complaining about the NIV version of Romans, I'm complaining about *you* trying to quote that passage while also proposing the unchristian "greed is good" doctrine of Predestination. What is your interpretation of John 6:65?
"And He was saying, 'For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father.'" (NASB)
"And he said, 'Because of this I have said to you - No one is able to come unto me, if it may not have been given him from my Father.'" (YLT)
Again, please feel free to use whatever translation you like, or go straight to the Greek if you're able to do so.
Also, what did you mean by calling Predestination a "greed is good" doctrine?
I always thought ascension was just a cheap trick they thought up as a way to kill Michael Shanks' character without actually killing him, although of course they milked it later. Other sci-fi shows have had similar ideas, but the whole concept of learning how to evolve into a state of pure energy is pretty absurd, and I have trouble suspending my disbelief for that kind of crap.
Applications, applications, applications, applications. You can't run Mac applications on Linux. That doesn't mean it wouldn't be nice to have some more of Linux's features available on Mac OS X.