"Dude, I see everything around here. Including some stuff I wish I hadn't seen."
Point WELL taken, but I have yet to see michael drop a goatse landmine in an article summary... yet.
"But if their honest self-promotion was enough to win you over, then certainly, it is enough to change my life."
I never suggested Microsoft was an honest company, but just about anything is better than "Use Linux, because it's not Windows, and as we ALL KNOW, Windows and anything else Microsoft makes is bad!"
I thought this site is supposed to be about the promotion of open source software, and educating the public on its benefits over closed source commercial software. I thought I would come to this site finding compelling information that would convince me to switch to open source software.
Instead, we rarely see anything but attacks on the competition, and hypocritical attacks at that. Microsoft and Intel are bad, but Apple and AMD are good.
Seldom have I read anything here that suggests why I should consider using open source software. All I hear is why select blacklisted companies are bad. I am dubious of anyone who favors relentless attacks on the competition over honest self-promotion.
Impressive and Glitchy
on
Neuros Review
·
· Score: 4, Funny
"They also found the file transfer interface to be both impressive and glitchy."
I always based my buying habits on the premise that the two were mutually exclusive, but I guess I'm just a picky customer.
"Even if this was a good bargin I would reject if becuase it is from Real."
Who then would you trust to sell you music? Honestly, folks, I don't think this is a "trust" issue as much as it is a "sell" issue. There are still plenty of people who simply object to paying for music, no matter the source.
So what's your point? Before this, you would often have to pay hundreds of dollars to get all of the music you wanted (not to mention the crap you don't want).
Is Apple's pricing a little friendlier? Of course. But if you're a PC user, what would you prefer?
This is an interesting phenomenon we are seeing here, and lines are being drawn here that are separating the morally-conscious from the hypocrites.
For years, Slashdot readers have demanded an online music distribution service that was both affordable and convenient. Until then, many would proclaim, their only alternative was to illegally download copyrighted music.
With Apple first, and now Real, our wish has been granted... or has it? We are now able to download hundreds of songs for pennies per track, but there are those who are still unsatisfied.
There lie the true hypocrites. I am convinced they will use ANY argument to justify not having to pay for music, while trying to maintain some sence of moral propriety.
I only wish they would drop the bullshit pretenses, stop bitching about the little details about these services they don't like, and just come out and say they don't want to pay for music and never intend to. At least be honest about it.
"This is the same as the incestuous relationship that Ma Bell had with Western Electric. You couldn't get a telephone of your own and hook it up to the network. You could RENT their telephone. You couldn't use a modem without their permission."
But the difference here is that you don't have to use Microsoft or HP products. There are plenty of alternatives out there, unlike the monopolized phone/power companies.
"I see no logical contradiction in having a strong state which at the same time respects freedom of the individual."
"In my opinion, one area where the state does not intervene strongly enough is in the distribution of wealthness."
Speaking of contradictions...
In case you don't get my point, how can you supposedly stand up for individual freedom, and at the same time advocate a system of government that confiscates the wealth of individuals who make 'too much'?
There we have the duplicity of socialism. Most socialists claim to support individual freedoms, but only if those individuals earn below a certain income level.
How can one who believes in individual freedom advocate a system of government that punishes success by confiscating wealth?
You're paying not only for the music, but for the ability to pay for only the music you want.
If you normally have to buy 4 CDs to get all of the songs you want, you are also paying for the ones you don't want. This way you're only paying for what you want, and there's a certain value that should be associated with that.
"They are trying to drive up consumables purchasing, and reduce third party encroachment on that revenue stream."
Never claimed they weren't also doing that, but reducing costs is just as much a part of profit as increasing revenue is. If this accomplishes both, it's a good business decision, however morally suspect it may be.
...from a few days ago, explaining how using third-party cooling mechanisms now voids the warranty on the chip.
A few people predictably complained that their 'rights' were being violated by this, but I think the general agreement was that this measure cut down on support calls to AMD by idiots who didn't know what they were doing and broke the chips.
I think this is at least partially the same situation. These inkjet refill kits became very popular to the most average of computer users, and I can only imagine the amount of customer support calls that came to HP as a result of people improperly using these kits and breaking their printers/ink cartridges.
Now we all understand how HP makes lots of $$$ for their cartridges, so lets look past that. HP sells a lot of printers and cartridges to a lot of (dumb) people. Should HP have to waste all that tech support time on problems not caused by their product?
While the slim minority (but a vocal presence here on/.) complain that this violates their perceived right to use third-party hardware in their printers, I think this was a smart way for HP to reduce calls by idiot users, just like AMD was.
"People don't seem to think before posting, they are purposely rude, they blatantly violate copyrights, they crosspost everywhere, use 20 line signature files, and do basically every other thing the postings (and common sense and common courtesy) advise not to. Regularly, there are postings of questions that can be answered by the newusers articles, clearly indicating that they aren't being read."
CPU Type and Speed ------------------ Recommended minimum hardware is - 500 MHz or faster Pentium or Athlon CPU - 64MB of memory; 128 MB or higher recommended - 1-2 GB free hard disk space for games - Linux Supported 3D graphics card with 16MB of video RAM is required.
nVidia GeForce-class GPU recommended.
Is that just for Wine?? Now I understand that expecting this to run UT:2003 on a 386 is a little unreasonable, but this seems awful pricey if that's required/recommended just for the emulator itself.
Doesn't Inspire a Lot of Confidence
on
WineX 3.0 Examined
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
"...I was pleasantly surprised that nearly half of the games I had were supported to a degree. The games that did run ran pretty flawlessly. The games that didn't work had varying degrees of success, all just short of actually being able to play the game..."
I don't know about anyone else, but that wording didn't inspire a whole lot of confidence in the 'success' of this project.
But if the people who are supposed to enforce these absurd laws don't know the source of the communication, how are they going to catch the perpatrator? Isn't that the point of anonymous communication?
Seems like a self-defeating law that was only put on the books to placate a limited number of constituants.
If Linux is so much better than Windows, then why are innovations such as this always coming from the MS side of things, with Linux scrambling to keep up?
If people want to demonstrate to the outside world that Linux is indeed superior to Windows, they're going to have to start creating innovation rather than emulating it.
OK, I know I'm going to be modded down, but at this point I don't give a shit. At least a few people will read this.
HOW THE FUCK IS HACKING AN X-BOX A RIGHT PROTECTED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT??? Why do people who do something illegal always try to defend their act by claiming their actions are protected SPEECH!
Now I know that this issue is more about the book than the act of hacking the X-Box itself, but the author of the book himself acknowledges that publishing the book (and more to the point, admitting the crime he'd committed) could get him in trouble.
This is NOT censorship, and this is NOT a free speech issue! He's free to publish his book, but should be prepared to deal with any legal trouble he finds himself in as a result of what he admits to in that book.
Please stop manipulating our rights to defend your illegal actions.
Slashdot Mirror
Point WELL taken, but I have yet to see michael drop a goatse landmine in an article summary... yet.
"But if their honest self-promotion was enough to win you over, then certainly, it is enough to change my life."
I never suggested Microsoft was an honest company, but just about anything is better than "Use Linux, because it's not Windows, and as we ALL KNOW, Windows and anything else Microsoft makes is bad!"
Instead, we rarely see anything but attacks on the competition, and hypocritical attacks at that. Microsoft and Intel are bad, but Apple and AMD are good.
Seldom have I read anything here that suggests why I should consider using open source software. All I hear is why select blacklisted companies are bad. I am dubious of anyone who favors relentless attacks on the competition over honest self-promotion.
I always based my buying habits on the premise that the two were mutually exclusive, but I guess I'm just a picky customer.
Who then would you trust to sell you music? Honestly, folks, I don't think this is a "trust" issue as much as it is a "sell" issue. There are still plenty of people who simply object to paying for music, no matter the source.
Is Apple's pricing a little friendlier? Of course. But if you're a PC user, what would you prefer?
For years, Slashdot readers have demanded an online music distribution service that was both affordable and convenient. Until then, many would proclaim, their only alternative was to illegally download copyrighted music.
With Apple first, and now Real, our wish has been granted... or has it? We are now able to download hundreds of songs for pennies per track, but there are those who are still unsatisfied.
There lie the true hypocrites. I am convinced they will use ANY argument to justify not having to pay for music, while trying to maintain some sence of moral propriety.
I only wish they would drop the bullshit pretenses, stop bitching about the little details about these services they don't like, and just come out and say they don't want to pay for music and never intend to. At least be honest about it.
Is it really fair or accurate anymore to call Redhat "Open Source"?
But the difference here is that you don't have to use Microsoft or HP products. There are plenty of alternatives out there, unlike the monopolized phone/power companies.
Compared to the number of songs that are copied on the P2P networks, a million songs a week probably isn't that much.
"In my opinion, one area where the state does not intervene strongly enough is in the distribution of wealthness."
Speaking of contradictions...
In case you don't get my point, how can you supposedly stand up for individual freedom, and at the same time advocate a system of government that confiscates the wealth of individuals who make 'too much'?
There we have the duplicity of socialism. Most socialists claim to support individual freedoms, but only if those individuals earn below a certain income level.
How can one who believes in individual freedom advocate a system of government that punishes success by confiscating wealth?
I prefer to think of it as a pheromone.
Finally us geeks will be able to figure out what women find so unattractive about us!
I think this has more to do with mandatory consideration than it does with mandatory use. Isn't similar legislation in process in California as well?
If you normally have to buy 4 CDs to get all of the songs you want, you are also paying for the ones you don't want. This way you're only paying for what you want, and there's a certain value that should be associated with that.
Never claimed they weren't also doing that, but reducing costs is just as much a part of profit as increasing revenue is. If this accomplishes both, it's a good business decision, however morally suspect it may be.
AKA Gentoo.
A few people predictably complained that their 'rights' were being violated by this, but I think the general agreement was that this measure cut down on support calls to AMD by idiots who didn't know what they were doing and broke the chips.
I think this is at least partially the same situation. These inkjet refill kits became very popular to the most average of computer users, and I can only imagine the amount of customer support calls that came to HP as a result of people improperly using these kits and breaking their printers/ink cartridges.
Now we all understand how HP makes lots of $$$ for their cartridges, so lets look past that. HP sells a lot of printers and cartridges to a lot of (dumb) people. Should HP have to waste all that tech support time on problems not caused by their product?
While the slim minority (but a vocal presence here on /.) complain that this violates their perceived right to use third-party hardware in their printers, I think this was a smart way for HP to reduce calls by idiot users, just like AMD was.
"People don't seem to think before posting, they are purposely rude, they blatantly violate copyrights, they crosspost everywhere, use 20 line signature files, and do basically every other thing the postings (and common sense and common courtesy) advise not to. Regularly, there are postings of questions that can be answered by the newusers articles, clearly indicating that they aren't being read."
CPU Type and Speed
------------------
Recommended minimum hardware is
- 500 MHz or faster Pentium or Athlon CPU
- 64MB of memory; 128 MB or higher recommended
- 1-2 GB free hard disk space for games
- Linux Supported 3D graphics card with 16MB of video RAM is required.
nVidia GeForce-class GPU recommended.
Is that just for Wine?? Now I understand that expecting this to run UT:2003 on a 386 is a little unreasonable, but this seems awful pricey if that's required/recommended just for the emulator itself.
I don't know about anyone else, but that wording didn't inspire a whole lot of confidence in the 'success' of this project.
Seems like a self-defeating law that was only put on the books to placate a limited number of constituants.
If people want to demonstrate to the outside world that Linux is indeed superior to Windows, they're going to have to start creating innovation rather than emulating it.
Sam Waterston and I tried to warn you all, but you wouldn't listen!
Now what do you propose to do with the 95% of spam that originates from outside of the U.S.?
HOW THE FUCK IS HACKING AN X-BOX A RIGHT PROTECTED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT??? Why do people who do something illegal always try to defend their act by claiming their actions are protected SPEECH!
Now I know that this issue is more about the book than the act of hacking the X-Box itself, but the author of the book himself acknowledges that publishing the book (and more to the point, admitting the crime he'd committed) could get him in trouble.
This is NOT censorship, and this is NOT a free speech issue! He's free to publish his book, but should be prepared to deal with any legal trouble he finds himself in as a result of what he admits to in that book.
Please stop manipulating our rights to defend your illegal actions.
...and I haven't even had my morning coffee yet.