But they're not looking at DNA: they're looking at morphology. I don't really buy their argument since unrelated species often evolve similar morphology to adapt to similar conditions.
We still have a lot of our DNA not yet "activated"...
If we have it, it must have evolved for a reason. Currently inactive DNA was active in the past. There's just no evolutionary pressure for it to be removed, so it sticks around.
[E]very living organism share [sic] more or less the same DNA with less than 1% of differences...
Nope: We have a greater-than-1% difference with chimps, our closest living relatives.
The Amoeba dubia has more than 200 times the amount of DNA than humans.
News is better when it's controlled by tens of thousands of independent individuals, each providing a different viewpoint....
Nobody is going to read tens of thousands of news items and try to determine the merits of each. Additionally, the truly good ones will be lost amongst the noise.
90% of the users pay for the 10% who use bandwidth heavily.
So either state in the contract that there is a bandwidth cap (and enforce it) or charge more for more bandwidth. Their policy should be bandwidth-based and not content-based. That also happens to be a lot simpler to enforce.
I don't understand why ISPs want to be in the business of policing their users: it costs money to do that. It also costs them lost revenue for cutting off users. Why don't the ISPs just say "It's not our problem" to the copyright holders presumably just as the Postal Service would say if people were sending copyrighted documents, CDs, or DVDs through the mail.
You were never taken on a tour around someone's house to be shown the more important works of cultural and artistic importance such as BigAss(TM) TV, VeryLoud(TM) Stereo or MostExpensiveGenericShit(TM) they could find?
Not that I can recall. Perhaps I have less shallow friends.
I [don't have] to worry about what she could get into on my computer
(she decided to rename a good chunk of my songs last time she sat on my computer).
The hardware would have never gained substantial footing without DOS.
Computers from Apple, Commodore, Atari, Tandy, Texas Instruments, and several others didn't run MS-DOS. Back in the day, Apple and Commodore were the leading computers in the home.
Actually what he said is correct, because he never said anything about manufacturing hardware...
Which is why his entire point is wrong. You can't bring computers to the home user without actual computers. The only reason MS-DOS and later Windows made it into the home was because of the MS/IBM deal that brought MS into the workplace. Then workers either wanted to bring their work home with them or simply have the same computer at home as work. MS got into the home in that round-about way and never seriously marketed to the home user.
Meanwhile, Apple, Commodore, Atari, and others were already in homes.
Bill founded what is now the largest software company in the world, and wether [sic] or not you agree with him, he has made a important contribution to the computing industry: Microsoft brought desktop computing to the home user.
No, companies like Apple and Commodore did that since they actually manufactured cheap computers. VisiCalc (the first killer-app, and not from MS) ran on the Apple ][. MS-DOS was more-or-less a repacked CP/M that Bill was lucky enough to license to IBM. Windows stagnated for many years with the infamous Blue Screens of Death while *nix showed that you could have operating systems without crashes. Then it was Apple with the introduction of Mac OS X that forced MS to finally get off their asses and release Vista -- and we all know how that turned out.
MS retarded the entire computer industry by about a decade. Apple doesn't get a free pass here either since Mac OS 1-9 was crash-prone too. But MS, being the 800 lb gorilla, could have done so much more with their resources to propel the industry forward.
Hopefully they learned a little something from this. Don't post hi res pictures. There's no need to anyways, bring it down to a reasonable displayed resolution.
Except that most people are clueless about such things. Their shiny new digital camera defaults to taking photos with the most number of pixels. Usually they have no idea that this setting on the camera can be changed (or, even if they do, they don't understand why you would want to change it), nor do they know how to use a photo-editor to scale down photos.
[T]he solution for Apple [is to] expand their line of hardware to offer more choices to consumers instead of trying to force people into the few options Apple currently provides.
You're assuming Apple sees a problem with what they're currently doing.
Apparently, they're happy with the current product line and sales
and don't consider the theorized loss of sales due to missing choices significant enough to change.
... federal income taxes... were designed [emphasis added] as a methodology to control people, control information, and to be used as leverage by the state.
From the U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States...
While the collection of federal income taxes may have become what you suggest, I doubt the founding fathers designed them for that. Also note that the constitution makes no mention of "income tax" specifically.
Slashdot Mirror
I want to know why noses run (secrete clear liquid) when it's cold outside.
If you believe in evolution, then the fact that we have it now means it must have been useful in the past.
But they're not looking at DNA: they're looking at morphology. I don't really buy their argument since unrelated species often evolve similar morphology to adapt to similar conditions.
If we have it, it must have evolved for a reason. Currently inactive DNA was active in the past. There's just no evolutionary pressure for it to be removed, so it sticks around.
Nope: We have a greater-than-1% difference with chimps, our closest living relatives. The Amoeba dubia has more than 200 times the amount of DNA than humans.
Nobody is going to read tens of thousands of news items and try to determine the merits of each. Additionally, the truly good ones will be lost amongst the noise.
And that means that Java can't be used to discriminate between great programmers and mediocre programmers.
Why would anybody grant an ISP their copyright?
So either state in the contract that there is a bandwidth cap (and enforce it) or charge more for more bandwidth. Their policy should be bandwidth-based and not content-based. That also happens to be a lot simpler to enforce.
Copyrights to what? They don't produce music or movies. How can they hold a copyright if they don't produce anything?
I don't understand why ISPs want to be in the business of policing their users: it costs money to do that. It also costs them lost revenue for cutting off users. Why don't the ISPs just say "It's not our problem" to the copyright holders presumably just as the Postal Service would say if people were sending copyrighted documents, CDs, or DVDs through the mail.
Not that I can recall. Perhaps I have less shallow friends.
[citation needed]
(And what about using desktop Macs at home where very few others see the "little Apple logo?")
Why didn't you give her her own user account?
I mean at the same frequency as BSOD.
Computers from Apple, Commodore, Atari, Tandy, Texas Instruments, and several others didn't run MS-DOS. Back in the day, Apple and Commodore were the leading computers in the home.
Which is why his entire point is wrong. You can't bring computers to the home user without actual computers. The only reason MS-DOS and later Windows made it into the home was because of the MS/IBM deal that brought MS into the workplace. Then workers either wanted to bring their work home with them or simply have the same computer at home as work. MS got into the home in that round-about way and never seriously marketed to the home user.
Meanwhile, Apple, Commodore, Atari, and others were already in homes.
This is the interview to which you refer.
No, companies like Apple and Commodore did that since they actually manufactured cheap computers. VisiCalc (the first killer-app, and not from MS) ran on the Apple ][. MS-DOS was more-or-less a repacked CP/M that Bill was lucky enough to license to IBM. Windows stagnated for many years with the infamous Blue Screens of Death while *nix showed that you could have operating systems without crashes. Then it was Apple with the introduction of Mac OS X that forced MS to finally get off their asses and release Vista -- and we all know how that turned out.
MS retarded the entire computer industry by about a decade. Apple doesn't get a free pass here either since Mac OS 1-9 was crash-prone too. But MS, being the 800 lb gorilla, could have done so much more with their resources to propel the industry forward.
It's a Mach-based kernel in a BSD-like environment.
Except that most people are clueless about such things. Their shiny new digital camera defaults to taking photos with the most number of pixels. Usually they have no idea that this setting on the camera can be changed (or, even if they do, they don't understand why you would want to change it), nor do they know how to use a photo-editor to scale down photos.
Brainless developers should be fired.
That's why GNU make has :=.
You're assuming Apple sees a problem with what they're currently doing. Apparently, they're happy with the current product line and sales and don't consider the theorized loss of sales due to missing choices significant enough to change.
From the U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8:
While the collection of federal income taxes may have become what you suggest, I doubt the founding fathers designed them for that. Also note that the constitution makes no mention of "income tax" specifically.
And deservedly so. Has much changed in the last several years?