Are you fucking kidding me? Are you actually suggesting that we (America) would go bomb someone because they had a website we don't like? Get real.
Seriously. I'm as jaded as the next guy but your prespective on this issue is warped. Regardless of how many tinfoil hats you have, we don't go bomb someone just because we "feel like it today". In 99.9% of the cases, there are tactical or strategic reasons for taking action. At the very least you have to believe that the people "in charge" think they are acting in the best interest of the country.
If that is true, then can we PLEASE submit this as an actual case where the DMCA has unintended consequences? I know the copyright office will be soliticing comments in early Nov.
Oh, you mean like.jpg or.gif? Yea, you're right. Clearly M$ has exploited those via that crazy browser thingy they have called Internet Explorer. Man, if we could only get those back into "proprietary" format again.
1) Create proprietary file type on *nix
2) ????
3) Profit!
The issue is not that things are changing....the issue is: WHY are they changing?
Requirements still matter. Always have. Always will. Denying that and pretending that "radical" codind techniques work is a dangerous ledge to stand on.
Dude, are you actually quoting a comic strip as evidence of your point?...
br.
I know there's a lot of unfounded garbage tossed around/. but I think this is a new low.:-)
What if, via all of the DRM/Palladium stuff going on, the message from "our side" changed from the usual M$ bashing into "concerns about privacy and Big Brother"?
I mean, MaryJane Math Teacher and Joe Sixpack dont give a flying shit about ideals when it comes to computing. They don't care about source code. They don't care about who produced what app and they definitely don't share your fervert view of Open Source and Free Software. They just want the stuff to work. However, when you throw in a "Big Brother is watching" comment, they definitely listen up. How could Palladium and DRM NOT have privacy implications? Allegedly, its in the damn design that they can track what you watch/listen to.
In the end, that may be all MaryJane and Joe care about because it sure looks that way now.
Why do I need to buy Linkin' Park (for example) if I can just turn on the radio and hear it EVERY hour -- on the hour. You think I'm kidding? I actually counted one day and you know what? The SAME Linkin Park song played 16 times between 9am and 5pm. And that's with an hour lunch break.
...and therein lies the rub. If Microsoft asked everyone to "standardize" hardware the way the Apple has for Macs, people on/. would freak out and cry foul. Since its Apple, I guess its ok that we have "approved" hardware -- since it makes it fast.
Well, to answer you question, the Mac will remain a niche product until it moves to x86. Period. Corporations will not spend 2x as much for a Mac simply because it's prettier while underneath, it does the same things as their current $699 x86 systems.
In fact, I'll even go a step further. I would run the MacOS tommorrow if I didn't have to pay through my nose to do it. I'd gladly give Apple my $100 or $200 for their OS -- but I don't want to give them $2000 for their hardward AND OS. I already have hardware. It's open, flexible....and most important, it's MUCH cheaper that what Apple offers.
I can't believe this story didn't make it on slashdot.
http://news.com.com/2100-1023-954176.html
The RIAA appears to be suing some of the larger network providers for "allowing their routing systems to allow users to access a China-based Web site and unlawfully copy musical recordings".
No offense, but this story is MUCH bigger than some small time ISP standing up to the RIAA. If the RIAA can sue because someone provides access (ie: routes according to internet protocols), what's to prevent them from suing for allowing access to anything Bad?
This is a good example of why this technology is doomed from the start.
Can you imagine what will happen when Mary Jan Mathteacher and her husband Joe Sixpack run into this? I mean, you and I are above average with respect to our computer knowledge and this is a pain the in the butt even for us. To Mary and her brethren, this is just one more reason why "the computer hates me". I can't thing of any better way to stifle online music sales (if there ever becomes a market for them)
TV content is not produced to provide you a happy experience. That is a bi-product. The real product is to produce a medium for ads. Period. Could this be done under PPV? Sure -- but the entire business will have to change and th *IAA's of the world absolutely fear change.
Proxies for individual investors are a waste of time. Do you know who the biggest shareholders are at most coporations? It isn't you and I -- it's the mutual funds. And guess who runs the mutual funds? Yep, you are right....the CEO's buddy from grad school (or something close to that).
If you think that individual investors have any say as actual "shareholders" you are deluding yourself. It just isn't the case. We are along for the ride and nothing more.
Of course, you can choose not to participate but, over time (20 yrs or more) -- even with corruption -- common stocks have proved to be the best investment alternative you have. That's a fact.
The $50bil is probably being charged to a write down in goodwill. (Keep me honest here accountants!) Goodwill is the subjective value Company A places on Company B above or below the price they actually paid. Its sort of funny money anyway, so its not like $50bil in cash went out the door or anything.
Toleration does not mean "agreement". You can tolerate something/someone and absolutely, totally, 100% disagree and dislike that thing or person for whatever reason you choose to.
Don't confuse the issue. Your metaphors about blacks living in white communities and young couples living in older communities is flawed. There IS tolerance there. There just isn't agreement. I think it is safe to say that the USA has a pretty darn good system for addressing disagreement. I mean, we have a reasonably non-violent approach to disagreement (at least domestically amongst ourselves). Sure there is intolerance in spots but for the most part, I think tolerance is very well ingrained in people these days.
I just want to point out that virtually NONE of the clients I have *ever* worked for have the skill set or staff to fully operate and manage a project that requires 100's of people.
So, for example, if Fortune 20 company X wants to put in a new billing system and that billing system project requires 135 people -- who the hell do you think has the manpower to do that project? Certainly Fortune 20 Company X doesn't want to hire a bunch of full time personnel for one project.....
So, therein, lies the reason Big 5 does so well. They do provide value for CxO's, although, what's valuable to a CxO may not be what's valuable to you.
disclaimer: I don't work for big-5 and never have. I also realize they aren't perfect but they aren't worthless either.
In the beginning, there was Andersen Worldwide, which owned Andersen (Accounting) and Andersen Consulting. Long story short, Andersen Consulting got mad about subsidizing the "other" Andersen (Accounting) because Andersen Consulting was making MUCH more money and still having to chip into the "partner pool", which unfairly (so they say) rewarded the low margin accounting business with the high margin profits from consulting. Sooo, Andersen Consulting decided they wanted to break away from Andersen Worldwide.
Insert 2 years of lawsuits
Andersen Consulting is allowed to break off and decides to rename itself to Accenture. The rest of the "old" Andersen Worldwide stays the same -- until Enron.
Slashdot Mirror
How many birds did you need? I presume 1 bird per 1 packet...
As my mom would say, "Huh?"
Are you fucking kidding me? Are you actually suggesting that we (America) would go bomb someone because they had a website we don't like? Get real.
Seriously. I'm as jaded as the next guy but your prespective on this issue is warped. Regardless of how many tinfoil hats you have, we don't go bomb someone just because we "feel like it today". In 99.9% of the cases, there are tactical or strategic reasons for taking action. At the very least you have to believe that the people "in charge" think they are acting in the best interest of the country.
If that is true, then can we PLEASE submit this as an actual case where the DMCA has unintended consequences? I know the copyright office will be soliticing comments in early Nov.
No big deal. We'll just have a revolu....wait...scratch that. Already happened back in 1776. Dammit.
If you want people to enjoy computers and integrate them into their lives, it must be easy. Period.
Wake me up when they port to x86.
Oh, you mean like .jpg or .gif? Yea, you're right. Clearly M$ has exploited those via that crazy browser thingy they have called Internet Explorer. Man, if we could only get those back into "proprietary" format again.
1) Create proprietary file type on *nix 2) ???? 3) Profit!
Yep. Just like they planned.
The issue is not that things are changing....the issue is: WHY are they changing?
Requirements still matter. Always have. Always will. Denying that and pretending that "radical" codind techniques work is a dangerous ledge to stand on.
Dude, are you actually quoting a comic strip as evidence of your point?... /. but I think this is a new low. :-)
br. I know there's a lot of unfounded garbage tossed around
What if, via all of the DRM/Palladium stuff going on, the message from "our side" changed from the usual M$ bashing into "concerns about privacy and Big Brother"?
I mean, MaryJane Math Teacher and Joe Sixpack dont give a flying shit about ideals when it comes to computing. They don't care about source code. They don't care about who produced what app and they definitely don't share your fervert view of Open Source and Free Software. They just want the stuff to work. However, when you throw in a "Big Brother is watching" comment, they definitely listen up. How could Palladium and DRM NOT have privacy implications? Allegedly, its in the damn design that they can track what you watch/listen to.
In the end, that may be all MaryJane and Joe care about because it sure looks that way now.
I can't credit for this, but the war on drugs is seeming more and more like the 100 years war.
Jesus...how long are we going to fight this lost cause?
Why do I need to buy Linkin' Park (for example) if I can just turn on the radio and hear it EVERY hour -- on the hour. You think I'm kidding? I actually counted one day and you know what? The SAME Linkin Park song played 16 times between 9am and 5pm. And that's with an hour lunch break.
Dispute the charge. If the telcos get enough gripes, this problem with solve itself. Just answering the phone costs the telco at least $5.
...and therein lies the rub. If Microsoft asked everyone to "standardize" hardware the way the Apple has for Macs, people on /. would freak out and cry foul. Since its Apple, I guess its ok that we have "approved" hardware -- since it makes it fast.
Well, to answer you question, the Mac will remain a niche product until it moves to x86. Period. Corporations will not spend 2x as much for a Mac simply because it's prettier while underneath, it does the same things as their current $699 x86 systems.
In fact, I'll even go a step further. I would run the MacOS tommorrow if I didn't have to pay through my nose to do it. I'd gladly give Apple my $100 or $200 for their OS -- but I don't want to give them $2000 for their hardward AND OS. I already have hardware. It's open, flexible....and most important, it's MUCH cheaper that what Apple offers.
Agreed! This OS would sell millions of copies if it ran on x86 instead of PPC.
As the poster mentioned, cost is the biggest issue here. Until its on x86, cost will remain the biggest issue.
Stopping spam, my treat Enlist the help of writers To drop the hammer
I can't believe this story didn't make it on slashdot.
http://news.com.com/2100-1023-954176.html
The RIAA appears to be suing some of the larger network providers for "allowing their routing systems to allow users to access a China-based Web site and unlawfully copy musical recordings".
No offense, but this story is MUCH bigger than some small time ISP standing up to the RIAA. If the RIAA can sue because someone provides access (ie: routes according to internet protocols), what's to prevent them from suing for allowing access to anything Bad?
This is a good example of why this technology is doomed from the start.
Can you imagine what will happen when Mary Jan Mathteacher and her husband Joe Sixpack run into this? I mean, you and I are above average with respect to our computer knowledge and this is a pain the in the butt even for us. To Mary and her brethren, this is just one more reason why "the computer hates me". I can't thing of any better way to stifle online music sales (if there ever becomes a market for them)
One word: money.
TV content is not produced to provide you a happy experience. That is a bi-product. The real product is to produce a medium for ads. Period. Could this be done under PPV? Sure -- but the entire business will have to change and th *IAA's of the world absolutely fear change.
Proxies for individual investors are a waste of time. Do you know who the biggest shareholders are at most coporations? It isn't you and I -- it's the mutual funds. And guess who runs the mutual funds? Yep, you are right....the CEO's buddy from grad school (or something close to that).
If you think that individual investors have any say as actual "shareholders" you are deluding yourself. It just isn't the case. We are along for the ride and nothing more.
Of course, you can choose not to participate but, over time (20 yrs or more) -- even with corruption -- common stocks have proved to be the best investment alternative you have. That's a fact.
The $50bil is probably being charged to a write down in goodwill. (Keep me honest here accountants!) Goodwill is the subjective value Company A places on Company B above or below the price they actually paid. Its sort of funny money anyway, so its not like $50bil in cash went out the door or anything.
Toleration does not mean "agreement". You can tolerate something/someone and absolutely, totally, 100% disagree and dislike that thing or person for whatever reason you choose to.
Don't confuse the issue. Your metaphors about blacks living in white communities and young couples living in older communities is flawed. There IS tolerance there. There just isn't agreement. I think it is safe to say that the USA has a pretty darn good system for addressing disagreement. I mean, we have a reasonably non-violent approach to disagreement (at least domestically amongst ourselves). Sure there is intolerance in spots but for the most part, I think tolerance is very well ingrained in people these days.
I just want to point out that virtually NONE of the clients I have *ever* worked for have the skill set or staff to fully operate and manage a project that requires 100's of people.
So, for example, if Fortune 20 company X wants to put in a new billing system and that billing system project requires 135 people -- who the hell do you think has the manpower to do that project? Certainly Fortune 20 Company X doesn't want to hire a bunch of full time personnel for one project.....
So, therein, lies the reason Big 5 does so well. They do provide value for CxO's, although, what's valuable to a CxO may not be what's valuable to you.
disclaimer: I don't work for big-5 and never have. I also realize they aren't perfect but they aren't worthless either.
In the beginning, there was Andersen Worldwide, which owned Andersen (Accounting) and Andersen Consulting. Long story short, Andersen Consulting got mad about subsidizing the "other" Andersen (Accounting) because Andersen Consulting was making MUCH more money and still having to chip into the "partner pool", which unfairly (so they say) rewarded the low margin accounting business with the high margin profits from consulting. Sooo, Andersen Consulting decided they wanted to break away from Andersen Worldwide.
Insert 2 years of lawsuits
Andersen Consulting is allowed to break off and decides to rename itself to Accenture. The rest of the "old" Andersen Worldwide stays the same -- until Enron.