Does anyone really (at the current moment) hold internet advertisers (or any advertisers for that matter) in higher esteem than "port masters" (whatever that is)?
Re:Swift, merciless, brutal death is required
on
Prince of Pop-ups
·
· Score: 1
Beethoven's 5th, no doubt? I'd just take the simple course and settle for a bit of the old ultra-violence.
At least with this one, there are conspiracy theories, the same probably apply to why you can't turn off HTML rendering in Outlook.
What I can't figure out for the life of me is why IE doesn't have tabbed browsing. Seriously, it's obviously an extremely useful feature that people want, it's not like it's "too hard" for MS, either.
Re:Not on general popups, but misleading popups on
on
Prince of Pop-ups
·
· Score: 1
Hm, I'll see if I can get a patent on "interacting with Brian Shuster's head to modify one or more external or internal features by way of a heavy, blunt object"... I am thinking of making it available royalty-free.
Don't know - I don't own one. I would think it will be easier, in 20 years time, to find a piece of software (which you can easily store along with your digital video) than it will be to find a physical piece of hardware (sure you own a couple now - but how long are they going to work?).
And I am not sure I understand why you assume that there will not be any MPEG4 hardware players, seems like the next logical step.
I don't get it - why would MPEG2 have any more of a longevity than MPEG4? Are we to assume then that IPv4 will outlast IPv6? Or that Quicktime 5 will be there long after Quicktime 6?
Am I the only one who has developed some sort of Pavlovian reflex where I immediately despise any organization named "Blank Blank Association of America"?
I know, I know, (- a billion, Offtopic), blah, blah, blah...
maybe even MS would lower itself to devoting manpower working on the WineX codebase
Um yeah, and after that they can send some of their sales people to pitch in at Apple stores? Not bashing MS here, it's generally rare for a company to work on their competitor's products.
I (and many other people) have said for a long time that I'll start buying music again if: it's immediately available for download (and at good speed), with reasonable DRM, at a reasonable price and at good (no, excellent) quality. Seems Apple only missed one of those items (and actually, that's bloody amazing).
I am sure that AAC is better than mp3, and I am sure that I couldn't tell the difference between a 128kbps AAC and a CD to save my life, but still, I can't bring myself to actually pay for something that has "128" in relation to kilobits in the description.
Dude, have you ever actually seen a good movie? What, exactly, was good about them? The overall story arc, in the broadest of senses, was quite cool (and oddly topical), but for the rest? The laughable plots, the acting worthy of a highschool senior play, the absolute worst dialog to be featured in a mainstream movie for quite some time, special effects that would have been embarassing five years ago, the music, while certainly not bad, was just the same tired old thing that we've come to expect from this type of movie, no sign of originality whatsoever. Oh, I suppose there is really nothing to be said against the camerawork and the editing - bang up job there.
It's all well and good, as you mentioned, that many individual characters and situations went against our individual good taste, that certainly doesn't make the movies themselves bad. The overall poor quality of the movies is what made them bad, and that is something that personal preference doesn't play into. No my friend, those were most certainly NOT good movies, by any strech of imagination.
So before you claim the movement will never work, you might want to check if there's really a movement to begin with.
I have a bit of a problem with the former part of that oft cited statement - what the heck does "fail" even mean here? To me that would mean that every single free project is somehow wiped off the face of the earth, and not a single person releases a single line of code freely any longer... and I seriously doubt that could happen as long as there are people who write code, at all.
(well I suppose a few more PATRIOT acts and a couple more DMCAs would do the trick)
A word on communism vs open source (too lazy to find the parent, replying here)
The open source model certainly resembles communism (socialism, actually), but the differences are greater than the similarities. First of all, for the large part free software relies on capitalism, it needs that class of educated and reasonably well to do people who can afford to spend the time doing what they like. Secondly, this model is applied to only a specific product, one for which almost limitless resources exist - the "raw materials" so to speak, for software are time and bandwidth, both of which can be found in abundance in even a moderatly sized group.
There's obviously a lot more to it, all of which kinda points to the fact that you can't just say "free software == communism, ergo it's bad", there's quite a bit of apples vs. oranges here. But, of course, many of the ideals held by many in the open source community are very much the professed (not necessarily practiced in reality) ideals of communism, not all of it is a bad thing, after all.
Incidently, what makes you say that communism failed? There are still plenty of communist countries in the world.
When someone makes a scientific discovery, usually, thier discovery becomes part of the public domain and everyone can use it without paying royalties.
I take it you don't have much of a connection to the scientific field in your daily life.
Sure, there is a vast international academic community that shares their discoveries and operates on a beautiful principle of cooperation (but only within the acadmic community). But for a biotech/pharma company, scientific research is an unnavigable tangle of patents and licences. You think that tech patents have gotten out of hand? For years it's been much worse for biotech - anything and everything is patentable and patented - sequences of only a few amino acids, genomes of whole organisms, very basic research methods, etc. For a long time companies have been submitting patent applications containing hundreds of pages of any sequence they could come up with, in the hopes that some of it might be useful later. In many areas you have to pay off millions of dollars in licenses to large pharma companies just for the privilege of doing research on that particular subject.
No, it's a very long time before a very large portion of scientific discoveries make it to the public domain. And don't forget, it's the industry not academia which does most of the science that directly affects our daily lives.
First, most OSS developers do not think they can make money selling their software. They think that software that sells needs to be super stable and perfect, with a perfect UI.
Oh, btw, I just assumed you were joking here - they are free software developers, not blind morons with no understanding of what software is. Incidentally, please do show me just one example of an application that's "super stable, with a perfect UI", commercial or otherwise.
I think you give an excellent example of just not "getting it".
To paraphrase Linus' response when asked why he would invest so much time into something he makes no money off of - "I am a developer, I won't starve".
The sad truth of it is, we are geeks - we write code for a living, and we write code on our own time - we spend more time writing code than any company can be reasonably expected to pay us for. Other people don't expect to be paid for everything they do while they are awake, it just so happens that we do something useful a greater proportion of that time.
Oh and by the way, blindly accusing people of writing free code on company time without any sort of evidence to back that up is not only unnecessary, but quite insulting as well. Most people who write free code at work are paid to write free code at work. Just because some people do something more useful with their time than you, is no reason to accuse them of slacking off at their job.
Slashdot Mirror
Poorly, most likely.
Anyway, I don't see why you think that being associated with "smut" does them any harm - most people like smut.
I absolutely agree, I was just saying that MPEG4 is no less of a standard than MPEG2 is (just not as widely used yet).
Does anyone really (at the current moment) hold internet advertisers (or any advertisers for that matter) in higher esteem than "port masters" (whatever that is)?
Beethoven's 5th, no doubt? I'd just take the simple course and settle for a bit of the old ultra-violence.
What I can't figure out for the life of me is why IE doesn't have tabbed browsing. Seriously, it's obviously an extremely useful feature that people want, it's not like it's "too hard" for MS, either.
Hm, I'll see if I can get a patent on "interacting with Brian Shuster's head to modify one or more external or internal features by way of a heavy, blunt object"... I am thinking of making it available royalty-free.
Don't know - I don't own one. I would think it will be easier, in 20 years time, to find a piece of software (which you can easily store along with your digital video) than it will be to find a physical piece of hardware (sure you own a couple now - but how long are they going to work?).
And I am not sure I understand why you assume that there will not be any MPEG4 hardware players, seems like the next logical step.
I don't get it - why would MPEG2 have any more of a longevity than MPEG4? Are we to assume then that IPv4 will outlast IPv6? Or that Quicktime 5 will be there long after Quicktime 6?
I guess that takes on a whole new meaning in this context...
Am I the only one who has developed some sort of Pavlovian reflex where I immediately despise any organization named "Blank Blank Association of America"?
I know, I know, (- a billion, Offtopic), blah, blah, blah...
Yep, that's always been my problem when using Windows - /bin/bash just does nothing!
Don't forget all the code they stole from SCO - that was written already by that time.
You know what? I wouldn't know, haven't seen it crash once (of course maybe I'm just lucky).
What's "PERL"?
Not true! I have a perfectly effective way to block them - never actually visited that site once.
Um yeah, and after that they can send some of their sales people to pitch in at Apple stores? Not bashing MS here, it's generally rare for a company to work on their competitor's products.
Yeah, I noticed that a lot of reviews of this type use imaginary numbers.
That's just it "adequate" - adequate is not what I like paying money for.
I am sure that AAC is better than mp3, and I am sure that I couldn't tell the difference between a 128kbps AAC and a CD to save my life, but still, I can't bring myself to actually pay for something that has "128" in relation to kilobits in the description.
Still, those new iPods are damn sexy.
Dude, have you ever actually seen a good movie? What, exactly, was good about them? The overall story arc, in the broadest of senses, was quite cool (and oddly topical), but for the rest? The laughable plots, the acting worthy of a highschool senior play, the absolute worst dialog to be featured in a mainstream movie for quite some time, special effects that would have been embarassing five years ago, the music, while certainly not bad, was just the same tired old thing that we've come to expect from this type of movie, no sign of originality whatsoever. Oh, I suppose there is really nothing to be said against the camerawork and the editing - bang up job there.
It's all well and good, as you mentioned, that many individual characters and situations went against our individual good taste, that certainly doesn't make the movies themselves bad. The overall poor quality of the movies is what made them bad, and that is something that personal preference doesn't play into. No my friend, those were most certainly NOT good movies, by any strech of imagination.
I have a bit of a problem with the former part of that oft cited statement - what the heck does "fail" even mean here? To me that would mean that every single free project is somehow wiped off the face of the earth, and not a single person releases a single line of code freely any longer... and I seriously doubt that could happen as long as there are people who write code, at all.
(well I suppose a few more PATRIOT acts and a couple more DMCAs would do the trick)
The open source model certainly resembles communism (socialism, actually), but the differences are greater than the similarities. First of all, for the large part free software relies on capitalism, it needs that class of educated and reasonably well to do people who can afford to spend the time doing what they like. Secondly, this model is applied to only a specific product, one for which almost limitless resources exist - the "raw materials" so to speak, for software are time and bandwidth, both of which can be found in abundance in even a moderatly sized group.
There's obviously a lot more to it, all of which kinda points to the fact that you can't just say "free software == communism, ergo it's bad", there's quite a bit of apples vs. oranges here. But, of course, many of the ideals held by many in the open source community are very much the professed (not necessarily practiced in reality) ideals of communism, not all of it is a bad thing, after all.
Incidently, what makes you say that communism failed? There are still plenty of communist countries in the world.
I take it you don't have much of a connection to the scientific field in your daily life.
Sure, there is a vast international academic community that shares their discoveries and operates on a beautiful principle of cooperation (but only within the acadmic community). But for a biotech/pharma company, scientific research is an unnavigable tangle of patents and licences. You think that tech patents have gotten out of hand? For years it's been much worse for biotech - anything and everything is patentable and patented - sequences of only a few amino acids, genomes of whole organisms, very basic research methods, etc. For a long time companies have been submitting patent applications containing hundreds of pages of any sequence they could come up with, in the hopes that some of it might be useful later. In many areas you have to pay off millions of dollars in licenses to large pharma companies just for the privilege of doing research on that particular subject.
No, it's a very long time before a very large portion of scientific discoveries make it to the public domain. And don't forget, it's the industry not academia which does most of the science that directly affects our daily lives.
First, most OSS developers do not think they can make money selling their software. They think that software that sells needs to be super stable and perfect, with a perfect UI.
Oh, btw, I just assumed you were joking here - they are free software developers, not blind morons with no understanding of what software is. Incidentally, please do show me just one example of an application that's "super stable, with a perfect UI", commercial or otherwise.
To paraphrase Linus' response when asked why he would invest so much time into something he makes no money off of - "I am a developer, I won't starve".
The sad truth of it is, we are geeks - we write code for a living, and we write code on our own time - we spend more time writing code than any company can be reasonably expected to pay us for. Other people don't expect to be paid for everything they do while they are awake, it just so happens that we do something useful a greater proportion of that time.
Oh and by the way, blindly accusing people of writing free code on company time without any sort of evidence to back that up is not only unnecessary, but quite insulting as well. Most people who write free code at work are paid to write free code at work. Just because some people do something more useful with their time than you, is no reason to accuse them of slacking off at their job.