How much for a pair of reproducing "mice" that are a big as beavers, can chew through the aluminium siding, rip arms and legs off with their paws, and can run 100 yards in 10 seconds?
What is stopping anyone from making these ecological monsters?
Probably the fact that you are limited to genes that can be found in the mouse population.
And further, I think the GPP poster is trying to imply that no one "owns" linux which is not the case at all. I believe in order for the GPL to be in effect, the software must be copyrighted since that is the basis of the GPL. Therefore, there is a copyright holder who "owns" the software. I believe that it is probably the Free Software Foundation.
MacOS X Server is in fact meant for remote multi-user usage. And it has been around since MacOS X started shipping (i.e. day one.) Where are you getting this stuff?
Is the standard desktop version of MacOS X configured for that purpose straight out of the box? No. That's why they sell MacOS X Server. OTOH, MacOS X (non-server) is properly configured for its intended purpose and does not ship with a bunch of things turned on that make the machine particularly vulnerable to outside attacks.
Dr. Bott makes or used to make an adapter to allow a Mac to run headless. It is unnecessary on an XServe, but was necessary back in the old days. My point is, how could they sell this product if no Mac server administrator knew what "headless" meant. Since they are still in business, they must have customers, thus someone must know what headless means.
BTW. I'm a Mac user and I have administered servers and I know what "headless" means.
Notice he said "quid" which means his a Brit. Which means he's not free anyway. In britain, you are a "subject", not a "citizen" which is another way to say "slave". The Russians and the French knew what to do with royalty.
Did you even read his whole post. DId you understand it. It seemed very straight forward and believable to me that 500 million gross on a 200 million movie might not make it profitable.
I worked for a company that made (specialty) consumer electronics hardware. The economics of that business aren't that different from movies. Just because our gross revenue exceeded our engineering design and manufacturing costs doesn't make the product profitable. You have to factor in all of the costs and all of the money that gets spent on producing your product, and make sure to subtract overhead. For our company overhead included things like our HR department and keeping our cafeteria open.
In most industries, you would not report the number brought in by a retail chain as the "gross revenue" for a company. For example, let's take a simple consumer electronics company like BenQ. You can go to Fry's and buy a BenQ display or a BenQ projector. Only a small fraction of the total amount of money spend at retail outlets like Fry's and BenQ goes back to BenQ as gross revenue. For a Hollywood movie, you get the equivalent of reporting the money spent at retail outlets and report it as if it were gross revenue to the studio which it is not.
To claim that this fact is "shady hollywood accounting" is absurd.
And you'll get an actors strike, or possibly find yourself in court for anti-trust. Because if one studio drops salaries, the top actors will just go to another studio. You would have to have all of the studios collude together to set the prices lower - which may be illegal depending on how you do it. Plus, the screen actors guild isn't without power.
The current system is pretty good. It is not uncommon for well known actors to work on projects that they believe in for artistic reasons, etc. sometimes in exchange for a piece of the pie. Some of these are very good films. If they also choose to be in a bad movie occasionally because someone backed up a dump truck full of money to their house, that is fine too. No one puts a gun to my head to make me go see movies I don't like.
My favorite two films of recent times; My Big Fat Greek Wedding and Mad Hot Ballroom.
On the contrary. Let's for a minute examine the case of the conservative movement. Instead of forming a third party, the slowly took over the republican party. This was much more effective than for example the Dixiecrats who formed a third party and sabotaging their own agenda.
I used to work for a consumer electronics manufacturer in product design. I learned several things about remote controls. The thing that I learned that is relevant to this conversation is that there is a "regional trend" on how remote controls are designed.
In the European market things like design and elegance and simplicity are percieved to be important. Therefore a "good" remote control for the european market has very few buttons.
In the US, a remote control with a button for every feature and not as much software menus/interactions is more normal.
In Japan/Asia/Pacific, a remote control is considered to be "macho" if it has lots and lots of buttons. The more buttons, the better. A "lady's" remote control will be a little bit smaller and have a few less buttons. According to the folks who I learned this from, the average family would have a remote for the man of the house and a smaller lady's remote.
In the US, there would just be one remote and no one would think of it as a "macho" thing to have more buttons.
With regards to the Front Row remote, Steve Jobs (as usual) takes his queus from european sophisticates on his notions of design, simplicity, etc.
I think you are probably beter off working within the two existing parties than trying to start a third party. The third party won't win and the in meantime, you just draw off votes from the people who are most closely your allies.
I agree with you on point 1. I agree with you on point 2. However, I think the jury is still out as to whether this type of thing would be safe in a real world deployment situation for: the workers manufacturing it, the workers installing it, the people operating the facility, patrons, and finally those people who might be performing maintenance and/or demolition on the facility.
I was merely pointing out that saying "its as safe as Asbestos or even Coal Dust" isn't going to win anyone over into thinking it is safe.
And sorry about being on your case in >1 thread - I try to be an equal opportunity asshole.
What if I want my business to be cell-free, so I paint the walls with this special paint. If those walls happen to be between the cell tower and the business next door, they lose signal as well. Will this create shadow areas outside of the area that was intended to be blocked in the first place?
This is the very reason why the build cell towers as opposed to just putting the transmitters at street level or underground.
In 2003, I lived in Seattle and every single person I knew or saw on the street had one unless they were some crackpot trying to claim how "philosophically opposed" to cell phones they were. The only person I knew who was in the crackpot camp still does not have a cell phone.
That's good to hear. As long as it is not as severe as coal dust or asbestos, I don't mind being exposed to it at all. Because coal dust and asbestos aren't hazardous. Yep, there should be NO Problem with that...
Slashdot Mirror
I'm going to complain to PETA - People Eating Tasty Animals. My complaint is why haven't I had this for dinner already.
Still, someone "owns" linux - Linus.
I saw films in college of dogs bred to have narcolepsy. They were hillarious. I would love to have a narcoleptic dog.
How much for a pair of reproducing "mice" that are a big as beavers, can chew through the aluminium siding, rip arms and legs off with their paws, and can run 100 yards in 10 seconds?
What is stopping anyone from making these ecological monsters?
Probably the fact that you are limited to genes that can be found in the mouse population.
And further, I think the GPP poster is trying to imply that no one "owns" linux which is not the case at all. I believe in order for the GPL to be in effect, the software must be copyrighted since that is the basis of the GPL. Therefore, there is a copyright holder who "owns" the software. I believe that it is probably the Free Software Foundation.
How about just not making things crimes that aren't really crimes?
Brits have always been jealous of american freedom. Now that we have lost it, they are gloating.
Oh, and gambling is legal most places in the US now. (Big fucking deal, the freedom to pour money down the drain.)
I just tried and I got arrested both times. Thanks, thepotoo... for NOTHING!
MacOS X Server is in fact meant for remote multi-user usage. And it has been around since MacOS X started shipping (i.e. day one.) Where are you getting this stuff?
Is the standard desktop version of MacOS X configured for that purpose straight out of the box? No. That's why they sell MacOS X Server. OTOH, MacOS X (non-server) is properly configured for its intended purpose and does not ship with a bunch of things turned on that make the machine particularly vulnerable to outside attacks.
Dr. Bott makes or used to make an adapter to allow a Mac to run headless. It is unnecessary on an XServe, but was necessary back in the old days. My point is, how could they sell this product if no Mac server administrator knew what "headless" meant. Since they are still in business, they must have customers, thus someone must know what headless means.
BTW. I'm a Mac user and I have administered servers and I know what "headless" means.
Notice he said "quid" which means his a Brit. Which means he's not free anyway. In britain, you are a "subject", not a "citizen" which is another way to say "slave". The Russians and the French knew what to do with royalty.
When I travelled through Mexico by air, the declaration asked where I was staying in Mexico.
I don't know - the guy who is going to drive the getaway car knows where the hideout is, not me. I'm only the bag man.
It isn't your money. Its your grandchildren's money. They borrowed it.
Did you even read his whole post. DId you understand it. It seemed very straight forward and believable to me that 500 million gross on a 200 million movie might not make it profitable.
I worked for a company that made (specialty) consumer electronics hardware. The economics of that business aren't that different from movies. Just because our gross revenue exceeded our engineering design and manufacturing costs doesn't make the product profitable. You have to factor in all of the costs and all of the money that gets spent on producing your product, and make sure to subtract overhead. For our company overhead included things like our HR department and keeping our cafeteria open.
In most industries, you would not report the number brought in by a retail chain as the "gross revenue" for a company. For example, let's take a simple consumer electronics company like BenQ. You can go to Fry's and buy a BenQ display or a BenQ projector. Only a small fraction of the total amount of money spend at retail outlets like Fry's and BenQ goes back to BenQ as gross revenue. For a Hollywood movie, you get the equivalent of reporting the money spent at retail outlets and report it as if it were gross revenue to the studio which it is not.
To claim that this fact is "shady hollywood accounting" is absurd.
Drop the salaries across the board
And you'll get an actors strike, or possibly find yourself in court for anti-trust. Because if one studio drops salaries, the top actors will just go to another studio. You would have to have all of the studios collude together to set the prices lower - which may be illegal depending on how you do it. Plus, the screen actors guild isn't without power.
The current system is pretty good. It is not uncommon for well known actors to work on projects that they believe in for artistic reasons, etc. sometimes in exchange for a piece of the pie. Some of these are very good films. If they also choose to be in a bad movie occasionally because someone backed up a dump truck full of money to their house, that is fine too. No one puts a gun to my head to make me go see movies I don't like.
My favorite two films of recent times; My Big Fat Greek Wedding and Mad Hot Ballroom.
On the contrary. Let's for a minute examine the case of the conservative movement. Instead of forming a third party, the slowly took over the republican party. This was much more effective than for example the Dixiecrats who formed a third party and sabotaging their own agenda.
I used to work for a consumer electronics manufacturer in product design. I learned several things about remote controls. The thing that I learned that is relevant to this conversation is that there is a "regional trend" on how remote controls are designed.
In the European market things like design and elegance and simplicity are percieved to be important. Therefore a "good" remote control for the european market has very few buttons.
In the US, a remote control with a button for every feature and not as much software menus/interactions is more normal.
In Japan/Asia/Pacific, a remote control is considered to be "macho" if it has lots and lots of buttons. The more buttons, the better. A "lady's" remote control will be a little bit smaller and have a few less buttons. According to the folks who I learned this from, the average family would have a remote for the man of the house and a smaller lady's remote.
In the US, there would just be one remote and no one would think of it as a "macho" thing to have more buttons.
With regards to the Front Row remote, Steve Jobs (as usual) takes his queus from european sophisticates on his notions of design, simplicity, etc.
The majority seem to want to. In other words, if you want a democracy, you have to accept the consequences.
If I don't want democracy, I still get to accept the consequences.
Exactly. I live and work in New York. I'd be glad to take an immediately 30% pay cut if only my company would relocate to Nebraska.
I think you are probably beter off working within the two existing parties than trying to start a third party. The third party won't win and the in meantime, you just draw off votes from the people who are most closely your allies.
I agree with you on point 1. I agree with you on point 2. However, I think the jury is still out as to whether this type of thing would be safe in a real world deployment situation for: the workers manufacturing it, the workers installing it, the people operating the facility, patrons, and finally those people who might be performing maintenance and/or demolition on the facility.
I was merely pointing out that saying "its as safe as Asbestos or even Coal Dust" isn't going to win anyone over into thinking it is safe.
And sorry about being on your case in >1 thread - I try to be an equal opportunity asshole.
What if I want my business to be cell-free, so I paint the walls with this special paint. If those walls happen to be between the cell tower and the business next door, they lose signal as well. Will this create shadow areas outside of the area that was intended to be blocked in the first place?
This is the very reason why the build cell towers as opposed to just putting the transmitters at street level or underground.
In 2003, I lived in Seattle and every single person I knew or saw on the street had one unless they were some crackpot trying to claim how "philosophically opposed" to cell phones they were. The only person I knew who was in the crackpot camp still does not have a cell phone.
Heck, everyone I knew in 1999 had a cell phone.
and likely to be less severe than asbestos
That's good to hear. As long as it is not as severe as coal dust or asbestos, I don't mind being exposed to it at all. Because coal dust and asbestos aren't hazardous. Yep, there should be NO Problem with that...
There is already a marker. It is called the signal strength bar on your phone.