While it's understandable that Redmond would shut down a company making money off unlicensed Microsoft knockoffs, the company doesn't believe that consumers have the right to tinker, even as hobbyists.
Is this actually true? Microsoft has not gone after the modder's themselves, only companies that are distributed modified BIOS's (which I've read elsewhere are copyrighted). I don't think I've ever seen Microsoft saying that those who purchases XBox's don't have a right to modify them.
The fallacy of his argument is that he believes the modifications to the XBox will lead to more sold. Even if that were true (which I don't think is true), will this directly lead to more legitimately sold software for the XBox? (which is where they make their money... a fact that I realize has been repeated a billion times on this board) So for him to argue that the modifications are, in fact, good for Microsoft is very weak. He compares them to the Lego Mindstorm products, which is a terrible comparison due to the fact that Lego's are made for the very purpose of creating your own work. The XBox business strategy is very different from that.
Important Note: Before I get 400 responses talking about bad business models, I want to make something clear: I am not saying it is a good business model, or that the laws should protect flawed business models. I am simply showing that the author's logic is failed in arguing that the modifications are good for Microsoft.
I guess Mr. Cerf feels people shouldn't get off unless they have a significant other of the opposite gender readily available, and only then with the lights off in the missionary position. I mean, after all sex is A Bad Thing especially when there's a number of people that isn't both even and prime.
Ah yes, I was wondering when I would see this attitude surface after reading the interview. Those who are "disappointed" with the proliferation of porn obviously think sex must be a bad thing. Your logic astounds me.
There is nothing that can destroy the so-called morals of a country like Saudi Arabia or Taliban controlled Afghanistan faster than an unlimited supply of high quality porn. conservatives know that to control women they have to control sexuality.
This has to be the funniest thing I have ever read on Slashdot. Have you ever actually heard from women who are involved with porn? How about the wives of many who are "addicted" to porn? It's unbelievable to me you actually think that porn is liberating to women. Most feminists have come to even realize this.
I guess what we really need to do to bring down Hussein is to drop porn on Iraq! Forget military action!
I've been looking a bit into the group that did the study: The Robert Francis Group. I'm having a hard time really finding much information about them. It looks like they are basically an analyst group like Gartner. I found some CNET articles, one involving Sun and another involving Microsoft. In both cases, it looks like the analyst was just there to bash the two of them.
I'm wondering if there is a history of bias against the two companies in favor of Linux/IBM. It does look like they are general pro-Linux and GPL in their recommendations. But their bias could be based on the various studies they have done in the past. Does anyone else know anything about this group?
These will be used solely for the purpose of web activities (surfing/mail), and word processing and *THATS IT*.
Liar.
I don't know how many times I've heard someone say that a computer will only used for a particular purpose and then see it eventually be used for all sorts of things. When deciding which configuration you are going to use, I would keep this in mind.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! You so funny! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! You so original! You make me laugh! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! You funny man! I like you jokes! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Wow...my sides are hurting with that funny, funny quip you just threw down on us like some clever maniacal funny man! You so funny! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Someone even modded you as funny to show how funny you really are to the rest of us! Quip, quip says you! Everyone! Over here! Look at the funny man! He made a funny about cells being terrorists! Get it? cells...being...terrorists! HAHAHAHAHA! It's a reference to President Bush...yes, how he says everyone is a "terrorist". HAHAHAHAHA! Yes, I am not sure where this guy is from but boy is he funny! Who invited him to the party? We gotta have this guy over more often! Honey? Come down here a second and listen to this guy 'tell it like it is' in a really funny way. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH! Biological terrorism, that's priceless. "We must initiate a regime change." Gold. Just pure gold. How do you do it? I mean, so many people post on Slashdot but then you see a funny gem like this. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Pure hilarity. When's the last time you actually listened to President Bush and so wittily remarked about him? Had you not actually been politically informed then this wouldn't actually apply and hence your joke would 'have no teeth' as it were. But the brilliance of you tying in cell death to terrorism had me splitting my sides. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! You funny man. So clever, so very very clever. I'll bet you were the funny man in high school too. Wow. You still got it!
On a serious note, are the terrorism jokes ever going to end?
In its defense, Apple has good reasons for preventing interface hacks. One of the major selling points of OS X is its stability, and changes to the underlying system undermine that. Previous versions of the Mac OS could be enormously flaky thanks to extensions that altered basic operating system behavior.
The look and feel of Aqua is also a marketing tool, and Apple, somewhat justifiably, wants its distinctive "brand" to remain untarnished.
Support issues have surfaced as well -- technicians on the phone can't advise a user to open a window by clicking a button on the left if the button has been moved to the right.
While they may have some what of a point on the stability issue, I think the other "reasons" given are fairly lame. For instance, if a person is at the point where they are using custom tweaks to the GUI, they usually are advanced enough to know how to "open a window". And since when did the "brand" become more important than the desires of the end user?
Re:Does anybody have more info?
on
3D LCD Display
·
· Score: 1
I also have sight in only one eye and was wondering the same thing. According to this description from their web site (link shamelessly stolen from above post):
We see everything about us in three dimensions. This is because each eye has a slightly different view, and the brain is able to interpret the images as a three dimensional scene. Conventional displays, which only present one image cannot reproduce the three dimensional effects.
It sounds like us "mono's" (how is that for a special interest group? ) will not be able to see the 3-D image. I would guess they are creating two images that are each seen by either eye due to the distance between the two eyes.
Kids have always played aggressive games. I don't think that it matters whether it's a video game or sports.
Now, are you going to tell me that the experience of playing cops and robbers or football is similiar to playing GTA3? Obviously, the kinds of images imprinted in the minds of those who play very violent video games is very different than that of making a gun with your finger and shooting someone.
Why is it that those who love violent video games will prop up any study that supports their cause and ignore or discredit any that goes against it? Obviously, it's a tactic that all sorts of groups like but I would hope that "nerds" could be a bit more scientific than that. It seems a bit obvious to me that engaging in agressive behavior, whether it is in the form of a video game or not, will result in a more agressive personality.
Games don't create psychopaths and cause a kid to bring a gun to school. Parents (or lack of) do that.
Most don't say that games create psycopaths or cause people to kill other people. Obviously there are a lot of factors involved. But as a parent, I don't want my children playing games that glorify violence. Of course, the typical response of people is that it is entirely upon my shoulders to make that happen. The ultimate responsability of my children's welfare is in my hands, but people have grown so used to the automatic response that it's up to the parents to control every aspect of their children's lives, that I'm getting sick of it. I guess I'm going to have to completely remove the television from our home (which I probably will do anyway), make sure he never goes over to anyone's house without me, because who knows what games he may play over their, and generally lock up my children in basements to protect them.
Whoa, now I'm on a completely different subject. What were we talking about?
I feel it important to counter the flood of posts talking about how the first amendment is irrelevant. First, it's quite obvious that the links are NOT against the Patriot Act. The school probably knows this. The administration is probably doing this to try to make the Act look unconstitutional.
Not being a lawyer, or being extremely familiar with the Patriot Act, I can't state if any parts of it are unconstitutional. The part they quote in the article does not seem to be. It is not in your First Amendment right to plot to overthrow the government or kill people. It's also not your right to materially help people to do so. Obviously, a link is not doing that and I don't think any judge is going to see it that way
So let's keep the topic on hand: Does linking violate the Patriot Act? Is that section of the Patriot Act unconstutitional?
What is the difference between and operating system and a kernel?
An operating system, as we use the term, means a collection of programs that are sufficient to use the computer to do a wide variety of jobs. A general purpose operating system, to be complete, ought to handle all the jobs that many users may want to do.
No upgrades necessary to play latest games (usually)
Cheaper systems
More fun for party type multiplayer games
I use them both for my gaming. Honestly, I generally prefer consoles because I prefer my multiplayer experience with everyone in the same room. Plus, it's so much easier to just pop a game in and play it in the family room then go into the office and boot the system.
While Windows 2000 and XP sure have security problems (although I have no idea where you would get the idea that it has "stability" problems), they are unrelated to the kernel. Now, if you said they were replacing IIS with something else, then you'd have a point.
I realize you were trying to be funny, but since this is not funny by any stretch of the imagination, I figured I would ignore your lame attempt at humor.
The group's allegation regarding a sixth violation rapped Microsoft for failing to include in the middleware control an option to disable Microsoft's.Net Framework Common Language Runtime, an alternative to Sun's Java Virtual Machine.
Although Microsoft released the technology long after signing the proposed settlement, the Common Language Runtime meets the standard set by the agreement for determining what future middleware products would be covered by the deal, ProComp said.
The.Net runtime does not even come included with Windows XP and Windows 2000. Why would they need to include an option to disable the.Net runtime, if it's required that the user of the OS to have downloaded and installed it?
The cool thing about them was you could make out cockroach features in the poo. It was like a Gieger sculpture or something found on a Alien movie set, a very organic yet dark evil look to them.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! You so funny! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! You so original! You make me laugh! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! You funny man! I like you jokes! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Wow...my sides are hurting with that funny, funny quip you just threw down on us like some clever maniacal funny man! You so funny! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Someone even modded you as funny to show how funny you really are to the rest of us! Quip, quip says you! Everyone! Over here! Look at the funny man! He made a funny about handing out Windows XP! Get it? handing...out...XP! HAHAHAHAHA! It's a reference to XP...yes, how it's a "useless toy". HAHAHAHAHA! Yes, I am not sure where this guy is from but boy is he funny! Who invited him to the party? We gotta have this guy over more often! Honey? Come down here a second and listen to this guy 'tell it like it is' in a really funny way. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH! Toys and t-shirts, that's priceless. "Handing out Windows XP." Gold. Just pure gold. How do you do it? I mean, so many people post on Slashdot but then you see a funny gem like this. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Pure hilarity. When's the last time you actually used Windows XP and so wittily remarked about it? Had you not been using Win98 or ME then this wouldn't actually apply and hence your joke would 'have no teeth' as it were. But the brilliance of you tying in handing out toys with XP had me splitting my sides. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! You funny man. So clever, so very very clever. I'll bet you were the funny man in high school too. Wow. You still got it!
But in part because digital projection does not create as unmistakable an improvement in the viewing experience as, say, the talkies did over silent films, theater chains are unwilling to foot the bill for the new projectors, which cost at least $100,000 per screen and might have to be upgraded every few years. Conventional film projectors, which last 20 years on average, cost $30,000.
I have to agree with this statement. I managed to see Attack of the Clones, projected in all digital in Phoenix, AZ. When the screen switched from analog (during the previews) to digital I noticed a difference, but not huge. After watching for a few minutes, I forgot that I was even watching it in digital. It's nothing like the difference between VCR and DVD.
Have other people who have seen movies projected in all digital had the same experience?
Ok then. So where is was the government in protecting the REAL minority, the artists, when the RIAA/Big-5 stole their intellectual property rights forever.
Ah yes, I remember hearing about the RIAA with it's armed minions stomping into small coffee houses and pointing weapons at the heads of budding artists and forcing them to sign horrible contracts. In case you didn't realize, no artist ever is required to sign with any record company to be an artist. Sure, if they want a hope of worldwide fame and recognition, it is just about your only option, but at that point, can you really call them an "artist"?
There are plenty of independent artists, bands and musicians out there who even make a living without ever signing with one of the Big-5. No one requires any of these musicians to do anything.
No business should be given the god-given right to be profitible. Yet this is what they're DEMANDING from our government.
Of course not, but they do have a right to ask the government to enforce the existing laws--laws that are intended to protect their intellectual property rights.
Slashdot Mirror
There is so much math going on in this topic, I'm very confused. Could someone please tell me, how big is this black hole in terms of football fields?
Thanks.
Hmm, a story about security holes in Linux, but no actual comments about security holes in Linux.
Brilliant way to distract from the issue.
First, let me point out this statement:
Is this actually true? Microsoft has not gone after the modder's themselves, only companies that are distributed modified BIOS's (which I've read elsewhere are copyrighted). I don't think I've ever seen Microsoft saying that those who purchases XBox's don't have a right to modify them.
The fallacy of his argument is that he believes the modifications to the XBox will lead to more sold. Even if that were true (which I don't think is true), will this directly lead to more legitimately sold software for the XBox? (which is where they make their money... a fact that I realize has been repeated a billion times on this board) So for him to argue that the modifications are, in fact, good for Microsoft is very weak. He compares them to the Lego Mindstorm products, which is a terrible comparison due to the fact that Lego's are made for the very purpose of creating your own work. The XBox business strategy is very different from that.
Important Note: Before I get 400 responses talking about bad business models, I want to make something clear: I am not saying it is a good business model, or that the laws should protect flawed business models. I am simply showing that the author's logic is failed in arguing that the modifications are good for Microsoft.
then you start to use punction then you start to overuse a quote then ...
Oh you people make me feel older and older every day. Just s/younger brother or sister/toddler and you describe me.
*sigh*
Ah yes, I was wondering when I would see this attitude surface after reading the interview. Those who are "disappointed" with the proliferation of porn obviously think sex must be a bad thing. Your logic astounds me.
This has to be the funniest thing I have ever read on Slashdot. Have you ever actually heard from women who are involved with porn? How about the wives of many who are "addicted" to porn? It's unbelievable to me you actually think that porn is liberating to women. Most feminists have come to even realize this.
I guess what we really need to do to bring down Hussein is to drop porn on Iraq! Forget military action!
I've been looking a bit into the group that did the study: The Robert Francis Group. I'm having a hard time really finding much information about them. It looks like they are basically an analyst group like Gartner. I found some CNET articles, one involving Sun and another involving Microsoft. In both cases, it looks like the analyst was just there to bash the two of them.
I'm wondering if there is a history of bias against the two companies in favor of Linux/IBM. It does look like they are general pro-Linux and GPL in their recommendations. But their bias could be based on the various studies they have done in the past. Does anyone else know anything about this group?
Liar.
I don't know how many times I've heard someone say that a computer will only used for a particular purpose and then see it eventually be used for all sorts of things. When deciding which configuration you are going to use, I would keep this in mind.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! You so funny! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! You so original! You make me laugh! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! You funny man! I like you jokes! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Wow...my sides are hurting with that funny, funny quip you just threw down on us like some clever maniacal funny man! You so funny! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Someone even modded you as funny to show how funny you really are to the rest of us! Quip, quip says you! Everyone! Over here! Look at the funny man! He made a funny about cells being terrorists! Get it? cells...being...terrorists! HAHAHAHAHA! It's a reference to President Bush...yes, how he says everyone is a "terrorist". HAHAHAHAHA! Yes, I am not sure where this guy is from but boy is he funny! Who invited him to the party? We gotta have this guy over more often! Honey? Come down here a second and listen to this guy 'tell it like it is' in a really funny way. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH! Biological terrorism, that's priceless. "We must initiate a regime change." Gold. Just pure gold. How do you do it? I mean, so many people post on Slashdot but then you see a funny gem like this. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Pure hilarity. When's the last time you actually listened to President Bush and so wittily remarked about him? Had you not actually been politically informed then this wouldn't actually apply and hence your joke would 'have no teeth' as it were. But the brilliance of you tying in cell death to terrorism had me splitting my sides. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! You funny man. So clever, so very very clever. I'll bet you were the funny man in high school too. Wow. You still got it!
On a serious note, are the terrorism jokes ever going to end?
Probably a sentiment shared by most on this board....
While they may have some what of a point on the stability issue, I think the other "reasons" given are fairly lame. For instance, if a person is at the point where they are using custom tweaks to the GUI, they usually are advanced enough to know how to "open a window". And since when did the "brand" become more important than the desires of the end user?
I also have sight in only one eye and was wondering the same thing. According to this description from their web site (link shamelessly stolen from above post):
It sounds like us "mono's" (how is that for a special interest group? ) will not be able to see the 3-D image. I would guess they are creating two images that are each seen by either eye due to the distance between the two eyes.
I can still hold out hope though...
Now, are you going to tell me that the experience of playing cops and robbers or football is similiar to playing GTA3? Obviously, the kinds of images imprinted in the minds of those who play very violent video games is very different than that of making a gun with your finger and shooting someone.
Why is it that those who love violent video games will prop up any study that supports their cause and ignore or discredit any that goes against it? Obviously, it's a tactic that all sorts of groups like but I would hope that "nerds" could be a bit more scientific than that. It seems a bit obvious to me that engaging in agressive behavior, whether it is in the form of a video game or not, will result in a more agressive personality.
Most don't say that games create psycopaths or cause people to kill other people. Obviously there are a lot of factors involved. But as a parent, I don't want my children playing games that glorify violence. Of course, the typical response of people is that it is entirely upon my shoulders to make that happen. The ultimate responsability of my children's welfare is in my hands, but people have grown so used to the automatic response that it's up to the parents to control every aspect of their children's lives, that I'm getting sick of it. I guess I'm going to have to completely remove the television from our home (which I probably will do anyway), make sure he never goes over to anyone's house without me, because who knows what games he may play over their, and generally lock up my children in basements to protect them.
Whoa, now I'm on a completely different subject. What were we talking about?
I feel it important to counter the flood of posts talking about how the first amendment is irrelevant. First, it's quite obvious that the links are NOT against the Patriot Act. The school probably knows this. The administration is probably doing this to try to make the Act look unconstitutional.
Not being a lawyer, or being extremely familiar with the Patriot Act, I can't state if any parts of it are unconstitutional. The part they quote in the article does not seem to be. It is not in your First Amendment right to plot to overthrow the government or kill people. It's also not your right to materially help people to do so. Obviously, a link is not doing that and I don't think any judge is going to see it that waySo let's keep the topic on hand: Does linking violate the Patriot Act? Is that section of the Patriot Act unconstutitional?
From the FAQ:
You mean like browsing the Internet?
Here is the breakdown as I see it:
PC
Consoles
I use them both for my gaming. Honestly, I generally prefer consoles because I prefer my multiplayer experience with everyone in the same room. Plus, it's so much easier to just pop a game in and play it in the family room then go into the office and boot the system.
While Windows 2000 and XP sure have security problems (although I have no idea where you would get the idea that it has "stability" problems), they are unrelated to the kernel. Now, if you said they were replacing IIS with something else, then you'd have a point.
I realize you were trying to be funny, but since this is not funny by any stretch of the imagination, I figured I would ignore your lame attempt at humor.
I found this charge to be very interesting:
The .Net runtime does not even come included with Windows XP and Windows 2000. Why would they need to include an option to disable the .Net runtime, if it's required that the user of the OS to have downloaded and installed it?
Ah yes, the first of what I would guess will be hundreds of jokes about D&D.
Great, I won't be eating today.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! You so funny! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! You so original! You make me laugh! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! You funny man! I like you jokes! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Wow...my sides are hurting with that funny, funny quip you just threw down on us like some clever maniacal funny man! You so funny! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Someone even modded you as funny to show how funny you really are to the rest of us! Quip, quip says you! Everyone! Over here! Look at the funny man! He made a funny about handing out Windows XP! Get it? handing...out...XP! HAHAHAHAHA! It's a reference to XP...yes, how it's a "useless toy". HAHAHAHAHA! Yes, I am not sure where this guy is from but boy is he funny! Who invited him to the party? We gotta have this guy over more often! Honey? Come down here a second and listen to this guy 'tell it like it is' in a really funny way. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH! Toys and t-shirts, that's priceless. "Handing out Windows XP." Gold. Just pure gold. How do you do it? I mean, so many people post on Slashdot but then you see a funny gem like this. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Pure hilarity. When's the last time you actually used Windows XP and so wittily remarked about it? Had you not been using Win98 or ME then this wouldn't actually apply and hence your joke would 'have no teeth' as it were. But the brilliance of you tying in handing out toys with XP had me splitting my sides. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! You funny man. So clever, so very very clever. I'll bet you were the funny man in high school too. Wow. You still got it!
From the article:
But in part because digital projection does not create as unmistakable an improvement in the viewing experience as, say, the talkies did over silent films, theater chains are unwilling to foot the bill for the new projectors, which cost at least $100,000 per screen and might have to be upgraded every few years. Conventional film projectors, which last 20 years on average, cost $30,000.
I have to agree with this statement. I managed to see Attack of the Clones, projected in all digital in Phoenix, AZ. When the screen switched from analog (during the previews) to digital I noticed a difference, but not huge. After watching for a few minutes, I forgot that I was even watching it in digital. It's nothing like the difference between VCR and DVD.
Have other people who have seen movies projected in all digital had the same experience?
...is the fact that in the future they will be able to reconstruct your entire body from the diamond.
Ok then. So where is was the government in protecting the REAL minority, the artists, when the RIAA/Big-5 stole their intellectual property rights forever.
Ah yes, I remember hearing about the RIAA with it's armed minions stomping into small coffee houses and pointing weapons at the heads of budding artists and forcing them to sign horrible contracts. In case you didn't realize, no artist ever is required to sign with any record company to be an artist. Sure, if they want a hope of worldwide fame and recognition, it is just about your only option, but at that point, can you really call them an "artist"?
There are plenty of independent artists, bands and musicians out there who even make a living without ever signing with one of the Big-5. No one requires any of these musicians to do anything.
No business should be given the god-given right to be profitible. Yet this is what they're DEMANDING from our government.
Of course not, but they do have a right to ask the government to enforce the existing laws--laws that are intended to protect their intellectual property rights.