Y'know, I don't have a Mac, and don't really see myself having one in the future, but this is the most disingenuous post I've seen on/. in... well, at least a day.
According to Apple.com, the most expensive non-customized MacBook is priced at $2799. To compare that to a low-end laptop is dishonest. The low end is $1099. So a more honest question would be:
"Why do I need to spend an extra $499 for a Macbook again?"
Which is a good question. I don't have a MacBook, for $1099 or for $2799 (but if someone wants to donate one, I'll happily accept it.:) because I personally don't need one, or want one enough to justify the money. So I can't say there aren't advantages -- but if I were to go mid- to high-range laptop hunting, I wouldn't pass up at least looking at the Macs.
Also, if you want to run OpenOffice, perhaps for the Mac you should use NeoOffice? (I had to Google that one.)
Disclaimer: I don't have iTunes, I don't have an Apple, or any software/hardware from them.
The old DRMed files had it too.
And this is something all of the people bitching and moaning here on/. either don't know or do know and are bitching anyway because the story fits their agenda of disliking Apple. There's a silly contingent who want to hate on Apple because they haven't... what, magically gotten rid of all music DRM and gotten P2P legalized? iTunes may not be perfect, and I doubt very seriously it's even close, but damn, people. It's a lot better than our legal music options were before it opened. Give Apple a bit of credit for not being a bunch of assholes about this. DRM free music, high quality, a little over a buck a song?
This is what a lot of people claimed to want. Now that it's happening, I think a lot of people are pissed because they really wanted to pirate music and now have one less excuse for why they do it. In addition to the fact that Apple has people who hate them just like any company that has ever existed.
Oh that's a bunch of crap. I don't have a right-wing talk show, first of all.
Nor am I what would be considered right-wing; I'm more liberal on abortion than McCain is (in that I support it and don't kiss-ass for evangelicals over it -- but then, I'm not a politician), I'm more liberal on gay marriage than McCain is (in that I support it, same as the last), I'm more liberal on the "war" on drugs than McCain is (in that I think it's a stupid waste of resources). I was just pointing out that the right-wing doesn't like him. You cite talk shows: Limbaugh, Boortz, and Hannity have always hated McCain, not just when he gets called on bullshit.
He's also not going to be the nominee of the Republican party; it will be someone who isn't "actually a liberal." Watch and see.
The way I see it, she's trying to pander to the center-right more than actually being center-right. Much like John Kerry pandering to whatever audience he was talking to, or Bush pandering to evangelicals. Her healthcare ideas are most certainly not center-right. She's taken a drastic centrist turn since about 2003 or so. Giuliani is also trying to more appeal to what he considers the mainstream.
Much like the Democrats who were staunchly anti-war until after they got elected, and have since done nothing more than publicity stunts on the war, were Hillary to get elected, I think she would do an about face on a lot of her "center-right" attitudes.
Not everything Wal-Mart sells is cheaply made. They don't sell cheaper Wal-Mart versions of the Wii/PS3/X-Box 360, or the iPod, or the Sansa, or Sanyo/Sony/whatever TVs and electronics. No one thinks Brand X of TV is crap because Wal-Mart sells them.
This isn't to say Wal-Mart doesn't sell their own crappy brands of stuff, but to assume everything sold their is cheap crap is ignorance.
I wish I could find a link now, but somewhere there was a story a few years ago about someone taking a picture of the cops doing something, and they confiscated his/her camera and erased everything on the memory card. So no, it would NOT be popular.
Actually it's not just Republicans who want to talk about this kind of gaming regulation. A lot of butt-kissing Democrats have made suggestions that way, including the rather liberal Hillary Clinton. This is not a Republican/Democrat issue. They both suck on this issue for the most part. They're all from the same generation that doesn't freaking understand games and how Thompson and his ilk are just publicity whores.
It's the same thing as when dumbass Hatch suggested blowing up people's computers remotely for file sharing. It's simply a lack of understanding and pandering to someone who benefits them. In that case, the RIAA. In this case, the old people vote who think the current culture is just soooo awful.
The problem isn't going to go away because most younger people only vote on American Idol.
I'm not sure that's the best way to convince them to allow us to own guns.:)
Re:Piracy is marker of immature market
on
Piracy Economics
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
MS will get pirated until they have half a dozen or a dozen versions of their product. It would be practical for them to give away the low end version.
They have quite a few versions of Vista.
MS will always be pirated. If they give away the low end, people will pirate the high end because that's what they want. Paint is given away for free with every Windows computer, Gimp is free, yet Photoshop is probably one of the most pirated programs in existence, after Windows and possibly Office.
While the car and book analogies make sense, Microsoft isn't actually hurt by people pirating Windows. Windows has always been pirated and they're a billion dollar company. One of the reasons for this is that you can pirate all you want at home, but if you're a business caught pirating, you are going to get screwed. In an uncomfortable place. (and not like in a station wagon)
Short of giving all versions of Windows away, MS will be pirated. They might as well make the best of it and work it to their advantage.
Pretty much *everybody* likes Democrats. Especially nowadays.
Not according to the latest poll numbers where congress is doing worse than Bush is (which is quite a fucking feat if you ask me). I think people are, in general, damn tired of the current nationally elected officials. The shift in 2006 was one sign; I imagine 2008 will bring more unseated Congressmen and women. (and it'll certainly bring a new president...)
I don't know where you get the "pretty much everybody likes Democrats" thing. I don't. Almost no one I know does. Maybe a few here or there -- I like my current Congressman, but he is barely a Democrat. And I'm not suggesting the only reason they support gun control is because of the Brady campaign. I'm just pointing to the smoke. I'm basing it on the leadership of the Democratic party, the bills they've voted for, and the things that Democrats say. And outside of Southern and Midwestern Dems, most seem to say "we want to take guns."
The actual word liberal, and the way people labeled as liberals now act, are two different things.
When it comes to national politicians, generally, you're choosing between two different sets of special interest groups. There are very, very few good politicians.
As for the power thing -- they vote on the laws. Allowing themselves to be bought and paid for doesn't absolve them of the responsibility.
You've obviously never heard of Senator Diane Fienstien, who said she would take every gun from Americans if she could.
Or the ridiculous Assault Weapons Ban, passed by a Democrat controlled congress and signed by Bill Clinton. A law that banned guns on cosmetic features and made a minimum impact on crime; most weapons used in crimes are not "assault" weapons (which are NOT machine guns -- fully automatic guns require a license and a yearly tax), they're stolen or otherwise illegally gotten pistols. When the bill was going to expire in 2004, supporters (Democrats) claimed there would be blood in the streets. And... nada. Three years later, it turns out it was just a bill passed to "feel good."
And to make Democrat supporters like the Brady Campaign happy. They support Gun Control. And look at how they rate elected officials. They rate Democrats higher. So, the gun control lobby likes Democrats. When a group likes a political party, that tends to imply that party supports the same thing that group does.
It's not *all* Democrats, just like not *all* Republicans are pro-gun. In fact, most suck on the issue. But they suck to a lesser extend than Democrats do on this issue.
This is an important issue to me, and it irritates the living hell out of me that my choices are between an idiot who wants to take all guns and an idiot who wants to take all non-hunting guns.
Also, the NRA is no more powerful than the Brady Campaign and mostly supports guns for hunting; I don't give a rats ass about hunting, so I could care less what the NRA says.
Godwin's law generally implies there is some sort of debate going on, and doesn't really apply to a post made simply as a joke. He wasn't really using Nazis or Hitler to make any sort of argument.
Why was this moderated flamebait? There are judges who don't know what is going on, in the US. And the people responsible for putting federal judges on the bench are idiots like Ted Stevens who think the internet is a "series of tubes" and formerly Fritz Holling, the most bought and paid for RIAA/MPAA stooge outside of California.
A lot of judges and elected officials are old. A lot of old people don't have a clue about technology.
3. Free is not a business model. Mark is sinking a fortune into Ubuntu at this point and will expect to make a return on his investment at some point. After that, the Ubuntu honeymoon is over.
Maybe having a better Linux is what he wants. The guy has given a lot of money to a lot of open source projects. People do sometimes donate money for non-shifty reasons. Perhaps he really just wants to see F/OSS succeed.
I think Dell selling Ubuntu will make a negligible difference in distro diversity. That's just my opinion, partly based on Shuttleworth's feelings about open source in general.
get it to, for instance, form over the open sea instead of over land.
Hurricanes do form over the open sea. The Atlantic hurricanes form off the coast of Africa and move toward North America, then when they hit the warmer water in the Gulf Coast or other areas in the Atlantic, they get much, much stronger. Hitting land is one of the things that weakens them. After a few hours on land, they're basically just big rain storms. I think you meant direct them to open sea and away from land.
Actually, I had the urge to know what a bow shock was before reading the article. I read the summary, my brain didn't recognize what a bow shock was, so I went and looked it up right then. Kind of an obsessive habit, I guess.
And a lot of old works have a flood in them, including Gilgamesh, and there are a lot of similarities between Utnapishtim from Gilgamesh (the character who was in the flood) and Noah from the Bible. I think it's pretty safe to say at some time in our history, some ancient guys in robes got flooded out and at least one lunatic with a boat managed to survive. It might not have even been a boat, he could have floated around on his roof or something.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd like a Macbook (assuming I can install XP on one) as they're pretty machines which appear to have a better resale value than Dells..
Wow, you have balls... Do you know what the Mac fans would do to you for suggesting that?!
Y'know, I don't have a Mac, and don't really see myself having one in the future, but this is the most disingenuous post I've seen on /. in... well, at least a day.
:) because I personally don't need one, or want one enough to justify the money. So I can't say there aren't advantages -- but if I were to go mid- to high-range laptop hunting, I wouldn't pass up at least looking at the Macs.
According to Apple.com, the most expensive non-customized MacBook is priced at $2799. To compare that to a low-end laptop is dishonest. The low end is $1099. So a more honest question would be:
"Why do I need to spend an extra $499 for a Macbook again?"
Which is a good question. I don't have a MacBook, for $1099 or for $2799 (but if someone wants to donate one, I'll happily accept it.
Also, if you want to run OpenOffice, perhaps for the Mac you should use NeoOffice? (I had to Google that one.)
Disclaimer: I don't have iTunes, I don't have an Apple, or any software/hardware from them.
/. either don't know or do know and are bitching anyway because the story fits their agenda of disliking Apple. There's a silly contingent who want to hate on Apple because they haven't... what, magically gotten rid of all music DRM and gotten P2P legalized? iTunes may not be perfect, and I doubt very seriously it's even close, but damn, people. It's a lot better than our legal music options were before it opened. Give Apple a bit of credit for not being a bunch of assholes about this. DRM free music, high quality, a little over a buck a song?
The old DRMed files had it too.
And this is something all of the people bitching and moaning here on
This is what a lot of people claimed to want. Now that it's happening, I think a lot of people are pissed because they really wanted to pirate music and now have one less excuse for why they do it. In addition to the fact that Apple has people who hate them just like any company that has ever existed.
That's because none of them were Counselor/Commander Troi.
:)
Or you're not a furry. Whichever makes more sense to you.
Personally, I don't even like it when a chick doesn't shave her pits, so furries freak me right the fuck out.
Oh that's a bunch of crap. I don't have a right-wing talk show, first of all.
Nor am I what would be considered right-wing; I'm more liberal on abortion than McCain is (in that I support it and don't kiss-ass for evangelicals over it -- but then, I'm not a politician), I'm more liberal on gay marriage than McCain is (in that I support it, same as the last), I'm more liberal on the "war" on drugs than McCain is (in that I think it's a stupid waste of resources). I was just pointing out that the right-wing doesn't like him. You cite talk shows: Limbaugh, Boortz, and Hannity have always hated McCain, not just when he gets called on bullshit.
He's also not going to be the nominee of the Republican party; it will be someone who isn't "actually a liberal." Watch and see.
Fact: Most on the right don't like McCain. Kthx try again. He's a "Maverick" who annoys the right.
Nokilli is just pissed off because the girl he liked in high school married a soldier.
Judging by his writing skills, he wasn't in AP English.
It more bugs me how many sites in google news are exact copies of the same thing. Makes finding more than one story somewhat of a bitch.
My bad. Haven't seen the movie in a while.
The way I see it, she's trying to pander to the center-right more than actually being center-right. Much like John Kerry pandering to whatever audience he was talking to, or Bush pandering to evangelicals. Her healthcare ideas are most certainly not center-right. She's taken a drastic centrist turn since about 2003 or so. Giuliani is also trying to more appeal to what he considers the mainstream.
Much like the Democrats who were staunchly anti-war until after they got elected, and have since done nothing more than publicity stunts on the war, were Hillary to get elected, I think she would do an about face on a lot of her "center-right" attitudes.
Same here.
Not everything Wal-Mart sells is cheaply made. They don't sell cheaper Wal-Mart versions of the Wii/PS3/X-Box 360, or the iPod, or the Sansa, or Sanyo/Sony/whatever TVs and electronics. No one thinks Brand X of TV is crap because Wal-Mart sells them.
This isn't to say Wal-Mart doesn't sell their own crappy brands of stuff, but to assume everything sold their is cheap crap is ignorance.
I wish I could find a link now, but somewhere there was a story a few years ago about someone taking a picture of the cops doing something, and they confiscated his/her camera and erased everything on the memory card. So no, it would NOT be popular.
Actually it's not just Republicans who want to talk about this kind of gaming regulation. A lot of butt-kissing Democrats have made suggestions that way, including the rather liberal Hillary Clinton. This is not a Republican/Democrat issue. They both suck on this issue for the most part. They're all from the same generation that doesn't freaking understand games and how Thompson and his ilk are just publicity whores.
It's the same thing as when dumbass Hatch suggested blowing up people's computers remotely for file sharing. It's simply a lack of understanding and pandering to someone who benefits them. In that case, the RIAA. In this case, the old people vote who think the current culture is just soooo awful.
The problem isn't going to go away because most younger people only vote on American Idol.
Politicans, shoot them all...
:)
I'm not sure that's the best way to convince them to allow us to own guns.
MS will get pirated until they have half a dozen or a dozen versions of their product. It would be practical for them to give away the low end version.
They have quite a few versions of Vista.
MS will always be pirated. If they give away the low end, people will pirate the high end because that's what they want. Paint is given away for free with every Windows computer, Gimp is free, yet Photoshop is probably one of the most pirated programs in existence, after Windows and possibly Office.
While the car and book analogies make sense, Microsoft isn't actually hurt by people pirating Windows. Windows has always been pirated and they're a billion dollar company. One of the reasons for this is that you can pirate all you want at home, but if you're a business caught pirating, you are going to get screwed. In an uncomfortable place. (and not like in a station wagon)
Short of giving all versions of Windows away, MS will be pirated. They might as well make the best of it and work it to their advantage.
Pretty much *everybody* likes Democrats. Especially nowadays.
Not according to the latest poll numbers where congress is doing worse than Bush is (which is quite a fucking feat if you ask me). I think people are, in general, damn tired of the current nationally elected officials. The shift in 2006 was one sign; I imagine 2008 will bring more unseated Congressmen and women. (and it'll certainly bring a new president...)
I don't know where you get the "pretty much everybody likes Democrats" thing. I don't. Almost no one I know does. Maybe a few here or there -- I like my current Congressman, but he is barely a Democrat. And I'm not suggesting the only reason they support gun control is because of the Brady campaign. I'm just pointing to the smoke. I'm basing it on the leadership of the Democratic party, the bills they've voted for, and the things that Democrats say. And outside of Southern and Midwestern Dems, most seem to say "we want to take guns."
The actual word liberal, and the way people labeled as liberals now act, are two different things.
When it comes to national politicians, generally, you're choosing between two different sets of special interest groups. There are very, very few good politicians.
As for the power thing -- they vote on the laws. Allowing themselves to be bought and paid for doesn't absolve them of the responsibility.
You've obviously never heard of Senator Diane Fienstien, who said she would take every gun from Americans if she could.
Or the ridiculous Assault Weapons Ban, passed by a Democrat controlled congress and signed by Bill Clinton. A law that banned guns on cosmetic features and made a minimum impact on crime; most weapons used in crimes are not "assault" weapons (which are NOT machine guns -- fully automatic guns require a license and a yearly tax), they're stolen or otherwise illegally gotten pistols. When the bill was going to expire in 2004, supporters (Democrats) claimed there would be blood in the streets. And... nada. Three years later, it turns out it was just a bill passed to "feel good."
And to make Democrat supporters like the Brady Campaign happy. They support Gun Control. And look at how they rate elected officials. They rate Democrats higher. So, the gun control lobby likes Democrats. When a group likes a political party, that tends to imply that party supports the same thing that group does.
It's not *all* Democrats, just like not *all* Republicans are pro-gun. In fact, most suck on the issue. But they suck to a lesser extend than Democrats do on this issue.
This is an important issue to me, and it irritates the living hell out of me that my choices are between an idiot who wants to take all guns and an idiot who wants to take all non-hunting guns.
Also, the NRA is no more powerful than the Brady Campaign and mostly supports guns for hunting; I don't give a rats ass about hunting, so I could care less what the NRA says.
In the USA, many Americans refuse to use public transportation due to class snobbery.
Or we live where it isn't feasible.
The USA is a giant country. It's not all big cities and tall buildings. And the public transportation in even many of those places sucks.
It sounds to me like you've not seen much outside of your own backyard.
Godwin's law generally implies there is some sort of debate going on, and doesn't really apply to a post made simply as a joke. He wasn't really using Nazis or Hitler to make any sort of argument.
/.
In other words, get over it, this is
Why was this moderated flamebait? There are judges who don't know what is going on, in the US. And the people responsible for putting federal judges on the bench are idiots like Ted Stevens who think the internet is a "series of tubes" and formerly Fritz Holling, the most bought and paid for RIAA/MPAA stooge outside of California.
A lot of judges and elected officials are old. A lot of old people don't have a clue about technology.
3. Free is not a business model. Mark is sinking a fortune into Ubuntu at this point and will expect to make a return on his investment at some point. After that, the Ubuntu honeymoon is over.
Maybe having a better Linux is what he wants. The guy has given a lot of money to a lot of open source projects. People do sometimes donate money for non-shifty reasons. Perhaps he really just wants to see F/OSS succeed.
I think Dell selling Ubuntu will make a negligible difference in distro diversity. That's just my opinion, partly based on Shuttleworth's feelings about open source in general.
get it to, for instance, form over the open sea instead of over land.
Hurricanes do form over the open sea. The Atlantic hurricanes form off the coast of Africa and move toward North America, then when they hit the warmer water in the Gulf Coast or other areas in the Atlantic, they get much, much stronger. Hitting land is one of the things that weakens them. After a few hours on land, they're basically just big rain storms. I think you meant direct them to open sea and away from land.
This is /. and we don't need no stinkin' articles.
Actually, I had the urge to know what a bow shock was before reading the article. I read the summary, my brain didn't recognize what a bow shock was, so I went and looked it up right then. Kind of an obsessive habit, I guess.
And a lot of old works have a flood in them, including Gilgamesh, and there are a lot of similarities between Utnapishtim from Gilgamesh (the character who was in the flood) and Noah from the Bible. I think it's pretty safe to say at some time in our history, some ancient guys in robes got flooded out and at least one lunatic with a boat managed to survive. It might not have even been a boat, he could have floated around on his roof or something.