And of course, name calling while hiding behind a viel of Anonymity isn't reactionary at all? Or freak ish? Seriously, the people that do come here for serious discussion do get fed up and leave because of people like you and the fact that slashdot seems to have more baka than geeks these days.
Since when was showing off your best face and not wanting to play on the opsitions home turf considered bad? Seriously, I never trust any benchmarks put out by anyone. I like real world user experience. When I sit infront og the machine and use it, that's what counts in my book, not some spec number that says that my Athlon can overclock nearly 80% and that it can do my laundry too. Nor do I trust apple's demos. It's all a mater of user experience. How else do you explain all those people using old computers and linux?
Personaly, if they go with any PC chip company other than IBM, I have a feeling that Apple would choose AMD. Not because of any technical minded reasons, but simply because of image. For a long time (and still today) Intel is associated with Windows. And to have the logo that says Intel inside, implies that it is PC compatible.
If apple went with intel, they would piss off the rabid fans, they would piss off the PC comunity, they would piss off the anti intel people and they would cause sever issues for new users.
Dude, have you looked at what Apple gives you with the new.mac? You get your email (easy and free most places) you get anti-virus software (anywares from $30 - $90), you get 100 MB of web storage (I dare you to find that for free) and anyone who use iTools knows that you get plenty of software with your webspace too. I'd say $90 a year isn't so steep a price to be asking. Could they use a free "light" version, sure they could, but I don't personaly feel ripped off by.mac
As for the lack of support for early G3's, GET THE FUCK OVER IT! The early G3s that were unsupported were over 3 years old by the time OS X became "official". And you know what, after 3 years, it's time to start looking into other computers. Apple didn't force you to buy OS X, they didn't force you to buy a new computer. Hell they didn't even cripple OS X so that it couldn't run on the old G3s. They just said "we're not going to support it, we're leaving it up to the open source community". What's so fricken wrong with that? Apple needed sales, they gave you a reason to buy, but they didn't force you. Deal with it.
I have long been a mac user, so that is irelivent. The sad fact is, one person's vote does not count. Face it, that's life. The majority voted with their walets, and they voted M$. I voted, and still do vote Apple. On the other hand, I'm doing my part to change things. Gates get's his paycheck from the money flowing into M$, whether it's via stocks, tax refunds or revenue, it doesn't fricken matter, the point is, people are providing him with money. If you want to change things, you have to CUT OFF THE FLOW OF MONEY.
Why did all the over valued dot coms fail? BECAUSE THEY HAD NO MONEY FLOW!!!!!
Why does the stock market crash? BECAUSE MONEY STOPS FLOWING!!!!! (Do you realize that theoreticaly, the stock market could neveer crash so long as people keep investing. The market crashes when people start pulling money out. Then people see the market crashing and pull mor emoney out, causing a snowball effect. To stop a crash, start investing money.)
Why does the tobacco industry thrive and the government not care? MONEY MONEY MONEY!!!!!
Why do all things in government (except thiose specificaly provided for in the constitution) go through congress? BECAUSE CONGRESS CONTROLS THE MONEY!!!!!
Money is where it's at. Bill Gates may not be worth that much money to you, but to the thousands of people paying his paycheck, he apparently is.
Governments and rights huh. So a controled economic system. Like what China has? The world sucks. And the people in power will always have access to the biggest cash reserves. It may not be fair, and I sure as hell don't like it, but it's the way life is, and it's realistic. You want to talk about the government, let's talk about how much they cut into your salary. Have you looked at your taxes recently? Have you considered how much of your money goes into sales tax? Or how much you pay in taxes for gas? The government cuts into your wallet just as much as the big corp guys, and more directly too. Believe me, if the people who have power over at M$ didn't think Bill was worth his millions, he wouldn't get it. And they wouldn't have it to give, if people didn't think it was worth $300 a pop for an office suite. Like I said, vote with your money, that's where the reall power is.
Like I said, if you don't like what some one is getting paid, cut off their money supply. If you don't like what Bill Gates is earning, you have to stop buying Microsoft products, get others to stop buying them too and start actively speaking out.
If you don't like that A-Rod's getting a shit load of money, don't buy baseball tickets, and get others to join you. Nothing get's done by sitting on the fence and whining, you have to get off your ass and actualy do something about it.
Problem with maximum wage is, no one gets a wage that isn't thought of as worth it.
Sure people are pissed that A-Rod (a shortstop for those of you that don't follow baseball) is making a gross amount of money (I think it's in the range of 8 or 9 didgets) but some where someone thinks he's worth paying that much for. And not only that, but the fans that keep paying upwards of $50 for handicapped bleacher seats and upwards of $200 for good seats seem to think so too.
Like it or not, everyone gets what someone thinks they're worth. The best way to stop something is to vote with money. The most powerful parts of the governement are those that have to do with money. If money stops flowing, things change. Money give life and money sure as hell can take it away. Vote with your check book.
OOOOH LIght bulb. Let's pester the companies, everytime you get an EULA, call the company (using their 1800 number of course) and have them explain it to you. Then, when you don't agree, demand your money back.
How can you say that the massive double-digit drops in CD sales has nothing to do with piracy via computer?
Because I'd be more willing to bet it has something to do with the massive ammount of CRAP being put out there. Let's face it, rap is horrible and it's gettign old. Hip hop only apeals to teens on limited budget (and not many at that), techo really hasn't caught on big, pop is just plain shit for the most part, most rock is dead and the few good groups that are out there actualy take some time to put out decent music. Even the pouplar groups like Linkin Park have to put out filler (their new CD Reanimation is, as the ad says, Hybrid Theory revisisted). It doesn't take a foold to see there isn't much good being produced anymore, so it's not suprising that a $16 per CD price can't be maintained.
Only an idiot would buy something when it is available for free.
Not really, people will break the law only when it's easier and more convinient than following the law. In this case $16 is a huge price tag for music, outwieghing owning an original copy (a big factor for colectors and music buffs) having the original album artwork (though a lot of that is crap, give me Jim Steinman's work any day) and outwieghing being within the legality of the law. Also keep in mind copy protection makes tech savy people shy away. Personaly, a $7 or even a $10 price tag might convince me otherwise, but $16 is just too much. Saving $16 far outwieghs the frustration of finding a decent rip.
As an example, the "singles" section of the music market is dead... sales are down as much as 80%. Why? Piracy.
At nealry $7 a single, I think it has more to do with no one wanting to pay $7 for one song, no matter how good it is.
Consumers are wising up. Those that remember when CDs first hit the market remember the promises that as soon as the market became saturated the price would go down (back then a new CD cost you $13-14). Newer people are realizing they don't have that sort of money to spend on that sort of crap. Supply and demand says when your sales are falling, but the demand is just as high or higher, you need to lower your prices. Sucks to be the RIAA.
read this for a better POV http://www.fastcompany.com/online/60/monopolist.ht ml
Civil Disobedience. They're breaking the law because they don't agree with it. IF this was truly such a dangerous thing to the economy (as the RIAA might like you to believe) you can bet your ass that the government would have already cracked down on everyone downloading MP3s. But this is just a matter of the demand being high, the supply being high, but a price floor being in place. When that happens (as any basic economics class will tell you), you create a black market. (Do a search for price floors to find some info)
Most people that I know that are out of work were laid off. This mean that they get to collect unemployment so yes, they can support themselves with some adjustments. However, if you quit your job, you do not get to collect unemployment.
I did RTFA, maybe next time you should try RTFC before you reply. If you had, you might notice this:
Furthermore, it was an idea that he did not use company resources to develop...... But the fact that this idea was developed during his free time does not give the company an interest in the idea.
or this
The fact that he was negotiating a contract with his employer for this new idea (developed off the clock or off the record any ways)
Which both clearly indicate that he was doing this on his own time. Just because it's a long post doesn't mean you get to skim it. Read it through, then reply.
But the post I was replying to was talking about command line programs. In that case, it shouldn't matter whether it was Aqua, X, KDE or Gnome, it should all work the same right?
It doesn't matter if it was or not. As long as his regular job was getting done, and done on time and correctly, what does it matter whether he spent his free time thinking or playing solitare?
If I'm employed by wal-mart to develop advertising ideas, and I develop an idea for a new laundry detergent (I'm reaching I know) does that give Wal-Mart exclusive rights to my idea?
Like wise, if I'm employed by Intel to design CPUs and I come up with an idea for a new RAM chip, does that idea become Intel's?
Regardless of how the world works, he can take the machine back to compUSA and get his money back. If he bought from apple, that might be a different story
And if you are an inventor, you must carefully document and record your ideas when you have them, or else you will not able to claim them as your own.
You were going good up to this point. If, by not documenting his ideas, he can not claim them as his own, then the company can not claim that he developed said ideas while employed by them because he doesn't have the idea to begin with.
Slashdot Mirror
And of course, name calling while hiding behind a viel of Anonymity isn't reactionary at all? Or freak ish? Seriously, the people that do come here for serious discussion do get fed up and leave because of people like you and the fact that slashdot seems to have more baka than geeks these days.
Since when was showing off your best face and not wanting to play on the opsitions home turf considered bad? Seriously, I never trust any benchmarks put out by anyone. I like real world user experience. When I sit infront og the machine and use it, that's what counts in my book, not some spec number that says that my Athlon can overclock nearly 80% and that it can do my laundry too. Nor do I trust apple's demos. It's all a mater of user experience. How else do you explain all those people using old computers and linux?
Personaly, if they go with any PC chip company other than IBM, I have a feeling that Apple would choose AMD. Not because of any technical minded reasons, but simply because of image. For a long time (and still today) Intel is associated with Windows. And to have the logo that says Intel inside, implies that it is PC compatible.
If apple went with intel, they would piss off the rabid fans, they would piss off the PC comunity, they would piss off the anti intel people and they would cause sever issues for new users.
But that' just me talking
Dude, have you looked at what Apple gives you with the new .mac? You get your email (easy and free most places) you get anti-virus software (anywares from $30 - $90), you get 100 MB of web storage (I dare you to find that for free) and anyone who use iTools knows that you get plenty of software with your webspace too. I'd say $90 a year isn't so steep a price to be asking. Could they use a free "light" version, sure they could, but I don't personaly feel ripped off by .mac
As for the lack of support for early G3's, GET THE FUCK OVER IT! The early G3s that were unsupported were over 3 years old by the time OS X became "official". And you know what, after 3 years, it's time to start looking into other computers. Apple didn't force you to buy OS X, they didn't force you to buy a new computer. Hell they didn't even cripple OS X so that it couldn't run on the old G3s. They just said "we're not going to support it, we're leaving it up to the open source community". What's so fricken wrong with that? Apple needed sales, they gave you a reason to buy, but they didn't force you. Deal with it.
replied to the all italics, it's the first one I got
I have long been a mac user, so that is irelivent. The sad fact is, one person's vote does not count. Face it, that's life. The majority voted with their walets, and they voted M$. I voted, and still do vote Apple. On the other hand, I'm doing my part to change things. Gates get's his paycheck from the money flowing into M$, whether it's via stocks, tax refunds or revenue, it doesn't fricken matter, the point is, people are providing him with money. If you want to change things, you have to CUT OFF THE FLOW OF MONEY.
Why did all the over valued dot coms fail? BECAUSE THEY HAD NO MONEY FLOW!!!!!
Why does the stock market crash? BECAUSE MONEY STOPS FLOWING!!!!! (Do you realize that theoreticaly, the stock market could neveer crash so long as people keep investing. The market crashes when people start pulling money out. Then people see the market crashing and pull mor emoney out, causing a snowball effect. To stop a crash, start investing money.)
Why does the tobacco industry thrive and the government not care? MONEY MONEY MONEY!!!!!
Why do all things in government (except thiose specificaly provided for in the constitution) go through congress? BECAUSE CONGRESS CONTROLS THE MONEY!!!!!
Money is where it's at. Bill Gates may not be worth that much money to you, but to the thousands of people paying his paycheck, he apparently is.
Governments and rights huh. So a controled economic system. Like what China has? The world sucks. And the people in power will always have access to the biggest cash reserves. It may not be fair, and I sure as hell don't like it, but it's the way life is, and it's realistic. You want to talk about the government, let's talk about how much they cut into your salary. Have you looked at your taxes recently? Have you considered how much of your money goes into sales tax? Or how much you pay in taxes for gas? The government cuts into your wallet just as much as the big corp guys, and more directly too. Believe me, if the people who have power over at M$ didn't think Bill was worth his millions, he wouldn't get it. And they wouldn't have it to give, if people didn't think it was worth $300 a pop for an office suite. Like I said, vote with your money, that's where the reall power is.
Like I said, if you don't like what some one is getting paid, cut off their money supply. If you don't like what Bill Gates is earning, you have to stop buying Microsoft products, get others to stop buying them too and start actively speaking out.
If you don't like that A-Rod's getting a shit load of money, don't buy baseball tickets, and get others to join you. Nothing get's done by sitting on the fence and whining, you have to get off your ass and actualy do something about it.
Problem with maximum wage is, no one gets a wage that isn't thought of as worth it.
Sure people are pissed that A-Rod (a shortstop for those of you that don't follow baseball) is making a gross amount of money (I think it's in the range of 8 or 9 didgets) but some where someone thinks he's worth paying that much for. And not only that, but the fans that keep paying upwards of $50 for handicapped bleacher seats and upwards of $200 for good seats seem to think so too.
Like it or not, everyone gets what someone thinks they're worth. The best way to stop something is to vote with money. The most powerful parts of the governement are those that have to do with money. If money stops flowing, things change. Money give life and money sure as hell can take it away. Vote with your check book.
OOOOH LIght bulb. Let's pester the companies, everytime you get an EULA, call the company (using their 1800 number of course) and have them explain it to you. Then, when you don't agree, demand your money back.
Class action suit, they can't make you agree to something you never read. (Shrikwrap licence)
How can you say that the massive double-digit drops in CD sales has nothing to do with piracy via computer?
t ml
Because I'd be more willing to bet it has something to do with the massive ammount of CRAP being put out there. Let's face it, rap is horrible and it's gettign old. Hip hop only apeals to teens on limited budget (and not many at that), techo really hasn't caught on big, pop is just plain shit for the most part, most rock is dead and the few good groups that are out there actualy take some time to put out decent music. Even the pouplar groups like Linkin Park have to put out filler (their new CD Reanimation is, as the ad says, Hybrid Theory revisisted). It doesn't take a foold to see there isn't much good being produced anymore, so it's not suprising that a $16 per CD price can't be maintained.
Only an idiot would buy something when it is available for free.
Not really, people will break the law only when it's easier and more convinient than following the law. In this case $16 is a huge price tag for music, outwieghing owning an original copy (a big factor for colectors and music buffs) having the original album artwork (though a lot of that is crap, give me Jim Steinman's work any day) and outwieghing being within the legality of the law. Also keep in mind copy protection makes tech savy people shy away. Personaly, a $7 or even a $10 price tag might convince me otherwise, but $16 is just too much. Saving $16 far outwieghs the frustration of finding a decent rip.
As an example, the "singles" section of the music market is dead... sales are down as much as 80%. Why? Piracy.
At nealry $7 a single, I think it has more to do with no one wanting to pay $7 for one song, no matter how good it is.
Consumers are wising up. Those that remember when CDs first hit the market remember the promises that as soon as the market became saturated the price would go down (back then a new CD cost you $13-14). Newer people are realizing they don't have that sort of money to spend on that sort of crap. Supply and demand says when your sales are falling, but the demand is just as high or higher, you need to lower your prices. Sucks to be the RIAA.
read this for a better POV http://www.fastcompany.com/online/60/monopolist.h
Civil Disobedience. They're breaking the law because they don't agree with it. IF this was truly such a dangerous thing to the economy (as the RIAA might like you to believe) you can bet your ass that the government would have already cracked down on everyone downloading MP3s. But this is just a matter of the demand being high, the supply being high, but a price floor being in place. When that happens (as any basic economics class will tell you), you create a black market. (Do a search for price floors to find some info)
Most people that I know that are out of work were laid off. This mean that they get to collect unemployment so yes, they can support themselves with some adjustments. However, if you quit your job, you do not get to collect unemployment.
I did RTFA, maybe next time you should try RTFC before you reply. If you had, you might notice this:
..... But the fact that this idea was developed during his free time does not give the company an interest in the idea.
Furthermore, it was an idea that he did not use company resources to develop.
or this
The fact that he was negotiating a contract with his employer for this new idea (developed off the clock or off the record any ways)
Which both clearly indicate that he was doing this on his own time. Just because it's a long post doesn't mean you get to skim it. Read it through, then reply.
But the post I was replying to was talking about command line programs. In that case, it shouldn't matter whether it was Aqua, X, KDE or Gnome, it should all work the same right?
It doesn't matter if it was or not. As long as his regular job was getting done, and done on time and correctly, what does it matter whether he spent his free time thinking or playing solitare?
But what idea's was he employed to invent?
If I'm employed by wal-mart to develop advertising ideas, and I develop an idea for a new laundry detergent (I'm reaching I know) does that give Wal-Mart exclusive rights to my idea?
Like wise, if I'm employed by Intel to design CPUs and I come up with an idea for a new RAM chip, does that idea become Intel's?
Of course the downside to this is that all the PC manufacturers will be shoving dual systems in our faces now
You should have known a revision was comming. There was just a macworld. There are always Hardware updates, you should have waited
Regardless of how the world works, he can take the machine back to compUSA and get his money back. If he bought from apple, that might be a different story
Got you all beat
5400/180 with a G3 upgrade card to 300
and an additional 512 cache.
With 142 MB of memory, it works fairly well for a 6 year old computer
lease it through apple?
Here's the question: Was he paid, or did he use company resources (i.e. materials) to develop this idea.
if not
The idea belongs to him.
And if you are an inventor, you must carefully document and record your ideas when you have them, or else you will not able to claim them as your own.
You were going good up to this point. If, by not documenting his ideas, he can not claim them as his own, then the company can not claim that he developed said ideas while employed by them because he doesn't have the idea to begin with.