Sounds like it's about the same size as the motherboard in the Powermac 5400 from way back in 1996. The only problem with that was the lack of expandability.
As much as I hate microsoft, this has got to be the dumbest idea to hit the market in a long while. And this is just the tip of the ice burg, if security holes make you liable, then couldn't crashes which eliminate unsaved data or some how mess up a file also cause you to be held accountable.
If you're dumb enough to believe that the product you buy is going to be free of bugs and exploits, then you deserve to have your computer hacked fried and served on a half shell. Every piece of software has a weak spot, there is no such thing as bug free software. This is no excuse for lousy programing, but if the program is that lousy, word will spread quickly and no one will buy it::Mac freak rant:: Windows being the only exception to this rule::end rant::
It appears to me that the best thing to do would be to simply allow for some "patent anarchy". The best inventions and discoveries were never finished by one person, and unless you allow for other people to use/develop/compete with your work, you have no incentive to make your work better because people can't buy anything else.
You forget though, Profit comes from selling a product that people want for a price that is beyond the actual production cost. It does not come from eliminating competition. By effectively patenting everything in site, you eliminate the ability to have competition, and since the only way to succeed in a purely competative market is to either (A) slash your prices, thus killing profits (B) or innovate.
Think about it, if Ian Flemming was able to patent the spy novel, the only spy stories we would have would be james bond. No Austin Powers, no Mission Impossible. I know it's a lousy example, but the point remains the same. Patents have a tendency to kill capitalism rather than protect it.
Why the hell does the RIAA get money for this? The song, and it's performance belong to the artist, the only interest the Recording company has in said song is the final editing (and sometimes not even that) Therefore, at the most the RIAA should get 30% of this tax. The artist should get at least 60%. How many of you want to bet the artists will see 5%
Your computer is recording everything you say in order to build a case againtst you incase the RIAA, MPAA or any other copywrite holder comes after you. Run you college students, RUN!
Most of the reason Apple technology dies is because it's way too far a head of it's time. For example, in the very early 90's, Apple spent a long time working on a dual processor machine, not dual mac processor mind you, but a mac and intel processor computer. The Idea was it would be the ultimate machine, able to run anything. Problem was, it was to expensive to impliment for anyone, muchless for apple.
Then consider firewire, it was developed and supported arround system 7.5.5, yet it never made it into the computers till recently.
Or the Newton, years ahead of it's time, but it wasn't untill the technology came down in price and was perfected by Palm before the idea caught on.
If you want to see some cutting edge stuff, Apple is definately the people to develop for, but on the edge, you have to take the good with the bad.
Not unless they wanted to fall under suit like microsoft. If you head on over to what remains of the BeOS site (www.beincorporated.com) you can read (PDF format) all about the lawsuit they are filing against M$ for doing just what you are suggesting. Besides, Apple has no incentive to do this since they gain money no matter which OS runs on their computer.
You really should give OS X a try, you might be supprised. I have a friend who for the longest time swore he would never use a commercial OS (Windows, Mac OS, BeOS etc) except in situations where there was no other alternative, however, after playing arround with OS X on my iBook for a few days he decided it might actualy be worth a shot. He now happily runs Caldera (dual boot with 98 for games) on his PC, and OS X on his (new) mac..
As for your question about the GUI, I don't know if you can diable it per se, but I do know if on the login screen you type >console (the > is nessesary) and don't use a password, it will switch to an entirely text based mode and only returns to the GUI if you log out.
... sega, nintendo, sony, atari and numerous smaller video game manufacturers have filed suit to have a court injuncture aainst this new "Napsterization of music." A spokes person says: "Copywrites also protect against performances of the music without payment, and since we don't sell the music explicitly, they haven't bought it."
1) Even if they can, they still aren't the original artist. As well as "Bad Medicine" plays Bon Jovi, nothing beats the real Bon Jovi. Music was ment to be performed, that's half of what music is, a performance, and interperatation of life.
2) Are you crazy? I dare you to sit down and go write the next chart topper? I honestly don't think any Joe Blow can write music the way the Beatles did, or the way Matchbox 20 does. Or Bon Jovi, or Journey, or Creed, or Foriegner, or Three Dog Night, or Pat Benitar etc etc etc did
3) What's your point? Just because you can get perfessional home equipment doesn't mean you have a studio, it means you have a room with some really nice equipment in it.
4) Actualy, in my opinion, most musicians today are rather lousy. There are very few musicians that I would willingly pay money to go see, let alone buy their music. And no I'm not some old fart either. But in all honesty, because of how little attention there is to quality and the fact that you can now sell a record based on one good song and everything else being crap, there are very few high quality musicians out there.
5) Most perform for pay, that's how music is supposed to be. You get payed based on how well you can write and PERFORM the music.
In short, yes music is highly over done. I think that musicians should earn most of their living off a performance. They have to be able to write music and perform it too. Aerosmith, Elton John and Billy Joel are all very popular and famous mucisians/groups. Yes they write great songs, but what makes all of them good are their performances, they put on a reall good show.
If record sales fall because no one thinks that the music is worth buying, then what does that say about music?
If someone came up to you and told you they were from the future (even if they had "proof", which would you be more inclined to do? Listen to and believe him, or call the hospital and have them send the men in white suits with butterfly nets?
I realize that, the point I was trying to make was that time travel would probably be achived before faster than light just because we can already manipulate time. Of course, it's just as likely that they would go hand in hand.
I'm curious as to what other people think, This question was posed to me at a tech convention over the summer (NexTech).
At what point do we stop being human and become a machine? When we have replaceable parts, and replaceable with mechanics, when do I cease to be T Money? Is is when I have an mechanical set of apendages? a mechanical heart? augmented eye sight and hearing? A computerized brain? When do I loose my soul?
If you believe the doom sayers, life means nothing to us anyways. But I guess it depends on the type of person you are. I think I would feel quite at home among a lot fo this technology.
The real question is, when we have mechanical replacements, at point do I stop being T Money, and become a machine?
I think he was referring to completely synthetic celebs. Kind of like Aki Ross from Final Fantasy except more popular. Don't believe me? Do a search on the internet, they have pin-up and porn of her.
Why would we want to? Or what makes you think we would be able to? It only speak of time travel, for all we know we may be physicaly bound as observers in time travel. That is, we can see them, but they can't see us
Slashdot Mirror
Sounds like it's about the same size as the motherboard in the Powermac 5400 from way back in 1996. The only problem with that was the lack of expandability.
As much as I hate microsoft, this has got to be the dumbest idea to hit the market in a long while. And this is just the tip of the ice burg, if security holes make you liable, then couldn't crashes which eliminate unsaved data or some how mess up a file also cause you to be held accountable.
::Mac freak rant:: Windows being the only exception to this rule ::end rant::
If you're dumb enough to believe that the product you buy is going to be free of bugs and exploits, then you deserve to have your computer hacked fried and served on a half shell. Every piece of software has a weak spot, there is no such thing as bug free software. This is no excuse for lousy programing, but if the program is that lousy, word will spread quickly and no one will buy it
I wonder if I can patent the method that I use to make funny noises with my mouth. I could collect a paycheck every time someone uses my method!!!!
(cue dollar signs for eyeballs)
It appears to me that the best thing to do would be to simply allow for some "patent anarchy". The best inventions and discoveries were never finished by one person, and unless you allow for other people to use/develop/compete with your work, you have no incentive to make your work better because people can't buy anything else.
You forget though, Profit comes from selling a product that people want for a price that is beyond the actual production cost. It does not come from eliminating competition. By effectively patenting everything in site, you eliminate the ability to have competition, and since the only way to succeed in a purely competative market is to either (A) slash your prices, thus killing profits (B) or innovate.
Think about it, if Ian Flemming was able to patent the spy novel, the only spy stories we would have would be james bond. No Austin Powers, no Mission Impossible. I know it's a lousy example, but the point remains the same. Patents have a tendency to kill capitalism rather than protect it.
Why the hell does the RIAA get money for this? The song, and it's performance belong to the artist, the only interest the Recording company has in said song is the final editing (and sometimes not even that) Therefore, at the most the RIAA should get 30% of this tax. The artist should get at least 60%. How many of you want to bet the artists will see 5%
Your computer is recording everything you say in order to build a case againtst you incase the RIAA, MPAA or any other copywrite holder comes after you. Run you college students, RUN!
Most of the reason Apple technology dies is because it's way too far a head of it's time. For example, in the very early 90's, Apple spent a long time working on a dual processor machine, not dual mac processor mind you, but a mac and intel processor computer. The Idea was it would be the ultimate machine, able to run anything. Problem was, it was to expensive to impliment for anyone, muchless for apple.
Then consider firewire, it was developed and supported arround system 7.5.5, yet it never made it into the computers till recently.
Or the Newton, years ahead of it's time, but it wasn't untill the technology came down in price and was perfected by Palm before the idea caught on.
If you want to see some cutting edge stuff, Apple is definately the people to develop for, but on the edge, you have to take the good with the bad.
Not unless they wanted to fall under suit like microsoft. If you head on over to what remains of the BeOS site (www.beincorporated.com) you can read (PDF format) all about the lawsuit they are filing against M$ for doing just what you are suggesting. Besides, Apple has no incentive to do this since they gain money no matter which OS runs on their computer.
You really should give OS X a try, you might be supprised. I have a friend who for the longest time swore he would never use a commercial OS (Windows, Mac OS, BeOS etc) except in situations where there was no other alternative, however, after playing arround with OS X on my iBook for a few days he decided it might actualy be worth a shot. He now happily runs Caldera (dual boot with 98 for games) on his PC, and OS X on his (new) mac..
As for your question about the GUI, I don't know if you can diable it per se, but I do know if on the login screen you type >console (the > is nessesary) and don't use a password, it will switch to an entirely text based mode and only returns to the GUI if you log out.
You might like this link:
l
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.htm
Haven't they realized yet that Napster et al came to be because no one feels like paying $16 plus for a CD full of crap.
The way the RIAA tells it, it is wrong. Besides, as I understand it, illegal usualy implies wrong.
Hey, if they can sell a "Flower Power" iMac, you can sell a teddy bear switch
Looks like a G4 cube with more space and a really cool lighting effect. Maybe appl ecould take some notes, or at least hire him
... sega, nintendo, sony, atari and numerous smaller video game manufacturers have filed suit to have a court injuncture aainst this new "Napsterization of music." A spokes person says: "Copywrites also protect against performances of the music without payment, and since we don't sell the music explicitly, they haven't bought it."
1) Even if they can, they still aren't the original artist. As well as "Bad Medicine" plays Bon Jovi, nothing beats the real Bon Jovi. Music was ment to be performed, that's half of what music is, a performance, and interperatation of life.
2) Are you crazy? I dare you to sit down and go write the next chart topper? I honestly don't think any Joe Blow can write music the way the Beatles did, or the way Matchbox 20 does. Or Bon Jovi, or Journey, or Creed, or Foriegner, or Three Dog Night, or Pat Benitar etc etc etc did
3) What's your point? Just because you can get perfessional home equipment doesn't mean you have a studio, it means you have a room with some really nice equipment in it.
4) Actualy, in my opinion, most musicians today are rather lousy. There are very few musicians that I would willingly pay money to go see, let alone buy their music. And no I'm not some old fart either. But in all honesty, because of how little attention there is to quality and the fact that you can now sell a record based on one good song and everything else being crap, there are very few high quality musicians out there.
5) Most perform for pay, that's how music is supposed to be. You get payed based on how well you can write and PERFORM the music.
In short, yes music is highly over done. I think that musicians should earn most of their living off a performance. They have to be able to write music and perform it too. Aerosmith, Elton John and Billy Joel are all very popular and famous mucisians/groups. Yes they write great songs, but what makes all of them good are their performances, they put on a reall good show.
If record sales fall because no one thinks that the music is worth buying, then what does that say about music?
That's why I use quicktime (and mac OS, but that's another story) though I don't think QT plays CDs, but I'm sure someone could hack it to
Why do we want to trick the computer? Isn't windows confused enough without believing it's a multi processor comp too?
If someone came up to you and told you they were from the future (even if they had "proof", which would you be more inclined to do? Listen to and believe him, or call the hospital and have them send the men in white suits with butterfly nets?
I realize that, the point I was trying to make was that time travel would probably be achived before faster than light just because we can already manipulate time. Of course, it's just as likely that they would go hand in hand.
I'm curious as to what other people think, This question was posed to me at a tech convention over the summer (NexTech).
At what point do we stop being human and become a machine? When we have replaceable parts, and replaceable with mechanics, when do I cease to be T Money? Is is when I have an mechanical set of apendages? a mechanical heart? augmented eye sight and hearing? A computerized brain? When do I loose my soul?
If you believe the doom sayers, life means nothing to us anyways. But I guess it depends on the type of person you are. I think I would feel quite at home among a lot fo this technology.
The real question is, when we have mechanical replacements, at point do I stop being T Money, and become a machine?
I think he was referring to completely synthetic celebs. Kind of like Aki Ross from Final Fantasy except more popular. Don't believe me? Do a search on the internet, they have pin-up and porn of her.
Why would we want to? Or what makes you think we would be able to? It only speak of time travel, for all we know we may be physicaly bound as observers in time travel. That is, we can see them, but they can't see us