> Even though MacOS X is a superior operating
> system, it doesn't have Win32, therefore it will
> not be useful for the vast majority of programs.
I don't know where people get this notion from. Yes, it's indisputable that there are many, many more apps for Windows than there are for Macs, and if you need a specialist app that runs only on Wintel, then yes, you don't have a choice. Similarly, if you want a computer primarily to play the latest, hottest games, you wouldn't have a Mac either.
However, the vast majority of people use little more than Office. Semi-specialist areas such as music production, graphic design, animation, etc. are all more than adequately catered for, with many of the more robust applications, ie, Quark, Photoshop, Illustrator, etc. starting life on the Mac.
Unfortunately, the economies of scale thing means that these apps are often much less expensive on x86 -- check out the difference in price between Office X and Office 2003, for example, but it just isn't true that the majority of people would lose any functionality by moving over to a Mac.
> But seriously, has anyone said that the > Sims is blasphemous?
In a country where some mothers 'tongue spank' their children by slapping a bottle of hot sauce down their necks, I think you can safely assume that *somebody* will have said that it's blasphemous.
Whether anyone gives a flying fuck is another matter completely.
> Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers
So let me get this straight? What you're saying is that Congress has no right to pass laws regulating copyright, that only God himself has that right?
And he's ordained that modern technology is like the miracle of the loaves and the fishes, and God wants us all 5000 of us to feed on as much Britney Spears and Eminem as our heart desires?
> For example if I cant make any money making music > then I wont be able to spend a lot of time making > music (I'd have to get a day job and only do music > in my spare time).
Given the history of musicians who produce one or two great albums (created while they were impoverished joes, working a regular day job) followed by a series of trite and tedious stinkers written and recorded after they become celebrities without any real or meaningful stimulus, it seems to me that your point is an argument *against* the way that copyright stifles innovation.
> I've been considering exercising a different
> freedom: The right to bare arms.
Boring.
Come back and let me know when you want to join the struggle for the right to bare arse.
I hate to but in here, but it seems to me that you're the one that's being obtuse.
> I'm an agnostic and I've always thought atheism > was a disbelief in the existence of god(s).
How does what you say differ from what he says? Disbelief in the existance of God(s) and a lack of belief in the existance of God(s) amounts to precisely the same thing, ie, no belief in supernatural or divine forces.
Agnostics are people who are uncertain whether God exists, but acknowledge the possibility. Atheists are people who take the view that there is no compelling reason to hold a supernatural belief and see no valid basis for the possibility. The intellectual route at which that position is arrived at may be an active one or a passive one (as described above), but the outcome is still the same -- atheism.
> The legal team won't bail. Not until they've bled > SCO for every last nickel. THEY'RE LAWYERS!
You talk as though they're twisting SCO's arm up their back to do this work on their behalf. It's actually the other way around -- SCO are desperate to give these lawyers as much as $31 m.
> I can't believe that anyone thinks that the > legal team would ever quit
Yeah, they're a bit like programmers in that sense. They like to find out how much your budget is, and spend it on their time until it's all gone. Lawyers file motions, developers add features.
More interesting to me isn't how SCO are getting ripped off -- the seven million they've spent on them in the last quarter doesn't seem to have bought them anything worth having, but at least it's their choice to sue.
If you look at the IBM filings, in contrast, you can actually *see* the impact of millions of dollars worth of legal work. The difference is, IBM doesn't have a choice in the matter.
Fortunately, their lawyers are going tear SCO/Boies et al a new set of arseholes.
Whenever you read a story like this, if you aren't a complete retard, you have to wonder. Doctors are pretty lousy at identifying the cause of rashes, and rashes from embalming fluid would have to be pretty damn rare.
All nerds are teenage boys who live in their mom's basement.
All teenage boys who live in their mom's basement love South Park.
Ergo, news about a movie from the makers of South Park = news for nerds. QED
Hmmm. It seems to me that instead of bleeding the beast by suing IBM, big Darl would be doing the world a favour if he did a little more bleeding the beast in the bathroom.
Then the CEO of McDonalds would make less than his lawyers.
And in light of the quality of the product that he produces, that seems like very fair renumeration to me.
In fact, a much more reasonable way to reward him would be to make his salary commensurate with the homeless guy shaking a cup in the street outside his shops.
But since we're in the mood, let me be the first girl to patent the blow job. Yes, I invented it and it is now my intellectual property!
Not so fast, not so fast.
As your local USPTO inspector, before I can grant you your patent, I really think you'd better be giving me a demonstration of this so called 'new invention' that you've come up with.
I need to be able to compare it with some of the sex acts that various other women are claiming as 'prior art'.
Present yourself at my office, first thing on Monday morning -- and bring a sturdy pair of kneepads.
But an F/OSS hacker has taken a company's proprietary work and made it available for free, even giving it a similar name.
What do you mean by proprietary? Have the F/OSS coders reused someone else's code? If so, the company will have no problem at all getting an injunction to stop them, and damages. Similarly, if this is the first ever terminal server type programme, I assume the original coders have patents and will be able to license their ideas.
Or were you just whining because some coders decided that they'd write a program to serve a certain function and would rather give their efforts away rather than selling them?
Why is this a good thing?
Oh, there's loads of reasons. Increased competition. Increased choice. Reduced operational costs for users. Simply because someone *can*, and that sort of freedom is a good thing in and of itself.
Slashdot Mirror
> Even though MacOS X is a superior operating > system, it doesn't have Win32, therefore it will > not be useful for the vast majority of programs. I don't know where people get this notion from. Yes, it's indisputable that there are many, many more apps for Windows than there are for Macs, and if you need a specialist app that runs only on Wintel, then yes, you don't have a choice. Similarly, if you want a computer primarily to play the latest, hottest games, you wouldn't have a Mac either. However, the vast majority of people use little more than Office. Semi-specialist areas such as music production, graphic design, animation, etc. are all more than adequately catered for, with many of the more robust applications, ie, Quark, Photoshop, Illustrator, etc. starting life on the Mac. Unfortunately, the economies of scale thing means that these apps are often much less expensive on x86 -- check out the difference in price between Office X and Office 2003, for example, but it just isn't true that the majority of people would lose any functionality by moving over to a Mac.
> I have some frieds that eat too much
If I were you, I'd dump the frieds and start hanging out with the steameds and the lightly grilleds.
> An improved butt hinge is disclosed in which
> each hinge half comprises a leaf portion formed
> integrally with a butt strap
I always wondered how Goatse man achieved that remarkable feat, and now we know.
He used a butt hinge.
> A second leaf portion mounts to each butt
> strap after the butt straps are mounted to
> a door and door frame
Sounds pretty painful, but nothing worth doing comes easily.
> But seriously, has anyone said that the
> Sims is blasphemous?
In a country where some mothers 'tongue spank' their children by slapping a bottle of hot sauce down their necks, I think you can safely assume that *somebody* will have said that it's blasphemous.
Whether anyone gives a flying fuck is another matter completely.
I think you'll find they don't give a fuck if you buy it or not -- which is why they don't support your OS.
> Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers
So let me get this straight? What you're saying is that Congress has no right to pass laws regulating copyright, that only God himself has that right?
And he's ordained that modern technology is like the miracle of the loaves and the fishes, and God wants us all 5000 of us to feed on as much Britney Spears and Eminem as our heart desires?
Cool. I'm glad I've got that straight.
> For example if I cant make any money making music
> then I wont be able to spend a lot of time making
> music (I'd have to get a day job and only do music
> in my spare time).
Given the history of musicians who produce one or two great albums (created while they were impoverished joes, working a regular day job) followed by a series of trite and tedious stinkers written and recorded after they become celebrities without any real or meaningful stimulus, it seems to me that your point is an argument *against* the way that copyright stifles innovation.
A refusal to express disapproval is not the same thing as approval.
It may mean that people don't give a shit one way or the other.
> I've been considering exercising a different > freedom: The right to bare arms. Boring. Come back and let me know when you want to join the struggle for the right to bare arse.
Mod parent up: +5 rejected.
I suggest *you* read the article.
Wikipedia is *not* authoritative.
> Are you being purposely obtuse?
I hate to but in here, but it seems to me that you're the one that's being obtuse.
> I'm an agnostic and I've always thought atheism
> was a disbelief in the existence of god(s).
How does what you say differ from what he says? Disbelief in the existance of God(s) and a lack of belief in the existance of God(s) amounts to precisely the same thing, ie, no belief in supernatural or divine forces.
Agnostics are people who are uncertain whether God exists, but acknowledge the possibility. Atheists are people who take the view that there is no compelling reason to hold a supernatural belief and see no valid basis for the possibility. The intellectual route at which that position is arrived at may be an active one or a passive one (as described above), but the outcome is still the same -- atheism.
> The legal team won't bail. Not until they've bled
> SCO for every last nickel. THEY'RE LAWYERS!
You talk as though they're twisting SCO's arm up their back to do this work on their behalf. It's actually the other way around -- SCO are desperate to give these lawyers as much as $31 m.
> I can't believe that anyone thinks that the
> legal team would ever quit
Yeah, they're a bit like programmers in that sense. They like to find out how much your budget is, and spend it on their time until it's all gone. Lawyers file motions, developers add features.
More interesting to me isn't how SCO are getting ripped off -- the seven million they've spent on them in the last quarter doesn't seem to have bought them anything worth having, but at least it's their choice to sue.
If you look at the IBM filings, in contrast, you can actually *see* the impact of millions of dollars worth of legal work. The difference is, IBM doesn't have a choice in the matter.
Fortunately, their lawyers are going tear SCO/Boies et al a new set of arseholes.
Never play cards with a man called Doc,
Never eat at a place called Moms
And never lie down with a woman who has more problems than you do.
Words to live by, son.
Whenever you read a story like this, if you aren't a complete retard, you have to wonder. Doctors are pretty lousy at identifying the cause of rashes, and rashes from embalming fluid would have to be pretty damn rare.
So, we pop off to Snopes, and what do we find?
Of course, it's an urban legend
I don't know but I've been told:
The eskimo pussy is mighty cold!
According to this, you've been misinformed.
STFU
Anyway, how do we watch the trailer on linux?
Seems to me that you should be blaming the film makers, not Apple, but you could look here to start with.
I like my internet like god intended it, text and pictures.
What do you mean, text and pictures? God didn't intend there to be no pictures on the net.
Now go and download yourself a copy of Lynx or STFU.
How exactly is this news for nerds?
All nerds are teenage boys who live in their mom's basement.
All teenage boys who live in their mom's basement love South Park.
Ergo, news about a movie from the makers of South Park = news for nerds. QED
Hmmm. It seems to me that instead of bleeding the beast by suing IBM, big Darl would be doing the world a favour if he did a little more bleeding the beast in the bathroom.
Then the CEO of McDonalds would make less than his lawyers.
And in light of the quality of the product that he produces, that seems like very fair renumeration to me.
In fact, a much more reasonable way to reward him would be to make his salary commensurate with the homeless guy shaking a cup in the street outside his shops.
Now all you need is a patent on green eggs and ham being served in all those places, and you'll be set for life!
I don't think so somehow. Not with all of those people who would not, could not eat them there -- and would not, could not anywhere!
But since we're in the mood, let me be the first girl to patent the blow job. Yes, I invented it and it is now my intellectual property!
Not so fast, not so fast.
As your local USPTO inspector, before I can grant you your patent, I really think you'd better be giving me a demonstration of this so called 'new invention' that you've come up with.
I need to be able to compare it with some of the sex acts that various other women are claiming as 'prior art'.
Present yourself at my office, first thing on Monday morning -- and bring a sturdy pair of kneepads.
But an F/OSS hacker has taken a company's proprietary work and made it available for free, even giving it a similar name.
What do you mean by proprietary? Have the F/OSS coders reused someone else's code? If so, the company will have no problem at all getting an injunction to stop them, and damages. Similarly, if this is the first ever terminal server type programme, I assume the original coders have patents and will be able to license their ideas.
Or were you just whining because some coders decided that they'd write a program to serve a certain function and would rather give their efforts away rather than selling them?
Why is this a good thing?
Oh, there's loads of reasons. Increased competition. Increased choice. Reduced operational costs for users. Simply because someone *can*, and that sort of freedom is a good thing in and of itself.