I had no interest in computers back in the CLI days. In fact, I remember my friend bringing home some computer you hooked up to a TV, (I wish I knew what that thing was), and had to program in BASIC. I don't believe it had any storage. I couldn't understand why anyone would want a computer at home.
But, as an artist, when the first MacIntosh computers came out in the early eighties, I was hooked. TypeStyler was the first software I purchased. Then, many years later, OS X came out, and I taught myself a little unix. Later, I taught myself regex because, with grep, it is useful for solving word puzzles, and is a bit of a puzzle to solve in itself. Now I'm 53, and just now beginning to teach myself some shell scripting. It's never too late to learn something new.
Do you live in Canada, or something? I haven't had subsidized healthcare since 1977 when my parents - not the taxpayers - paid for it. Regardless, it isn't people with 'bad habits' that use the most healthcare - they die. It's the ones who live on into their seventies, eighties and beyond.
But I get it, taxing 'other people' is all well and good. What do you think these people will do after they get what they want...retire? No, they''ll move onto something YOU like. I was saying this ten years ago about the anti-smoker jerks, and here we are. How about a big tax on caffeine next? Don't worry, they'll find something.
Pfft, I've been using Photoshop since v 1.0 and they've never gotten a penny out of me. Nor have I ever met anyone who's paid for it, though there must be some suckers out there. But if they ever dropped the price to something reasonable - something below $100 - I'd be happy to pay. Just like I pay for all reasonably priced software. And they'd make a lot more money, because many more people would be willing to pay.
Software simply doesn't have much intrinsic value because, once created, it can be easily and infinitely reproduced. They argue that it costs a lot of money to write the code. That's true, and that is why it's worth paying something. But it costs a lot more money for, say, the Rolling Stones to record an album than your friend's band would cost. But no one would pay $700 for a Stones album. You expect to pay the same amount for any album. They're both just as easily reproducible once recorded. But if your album - or software - is better, (or more popular), you'll sell more copies.
That's how it works, ya'll.
My friends all know that when I begin with, "studies show...", they're about to hear some bullshit.
Look, I know we have to keep grad students busy somehow, but has anyone noticed that all of these studies end up being forgotten, unreproducable, or refuted? Bananas cure cancer, vitamin C cures cancer, so-called second-hand smoke causes cancer, "whatever" prolongs life...pick a study, any study, it's more likely than not, bullshit.
"I've known people who have overdosed on cocaine and heroin. Known is the operative word here. I've known people who have used painkillers as well, myself included: We're all still alive. It isn't to say they aren't addictive, and they can't destroy a person's life -- but its toxicity and death rates simply aren't in the same league. I don't care to get into why this happens, or if drug A is stronger than drug B -- empirically, heroin and cocaine eventually kill most of its 'patients'... the legal stuff doesn't."
The difference is that pharmaceuticals have a known purity and dose. Many pharmaceuticals are much more toxic than heroin, such as Fentanyl, whose dose is measured in micrograms. Most overdoses are experienced by people who've quit, usually involuntarily, lowering their tolerance, then made the mistake of using the same dose that they used before, or by people getting a much stronger dose without their knowledge. All problems resulting from prohibition. This happens less often with pharmaceuticals for, what I hope would be, obvious reasons.
"Do you know what the difference is between LSD and Strychnine? Nothing..."
First of all, no. It seems this Strychnine/LSD urban legend just won't die, even in the age of easy factual information. They are neither chemically similar, nor ever found together in a dose. Why would a dealer add a more expensive substance, (Strychnine), to a less expensive one, (LSD)? Nor is strychnine a by-product of LSD manufacture.
The first poster is right about opiates being harmless. Poison is in the dose. Long term use of opiates causes no organic damage. What causes problems is prohibition - the artificial scarcity, with its resultant high prices, and all the, (I hope, obvious), dangers that come from a black market.
Oh, and kiddo, I have some news for you about "published peer-reviewed papers"....
In some ways, I long for my early internet experience. I miss easily finding and reading interesting scholarly articles, following hyperlinks that led to other interesting articles, and all on an amber terminal. I used to read for hours at a time. No pictures, no ads, no clutter, just text. Not that I'd want to go back to that - I do like images and video. But with no one worrying about how they were gonna make money off their "content" or their site, it seemed a nicer place, and I actually learned a lot. And if you're just downloading text, modem speed isn't a big issue.
Back when the internet was young, and I saw that everyone was using pseudos, I thought, "Why shouldn't I use my real name online?" Let's just say I learned why not. I do not use my real name on Facebook, just as I don't on/., or anywhere else. My friends know who I am, just as I know who they are, so pseudos work fine. When an employer, or any other nosy stranger wants to see my Facebook page, they're not going to find it. "I" don't have one. Of course, they will see some slightly embarrassing comments I made in the '90s....
Actually, Google's original algorithm was in large part based on popularity. But now they are trying to figure out what you want to see based on your own past searches, or rather Google's profile of you, rather than giving objective results. Much like Facebook tries to decide who's posts you want to see. I use Ixquick alot now.
Don't forget peameal!
My fellow Americans, the Canadians have a delicious meat called peameal bacon, tastier even than Canadian bacon. We must acquire this product if we are to compete in the breakfast arena.
I've always wanted to encrypt my e-mail, but I could never talk any of my friends into doing it. If nobody is set up for encrypted e-mail, nobody can read your mail. Web sites have also dumbed-down their web pages by preventing autofill. Because most idiots - excuse me, netizens - don't use encrypted password databases such as Apple's Keychain, using them has been made much more difficult. We're all forced into a lowest common denominator internet.
Mmm, Apple's not really a good example, because it's objectively superior to Windows. Anyone who's used both - and hadn't yet developed, or was able to unlearn their bad habits - will testify to that. Certainly, it is true that some take it a little far, but you never meet anyone who LOVES Windows. And we know why certain people love Linux. It's the exclusivity. What they're talking about in the article is an irrational attachment to one of two or more essentially similar products. An irrational preference for, say, yellow M&Ms over red M&Ms, when the flavor, which is the point of food, are identical.
Unless you mean "several decades" when you say "for basically ever", you're perpetuating a political myth. Regardless, the issue is, ostensibly, religion on one side, that is, "God gave us this land in perpetuity", but it is about stolen land and property on the other and so, not so intractable as they'd like you to believe. You can't characterize what's happening in Palestine as religious hatred. It's more properly viewed as ethnic cleansing.
"The relevant question is at what point it becomes reasonable for a government to regulate it or ban it or has to just deal with people having other morals."
That's an easy one: When it violates the Golden Rule. As long as you're not harming someone else, or interfering with their freedom, you should be free to do as you like. Clearly, killing and eating someone interferes with the murdered person's pursuit of happiness and causes them harm. Consensual cannibalism might be up for debate, but you'd have to question the mental state of an individual wishing to die and be eaten. That is, are they capable of consent?
Pursuits such as getting high or jacking off to porn, for instance, harm no one, and are no one else's business. Now, I know some are going to torture the definition of "harm", so we'd need to make that clear. But just because someone is upset at what another may be doing shouldn't constitute "harm".
I'm a truck driver and, having grown up in the city, I was pretty surprised to find out that the vast majority of roads in this country aren't lit at all, including the interstate.
Yet I almost never use my high-beams, and the only time I ever feel the need is on very narrow, winding, mountain/hill roads. You don't need 'em, folks. Nor do you need to blind everyone else with the white "fog" lights on your SUV or pick-up.
But back to the mirror: I hope this can be developed for use on the passenger side of trucks. If you've ever wondered why they tell you never to pass a truck on the right, it's because we cannot see you at all, at any point along side the truck, except in the convex mirror where you're pretty much a dot at the rear of 70 ft. long semi.
Oh, and no need to flash your brights if you're passing on the left - we can see there. Actually, you should never flash your brights, period. Turn your lights on and off to signal.
Not truck drivers, sir - federal agents.
"Federal agents hired to transport nuclear weapons and components sometimes got drunk while on convoy missions, a government watchdog said Monday."
And it's not as bad as it sounds. They were hitting the bars once the work day was done. Maybe it would've ben better had they gone to bed, but they weren't tooling down the road with a load of nukes, pounding Four Lokos, or something.
Advertising certainly is pollution. I no longer watch television shows on television - only shows that can be downloaded. I also use ad blocking software on my browser, use an email app instead of webmail, and listen only to non-commercial radio. You don't have to look at this garbage if you don't want to.
As for those who'll say they need advertising to keep their content online: I really wouldn't care much if your content disappeared. I wouldn't mind a bit if we went back to the kind of web we had before all these commercial interests jumped online.
We know this because the EPA has told us that, while there is no safe level of environmental tobacco smoke, safe levels have been established for radiation exposure.
Since I'm not dead, I'd say there's nothing to worry about.
"Lost in his release is that that the largest source of proprietary DRM software is Apple..."
Well, yeah. Thing is, it wasn't Apple's idea - they never wanted it. They were forced into creating a DRM for the music they sold, otherwise, the labels wouldn't let them sell it. That was the deal they had to make.
Does it tie buyers to the iPod? Only if they're an idiot. Convert the DRMed file to MP3, and no more DRM. Plenty of third-party software to help you out.
Aside from that, what the heck is the point this guy's trying to make with that statement?
Switching the modifier key from cmd to ctrl would really suck. I have to use PCs at work, and the thing that drives me nuts is that you can't reach the other key with one hand - the control key is too far away! When there is a key combo to begin with.
On another note, I don't want anyone, except my friends, to switch. The thing that makes Apple computers so good is that they're made for a small group of people, rather than the masses. Let's hope it stays that way!
Slashdot Mirror
I had no interest in computers back in the CLI days. In fact, I remember my friend bringing home some computer you hooked up to a TV, (I wish I knew what that thing was), and had to program in BASIC. I don't believe it had any storage. I couldn't understand why anyone would want a computer at home. But, as an artist, when the first MacIntosh computers came out in the early eighties, I was hooked. TypeStyler was the first software I purchased. Then, many years later, OS X came out, and I taught myself a little unix. Later, I taught myself regex because, with grep, it is useful for solving word puzzles, and is a bit of a puzzle to solve in itself. Now I'm 53, and just now beginning to teach myself some shell scripting. It's never too late to learn something new.
Carbon dioxide and water vapor? That's awesome! Just hook it up to the exhaust pipe: Voila! Perpetual motion!
(I'm assuming a winky face is not necessary here)
Sure, not a problem. I wouldn't try to fly in the US on July 5th, though.
you'll never ever assemble an IT department that specializes in macs
Well, yeah. Being a Mac IT guy is like being the Maytag repairman. Trust me, I know.
Do you live in Canada, or something? I haven't had subsidized healthcare since 1977 when my parents - not the taxpayers - paid for it. Regardless, it isn't people with 'bad habits' that use the most healthcare - they die. It's the ones who live on into their seventies, eighties and beyond. But I get it, taxing 'other people' is all well and good. What do you think these people will do after they get what they want...retire? No, they''ll move onto something YOU like. I was saying this ten years ago about the anti-smoker jerks, and here we are. How about a big tax on caffeine next? Don't worry, they'll find something.
It would make a crazy sort of sense, yes? If Angry Birds was actually malware...
Are you kidding? Angry Birds is malware.
Pfft, I've been using Photoshop since v 1.0 and they've never gotten a penny out of me. Nor have I ever met anyone who's paid for it, though there must be some suckers out there. But if they ever dropped the price to something reasonable - something below $100 - I'd be happy to pay. Just like I pay for all reasonably priced software. And they'd make a lot more money, because many more people would be willing to pay.
Software simply doesn't have much intrinsic value because, once created, it can be easily and infinitely reproduced. They argue that it costs a lot of money to write the code. That's true, and that is why it's worth paying something. But it costs a lot more money for, say, the Rolling Stones to record an album than your friend's band would cost. But no one would pay $700 for a Stones album. You expect to pay the same amount for any album. They're both just as easily reproducible once recorded. But if your album - or software - is better, (or more popular), you'll sell more copies. That's how it works, ya'll.
My friends all know that when I begin with, "studies show...", they're about to hear some bullshit. Look, I know we have to keep grad students busy somehow, but has anyone noticed that all of these studies end up being forgotten, unreproducable, or refuted? Bananas cure cancer, vitamin C cures cancer, so-called second-hand smoke causes cancer, "whatever" prolongs life...pick a study, any study, it's more likely than not, bullshit.
"I've known people who have overdosed on cocaine and heroin. Known is the operative word here. I've known people who have used painkillers as well, myself included: We're all still alive. It isn't to say they aren't addictive, and they can't destroy a person's life -- but its toxicity and death rates simply aren't in the same league. I don't care to get into why this happens, or if drug A is stronger than drug B -- empirically, heroin and cocaine eventually kill most of its 'patients'... the legal stuff doesn't."
The difference is that pharmaceuticals have a known purity and dose. Many pharmaceuticals are much more toxic than heroin, such as Fentanyl, whose dose is measured in micrograms. Most overdoses are experienced by people who've quit, usually involuntarily, lowering their tolerance, then made the mistake of using the same dose that they used before, or by people getting a much stronger dose without their knowledge. All problems resulting from prohibition. This happens less often with pharmaceuticals for, what I hope would be, obvious reasons.
"Do you know what the difference is between LSD and Strychnine? Nothing..."
First of all, no. It seems this Strychnine/LSD urban legend just won't die, even in the age of easy factual information. They are neither chemically similar, nor ever found together in a dose. Why would a dealer add a more expensive substance, (Strychnine), to a less expensive one, (LSD)? Nor is strychnine a by-product of LSD manufacture. The first poster is right about opiates being harmless. Poison is in the dose. Long term use of opiates causes no organic damage. What causes problems is prohibition - the artificial scarcity, with its resultant high prices, and all the, (I hope, obvious), dangers that come from a black market. Oh, and kiddo, I have some news for you about "published peer-reviewed papers"....
In some ways, I long for my early internet experience. I miss easily finding and reading interesting scholarly articles, following hyperlinks that led to other interesting articles, and all on an amber terminal. I used to read for hours at a time. No pictures, no ads, no clutter, just text. Not that I'd want to go back to that - I do like images and video. But with no one worrying about how they were gonna make money off their "content" or their site, it seemed a nicer place, and I actually learned a lot. And if you're just downloading text, modem speed isn't a big issue.
Back when the internet was young, and I saw that everyone was using pseudos, I thought, "Why shouldn't I use my real name online?" Let's just say I learned why not. I do not use my real name on Facebook, just as I don't on /., or anywhere else. My friends know who I am, just as I know who they are, so pseudos work fine. When an employer, or any other nosy stranger wants to see my Facebook page, they're not going to find it. "I" don't have one. Of course, they will see some slightly embarrassing comments I made in the '90s....
Actually, Google's original algorithm was in large part based on popularity. But now they are trying to figure out what you want to see based on your own past searches, or rather Google's profile of you, rather than giving objective results. Much like Facebook tries to decide who's posts you want to see. I use Ixquick alot now.
Don't forget peameal! My fellow Americans, the Canadians have a delicious meat called peameal bacon, tastier even than Canadian bacon. We must acquire this product if we are to compete in the breakfast arena.
I've always wanted to encrypt my e-mail, but I could never talk any of my friends into doing it. If nobody is set up for encrypted e-mail, nobody can read your mail. Web sites have also dumbed-down their web pages by preventing autofill. Because most idiots - excuse me, netizens - don't use encrypted password databases such as Apple's Keychain, using them has been made much more difficult. We're all forced into a lowest common denominator internet.
Mmm, Apple's not really a good example, because it's objectively superior to Windows. Anyone who's used both - and hadn't yet developed, or was able to unlearn their bad habits - will testify to that. Certainly, it is true that some take it a little far, but you never meet anyone who LOVES Windows. And we know why certain people love Linux. It's the exclusivity. What they're talking about in the article is an irrational attachment to one of two or more essentially similar products. An irrational preference for, say, yellow M&Ms over red M&Ms, when the flavor, which is the point of food, are identical.
Unless you mean "several decades" when you say "for basically ever", you're perpetuating a political myth. Regardless, the issue is, ostensibly, religion on one side, that is, "God gave us this land in perpetuity", but it is about stolen land and property on the other and so, not so intractable as they'd like you to believe. You can't characterize what's happening in Palestine as religious hatred. It's more properly viewed as ethnic cleansing.
"The relevant question is at what point it becomes reasonable for a government to regulate it or ban it or has to just deal with people having other morals." That's an easy one: When it violates the Golden Rule. As long as you're not harming someone else, or interfering with their freedom, you should be free to do as you like. Clearly, killing and eating someone interferes with the murdered person's pursuit of happiness and causes them harm. Consensual cannibalism might be up for debate, but you'd have to question the mental state of an individual wishing to die and be eaten. That is, are they capable of consent? Pursuits such as getting high or jacking off to porn, for instance, harm no one, and are no one else's business. Now, I know some are going to torture the definition of "harm", so we'd need to make that clear. But just because someone is upset at what another may be doing shouldn't constitute "harm".
I'm a truck driver and, having grown up in the city, I was pretty surprised to find out that the vast majority of roads in this country aren't lit at all, including the interstate. Yet I almost never use my high-beams, and the only time I ever feel the need is on very narrow, winding, mountain/hill roads. You don't need 'em, folks. Nor do you need to blind everyone else with the white "fog" lights on your SUV or pick-up. But back to the mirror: I hope this can be developed for use on the passenger side of trucks. If you've ever wondered why they tell you never to pass a truck on the right, it's because we cannot see you at all, at any point along side the truck, except in the convex mirror where you're pretty much a dot at the rear of 70 ft. long semi. Oh, and no need to flash your brights if you're passing on the left - we can see there. Actually, you should never flash your brights, period. Turn your lights on and off to signal.
Not truck drivers, sir - federal agents. "Federal agents hired to transport nuclear weapons and components sometimes got drunk while on convoy missions, a government watchdog said Monday." And it's not as bad as it sounds. They were hitting the bars once the work day was done. Maybe it would've ben better had they gone to bed, but they weren't tooling down the road with a load of nukes, pounding Four Lokos, or something.
Advertising certainly is pollution. I no longer watch television shows on television - only shows that can be downloaded. I also use ad blocking software on my browser, use an email app instead of webmail, and listen only to non-commercial radio. You don't have to look at this garbage if you don't want to. As for those who'll say they need advertising to keep their content online: I really wouldn't care much if your content disappeared. I wouldn't mind a bit if we went back to the kind of web we had before all these commercial interests jumped online.
We know this because the EPA has told us that, while there is no safe level of environmental tobacco smoke, safe levels have been established for radiation exposure. Since I'm not dead, I'd say there's nothing to worry about.
Well, yeah. Thing is, it wasn't Apple's idea - they never wanted it. They were forced into creating a DRM for the music they sold, otherwise, the labels wouldn't let them sell it. That was the deal they had to make.
Does it tie buyers to the iPod? Only if they're an idiot. Convert the DRMed file to MP3, and no more DRM. Plenty of third-party software to help you out.
Aside from that, what the heck is the point this guy's trying to make with that statement?
Switching the modifier key from cmd to ctrl would really suck. I have to use PCs at work, and the thing that drives me nuts is that you can't reach the other key with one hand - the control key is too far away! When there is a key combo to begin with. On another note, I don't want anyone, except my friends, to switch. The thing that makes Apple computers so good is that they're made for a small group of people, rather than the masses. Let's hope it stays that way!
OK, so that's why my 40GB Western Dig. only holds 32.26? My math stinks; maybe someone can help me here?
and if it wasn't so WAY over-priced, people wouldn't have to pirate it to own it.