Re:When will they update the firmware for old iPod
on
Apple Updates iPod
·
· Score: 1
So start a petition to pester them, you may well get your way. I don't think Apple is really against providing shuffle in the main menu. They added lossless compression to existing iPods before. They just so far see iPod as an appliance, not a PDA and think people may not be happy with any changes in how the existing one works.
I rather think slashdot should make money by selling access to knowledge. Every discussion gets posts by technical experts that would be otherwise highly paid for their opinions, and built-in moderation system filters most of the noise. They could build a knowledge base of posts and sell access to search. If each user also indicates weather he/she is available for employment or consulting, slashdot can also take some referral fee from such transactions.
The best thing christian church can do for the society is to immediately expel all the sinners. Surely someone who drops his seed to the ground should never be allowed to have a holy communion. And deadly sins of gluttony and sloth should lead to expulsion after several attempts to get one to repent and mend his ways. Jesus himself only hung around with virtuous people and told sinners to get lost and never be saved.
In the meantime, we can take the newly liberated minds into our fold and really work on getting more "blue" votes next time.
How can be something you wrote from scratch be a derived work of something else? This kind of like SCO wanting control of the code written by IBM. Even if that's allowed by law, it's morally wrong to demand compliance. Yes, I know Linus is the author of this document, but I think he is doing his own "GNU/Linux" thing here and should change his mind.
I suspect the reason qemu accelerator runs at native speed is that it's not an emulator either. It probably just runs user-mode code directly as a Linux process and then catches a signal when a privileged instruction is attempted and emulates OS code.
You are forgetting that the original Internet was built with state - military - funding and before it was created, private sector only had outrageously expensive, crippled services like CompuServe. Only once it became popular ISPs and domain registrars had the customer base to take over some of the infrastructure.
As for political freedom, I think I will take my chances. So many cities and counties passed resolutions saying they will have nothing to do with Patriot act. I don't see telecom companies speaking out.
I much rather have my meat products without botulin, than without nitrites, thank you very much
And I would rather live without cancer than without radiation, but why expose yourself needlessly? Maybe it's Ok to have preservatives in your survival rations that you want to last for 10 years, but for everyday food it's Ok to keep even your cans in refrigerator and consume them within several months. If they were prepared properly, sealed while hot, there is really no need for preservatives.
If published, it would no longer be protected and anyone could make something identical to Coke.
Oh, I bet any university chemistry lab can tell exactly how Coca-Cola was made, including exact natural or artificial source of each component. The only thing they can not do is use the official trademark name and logo. The secret is only part of their own version of reality distortion field.
Why, I did live in Soviet Union, and there was only one "fast food chain", a handful of "pop singers", one place to borrow money and people getting job benefits they would never earn in truly free market. Silly me for advocating for these conditions to be altered. Sounds like you wouldn't miss much living in Soviet Union.
OK, ignoring everything else you said, how can you justify opposition to the inheritance tax? Do you think all of the wealth in the country should gradually collect in the accounts of wealthiest families? Perhaps the US needs an aristocracy?
Do you know of one case where inheritance tax made a difference? Rich fathers can just see that their sons become directors of privately held corporations with lots of cash. We are ruled by an aristocratic family with financial ties to foreign royalty with questionable agenda as it is.
What we need to do instead is to make it harder to make insane amounts of money in the first place. No person's talent and lifetime labor would be worth more than, say $100M in completely free and educated market. No matter how good/hard-working you are, there will be someone in, say, China who is just good as you are and is willing to do the work for at most that compensation. Or perhaps there are 100 people who can collectively do you work for $1M each.
We need to analyze and systematically eliminate all obstacles to people getting the best bargain in job/investment market. Perhaps we need an investment institution that doesn't reward such a high payoff/control as stock market, but perhaps demands more accountability/personal responsibility from the investee. And on personal level, we need to educate against herd mentality. Really, Britney Spears is not the only sexy teenager who can sing. And burgers in small outlets can taste better than McDonald. If you open your mind, you will get a better deal and in the process create rich people who are not as rich and are far more likely to spend their fortunes back on your work.
War is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength
All right, if computer-generated characters were persons, playing Doom would be mass murder. But fortunately, they are not. And ideas in my head are not your property, even if you got a patent that would cover them. What are we, a slave society?:-) Rather you have a government-granted privilege to collect tax from other citizens.
What's the incentive for Linus to write Linux? What's the incentive for Redhat and IBM to improve it? What was the incentive for computer makers to write software and bundle it with computers before Microsoft came along?
Copyrights and patents are one way to support software development, but other ways could also work. And whatever they are, they are not modern capitalism. They are artificial restrictions on free market which are more like communism than capitalism.
What does capitalist economy have to do with murder? Capitalism just means that government doesn't regulate market of goods and jobs. A 100% capitalist may well write free software or donate most of his income to charity. He just will not make other people do that if elected to government. Neither he would support restrictions on free market such as patents and copyrights.
I don't support 100% pure capitalism and I even think it's bad for profits of 100% capitalists, because people are short sighted and must be sometimes forced to cooperate with each other for long term mutual benefit. But it sure says nothing about non-money making aspects of law or about individual choices.
Pure capitalism is about people doing something because they can make money, not because it would be nice. If Microsoft can not make money on Windows, by all means they shouldn't develop it. But usually it ends up that if a product is desirable, it will get developed. Maybe IBM makes a computer and needs something to make it desirable for people to buy. Maybe many people need a program to exist and pool resources to have it written. Perhaps, there is enough money to be made on support and education of users. Or, as it seems this days, maybe people are just willing to write software for free.
But the most likely possibility is that pure capitalism doesn't work and needs supplements like job security, social services, government grants and perhaps patents and copyrights. But common people sure need this things more than corporations, and would get them first if rich people didn't have disproportional influence on politics due to campaign contributions and sometimes outright bribes.
In true capitalism I can use any resources at my disposal to make money. Only murder and theft in the sense of breaking in and lugging away things is not allowed. If Microsoft sells Windows CDs for $100 and I can figure out how to copy my CD that I bought from them and sell copies for $1, nobody should interfere with me.
So now companies come to government and say other people should give them money for something created without their further labor. Even worth, they want to tax an inventor who came up with their idea independenly. Any why? Because they "worked hard and they are good for the society"? Well cry me a river!
That's social protection, and companies don't really need it. If not for patents and copyrights, businesses will form consortium to joinly invent something they can all then manufacture. And in particular software companies will sell personalized support for their software. Like a poolman, there will be a computerman that comes to my house and teaches me how to use software for reasonable rate. There will be some shake up and loss of efficiency, and maybe Microsoft will have 5 billion in the bank instead of 40 billion. But it will not be all bad, and much of the money will be in the pockets of Microsoft customers who are now overcharged for whatever wealth Microsoft actually created.
We need social protection. We work for the good of the society and already don't get royalties, don't get paid again and again for the work we only did once. It's only fair we get some type of royalties first - like job security and the company that outsourced jobs paying for retraining costs for layed off workers. Then, once we are well protected, we'll think about shelling out a few bucks for their CDs that we can easily make ourselves.
By the way, I am not arguing for unlimited social protection or that capitalism doesn't have benefits. But patents and copyrights are definitely NOT capitalism.
Just offering a free service, in exchange perhaps to displaying some text ads or offering more relevant results to their searches. If someone is not satisfied, he can always host a copy himself.
As for subscription or pay-per-view information services, I am all for it, even for $100 per month, if the knowledge/art I get is not further restricted - I can burn a CD and give it to someone who can not afford access.
We know it's the future. We know with adequate research spending it can be achieved and will make any talk of green or nuclear power pointless. It can be both done before going to Mars, for comparable price, and will help greatly with achieving that goal. It will eradicate global warming by letting us produce cheap hydrogen. So what are we waiting for?
Never, as long as we qualify what patents are on. My actual DNA is prior art, and any ownership of it would violate anti-slavery laws. But discovering an exact sequence of aminoacids in computer-readable format for is an enormous task that has obvious benefits to the society and probably can not be done without patent royalties. This is a good use of patents, our problem is Amazon's single click - stuff that requires little work and is disproportionally rewarded. Ditty for generic hybrids.
The catch is, the patent is on a particular digital representation created from one's DNA, or perhaps on a sequencing method. If some independently creates another digitial representation of the same person's genes, or more likely creates a natural human/human hybrid, they shouldn't have to pay royalties.
I am not discriminating, I am against violence. I only want to educate people. I only talk to people, write to people, write articles. Is that really wrong?
No, on two conditions - you don't advocate any anti-gay/anti-abortion/bible-based laws and if people tell you to get lost and never talk to them again you respect their wishes. Law is very much a form of violence. If you don't obey, policemen will show up and eventually kill you if you continue to resist them.
But don't turn that into some pseudophilosophical invalid moral high-road about the evils of capitalism.
Huh? Using any knowledge/resources at my disposal without paying welfare to whoever originally came up with the ideas is the essence of unrestricted capitalism. That's not I would want either, but it would be better than current system of social support for big business rather than ordinary citizens. When was the last time someone payed you royalties?
So basically, trivial. Fork bombs used to capture as much imagination as beowulf clusters today and only faded with dominance of Windows, which is too easily crashed to be a challenge. They may yet bring down Linux/*BSD if maximum allowed processes really work on consuming system resources, such as disk bandwidth.
Anyway, assembly will come in handy in selecting uninterruptible instructions that take the most clock cycles or generate faults which take a while to process by the OS. I am sure your newly created forks have a burning need for some heavy MMX processing and inter-CPU cache synchronization. These things may be never generated by a C compiler. You can always set a function pointer to a byte array with machine code, but an x86 assembler lets you hack in style.
Actually, I won't be surprised if you manage to get an OOPS or even find a security flaw by programming in raw assembly on Linux. Software is tested for most likely exploits first, and there are still too many holes in network services and setuid executables to worry about someone with assembly skills and permission to run his own programs.
By Downloading movies, you are consuming a product that was produced by the corporation.
That's the definition of consuming and product media corporation want law to adopt. There is no reason we should agree, or keep old laws if they are no longer to our benefit. Especially since anyone else's ownership of knowledge in my head violates the 13th amendment.
All right, is this page going to get taken down and replaced with a big warning from McDonald then? After all, it lets everyone make a hamburger from a blank bun and no doubt incorporates some knowledge developed by big burger corporations.
Slashdot Mirror
So start a petition to pester them, you may well get your way. I don't think Apple is really against providing shuffle in the main menu. They added lossless compression to existing iPods before. They just so far see iPod as an appliance, not a PDA and think people may not be happy with any changes in how the existing one works.
I rather think slashdot should make money by selling access to knowledge. Every discussion gets posts by technical experts that would be otherwise highly paid for their opinions, and built-in moderation system filters most of the noise. They could build a knowledge base of posts and sell access to search. If each user also indicates weather he/she is available for employment or consulting, slashdot can also take some referral fee from such transactions.
The best thing christian church can do for the society is to immediately expel all the sinners. Surely someone who drops his seed to the ground should never be allowed to have a holy communion. And deadly sins of gluttony and sloth should lead to expulsion after several attempts to get one to repent and mend his ways. Jesus himself only hung around with virtuous people and told sinners to get lost and never be saved.
In the meantime, we can take the newly liberated minds into our fold and really work on getting more "blue" votes next time.
How can be something you wrote from scratch be a derived work of something else? This kind of like SCO wanting control of the code written by IBM. Even if that's allowed by law, it's morally wrong to demand compliance. Yes, I know Linus is the author of this document, but I think he is doing his own "GNU/Linux" thing here and should change his mind.
I suspect the reason qemu accelerator runs at native speed is that it's not an emulator either. It probably just runs user-mode code directly as a Linux process and then catches a signal when a privileged instruction is attempted and emulates OS code.
You are forgetting that the original Internet was built with state - military - funding and before it was created, private sector only had outrageously expensive, crippled services like CompuServe. Only once it became popular ISPs and domain registrars had the customer base to take over some of the infrastructure.
As for political freedom, I think I will take my chances. So many cities and counties passed resolutions saying they will have nothing to do with Patriot act. I don't see telecom companies speaking out.
I much rather have my meat products without botulin, than without nitrites, thank you very much
And I would rather live without cancer than without radiation, but why expose yourself needlessly? Maybe it's Ok to have preservatives in your survival rations that you want to last for 10 years, but for everyday food it's Ok to keep even your cans in refrigerator and consume them within several months. If they were prepared properly, sealed while hot, there is really no need for preservatives.
If published, it would no longer be protected and anyone could make something identical to Coke.
Oh, I bet any university chemistry lab can tell exactly how Coca-Cola was made, including exact natural or artificial source of each component. The only thing they can not do is use the official trademark name and logo. The secret is only part of their own version of reality distortion field.
Why, I did live in Soviet Union, and there was only one "fast food chain", a handful of "pop singers", one place to borrow money and people getting job benefits they would never earn in truly free market. Silly me for advocating for these conditions to be altered. Sounds like you wouldn't miss much living in Soviet Union.
OK, ignoring everything else you said, how can you justify opposition to the inheritance tax? Do you think all of the wealth in the country should gradually collect in the accounts of wealthiest families? Perhaps the US needs an aristocracy?
Do you know of one case where inheritance tax made a difference? Rich fathers can just see that their sons become directors of privately held corporations with lots of cash. We are ruled by an aristocratic family with financial ties to foreign royalty with questionable agenda as it is.
What we need to do instead is to make it harder to make insane amounts of money in the first place. No person's talent and lifetime labor would be worth more than, say $100M in completely free and educated market. No matter how good/hard-working you are, there will be someone in, say, China who is just good as you are and is willing to do the work for at most that compensation. Or perhaps there are 100 people who can collectively do you work for $1M each.
We need to analyze and systematically eliminate all obstacles to people getting the best bargain in job/investment market. Perhaps we need an investment institution that doesn't reward such a high payoff/control as stock market, but perhaps demands more accountability/personal responsibility from the investee. And on personal level, we need to educate against herd mentality. Really, Britney Spears is not the only sexy teenager who can sing. And burgers in small outlets can taste better than McDonald. If you open your mind, you will get a better deal and in the process create rich people who are not as rich and are far more likely to spend their fortunes back on your work.
If intellectual property is property
:-) Rather you have a government-granted privilege to collect tax from other citizens.
War is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength
All right, if computer-generated characters were persons, playing Doom would be mass murder. But fortunately, they are not. And ideas in my head are not your property, even if you got a patent that would cover them. What are we, a slave society?
What's the incentive for Linus to write Linux? What's the incentive for Redhat and IBM to improve it? What was the incentive for computer makers to write software and bundle it with computers before Microsoft came along?
Copyrights and patents are one way to support software development, but other ways could also work. And whatever they are, they are not modern capitalism. They are artificial restrictions on free market which are more like communism than capitalism.
What does capitalist economy have to do with murder? Capitalism just means that government doesn't regulate market of goods and jobs. A 100% capitalist may well write free software or donate most of his income to charity. He just will not make other people do that if elected to government. Neither he would support restrictions on free market such as patents and copyrights.
I don't support 100% pure capitalism and I even think it's bad for profits of 100% capitalists, because people are short sighted and must be sometimes forced to cooperate with each other for long term mutual benefit. But it sure says nothing about non-money making aspects of law or about individual choices.
Pure capitalism is about people doing something because they can make money, not because it would be nice. If Microsoft can not make money on Windows, by all means they shouldn't develop it. But usually it ends up that if a product is desirable, it will get developed. Maybe IBM makes a computer and needs something to make it desirable for people to buy. Maybe many people need a program to exist and pool resources to have it written. Perhaps, there is enough money to be made on support and education of users. Or, as it seems this days, maybe people are just willing to write software for free.
But the most likely possibility is that pure capitalism doesn't work and needs supplements like job security, social services, government grants and perhaps patents and copyrights. But common people sure need this things more than corporations, and would get them first if rich people didn't have disproportional influence on politics due to campaign contributions and sometimes outright bribes.
In true capitalism I can use any resources at my disposal to make money. Only murder and theft in the sense of breaking in and lugging away things is not allowed. If Microsoft sells Windows CDs for $100 and I can figure out how to copy my CD that I bought from them and sell copies for $1, nobody should interfere with me.
So now companies come to government and say other people should give them money for something created without their further labor. Even worth, they want to tax an inventor who came up with their idea independenly. Any why? Because they "worked hard and they are good for the society"? Well cry me a river!
That's social protection, and companies don't really need it. If not for patents and copyrights, businesses will form consortium to joinly invent something they can all then manufacture. And in particular software companies will sell personalized support for their software. Like a poolman, there will be a computerman that comes to my house and teaches me how to use software for reasonable rate. There will be some shake up and loss of efficiency, and maybe Microsoft will have 5 billion in the bank instead of 40 billion. But it will not be all bad, and much of the money will be in the pockets of Microsoft customers who are now overcharged for whatever wealth Microsoft actually created.
We need social protection. We work for the good of the society and already don't get royalties, don't get paid again and again for the work we only did once. It's only fair we get some type of royalties first - like job security and the company that outsourced jobs paying for retraining costs for layed off workers. Then, once we are well protected, we'll think about shelling out a few bucks for their CDs that we can easily make ourselves.
By the way, I am not arguing for unlimited social protection or that capitalism doesn't have benefits. But patents and copyrights are definitely NOT capitalism.
Just offering a free service, in exchange perhaps to displaying some text ads or offering more relevant results to their searches. If someone is not satisfied, he can always host a copy himself.
As for subscription or pay-per-view information services, I am all for it, even for $100 per month, if the knowledge/art I get is not further restricted - I can burn a CD and give it to someone who can not afford access.
We know it's the future. We know with adequate research spending it can be achieved and will make any talk of green or nuclear power pointless. It can be both done before going to Mars, for comparable price, and will help greatly with achieving that goal. It will eradicate global warming by letting us produce cheap hydrogen. So what are we waiting for?
You sure as hell don't care if your cure is derived from HIV, or what you need to do to get infected/cured.
When do we cross over to the unpatentable?
Never, as long as we qualify what patents are on. My actual DNA is prior art, and any ownership of it would violate anti-slavery laws. But discovering an exact sequence of aminoacids in computer-readable format for is an enormous task that has obvious benefits to the society and probably can not be done without patent royalties. This is a good use of patents, our problem is Amazon's single click - stuff that requires little work and is disproportionally rewarded. Ditty for generic hybrids.
The catch is, the patent is on a particular digital representation created from one's DNA, or perhaps on a sequencing method. If some independently creates another digitial representation of the same person's genes, or more likely creates a natural human/human hybrid, they shouldn't have to pay royalties.
I am not discriminating, I am against violence. I only want to educate people. I only talk to people, write to people, write articles. Is that really wrong?
No, on two conditions - you don't advocate any anti-gay/anti-abortion/bible-based laws and if people tell you to get lost and never talk to them again you respect their wishes. Law is very much a form of violence. If you don't obey, policemen will show up and eventually kill you if you continue to resist them.
But don't turn that into some pseudophilosophical invalid moral high-road about the evils of capitalism.
Huh? Using any knowledge/resources at my disposal without paying welfare to whoever originally came up with the ideas is the essence of unrestricted capitalism. That's not I would want either, but it would be better than current system of social support for big business rather than ordinary citizens. When was the last time someone payed you royalties?
Exactly as easy as it is to crash an x86 with C
So basically, trivial. Fork bombs used to capture as much imagination as beowulf clusters today and only faded with dominance of Windows, which is too easily crashed to be a challenge. They may yet bring down Linux/*BSD if maximum allowed processes really work on consuming system resources, such as disk bandwidth.
Anyway, assembly will come in handy in selecting uninterruptible instructions that take the most clock cycles or generate faults which take a while to process by the OS. I am sure your newly created forks have a burning need for some heavy MMX processing and inter-CPU cache synchronization. These things may be never generated by a C compiler. You can always set a function pointer to a byte array with machine code, but an x86 assembler lets you hack in style.
Actually, I won't be surprised if you manage to get an OOPS or even find a security flaw by programming in raw assembly on Linux. Software is tested for most likely exploits first, and there are still too many holes in network services and setuid executables to worry about someone with assembly skills and permission to run his own programs.
There is no version of Konqueror for Mac OS X
Enjoy!
By Downloading movies, you are consuming a product that was produced by the corporation.
That's the definition of consuming and product media corporation want law to adopt. There is no reason we should agree, or keep old laws if they are no longer to our benefit. Especially since anyone else's ownership of knowledge in my head violates the 13th amendment.
All right, is this page going to get taken down and replaced with a big warning from McDonald then? After all, it lets everyone make a hamburger from a blank bun and no doubt incorporates some knowledge developed by big burger corporations.
Don't steal food.