I always thought the omelette referred to the stories, not the comments.
Your supermarket has a meat section, a dairy section, a frozen food
section, a vegetable section -- ask slashdot, bsd, apple, games, yro, etc.
The front page omelette has some eggs, some milk, some cheese, maybe some
ham or sausage, or pepperoni, maybe some peppers, etc.
Personally, I read slashdot for the comments. CmdrTaco has stated that,
according to the logs, most people do not. Evidently, when he reads
slashdot (which can't be all that often), he reads at +5, and is sick
of too many overrated posts.
sure, someone else will come along, but you're forgetting that there already are other services (like pressplay, and others), some of which were partially financed/owned by record companies, and they haven't met the success that iTunes has.
Do they? for a credit card processing, merchants typically pay ~2% + $0.30/txn.
I think apple will bill you CC once / day for all purchases that day.
Worst case scenario, if you buy 10 songs over 10 days vs buying the complete album, apple will pay $2-3 less in txn fees if you buy the album than if you buy individual songs. That makes a lower album price worhtwhile to apple.
Based on conversations with iTunes users, they seem to buy in spurts (2-5+ songs in one session), which would alter my worst-case scenario, but apple keeps more money on higher priced (album) sales.
But CmdrTaco said it was impressive! Are you saying he juat adds inane and meaningless one-line comments, and doesn't actually read (or comprehend) the articles?
I know there are a number of CDs that I simpley don't have access to
since they are out of print. This would allow me to have access to
80's hair bands that no longer get any money from their product.
Not really... Let's assume there isn't enough demand for the CD to be available. Now let's assume the copyright magically expires. The record companies (that still have physical possession of the master recordings) have even less incentive to produce a CD of it (since anyone could duplicate it).
The only answer is to copy it from kazaa, buy an "as-seen-on-tv" collection, or a service like iTunes (since the record company doesn't have production or distribution costs, they can make less-popular stuff available).
Actually, MS does sell a "Unix Services For Windows" package for 2k/xp. It's the formerly interix stuff.
It's a posix layer and standard utilities (most of the BSD based). It does include gcc, though (and the source code).
It's been available (from interix or MS) since NT4, though, and I doubt it contains any SCO code, and (as I said before), the command-line tools are mostly just recompiles, so it seems unlikely that's why they would get a Unix license (OTOH, suing microsoft is popular, and juries do stupid things sometimes).
Many publishers *love* it if you can give them typeset output (like TeX/LaTeX/LyX). They'll deal with MS Word files (but only because they have to).
A friend of mine had a book published by a real publisher. He did the typsetting himself (with LaTeX), and had a local printshop print up a couple hundred copies for friends, local bookstores, online sales, etc. He sent a copy to a couple pro editors, and one was impressed enough to help revise a version 2 that got published professionally.
If novell decides they need the money (and let's be honest, their market share has been eroding).
I remember long ago, when Richard Strawlman warned that the LZW algorithm (used by compress) wasn't free. So he wrote zip, which was free. People laughed at him at the time, but when Unisys acquired the LZW patent and started charging fees, he was universially acknowledged as a genius.
Likewise, it's probably best to migrate away from Unix since Novell could still bring up infringement claims. HuRD or Minix are probably the best alternatives.
Look: as a Linux user and open source developer, I like to bash Microsoft just as much as anyone. Their business practices are at best unethical, and at worst, flagrantly illegal. Over the past few years I have come to rely (in part) on Slashdot for its irreverant and challenging views on the Microsoft Monopoly. Say what you will about Slashdot's editors (poor spelling and grammar, blatant editorializing on a so-called news site, etc), but I really have come to believe that Slashdot represents an important and much-needed voice among today's corporate hype-driven media.
Until now, that is. While helping my 16-year-old son (also an avid Slashdot reader) do research for a term paper on technology and journalism, I stumbled across some information that made me change my views about Slashdot completely. In a nutshell:
Slashdot, and more accurately, its parent company VA Software, has deep and mutually influential ties to the Microsoft Corporation. In fact,
Slashdot's own editors are paid (albeit indirectly) out of the coffers of Microsoft.
Yes. It's hard to believe. At first I couldn't believe it. But a few simple Google searches and 45 minutes' research on Lexis-Nexis (as well as a couple of phone calls to a friend of mine at the SEC) revealed the following:
Three of the eight directors
at VA Software also sit on the board of a privately-held company called Murberry-Slocomb, which as far as I can tell is some kind of stealth incubator/VC firm. Murberry Slocomb was founded in 1996 by none other than Paul Allen, and is a subsidiary of Allen's company
Vulcan Ventures.
Most (>80%) of Murberry's funding, including compensation for its directors, comes directly from Microsoft Corporation.
In 1998, VA Software (parent company of OSDN, which is the parent company of Slashdot) receieved an investement of $3.8M from Murberry-Slocomb.
The 1998 annual report for VA Software actually mentions this, and goes on in detail about how this infusion of capital has helpled them maintain and operate OSDN.
At first I was more amused than shocked; I mean, the technology industry is notoriously incestuous and its leaders, even those who are in competition, often sit on the same boards and are members of the same organizations. So what if a few board members of Slashdot's parent company are also directors of a company funded by Microsoft? Well, it gets more interesting.
As it turns out, in May of 1999, VA Software submitted to the SEC Form 5506-D, Application for Direct Non-Ownership Subsidization.
This is the form that a corporation will submit to the SEC when it wants to directly fund a subsidiary from its own parent corporation. (It's basically a tax shelter for companies with a lot of subsidiaries) The application was approved in July 1999. The applicant name? OSDN. In other words, Form 5506-D basically eliminated the middleman between OSDN and Murberry-Slocomb. Following the money, I now saw that
OSDN was being funded directly from an infusion of captal that Murberry-Slocomb has received from Microsoft!
Weird. I know. But what does this all mean? Honestly I have no idea. I'm not the custodian of any privileged information. A look at VA Software's web site and a Google search is all anyone needs to find the same information that I found. Are Slashdot's staff being paid through Microsoft? I sincerely hope not. But the facts are there and it sure looks like it. More importantly, what does this mean for the future of Slashdot? Can any grain of objectivity or journalistic ethics be preserved? What happens when the company you are bashing, nay, the very company that you preach the loudest against, Microsoft, is the same company that signs your paycheck? Could there be a deeper link still? Who knows. As far as I'm concerned, I'll never look at Slashdot the same way, ever again.
I think NASA is saying, "we do/did have the capability to send a rescue mission". IF they had realized the wing was damaged due to debris/loose tiles/etc on day 1, it wouldn't be hard to avoid repeating the situation.
As it was, they didn't realize the wing was damaged (or the severity of the damage) until it was too late, and the accident investigation is still continuing.
Slashdot Mirror
Your supermarket has a meat section, a dairy section, a frozen food section, a vegetable section -- ask slashdot, bsd, apple, games, yro, etc. The front page omelette has some eggs, some milk, some cheese, maybe some ham or sausage, or pepperoni, maybe some peppers, etc.
Personally, I read slashdot for the comments. CmdrTaco has stated that, according to the logs, most people do not. Evidently, when he reads slashdot (which can't be all that often), he reads at +5, and is sick of too many overrated posts.
Shouldn't there be a pay-pal link, so we can pretend that we'll donate money?
Steve Jobs called. He wants his reality distortion field back.
I think apple will bill you CC once / day for all purchases that day.
Worst case scenario, if you buy 10 songs over 10 days vs buying the complete album, apple will pay $2-3 less in txn fees if you buy the album than if you buy individual songs. That makes a lower album price worhtwhile to apple.
Based on conversations with iTunes users, they seem to buy in spurts (2-5+ songs in one session), which would alter my worst-case scenario, but apple keeps more money on higher priced (album) sales.
obviously, you're not a girl.
unfortunately, they use fake information when writing stories.
Not really... Let's assume there isn't enough demand for the CD to be available. Now let's assume the copyright magically expires. The record companies (that still have physical possession of the master recordings) have even less incentive to produce a CD of it (since anyone could duplicate it).
The only answer is to copy it from kazaa, buy an "as-seen-on-tv" collection, or a service like iTunes (since the record company doesn't have production or distribution costs, they can make less-popular stuff available).
you mean, all your base are unpacked to us?
Yeah, but just think of the sentence if you steal and then rape the sheep!
This is a reference implementation for BSD, so it's not open source, but it is good for looking under the hood for some portions.
down my pants
Also, it's hard to update your icons when you're as busy as CmdrTaco (the sims can't play themselves yet!)).
Current price $1.59 a share.
Opening day price: $300 a share.
That's a drop of 99.5%.
It's a posix layer and standard utilities (most of the BSD based). It does include gcc, though (and the source code).
It's been available (from interix or MS) since NT4, though, and I doubt it contains any SCO code, and (as I said before), the command-line tools are mostly just recompiles, so it seems unlikely that's why they would get a Unix license (OTOH, suing microsoft is popular, and juries do stupid things sometimes).
A friend of mine had a book published by a real publisher. He did the typsetting himself (with LaTeX), and had a local printshop print up a couple hundred copies for friends, local bookstores, online sales, etc. He sent a copy to a couple pro editors, and one was impressed enough to help revise a version 2 that got published professionally.
I remember long ago, when Richard Strawlman warned that the LZW algorithm (used by compress) wasn't free. So he wrote zip, which was free. People laughed at him at the time, but when Unisys acquired the LZW patent and started charging fees, he was universially acknowledged as a genius.
Likewise, it's probably best to migrate away from Unix since Novell could still bring up infringement claims. HuRD or Minix are probably the best alternatives.
Until now, that is. While helping my 16-year-old son (also an avid Slashdot reader) do research for a term paper on technology and journalism, I stumbled across some information that made me change my views about Slashdot completely. In a nutshell: Slashdot, and more accurately, its parent company VA Software, has deep and mutually influential ties to the Microsoft Corporation. In fact, Slashdot's own editors are paid (albeit indirectly) out of the coffers of Microsoft.
Yes. It's hard to believe. At first I couldn't believe it. But a few simple Google searches and 45 minutes' research on Lexis-Nexis (as well as a couple of phone calls to a friend of mine at the SEC) revealed the following:
At first I was more amused than shocked; I mean, the technology industry is notoriously incestuous and its leaders, even those who are in competition, often sit on the same boards and are members of the same organizations. So what if a few board members of Slashdot's parent company are also directors of a company funded by Microsoft? Well, it gets more interesting.
As it turns out, in May of 1999, VA Software submitted to the SEC Form 5506-D, Application for Direct Non-Ownership Subsidization. This is the form that a corporation will submit to the SEC when it wants to directly fund a subsidiary from its own parent corporation. (It's basically a tax shelter for companies with a lot of subsidiaries) The application was approved in July 1999. The applicant name? OSDN. In other words, Form 5506-D basically eliminated the middleman between OSDN and Murberry-Slocomb. Following the money, I now saw that OSDN was being funded directly from an infusion of captal that Murberry-Slocomb has received from Microsoft!
Weird. I know. But what does this all mean? Honestly I have no idea. I'm not the custodian of any privileged information. A look at VA Software's web site and a Google search is all anyone needs to find the same information that I found. Are Slashdot's staff being paid through Microsoft? I sincerely hope not. But the facts are there and it sure looks like it. More importantly, what does this mean for the future of Slashdot? Can any grain of objectivity or journalistic ethics be preserved? What happens when the company you are bashing, nay, the very company that you preach the loudest against, Microsoft, is the same company that signs your paycheck? Could there be a deeper link still? Who knows. As far as I'm concerned, I'll never look at Slashdot the same way, ever again.
Combine the speed and java with the speed of Mozilla.... I bet you can reboot into windows, run IE, and get 3 first posts before Jazilla starts up.
As it was, they didn't realize the wing was damaged (or the severity of the damage) until it was too late, and the accident investigation is still continuing.