No, I should have been clearer, I was agreeing with you, just putting it in stronger words. I wasn't saying you were the troll, I was saying that I'm the troll, for my little anti-MSfanboy rant.
And judging from what Walt Mossberg wrote for the Wall Street Journal, it's going to be a while before MS gets better. He basically said they suck.
Also more proof that the RIAA companies are redundant and obsolete. =)
All it's going to take is one "superstar*" or small group of "superstars*" to make a deal directly with Apple instead of going through the RIAA. Once this happens, the damn will burst, and the RIAA companies will be shit-outta-luck.
*whatever that means, but I think of it in terms of having the power to dictate certain terms, i.e., "You can have the rights to distribute the CD, but I'm retaining rights to distribute the music online. Don't like it? I'll just go elsewhere."
The song you linked to "Pito Wilson" is obviously a reference to Former California Governor Pete Wilson, famed for his divisive race politics.
I couldn't tell much from the sample, however. It's a lousy sample because the intro to the song contains some material from TV or radio, and you don't actually hear any music until the last few seconds. And judging by the other samples, it's just bad punk in Español. They have a sort of Mentors/Rob Zombie sound (well admittedly, Zombie goes for that glossy polished studio sound, these guys don't).
If you want to hear some more offensive stuff in Español, check out the fairly new genre known as Narcorridos. It's sort of like rap lyrics set to Mexican Polka. It's very popular among the young Nacos and the Salvatorre Truche crowd, I'm told.
How much money am I missing out by not posting stuff with affiliate links? Damn! =)
In the end, it doesn't matter why Mac OS X has fewer security problems - it only matters that it does have fewer problems.
Yes and no.
Yes, in that of course, for you and I in there here and now, this is most important in practical terms. We can both get on with our work with fewer hassles.
No, in that the why is important for several reasons. I think it's important to look at the obscurity angle, and break it down into two areas. 1) is that obviously because there are fewer Macs as compared to Windows machines, there are less opportunities for exploitation, even if the level of security were the same. More importantly, 2) is that OS X is incredibly unlikely to become a vector for viral infection. This has important implications for computing as a whole and in arguing for heterogenous computing environments. A business that uses a mix of OSes is far less vulnerable than an all Windows shop, and it could very well be that having a mixed environment is far cheaper in the long run. An internet not totally dominated by Windows PCs will be less vulnerable to epidemics, and those epidemics will burn themselves out more quickly. Thus it is good public policy to encourage the adoption of alternative OSes in business and especially in government.
Please try to gain a bit more knowledge instead of repeating nonsense that you've heard. There's this thing called the internet that you can use to check facts. Look into it.
OMG, I'm locked into a good experience! I'm locked into a good deal! Microsoft, save me! Lock me into a crappy deal/experience before I start to expect better from other companies!
Seriously, some would complain about being locked into an orgasm if it was coming from Apple.
100% Troll
It's not surprising that MS Fanboys are so completely ignorant and unintelligent as to not know what a monopoly is, and to base specious arguments based on their lack of of knowledge and failure to grasp the facts. Netcraft confirms that MS Fanboys are idiots.
note to attam
This wasn't at all directed at you, it was just a convenient place to hang my rant. I apologize if you took it any other way.
Well, you're right in a way, perhaps in the spirit of the GPL, but the actual letter doesn't prevent anyone from saying bad things about the GPL. So long as a person abides by the requirements, they can say all the bad things about the GPL they want and still retain the right to copy and distribute.
You and I both know that SCO is run by dishonest, hypocritical, double-talking scumbags (and that's being kind to them). We know they're in violation of Linux's GPL. We have a disagreement here on one of the finer points, but I think that this issue will resolve itself when SCO finally goes out of business. A company that doesn't exist doesn't have any rights! =)
Dude, I'm not sure what, if any, prohibitions there are on friendly wagers, but you should get Uncle Ralph to put his money where his mouth is, and lay off a little bet on the temple steps. Or ask if you can borrow some shares, so you can make the bet yourself in the marketplace, and short the stock.
I think you're on to something here. Part of the problem is that game development overlaps at least as much with film production as it does with software development. Sure, it's possible to create an "open source" film, but are there many that are going to watch it?
Development of OSS tools for game development is where the action will be. Don't expect the big game development companies to open source their leading edge engines. That would just be giving up their competitive edge. The only way we'll see something like that is if an OSS engine exceeds anything the proprietary developers are doing. Then it would make sense for them to actively contribute rather than exclusively work on their own thing.
Furthermore, I think that the itch that gets scratched by OSS in software development gets scratched in the gaming world with game architectures that allow mods and extensions.
And one last thing. If an original OSS game ever becomes wildly successful, it will be because it is being lead by a Steve Jobs type, someone with a powerful RDF, the right combination of charisma and manipulativeness (i.e., management skills) and the single-minded vision of an auteur. In other words, a colossal asshole.
So, they have to pull their Linux distro, which they've probably already done by now. No biggy to them (though they'd have to start negotiating royalties to be able to support their existing customers)
Actually, this will hinder them from claiming any sort of damages, in the very unlikely case that they prevail. And if there are no damages, then there really isn't much of a case. I wonder if SCOX shareholders can use this if they ever sue Darl.
The GPL is not a blanket instrument. If you violate one instance of it, say, for Linux, for example, it does not revoke your rights to use other GPL code, only Linux.
Put another way, if you violated the GPL for linux, you'd lose the right to distribute linux, but you could still distribute other GPLed code independent of linux.
Slashdot Mirror
Dude, thank you so much for that link. That was some funny shit.
No, I should have been clearer, I was agreeing with you, just putting it in stronger words. I wasn't saying you were the troll, I was saying that I'm the troll, for my little anti-MSfanboy rant.
And judging from what Walt Mossberg wrote for the Wall Street Journal, it's going to be a while before MS gets better. He basically said they suck.
Yeh, me am love it when a grammar bastid is hoisted by his own petard, as it were. Or maybe that should be hoisted by his own retard.
Also more proof that the RIAA companies are redundant and obsolete. =)
All it's going to take is one "superstar*" or small group of "superstars*" to make a deal directly with Apple instead of going through the RIAA. Once this happens, the damn will burst, and the RIAA companies will be shit-outta-luck.
*whatever that means, but I think of it in terms of having the power to dictate certain terms, i.e., "You can have the rights to distribute the CD, but I'm retaining rights to distribute the music online. Don't like it? I'll just go elsewhere."
The song you linked to "Pito Wilson" is obviously a reference to Former California Governor Pete Wilson, famed for his divisive race politics.
I couldn't tell much from the sample, however. It's a lousy sample because the intro to the song contains some material from TV or radio, and you don't actually hear any music until the last few seconds. And judging by the other samples, it's just bad punk in Español. They have a sort of Mentors/Rob Zombie sound (well admittedly, Zombie goes for that glossy polished studio sound, these guys don't).
If you want to hear some more offensive stuff in Español, check out the fairly new genre known as Narcorridos. It's sort of like rap lyrics set to Mexican Polka. It's very popular among the young Nacos and the Salvatorre Truche crowd, I'm told.
How much money am I missing out by not posting stuff with affiliate links? Damn! =)
Oh, god, DRMed Viagra. No, sir, I refuse to use anything but Ogg Viagra. =)
In the end, it doesn't matter why Mac OS X has fewer security problems - it only matters that it does have fewer problems.
Yes and no.
Yes, in that of course, for you and I in there here and now, this is most important in practical terms. We can both get on with our work with fewer hassles.
No, in that the why is important for several reasons. I think it's important to look at the obscurity angle, and break it down into two areas. 1) is that obviously because there are fewer Macs as compared to Windows machines, there are less opportunities for exploitation, even if the level of security were the same. More importantly, 2) is that OS X is incredibly unlikely to become a vector for viral infection. This has important implications for computing as a whole and in arguing for heterogenous computing environments. A business that uses a mix of OSes is far less vulnerable than an all Windows shop, and it could very well be that having a mixed environment is far cheaper in the long run. An internet not totally dominated by Windows PCs will be less vulnerable to epidemics, and those epidemics will burn themselves out more quickly. Thus it is good public policy to encourage the adoption of alternative OSes in business and especially in government.
Q: What's worse than finding a worm in your apple?
A: Finding half of a worm.
If this is your first night at nightclub, you have to night.
Wait, that doesn't make any sense.
It's usually days later.
The only blatant rip off is you repeating ideas that have no factual basis. If you're going to spout bullshit, please come up with original bullshit.
It's not even funny how much MacOS resembles the desktop interface at Xerox PARC, right down to the colors, look, and feel. There's even a mouse!
It's not a blatant rip off when you pay to use a technology.
Real history of the GUI
A walk in the Parc
Please try to gain a bit more knowledge instead of repeating nonsense that you've heard. There's this thing called the internet that you can use to check facts. Look into it.
Hares should never under-estimate turtles, especially turtles with warchests wealthier than many countries.
Hares should never underestimate turtles, especially when the turtles are known to engage in illegal, unfair, anti-competitive abuses of monopoly.
or maybe you should have said,
Hares shouldn't underestimate mass murderers. Netscape was murdered.
OMG, I'm locked into a good experience! I'm locked into a good deal! Microsoft, save me! Lock me into a crappy deal/experience before I start to expect better from other companies!
Seriously, some would complain about being locked into an orgasm if it was coming from Apple.
It's not surprising that MS Fanboys are so completely ignorant and unintelligent as to not know what a monopoly is, and to base specious arguments based on their lack of of knowledge and failure to grasp the facts. Netcraft confirms that MS Fanboys are idiots.
This wasn't at all directed at you, it was just a convenient place to hang my rant. I apologize if you took it any other way.
If you can legally download an mp3 song then you can play it on your ipod.
Uh, you can play "illegally" downloaded mp3s as well. I did it once just to test it. Yeah, that's the ticket.
Well, you're right in a way, perhaps in the spirit of the GPL, but the actual letter doesn't prevent anyone from saying bad things about the GPL. So long as a person abides by the requirements, they can say all the bad things about the GPL they want and still retain the right to copy and distribute.
You and I both know that SCO is run by dishonest, hypocritical, double-talking scumbags (and that's being kind to them). We know they're in violation of Linux's GPL. We have a disagreement here on one of the finer points, but I think that this issue will resolve itself when SCO finally goes out of business. A company that doesn't exist doesn't have any rights! =)
Dude, I'm not sure what, if any, prohibitions there are on friendly wagers, but you should get Uncle Ralph to put his money where his mouth is, and lay off a little bet on the temple steps. Or ask if you can borrow some shares, so you can make the bet yourself in the marketplace, and short the stock.
I've complained several times to the SEC on their website.
the SEC can't afford to look indifferent
Given that the SEC has been starved budget-wise, maybe they can't afford to look.
Then SCO has to fend off Novell, RedHat and Autozone on any counterclaims they may have.
Just for clarity, in Red Hat v. SCO, Red Hat is the plaintiff, not the defendant/counter-plaintiff. Otherwise, you're right. Dogpile!! =)
Lukewarm and bitter.
That's why I gave up my bikini inspector job, but it didn't help. I'm still unemployable.
I think you're on to something here. Part of the problem is that game development overlaps at least as much with film production as it does with software development. Sure, it's possible to create an "open source" film, but are there many that are going to watch it?
Development of OSS tools for game development is where the action will be. Don't expect the big game development companies to open source their leading edge engines. That would just be giving up their competitive edge. The only way we'll see something like that is if an OSS engine exceeds anything the proprietary developers are doing. Then it would make sense for them to actively contribute rather than exclusively work on their own thing.
Furthermore, I think that the itch that gets scratched by OSS in software development gets scratched in the gaming world with game architectures that allow mods and extensions.
And one last thing. If an original OSS game ever becomes wildly successful, it will be because it is being lead by a Steve Jobs type, someone with a powerful RDF, the right combination of charisma and manipulativeness (i.e., management skills) and the single-minded vision of an auteur. In other words, a colossal asshole.
The least said, the better.
So, they have to pull their Linux distro, which they've probably already done by now. No biggy to them (though they'd have to start negotiating royalties to be able to support their existing customers)
Actually, this will hinder them from claiming any sort of damages, in the very unlikely case that they prevail. And if there are no damages, then there really isn't much of a case. I wonder if SCOX shareholders can use this if they ever sue Darl.
The GPL is not a blanket instrument. If you violate one instance of it, say, for Linux, for example, it does not revoke your rights to use other GPL code, only Linux.
Put another way, if you violated the GPL for linux, you'd lose the right to distribute linux, but you could still distribute other GPLed code independent of linux.
So, you'd let Darl, Blake, Ray, etc off the hook because you don't like lawyers?
If you're going to think thoughts, think first. =)