Did anyone else find that the text of the page was wider than one screen? I had to scroll right and then left again for every single line to read -- talk about bad design choices.
Or maybe it's another microsoft web-site that specifically makes the page look bad in Mozilla?
Wait... so you're saying I shouldn't be able to clip stuff if I want to? Positioning any element to a negative coord is not valid? I can no longer scroll my banners like I used to?
Wow, that sucks man. You just crippled all my javascript games!
" To whom? Me-before-the-teleportation doesn't care - I will live on in the copy."
Really? You'd be willing to look at that "copy-of-you" -- who is of course you, although you no long share the same thoughts -- and kill yourself, safe in the knowledge that 'you' will continue, even if that particular string of conciousness doesn't?
Actually, there's an interesting point -- if the original is not destroyed before the duplicate is created, then the original will have some experience/memory that the duplicate does not -- so how can you be the same person?
Could you not 'store' yourself in a data-disk, and whenever you got bored (who knows why) 'restore' yourself from a previous state? That would be just as valid. But would you be comfortable killing yourself then, still safe in the knowledge that you will continue -- albeit a version years younger than you should be, short many memories and experiences?
"5. Software Conflicts. Conflicts may occur with other software applications that may already be installed on your computer. The Xupiter software will report back to our servers what applications may be running on your system and will resolve these conflicts whenever possible. This will make our software more reliable and provide you with products and services that are compatible with your current system settings."
but they do collect you application-running habbits. And, of course, they probably 'inadvertantly' return the urls that internet explorer is browsing along with the application details.
What??? I think perhaps you don't understand the issue here. There are no new taxes being created -- they are not trying to implement a 'special' e-tax when you order interstate.
The issue at hand is that when you purchase an item over the net from another state, _YOU_ are responsible for paying the sales tax on that item, _NOT_ the merchant. The sales tax is still applied -- only no one is about to get all the neccessary forms and fill them out, then volunteer their money to the appropriate state.
Thus, the state tax, which applies to everything (not just specially to interstate commerce) is what is being discussed -- or more specifically, policies and methods of collecting the taxes and dues.
They're not trying to create a new (unconstitutional) way of getting your money -- they're trying to figure a way to get the money you already owe them (consitutionally).
"Ah, but what if you posted an image on your website of that desk? And I looked at it, and using a computer, I was able to figure out the needed dimensions to build that self-same desk? I now have a copy of that desk, right? Where during this process have I deprived you the use or ownership of *your* desk?"
I think that'd be a valid extended metaphor if people were downloading music sheets for the MP3s, then synthesizing their own version of the music.
At any rate, If I have a patent on the design of the desk, then yes, you've deprived me of ownership and something of value.
Thats slightly different than re-creating the item in discussion.
I built myself a desk. It's a custom job, you won't find anything like is anywhere else. If you take it from my garage, is it stealing? I mean, come on, you can't find it anywhere else.
...what this is really about. Apple is upset that Microsoft can reclaim a third of any unclaimed vouchers. These vouchers were handed out as a settlement, allowing people to purchase software from anyone including non-microsoft and microsoft-rival companies. 2/3s of the vouchers go to state schools, just to be nice.
All in all, it seems like a pretty weak case to be 'upset' -- although yes, I agree that Microsoft should 'pay the fine' even if citizens don't claim it for their own. Then again, IIRC, it was a settlement, rather than a fine imposed by a court.
Uh -- that's a joke, right? Can't really tell... It's.ie as in Ireland, y'know, one of the many other English-Speaking countries out there... like, say, England?
Yeah -- the company was contracted to do the work in early 2002, but (according to the news on the gcc page) the code has only just been completed and integrated. I guess it just took longer than originally expected?
Nah, only problem with that is most (all as far as I know, there may be an exception) of the PDAs on the market are missing the host USB controller chip -- so, for instance, you could not connect your camera to it and transfer files back and forth. It'll only connect upstream to another host (ie a Desktop PC).
Please correct me if you know of any PDAs that can do this -- I'd love to have one!! I can think of so many uses...
Or perhaps a PCMCIA USB adaptor? OF course, in your scenario the PDA would need two PCMCIA slots -- Compaq sells one for their IPAQ line, I believe.
Try here: http://www.shop4tech.com/user.htm?go=view_i tem&id= 269&cata=1&s_cata=91 50 pack for $30. Still more than I'd like, but hey. If you only want a couple, I've seen a pack of 6 for $9. Search on google.
The Llyama brand name is consistantly at the top in those reviews -- they seem to make good panels. If the version they had reviewed had a DVI connection, I would've snapped it up.
Anyway, I did some research, and in the US NewtronUSA.com supplies the model Pro Lite 4315UT -- which is a 17" with DVI, for about $650. Not bad.
I don't know if the quality is as great as the one Tom's Hardware reviewed, but its a decent price from a quality manufacturer.
It seems that most manufacturers make DVI versions, they're just rarer, and since they're in less demand, get reviewed less and less.
A lot of the arguments so far seem to be along the lines of "When someone faxes you, it costs you; when they email you, it doesn't, so junk faxes are illegal but spam over email isn't".
But, as reported on slashdot the cable companies are looking to push for us to pay on an amount of bandwidth percentage.
So, what happens when the act of having to download these emails does cost us money? Will the government be more likely to regulate it then?
Personally, I'm expecting not, as there are too many issues with international borders. With faxes, it's easy -- it costs too much to fax spam from out of the country! But email, at least today, is free.
Are you crazy? How the hell do you write a pull-down menu that changes based on the user's selection using _only_ PHP? And Java, nice, but good lord it takes forever to initalize on my machine, and has a huge overhead. Same for flash. Great stuff, if you have a huge connection bandwidth.
I'm not trying to say that Javascript is even a _good_ implementation, but in a lot of cases it's neccessary and/or useful.
I find that a PHP/Javascript combination is practically unstoppable. Theres a lot you can do with DHTML that you probably haven't even thought of.
And yes, javascript has no use (that I know of) outside of webpages. Point taken.
The way sales tax works (at least with what I've dealed with here in PA) only the end consumer has to pay the sales tax -- so if you're reselling something (bike parts, books, etc) you wouldn't pay a sales tax. The end user would, as always. Of course, that may mean the end user will have to pay _more_ sales tax now -- or perhaps we're not even talking about a sales tax at all.
Unless if affects things that copyrights don't normally cover -- such as, for instance, removing the ability to use software a) beside software b). That pushes above and beyond what you'd have with a standard copyright, by any measure, and thus removes freedom.
Sorta, anyway. I'd argue that it's all a matter of contractual agreement, anyway, with consideration on both sides. It's just a matter of what the consideration is for each party.
While I have to dial a '1' to access a long-distance phone number, there's a whole group of 'toll numbers' that my _local_ company will connect me to, but charge me per minute to do so -- even though I'm on an unlimited local plan. These toll numbers do not require a 1, and that has screwed me over several times so far.
There needs to be some prefix to dial a cell-phone, because soon enough it's going to become impossible to tell whether or not you're dialing a cell number.
And imagine calling internationally, to a cell phone, and not even realizing it! (Ok, so you'd almost certainly have to put the country code in for that one =] But the cost would still be a lot higher than a regular international call )
"Somehow you seem to be ignoring the fact that Macs and Windows boxes are not compatible, and they never will be. And it ain't apple's arrogance that makes this the case."
I was wondering exactly what you meant by this? I don't really understand a) what you _are_ implying is responsible for this (honest question) and b) where this turned into an "Apple is better" "No windows is better" argument.
"As I see it, this has nothign to do with arrogance. This is Apple supporting thier community, AS they have done since the inception of MacWorld"
Wait... I thought we were discussing Apple declaring they weren't supporting the MacWorld expo? How exactly is that 'supporting their community'?
"It's not thier show, it isn't hosted by them, nor is the money made by them"
Right, Right, sorta. Apple does in fact get proceeds from the convention. But, if they don't show up, they won't make direct profit, I guess.
"I have no idea where your getting the idea that people profiting off them are leeches"
I didn't say that they were leeches, I said that Apple view them that way -- which your next statement:
"but lets look at it this way: You design a new method of transportation. We'll call it teleportation. We'll say this method is revolutionary because it function by allowing people to instanteously vanish from one place and appear in another. Now lets say that you have a friend, we'll call him John Cochran, and he comes along and steals your plans, rapes your machines of thier components and creates a new method of transportation called transporters that do the same thing. Would you be happy to bend over for him as he makes billions off of your hard work?"
seems to agree with -- because frankly, I don't think any of the other vendors at MacWorld are abusing Apple and raping their machines. They're part of the Mac Community too. But Apple just doesn't like any challenges to its authority, I guess.
"Apple doesn't owe its profit to the show, the show owes its profit to Apple."
And while perhaps correct, that's exactly the kind of arrogant attitude I'm complaining about.
"The motivating factor for me and about everybody else to go to the show over everything else is to view the keynote personally."
Well good, I'd hope you'd support your Mac Community regardless of whether Apple cares about it or not.
"No network hiccups, except when the person next to you has the audacity to cough and you miss by what measure the G4 outperforms [isert specs here] PC."
Well gee, that supported your argument, and didn't make you look like a biased mac-obsessor at all.
"The Mac industry you say? Well, you must mean the Apple consumer base, because there is no "Mac industry" just a Mac community"
EXACTLY! There is no Mac industry, because APPLE WANTS TO BE THE ONLY TOP DOG. There are ONLY consumers, no other vendors in the market for other hardware, or software -- yes, yes, I know there actually are, I'm trying to make a point on how Apple wants it.
As long as there is only an Apple consumer base, and NO Mac Industry, Macs will continue to hold less than 10% of the desktop market.
Slashdot Mirror
Did anyone else find that the text of the page was wider than one screen? I had to scroll right and then left again for every single line to read -- talk about bad design choices.
Or maybe it's another microsoft web-site that specifically makes the page look bad in Mozilla?
Wait... so you're saying I shouldn't be able to clip stuff if I want to? Positioning any element to a negative coord is not valid? I can no longer scroll my banners like I used to?
Wow, that sucks man. You just crippled all my javascript games!
CD-ROM boots, Zip disk boots, and some BIOSes allow USB boots from harddrives/pendrives/compact flash.
Actually, some BIOSes are flashable under Win32 now.
" To whom? Me-before-the-teleportation doesn't care - I will live on in the copy."
Really? You'd be willing to look at that "copy-of-you" -- who is of course you, although you no long share the same thoughts -- and kill yourself, safe in the knowledge that 'you' will continue, even if that particular string of conciousness doesn't?
Actually, there's an interesting point -- if the original is not destroyed before the duplicate is created, then the original will have some experience/memory that the duplicate does not -- so how can you be the same person?
Could you not 'store' yourself in a data-disk, and whenever you got bored (who knows why) 'restore' yourself from a previous state? That would be just as valid. But would you be comfortable killing yourself then, still safe in the knowledge that you will continue -- albeit a version years younger than you should be, short many memories and experiences?
"5. Software Conflicts.
Conflicts may occur with other software applications that may already be installed on your computer. The Xupiter software will report back to our servers what applications may be running on your system and will resolve these conflicts whenever possible. This will make our software more reliable and provide you with products and services that are compatible with your current system settings."
but they do collect you application-running habbits. And, of course, they probably 'inadvertantly' return the urls that internet explorer is browsing along with the application details.
'Oops'.
You're joking, right? ...
You might want to look up 'metaphor' in the dictionary.
What??? I think perhaps you don't understand the issue here. There are no new taxes being created -- they are not trying to implement a 'special' e-tax when you order interstate.
The issue at hand is that when you purchase an item over the net from another state, _YOU_ are responsible for paying the sales tax on that item, _NOT_ the merchant. The sales tax is still applied -- only no one is about to get all the neccessary forms and fill them out, then volunteer their money to the appropriate state.
Thus, the state tax, which applies to everything (not just specially to interstate commerce) is what is being discussed -- or more specifically, policies and methods of collecting the taxes and dues.
They're not trying to create a new (unconstitutional) way of getting your money -- they're trying to figure a way to get the money you already owe them (consitutionally).
"Ah, but what if you posted an image on your website of that desk? And I looked at it, and using a computer, I was able to figure out the needed dimensions to build that self-same desk? I now have a copy of that desk, right? Where during this process have I deprived you the use or ownership of *your* desk?"
I think that'd be a valid extended metaphor if people were downloading music sheets for the MP3s, then synthesizing their own version of the music.
At any rate, If I have a patent on the design of the desk, then yes, you've deprived me of ownership and something of value.
Thats slightly different than re-creating the item in discussion.
And the answer is... on their site.
I built myself a desk. It's a custom job, you won't find anything like is anywhere else.
If you take it from my garage, is it stealing? I mean, come on, you can't find it anywhere else.
...what this is really about. Apple is upset that Microsoft can reclaim a third of any unclaimed vouchers. These vouchers were handed out as a settlement, allowing people to purchase software from anyone including non-microsoft and microsoft-rival companies. 2/3s of the vouchers go to state schools, just to be nice.
All in all, it seems like a pretty weak case to be 'upset' -- although yes, I agree that Microsoft should 'pay the fine' even if citizens don't claim it for their own. Then again, IIRC, it was a settlement, rather than a fine imposed by a court.
Uh -- that's a joke, right? Can't really tell... .ie as in Ireland, y'know, one of the many other English-Speaking countries out there... like, say, England?
It's
Yeah -- the company was contracted to do the work in early 2002, but (according to the news on the gcc page) the code has only just been completed and integrated. I guess it just took longer than originally expected?
Nah, only problem with that is most (all as far as I know, there may be an exception) of the PDAs on the market are missing the host USB controller chip -- so, for instance, you could not connect your camera to it and transfer files back and forth. It'll only connect upstream to another host (ie a Desktop PC).
Please correct me if you know of any PDAs that can do this -- I'd love to have one!! I can think of so many uses...
Or perhaps a PCMCIA USB adaptor? OF course, in your scenario the PDA would need two PCMCIA slots -- Compaq sells one for their IPAQ line, I believe.
Try here:i tem&id= 269&cata=1&s_cata=91
http://www.shop4tech.com/user.htm?go=view_
50 pack for $30. Still more than I'd like, but hey. If you only want a couple, I've seen a pack of 6 for $9. Search on google.
The Llyama brand name is consistantly at the top in those reviews -- they seem to make good panels. If the version they had reviewed had a DVI connection, I would've snapped it up.
Anyway, I did some research, and in the US NewtronUSA.com supplies the model Pro Lite 4315UT -- which is a 17" with DVI, for about $650. Not bad.
I don't know if the quality is as great as the one Tom's Hardware reviewed, but its a decent price from a quality manufacturer.
It seems that most manufacturers make DVI versions, they're just rarer, and since they're in less demand, get reviewed less and less.
"cd-roms (well, not cd-roms - cdrom drives), "
;)
Actually, there was an article a while ago on slashdot about a technology that embedded a flash card onto a cd to make it 'piracy' proof.
Just to further drive you up the wall
A lot of the arguments so far seem to be along the lines of "When someone faxes you, it costs you; when they email you, it doesn't, so junk faxes are illegal but spam over email isn't".
But, as reported on slashdot the cable companies are looking to push for us to pay on an amount of bandwidth percentage.
So, what happens when the act of having to download these emails does cost us money? Will the government be more likely to regulate it then?
Personally, I'm expecting not, as there are too many issues with international borders. With faxes, it's easy -- it costs too much to fax spam from out of the country! But email, at least today, is free.
Are you crazy? How the hell do you write a pull-down menu that changes based on the user's selection using _only_ PHP? And Java, nice, but good lord it takes forever to initalize on my machine, and has a huge overhead. Same for flash. Great stuff, if you have a huge connection bandwidth.
I'm not trying to say that Javascript is even a _good_ implementation, but in a lot of cases it's neccessary and/or useful.
I find that a PHP/Javascript combination is practically unstoppable. Theres a lot you can do with DHTML that you probably haven't even thought of.
And yes, javascript has no use (that I know of) outside of webpages. Point taken.
The way sales tax works (at least with what I've dealed with here in PA) only the end consumer has to pay the sales tax -- so if you're reselling something (bike parts, books, etc) you wouldn't pay a sales tax. The end user would, as always. Of course, that may mean the end user will have to pay _more_ sales tax now -- or perhaps we're not even talking about a sales tax at all.
Huh.
Unless if affects things that copyrights don't normally cover -- such as, for instance, removing the ability to use software a) beside software b). That pushes above and beyond what you'd have with a standard copyright, by any measure, and thus removes freedom.
Sorta, anyway. I'd argue that it's all a matter of contractual agreement, anyway, with consideration on both sides. It's just a matter of what the consideration is for each party.
While I have to dial a '1' to access a long-distance phone number, there's a whole group of 'toll numbers' that my _local_ company will connect me to, but charge me per minute to do so -- even though I'm on an unlimited local plan. These toll numbers do not require a 1, and that has screwed me over several times so far.
There needs to be some prefix to dial a cell-phone, because soon enough it's going to become impossible to tell whether or not you're dialing a cell number.
And imagine calling internationally, to a cell phone, and not even realizing it! (Ok, so you'd almost certainly have to put the country code in for that one =] But the cost would still be a lot higher than a regular international call )
"Somehow you seem to be ignoring the fact that Macs and Windows boxes are not compatible, and they never will be. And it ain't apple's arrogance that makes this the case."
I was wondering exactly what you meant by this? I don't really understand a) what you _are_ implying is responsible for this (honest question) and b) where this turned into an "Apple is better" "No windows is better" argument.
"As I see it, this has nothign to do with arrogance. This is Apple supporting thier community, AS they have done since the inception of MacWorld"
Wait... I thought we were discussing Apple declaring they weren't supporting the MacWorld expo? How exactly is that 'supporting their community'?
"It's not thier show, it isn't hosted by them, nor is the money made by them"
Right, Right, sorta. Apple does in fact get proceeds from the convention. But, if they don't show up, they won't make direct profit, I guess.
"I have no idea where your getting the idea that people profiting off them are leeches"
I didn't say that they were leeches, I said that Apple view them that way -- which your next statement:
"but lets look at it this way: You design a new method of transportation. We'll call it teleportation. We'll say this method is revolutionary because it function by allowing people to instanteously vanish from one place and appear in another. Now lets say that you have a friend, we'll call him John Cochran, and he comes along and steals your plans, rapes your machines of thier components and creates a new method of transportation called transporters that do the same thing. Would you be happy to bend over for him as he makes billions off of your hard work?"
seems to agree with -- because frankly, I don't think any of the other vendors at MacWorld are abusing Apple and raping their machines. They're part of the Mac Community too. But Apple just doesn't like any challenges to its authority, I guess.
"Apple doesn't owe its profit to the show, the show owes its profit to Apple."
And while perhaps correct, that's exactly the kind of arrogant attitude I'm complaining about.
"The motivating factor for me and about everybody else to go to the show over everything else is to view the keynote personally."
Well good, I'd hope you'd support your Mac Community regardless of whether Apple cares about it or not.
"No network hiccups, except when the person next to you has the audacity to cough and you miss by what measure the G4 outperforms [isert specs here] PC."
Well gee, that supported your argument, and didn't make you look like a biased mac-obsessor at all.
"The Mac industry you say? Well, you must mean the Apple consumer base, because there is no "Mac industry" just a Mac community"
EXACTLY! There is no Mac industry, because APPLE WANTS TO BE THE ONLY TOP DOG. There are ONLY consumers, no other vendors in the market for other hardware, or software -- yes, yes, I know there actually are, I'm trying to make a point on how Apple wants it.
As long as there is only an Apple consumer base, and NO Mac Industry, Macs will continue to hold less than 10% of the desktop market.
"Trustworthy Computing was something Microsoft had to live up to every day to convince customers it had improved, he said. "
Apparently that's attributed to Ballmer, so it wasn't just the article pulling it out of nowhere...