>What do those people do for money? Work the bar at their neighborhood Starbucks?
Stop trolling me with your snotty elitist arrogance. Your earlier comment implied that without the promise of profit talented people wouldn't ever produce anything. That's pure bullshit. It usually works the exact opposite way. Talented people demonstrate talent, and people who recognize their talent will soon find ways to make use of their talents to their profit. The talented person will usually find a way to make a buck from their own talent, and if they have the ability to learn a bit about how to manage their finances may eventually become the main beneficiary of their talent.
>You, like most of the other respondents in this thread, seem to be losing sight of the whole "economy" thing. The idea that you can't do anything without money, and you don't get money unless you can convince somebody to give it to you, and you don't convince anybody unless you can promise them value in return.
You, like most of the other respondents in this thread, are totally full of crap. Nothing I said goes against the notion of free market capitalism. Re-read my post and figure out who you are arguing with. It isn't me. I'm an IS consultant, run an international import business, and a significant real estate rental business. I've got plenty of training in economics, both though education and real-world experience. How about YOU?
Personally, I don't want to rely on Jimbo inventing the next great advance in software (like, possibly, fading windows as described in this instance) whenever he gets around to it. I have no great faith in the hobbyist sector. They tend to work on whatever it is they want, rather than what I (i.e., the public at large) wants.
Again, your ignorance of how great inventions are developed is staggering. The personal computer market was a direct result of the "hobbyist [sic] sector" you so blithly denigrate. Your tone is as if these hobbyists were all "Jimbos," some sort of gnomish freak living in a subterranean Hobbit world that is beneath you. The reality isn't so cartoon-like. Go ask Steve Wozniak, who was just such a hobbyist-inventor, or read about the Wright brothers, who took up aeronautics as a sport. Your arrogance about hobbyists and their innovations is pathetic. You seem to think that nobody else wants what these people create. That's just stupid. Hobbyists frequently produce things that they simply cannot get anywhere else...like personal computers back before Apple and IBM saw the potential and finally got into the market.
And conversely, keep in mind that businesses frequently produce stuff nobody needs or wants. I can tell you from my experience of having worked for some of them. The '90s are an object lesson about a zillion companies and investors who went broke producing crap that nobody would pay real money for. Yeah, you can promise people value in return for their money, but Las Vegas and the stock market are living proof that most won't get it. P.T. Barnum was a definitive authority on that subject.
People innovate for a wide variety of reasons, profit being only one of them. Truly talented people innovate because it comes easily to them and they enjoy it.
In my mind the main problems with software patents are 1) they are not particularly well suited to software innovations, 2) the people reviewing the patent applications seem to have little ability to identify or find "prior art", and 3) patents are supposed to be granted to non-obvious inventions, but the reviewers seem to have difficulty differentiating obvious inventions from the truly innovative ones. Asking anyone in government to make such a discernment may be asking too much of them.
Software was covered primarily by copyright through the early 1980s before anyone tried to apply for a software patent, but that didn't prevent anyone from innovating. I think using patents for software actually causes more problems then it solves. The number of lawsuits has increased, but I don't see innovation as being a significant beneficiary.
> Netware has had its heyday. When customers found out they needed TCP/IP to internetwork, the days of a strictly local area network, as NetWare were numbered.
Netware has supported TCP/IP on both the client and server for ages...it was first added to one of the 3.xx versions. At that time, Netware's method for advertising services (SAP) used frequent networkwide broadcasts, making it poorly suited to large networks. Netware has evolved to keep pace with the needs of large networks, but the combined effect of Microsoft's powerful marketing machine, Novell's poor marketing, and the arrival of Linux/Samba as a viable server platform for many environments has made Netware much less common then it was 10 years ago.
> No, "Independant" is just plain wrong, as is FOLDOC, and I'm sick of having to point it out just because some people can't stand to be corrected.
No need to get sick over it, my good man. Nonetheless, the RAID Advisory Board, founded in 1992 to give information on the different RAIDs, changed the meaning of RAID, as the costs for secondary storage devices fell, to Redundant Array of Independent Disks. Your disagreement notwithstanding, and like it or not, it's a fact.;^)
>With 4x100GB, you could do RAID 0+1, for example, that is stripping+mirroring (2x100GB x2, you'll have 200GB space available and data security).
OR you could do RAID 5, have striping and rotating parity, have 300GB of available space and be protected against a single drive failure. Of course, always match your RAID configuration to your specific data requirements, as each RAID configuration offers different trade-offs between usable storage space, read/write performance, data security and cost. YMMV.
>Umm, no, it doesn't. It stands for "Independent".
I believe you are BOTH right. As I recall, the "I" in RAID *originally* stood for "inexpensive" back in the days when the rapidly dropping price of 5.25" and 3.5" drives were making them very attractive "inexpensive" replacements for larger, *very* expensive mass storage systems. But time passed and the success of RAID arrays made them the primary method for providing high performance data storage and retrival as well as data redundancy. They became the new standard for comparison, so the
term "inexpensive" was no longer relevant and was replaced with the word "independent," a term that better describes them. As I was typing this I found this link that seems to agree with my recollection.
> How about terrorists using PayPal to transfer money? The feds don't have the right to monitor those kinds of transactions as it is a private bussiness.
We [eBay] try to make rules to make it difficult for people to commit fraud and easy for you [law enforcement agencies] to investigate. One is our Privacy policy. I know from investigating eBay fraud cases that eBay has probably the most generous policy of any internet company when it comes to sharing information.
We do not require a subpoena except for very limited circumstances. We require a subpoena when we need the financial information from the site, credit card info or sometimes IP information.
>Taking something away from someone else and threatening not to return it until they give you money. It doesn't matter if they OWE you money anyway, that's extortion.
Unless, of course, you are a collection agency and the thing you are taking away is a car, in which case it is called repossession. Note how the existence of a contract or applicable state law makes all the difference in the world. Also note that the government will also take your property for non-payment of taxes and threaten not to return it until you pay up.
> Character assassination!? Dude, you need to lighten up.
Hmmm...thread title is "More like murder", then ther terms "negligent homicide" and "involuntary manslaughter" are suggested...and yet you neglect to consider that "character assassination" might be yet another joke. May I suggest that it is YOU who need to lighten up?:^)
>Actually, dissecting something while still alive is called a vivisection.
>But, yeah, you can call that murder.
Actually, murder is intentional. I'm sure the accused didn't intend to end the life of his iPod. Therefore I think this would qualify as negligent homicide or involuntary manslaughter.
Main Entry: technical
Pronunciation: 'tek-ni-k&l
Function: adjective
Etymology: Greek technikos of art, skillful, from technE art, craft, skill; akin to Greek tektOn builder, carpenter, Latin texere to weave, Sanskrit taksati he fashions
1 a : having special and usually practical knowledge especially of a mechanical or scientific subject [a technical consultant] b : marked by or characteristic of specialization
2 a : of or relating to a particular subject b : of or relating to a practical subject organized on scientific principles [a technical school] c : TECHNOLOGICAL 1 3 a : based on or marked by a strict or legal interpretation b : LEGAL 6
4 : of or relating to technique
5 : of, relating to, or produced by ordinary commercial processes without being subjected to special purification [technical sulfuric acid]
6 : relating to or caused by the functioning of the market as a discrete mechanism not influenced by macroeconomic factors [technical rally] [technical analysis]
- technically/-k(&-)lE/ adverb
There was no argument to make. I said your statement was incorrect. You said "Microsoft isn't technically a monopoly though." Well, it IS technically a monopoly. It's a simple fact. The court ruled Microsoft was a monopoly, that judgement has NOT been overturned, and, TECHNICALLY, that makes them a monopoly. That's just how it works. That's hardly nit-picking...it's a statement of fact, your personal disagreement notwithstanding.
As for your conclusion that you don't need a judge's opinion to tell you how you should think...I'll leave that for others to judge.;)
>A company does something to make it's customers happy, and you want government gangsters to split them up because they put someone else out of business? As a consumer, what entitles TrendMicro to my $$$ when I would rather give it to MS (or not give it - service packs are free.
Yet, when Linus Torvalds offers a free Linux kernel to the world, SCO tells the U.S. Congress (your "Government Gangsters") that Linux is a threat to the security and economy of the U.S. Ironic, huh?
>Because the quicker I see 'M$' or 'WinDOS' in a comment, the quicker I can disregard everything you've wrote, scroll past your post and add you to my 'retarded peon' list, never to take anything you say seriously ever again, even if its something completely unrelated.
Exactly the same way I treat Anonymous Coward posts such as yours.
> Yes, but compare that to the MATRIX bill. The grandparent was quick to point out the real "cause" behind civil liberty infrigement, and I still maintain that his point was ridiculous.
It makes a whole lot more sense if you understand the unspoken assumption that the corporations are the real power and the government is just doing what the corporations want them to do. Remember how eager Oracle Corporation was to help build a national identification database? The point is that corporations just see this as another short term business opportunity, regardless of the civil liberty consequences.
> Please. What interest do corporations have in removing our liberties? That doesn't even make sense.
If one of our liberties is the freedom to give someone software we have written without charging money, and a corporation insists that doing so "deprives" said corporation their "right" to charge you for similar software, and says about your act of charity that "It undermines our basic system of intellectual property rights, and it destroys the economic reason for innovation"...well, I'd say that corporation was trying to remove your liberties in order to eliminate competition and declare de facto ownership of a market. Does THAT make sense?
>Yeah? Tell that to a misbehaving MSIE or Media player that has decided to arbitrarily start thrashing disk and doing something that on a very old 'nix system I would call a fork() bomb... Press the three-finger salute, and it merely ignores you.
Actually, my understanding is that situation is typically caused when a program disables interrupts and subsequently gets stuck in a loop. Most recently I've seen this happen with buggy drivers.
>Because 75 years old used to be the retirement age for copyrights, until the Sonny Bono Copyright Extention Act made it 95 years. The company knows that they're not going to be able to get extentions forever, so they've already started to diversify while they still can...
Well, after seeing the copyright period extended time after time as I have, I have no faith that it won't continue to be extended, indefinitely. The copyright holders have paid politicians enormous sums to keep their intellectual fiefdoms. And recent court rulings indicate that there are no current legal limitations to prevent future extensions. If additional legislation isn't put in place to limit further extensions I would posit that they may well continue ad infinitum.
Slashdot Mirror
>History. How many brilliant software innovations have come from guys who work in a bar and write code during their free time?
;^)
History: How many brilliant physics innovations have come from guys who work in a patent office and write equasions during their free time?
Wanna guess, Einstein?
>What do those people do for money? Work the bar at their neighborhood Starbucks?
Stop trolling me with your snotty elitist arrogance. Your earlier comment implied that without the promise of profit talented people wouldn't ever produce anything. That's pure bullshit. It usually works the exact opposite way. Talented people demonstrate talent, and people who recognize their talent will soon find ways to make use of their talents to their profit. The talented person will usually find a way to make a buck from their own talent, and if they have the ability to learn a bit about how to manage their finances may eventually become the main beneficiary of their talent.
>You, like most of the other respondents in this thread, seem to be losing sight of the whole "economy" thing. The idea that you can't do anything without money, and you don't get money unless you can convince somebody to give it to you, and you don't convince anybody unless you can promise them value in return.
You, like most of the other respondents in this thread, are totally full of crap. Nothing I said goes against the notion of free market capitalism. Re-read my post and figure out who you are arguing with. It isn't me. I'm an IS consultant, run an international import business, and a significant real estate rental business. I've got plenty of training in economics, both though education and real-world experience. How about YOU?
Personally, I don't want to rely on Jimbo inventing the next great advance in software (like, possibly, fading windows as described in this instance) whenever he gets around to it. I have no great faith in the hobbyist sector. They tend to work on whatever it is they want, rather than what I (i.e., the public at large) wants.
Again, your ignorance of how great inventions are developed is staggering. The personal computer market was a direct result of the "hobbyist [sic] sector" you so blithly denigrate. Your tone is as if these hobbyists were all "Jimbos," some sort of gnomish freak living in a subterranean Hobbit world that is beneath you. The reality isn't so cartoon-like. Go ask Steve Wozniak, who was just such a hobbyist-inventor, or read about the Wright brothers, who took up aeronautics as a sport. Your arrogance about hobbyists and their innovations is pathetic. You seem to think that nobody else wants what these people create. That's just stupid. Hobbyists frequently produce things that they simply cannot get anywhere else...like personal computers back before Apple and IBM saw the potential and finally got into the market.
And conversely, keep in mind that businesses frequently produce stuff nobody needs or wants. I can tell you from my experience of having worked for some of them. The '90s are an object lesson about a zillion companies and investors who went broke producing crap that nobody would pay real money for. Yeah, you can promise people value in return for their money, but Las Vegas and the stock market are living proof that most won't get it. P.T. Barnum was a definitive authority on that subject.
>Canadian Minister Promises to Fix Copyright Law
Nothing to fix. It ain't broke.
> Netware has had its heyday. When customers found out they needed TCP/IP to internetwork, the days of a strictly local area network, as NetWare were numbered.
Netware has supported TCP/IP on both the client and server for ages...it was first added to one of the 3.xx versions. At that time, Netware's method for advertising services (SAP) used frequent networkwide broadcasts, making it poorly suited to large networks. Netware has evolved to keep pace with the needs of large networks, but the combined effect of Microsoft's powerful marketing machine, Novell's poor marketing, and the arrival of Linux/Samba as a viable server platform for many environments has made Netware much less common then it was 10 years ago.
Ok gang, it's payback time! Here's how it goes down:
- get a bunch of those "AMD HotSpot" stickers (unused or by removing them from the windows of premises)
- strategically stick them on your pants right over your privates
- display them proudly like a Ralph Lauren runway model.
That will get them the kind of publicity they don't need.>If God didn't want us to eat animals, why did he make them 1. out of meat and 2. absolutely delicious.
God also put big sharp teeth and horns on some of them to kill your wimpy little nerd ass. And I'm with God on that score.
> No, "Independant" is just plain wrong, as is FOLDOC, and I'm sick of having to point it out just because some people can't stand to be corrected.
;^)
No need to get sick over it, my good man. Nonetheless, the RAID Advisory Board, founded in 1992 to give information on the different RAIDs, changed the meaning of RAID, as the costs for secondary storage devices fell, to Redundant Array of Independent Disks. Your disagreement notwithstanding, and like it or not, it's a fact.
>With 4x100GB, you could do RAID 0+1, for example, that is stripping+mirroring (2x100GB x2, you'll have 200GB space available and data security).
OR you could do RAID 5, have striping and rotating parity, have 300GB of available space and be protected against a single drive failure. Of course, always match your RAID configuration to your specific data requirements, as each RAID configuration offers different trade-offs between usable storage space, read/write performance, data security and cost. YMMV.
>>The "I" in RAID stands for "inexpensive".
>Umm, no, it doesn't. It stands for "Independent".
I believe you are BOTH right. As I recall, the "I" in RAID *originally* stood for "inexpensive" back in the days when the rapidly dropping price of 5.25" and 3.5" drives were making them very attractive "inexpensive" replacements for larger, *very* expensive mass storage systems. But time passed and the success of RAID arrays made them the primary method for providing high performance data storage and retrival as well as data redundancy. They became the new standard for comparison, so the term "inexpensive" was no longer relevant and was replaced with the word "independent," a term that better describes them. As I was typing this I found this link that seems to agree with my recollection.
Since PayPal/eBay readily hand over any requested information to the Feds this "right to monitor" is hardly necessary. Here's a direct quote from Joseph E. Sullivan, Director of Compliance and Law Enforcement Relations, Senior Counsel, Trust and Safety for eBay: So there you have it, straight from eBay.
>Taking something away from someone else and threatening not to return it until they give you money. It doesn't matter if they OWE you money anyway, that's extortion.
Unless, of course, you are a collection agency and the thing you are taking away is a car, in which case it is called repossession. Note how the existence of a contract or applicable state law makes all the difference in the world. Also note that the government will also take your property for non-payment of taxes and threaten not to return it until you pay up.
Content is highly overrated.
I prefer spicy foods.
> Character assassination!? Dude, you need to lighten up.
:^)
Hmmm...thread title is "More like murder", then ther terms "negligent homicide" and "involuntary manslaughter" are suggested...and yet you neglect to consider that "character assassination" might be yet another joke. May I suggest that it is YOU who need to lighten up?
>If you are going to kill an iPod just to show how '1337 you are, please do something useful: Reverse engineer the iPod Docking Connector!
Please read the article fully before engaging in character assassination.
>Actually, dissecting something while still alive is called a vivisection .
>But, yeah, you can call that murder.
Actually, murder is intentional. I'm sure the accused didn't intend to end the life of his iPod. Therefore I think this would qualify as negligent homicide or involuntary manslaughter.
See definition #3, then let's agree to end this, huh?
/-k(&-)lE/ adverb
From the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
Main Entry: technical
Pronunciation: 'tek-ni-k&l
Function: adjective
Etymology: Greek technikos of art, skillful, from technE art, craft, skill; akin to Greek tektOn builder, carpenter, Latin texere to weave, Sanskrit taksati he fashions
1 a : having special and usually practical knowledge especially of a mechanical or scientific subject [a technical consultant] b : marked by or characteristic of specialization
2 a : of or relating to a particular subject b : of or relating to a practical subject organized on scientific principles [a technical school] c : TECHNOLOGICAL 1
3 a : based on or marked by a strict or legal interpretation b : LEGAL 6
4 : of or relating to technique
5 : of, relating to, or produced by ordinary commercial processes without being subjected to special purification [technical sulfuric acid] 6 : relating to or caused by the functioning of the market as a discrete mechanism not influenced by macroeconomic factors [technical rally] [technical analysis]
- technically
There was no argument to make. I said your statement was incorrect. You said "Microsoft isn't technically a monopoly though." Well, it IS technically a monopoly. It's a simple fact. The court ruled Microsoft was a monopoly, that judgement has NOT been overturned, and, TECHNICALLY, that makes them a monopoly. That's just how it works. That's hardly nit-picking...it's a statement of fact, your personal disagreement notwithstanding.
;)
As for your conclusion that you don't need a judge's opinion to tell you how you should think...I'll leave that for others to judge.
> Microsoft isn't technically a monopoly though.
Judge U.S. District Court Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson ruled that Microsoft had abused its monopoly power and was guilty of violating the Sherman Antitrust Act. It doesn't matter what *you* think, "technically" or otherwise. Like it or not the judge ruled Microsoft a monopoly.
>A company does something to make it's customers happy, and you want government gangsters to split them up because they put someone else out of business? As a consumer, what entitles TrendMicro to my $$$ when I would rather give it to MS (or not give it - service packs are free.
Yet, when Linus Torvalds offers a free Linux kernel to the world, SCO tells the U.S. Congress (your "Government Gangsters") that Linux is a threat to the security and economy of the U.S. Ironic, huh?
>Because the quicker I see 'M$' or 'WinDOS' in a comment, the quicker I can disregard everything you've wrote, scroll past your post and add you to my 'retarded peon' list, never to take anything you say seriously ever again, even if its something completely unrelated.
Exactly the same way I treat Anonymous Coward posts such as yours.
> Yes, but compare that to the MATRIX bill. The grandparent was quick to point out the real "cause" behind civil liberty infrigement, and I still maintain that his point was ridiculous.
It makes a whole lot more sense if you understand the unspoken assumption that the corporations are the real power and the government is just doing what the corporations want them to do. Remember how eager Oracle Corporation was to help build a national identification database? The point is that corporations just see this as another short term business opportunity, regardless of the civil liberty consequences.
> Please. What interest do corporations have in removing our liberties? That doesn't even make sense.
If one of our liberties is the freedom to give someone software we have written without charging money, and a corporation insists that doing so "deprives" said corporation their "right" to charge you for similar software, and says about your act of charity that "It undermines our basic system of intellectual property rights, and it destroys the economic reason for innovation"...well, I'd say that corporation was trying to remove your liberties in order to eliminate competition and declare de facto ownership of a market. Does THAT make sense?
>Yeah? Tell that to a misbehaving MSIE or Media player that has decided to arbitrarily start thrashing disk and doing something that on a very old 'nix system I would call a fork() bomb... Press the three-finger salute, and it merely ignores you.
Actually, my understanding is that situation is typically caused when a program disables interrupts and subsequently gets stuck in a loop. Most recently I've seen this happen with buggy drivers.
>Because 75 years old used to be the retirement age for copyrights, until the Sonny Bono Copyright Extention Act made it 95 years. The company knows that they're not going to be able to get extentions forever, so they've already started to diversify while they still can...
Well, after seeing the copyright period extended time after time as I have, I have no faith that it won't continue to be extended, indefinitely. The copyright holders have paid politicians enormous sums to keep their intellectual fiefdoms. And recent court rulings indicate that there are no current legal limitations to prevent future extensions. If additional legislation isn't put in place to limit further extensions I would posit that they may well continue ad infinitum.