Despite the hatred against Microsoft, commercial or large-scale cloning of MS-products is not ok.
The right thing to do, is to destroy Microsoft completely, burn Bill and his EEE (extend,...) and marketing team in hell and nuke everything from orbit, just to be sure.;)
Nah, we don't need the fallout. Better solution: put them in orbit and don't bother sending along any oxygen tanks.
the guiding principle was that you only trade with those who you can trust (to a degree).
Sure, like Mexico and China, neither of which are worthy of anyone's trust in this regard, since they perceive the United States as a free candy store to be exploited to the maximum degree possible.
Furthermore, I wouldn't give Clinton that much credit. Clinton was no angel, believe me (much of the regulatory change that allowed the current financial crisis can be laid at his feet, not George Bush's.) Neither is George Bush, and sixteen years of these two Presidents has been a disaster.
Keep in mind though, that the root of all this evil is Congress. Without cooperation from our lawmakers, without appropriations to fund activities, without Congress to make regulatory changes, no President can do squat. A President can declare war if he wants, but if Congress doesn't fund it... it's just hot air.
Yep. Major rhyolitic, non-huge-caldera-forming eruptions have a far more statistically significant record than anything you could call "supervolcanic", and are only once every ten thousand years or so on average. Far more common. And most earthquake swarms at Yellowstone have nothing to with upcoming volcanic eruptions.
Sorry to ruin everyone's doomsday fun.;)
Still, it would be a good plot for a Roland Emmerich movie. IMax 3D, for sure, so you can watch the pyroclastic flow hit you in the face.
Thank goodness I'm not the only one who thinks the 'Troll' moderation was disgraceful and uncalled for.
Oh... I wouldn't say that. But he's entitled to his opinion, and everyone else is entitled to theirs. Many of those have mod points, and the end result was as I predicted.
Its pathetic that the slashdot hive mind considers anyone not 100% behind piracy and torrenting content to be a 'MAFIAAAAAA SHILL!!!111'
Its a sign of a pathetic and weak argument that you cannot consider that other people (for example those who fucking make content) may hold a differing opinion.
When you refer to "those who fucking make content", do you mean the artists, writers, musicians, singers, composers, actors, special-effects people, sales and marketing people, engineers of various sorts, camera men, editors, publishers, and all the other myriad talents that come together to produce the creative works that we enjoy... or are you referring to the amoral pricks who have unethically, if not outright illegally, assumed copyright to those works? Have you actually asked any of the people who create content what their opinions on the subject of peer-to-peer, copyright infringement and similar issues? No? I thought not. Might want to read Janis Ian's take on the matter. The article is from 2002, but it's still very relevant today... she's not only a creative mind, but she's been in the business for a long, long time. Her opinion of the music industry and the sociopaths who run it largely mirrors that of the Slashdot hive mind. Imagine that.
You, sir, are the one spouting a party line, and it's a damn familiar one. It's a sign of a worthless argument when you assume that anyone who isn't "100% behind" something must, therefore, be 100 percent against it. Life is more complex than that... and I don't really believe that macraig is an RIAA shill (I was merely explaining how I thought his opinions would be taken here, and I was right.) You, on the other hand, are exhibiting distinct signs of trolldom, if not outright shillness.
I once came across something similar where a small restaurant couldn't even sell brewed coffee because of a Starbucks in the shopping center! Likewise, Starbucks had a contract with the landlord...
Well, Starbucks may be a "Fair Trade" company and all that, but some of their business practices need a closer look, I think.
Re:cringe-inducing bug in konqueror
on
Browser Privacy Test
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Posting this anonymously, for reasons that will soon be evident.
You do realize that you didn't have to use your real sexual preferences as an example, don't you?
The negative impact that lawyers have upon our economy
The resistance of a not-insignificant part of our population to the idea of "government handouts" that go to anything that is not a corporate entity or to anybody who is not already wealthy
I conclude that it is time to place a bounty on lawyers and issue hunting licenses to the poor.
That would serve no purpose. Many people make that mistake. Look, from the corporate perspective, lawyers are tools, no more and no less. And if you were to kill off every such tool tomorrow, they would either a. make more or b. find some other kind of tool, probably one we'd like even less.
This is kind of like the media companies and the RIAA. The RIAA (a bunch of lawyers, particularly nasty ones at that) take the blame for some thirty thousand lawsuits. A lot of people believe that the RIAA instituted this lawsuit mill all on its own... but nothing could be further from the truth. In reality, they're just doing what they're paid to do, under instructions from their corporate masters. It's no different here: the attorneys are just doing what is, to them, a job. Yes, it would be nice if these lawyers had an ethical bone in their bodies and just told their bosses, "no, that would be wrong." That's not going to happen, so you should focus on the individuals who are actually responsible for asinine, submarine patents and who institute these stupid lawsuits.
The people who need to be lined up and shot are the CEOs of such two-bit companies, the ones who don't understand that the way to success is a constant drive to produce new products and improve the ones you have, to continually invest in the future. They are the ones who have chosen to use the law as a weapon, not to provide redress of grievance, but to suppress legitimate competition.
I see no reason to be excessively choked up over the legal or even traditional definitions of right and wrong. They are not serving us particularly well today.
The patent system goes to the heart of how our economy progresses, and whether (or not!) it continues to serve our interests. People that abuse it do cause real, lasting damage to our society. Yes, Congress, that includes you.
An eye for an eye, a house for a house... Hammurabi was a prophet.
It does not have to be Congress to be "central". As long as it is a monopoly, it qualifies as "central planning".
Not in this context. The term "central planning" refers to totalitarian states that centrally control all economic development. That is simply not the case here.
Good?!? You, actually, consider AT&T's monopoly â" which, you know, had to be forcibly broken up decades later â" an example of "good regulation"? Wow...
Yes. You're sadly misinformed, I'm afraid. The Federal Government, at the time, knew that a government-implemented solution would be inefficient and ineffective. So a compromise was reached: AT&T would provide the buildout, with the understanding that it would operate under specific conditions (including universal coverage) with QOS standards and stiff penalties for violating them. By and large, AT&T did exactly what it was chartered to do: America had the most reliable phone system in the world for nearly a century. The government likewise did what we pay it to do: enforce the regulations.
So yes, that was an example of good regulation. It allowed the government and the private sector to each work from their strengths. It worked, and worked well, for a long time. We all had phones, even those in remote locations, and they were reliable. That's a hell of a lot more than most countries could claim back then.
Yes, times change... and if you're trying to tell me that we're better off now with a largely unregulated phone system operated by the likes of SBC (who took over AT&T) and Comcast, then I think you're goofy. Look at what's happened in recent years. The original government-granted and controlled monopoly has been thoroughly re-established through repeated acquisitions of the original Baby Bells. The worst of those companies, SBC, is firmly in the driver's seat, only now without most of the government oversight that used to exist. Judge Greene erred in his understanding of technology, and the relevance of the old-line telcos in the packet-switched world we have today. Personally, I think a more measured response would have been appropriate: for example, rather than breaking up AT&T, just eliminate their stranglehold on subscriber equipment. That alone would have made a huge difference in terms of the technologies available to consumers: Judge Greene's big complaint about AT&T was that it stifled innovation. His solution was excessive and brutal, and ultimately made matters worse for everyone.
Furthermore, multiple competing networks to the old telcos have been built now, which means that the ironclad monopoly that AT&T used to enjoy disappeared anyway. That's not even counting technologies such as VoIP.
The judge should have been more patient. There was no need to break up AT&T, not back then.
"Fields and applications that could benefit from their work are numerous, including computational models to solve problems in nuclear medicine, computer graphic design, and finance."
This explains a great deal.
No kidding. Makes you wonder if they're used in Diebold voting machines.
Slashdot Mirror
Despite the hatred against Microsoft, commercial or large-scale cloning of MS-products is not ok.
The right thing to do, is to destroy Microsoft completely, burn Bill and his EEE (extend, ...) and marketing team in hell and nuke everything from orbit, just to be sure. ;)
Nah, we don't need the fallout. Better solution: put them in orbit and don't bother sending along any oxygen tanks.
the guiding principle was that you only trade with those who you can trust (to a degree).
Sure, like Mexico and China, neither of which are worthy of anyone's trust in this regard, since they perceive the United States as a free candy store to be exploited to the maximum degree possible.
... it's just hot air.
Furthermore, I wouldn't give Clinton that much credit. Clinton was no angel, believe me (much of the regulatory change that allowed the current financial crisis can be laid at his feet, not George Bush's.) Neither is George Bush, and sixteen years of these two Presidents has been a disaster.
Keep in mind though, that the root of all this evil is Congress. Without cooperation from our lawmakers, without appropriations to fund activities, without Congress to make regulatory changes, no President can do squat. A President can declare war if he wants, but if Congress doesn't fund it
Hey, what's with the troll mod? This ought to be Informative.
The deaf won't.
No ... but they'll feel it, like a giant volcanic woofer.
Yep. Major rhyolitic, non-huge-caldera-forming eruptions have a far more statistically significant record than anything you could call "supervolcanic", and are only once every ten thousand years or so on average. Far more common. And most earthquake swarms at Yellowstone have nothing to with upcoming volcanic eruptions.
Sorry to ruin everyone's doomsday fun. ;)
Still, it would be a good plot for a Roland Emmerich movie. IMax 3D, for sure, so you can watch the pyroclastic flow hit you in the face.
Thank goodness I'm not the only one who thinks the 'Troll' moderation was disgraceful and uncalled for.
Oh ... I wouldn't say that. But he's entitled to his opinion, and everyone else is entitled to theirs. Many of those have mod points, and the end result was as I predicted.
Uh, who modded this guy Troll? Mods? Are you listening?
Its pathetic that the slashdot hive mind considers anyone not 100% behind piracy and torrenting content to be a 'MAFIAAAAAA SHILL!!!111'
Its a sign of a pathetic and weak argument that you cannot consider that other people (for example those who fucking make content) may hold a differing opinion.
When you refer to "those who fucking make content", do you mean the artists, writers, musicians, singers, composers, actors, special-effects people, sales and marketing people, engineers of various sorts, camera men, editors, publishers, and all the other myriad talents that come together to produce the creative works that we enjoy ... or are you referring to the amoral pricks who have unethically, if not outright illegally, assumed copyright to those works? Have you actually asked any of the people who create content what their opinions on the subject of peer-to-peer, copyright infringement and similar issues? No? I thought not. Might want to read Janis Ian's take on the matter. The article is from 2002, but it's still very relevant today ... she's not only a creative mind, but she's been in the business for a long, long time. Her opinion of the music industry and the sociopaths who run it largely mirrors that of the Slashdot hive mind. Imagine that.
... and I don't really believe that macraig is an RIAA shill (I was merely explaining how I thought his opinions would be taken here, and I was right.) You, on the other hand, are exhibiting distinct signs of trolldom, if not outright shillness.
You, sir, are the one spouting a party line, and it's a damn familiar one. It's a sign of a worthless argument when you assume that anyone who isn't "100% behind" something must, therefore, be 100 percent against it. Life is more complex than that
I once came across something similar where a small restaurant couldn't even sell brewed coffee because of a Starbucks in the shopping center! Likewise, Starbucks had a contract with the landlord...
Well, Starbucks may be a "Fair Trade" company and all that, but some of their business practices need a closer look, I think.
Posting this anonymously, for reasons that will soon be evident.
You do realize that you didn't have to use your real sexual preferences as an example, don't you?
What the average Slashdotter wants to know is: Is she hot ?
Here's some more Kates. Take your pick.
What the average Slashdotter wants to know is: Is she hot ?
You be the judge.
and a Google search returns [google.ca] results that are sketchy or even anemic when it comes to browser security at best.
Well, I guess she takes her privacy seriously.
What do you think this is, a peer-reviewed scientific journal?
You mean it isn't? Cmdr Taco lied to me?
Yes he did. Next time, get the straight scoop from CowboyNeal.
Hell, just counting the usb sticks in my pocket, I've got at least 30 million.
Add in my phone and we're over 40 million.
Well, hell, what are you waiting for? Sell them on EBay and take early retirement.
Given:
I conclude that it is time to place a bounty on lawyers and issue hunting licenses to the poor.
That would serve no purpose. Many people make that mistake. Look, from the corporate perspective, lawyers are tools, no more and no less. And if you were to kill off every such tool tomorrow, they would either a. make more or b. find some other kind of tool, probably one we'd like even less.
... but nothing could be further from the truth. In reality, they're just doing what they're paid to do, under instructions from their corporate masters. It's no different here: the attorneys are just doing what is, to them, a job. Yes, it would be nice if these lawyers had an ethical bone in their bodies and just told their bosses, "no, that would be wrong." That's not going to happen, so you should focus on the individuals who are actually responsible for asinine, submarine patents and who institute these stupid lawsuits.
This is kind of like the media companies and the RIAA. The RIAA (a bunch of lawyers, particularly nasty ones at that) take the blame for some thirty thousand lawsuits. A lot of people believe that the RIAA instituted this lawsuit mill all on its own
The people who need to be lined up and shot are the CEOs of such two-bit companies, the ones who don't understand that the way to success is a constant drive to produce new products and improve the ones you have, to continually invest in the future. They are the ones who have chosen to use the law as a weapon, not to provide redress of grievance, but to suppress legitimate competition.
I see no reason to be excessively choked up over the legal or even traditional definitions of right and wrong. They are not serving us particularly well today.
The patent system goes to the heart of how our economy progresses, and whether (or not!) it continues to serve our interests. People that abuse it do cause real, lasting damage to our society. Yes, Congress, that includes you.
... Hammurabi was a prophet.
An eye for an eye, a house for a house
If only they had tried to go after Blizzard... Worlds.com would have had their patent invalidated in a very epic way, if you will. :P
Yeah, and it would be about the only time I'd be rooting for Blizzard's lawyers.
Sorry that this is off topic, but Google won't give me the answer and this meme is irritating me. Who the hell is Shampoo?
Ah ... it's just a lot of phony crap.
Incandescent bulbs will last 7 times longer if you run them dimmed to 90% brightness
You will take a hit on efficiency though, as you've shifted the color temperature towards the infrared.
I can't wait until they put LED's into projectors.
DLP televisions already are.
It does not have to be Congress to be "central". As long as it is a monopoly, it qualifies as "central planning".
Not in this context. The term "central planning" refers to totalitarian states that centrally control all economic development. That is simply not the case here.
Good?!? You, actually, consider AT&T's monopoly â" which, you know, had to be forcibly broken up decades later â" an example of "good regulation"? Wow...
Yes. You're sadly misinformed, I'm afraid. The Federal Government, at the time, knew that a government-implemented solution would be inefficient and ineffective. So a compromise was reached: AT&T would provide the buildout, with the understanding that it would operate under specific conditions (including universal coverage) with QOS standards and stiff penalties for violating them. By and large, AT&T did exactly what it was chartered to do: America had the most reliable phone system in the world for nearly a century. The government likewise did what we pay it to do: enforce the regulations.
... and if you're trying to tell me that we're better off now with a largely unregulated phone system operated by the likes of SBC (who took over AT&T) and Comcast, then I think you're goofy. Look at what's happened in recent years. The original government-granted and controlled monopoly has been thoroughly re-established through repeated acquisitions of the original Baby Bells. The worst of those companies, SBC, is firmly in the driver's seat, only now without most of the government oversight that used to exist. Judge Greene erred in his understanding of technology, and the relevance of the old-line telcos in the packet-switched world we have today. Personally, I think a more measured response would have been appropriate: for example, rather than breaking up AT&T, just eliminate their stranglehold on subscriber equipment. That alone would have made a huge difference in terms of the technologies available to consumers: Judge Greene's big complaint about AT&T was that it stifled innovation. His solution was excessive and brutal, and ultimately made matters worse for everyone.
... there is now.
So yes, that was an example of good regulation. It allowed the government and the private sector to each work from their strengths. It worked, and worked well, for a long time. We all had phones, even those in remote locations, and they were reliable. That's a hell of a lot more than most countries could claim back then.
Yes, times change
Furthermore, multiple competing networks to the old telcos have been built now, which means that the ironclad monopoly that AT&T used to enjoy disappeared anyway. That's not even counting technologies such as VoIP.
The judge should have been more patient. There was no need to break up AT&T, not back then.
On the other hand
dam i'm only at 136mil.
Well, fire up that P2P and get crackin'!
The computer that you're using might be worth a million dollars, maybe 20 millions dollars if you download a lot of music
At $9,250 per song, I have the feeling there are people out there whose computers would be worth far more than 20 mil.
"Fields and applications that could benefit from their work are numerous, including computational models to solve problems in nuclear medicine, computer graphic design, and finance."
This explains a great deal.
No kidding. Makes you wonder if they're used in Diebold voting machines.