"trivial" to hold onto a bag in zero gravity while wearing a cumbersome environment suit, the fingers of which were covered on grease due to the gun leaking on everything inside the bag....
If you think you can do better, I hear NASA are hiring.
That's what gets me about the whole thing - hate rags like The Daily Mail go on and on about "law abiding citizens" like "doctors, lawyers and judges" are being "vicitimised" by the police with speeding fines from cameras instead of catching "real criminals" (no joke, they actually went with that as a story), yet the speed cameras have warning signs before them, very well posted speed signs, and to top it all off, they are Bright Fucking Fluorescent Yellow and the law states that they can not be put up where they are impossible to see (ie, they can't be behind a sign, or behind a tree).
The conclusion to draw, as you did, is that if you can't see a speed camera in the UK, or complain that you got caught by one, is that you must not be paying attention to the road, so what the hell are you doing driving a car?
I'm not one of those people that monitors my speed every 5 seconds, but I generally stick to the limits (more more carefully in urban areas, slightly more relaxed on country roads - ie, I think I'm much like most motorists) and I've never been caught by a speed camera or a mobile speed van, even in areas I've never driven before.
All this moaning that they're "nothing but tax collecting boxes" is just people complaining that they were too stupid to see the box and slow down. Or they could just drive at or very close to the posted speed limit and not get a ticket.
People have no grounding to complain about cameras taxing "the hard done to British motorist" because, by definition, they only fine you if you break the law in the first place!
So just because someone cuts up 4 cars in a 3-lane change doing less the the speed limit somehow means that it's ok for you to drive faster than the speed limit because you don;t do that?
It's not eye for an eye out there - if a cop sees someone pull that sort of thing they will pull them over for dangerous driving, even if they were *gasp* under the speed limit.
It's not an unintelligent tirade from the person that replied to you - it was quite eloquent, if a little angry.
I totally agree with him - you were exceeding the speed limit by some distance (ie, totally ignoring it - it;s not like you were a few mph over that you can put down to trying to obey the limit but just being a little on the fast side), and the only justification you give is that it was the middle of the night so "no one was on the road".
How can you possibly stand by that statement as a justification for driving over the limit, getting caught, and then claiming it was unfair that you got the book thrown at you? Can you say with 100% certainty that you won't hit anyone out at that time? perhaps taking a walk, or driving, or parked by the side of the road on their phone, or maybe someone coming the other way doing the same as you.
If you were doing the speed limit, you have a lot more time to react to changes in the road, be it an animal in the road, a person walking or a slower car. Regardless of whether you think you're "safe" at X speed, you cannot deny that you can stop the car more quickly and react more quickly at (X minus 15mph), which just so happens to be the speed limit.
The Tom Tom One here in the UK already does this. It's not a new idea by any stretch of the imagination, but it's the first time it's been done on a phone I guess.
While the primary function of the Tom Tom is as a navigation system, it has optional extras that you can sign up for, like real-time traffic alerts that it picks up (via info texted to your phone) that allows it to automatically pick a route around blocked roads etc, and it also has a list of known speed traps that it can warn you about, including up-to-date lists that you can download over the net and upload to it via USB.
a) You're not technically in breach of the DMCA, no matter how much or little you care about it*, nor
b) That we should ignore the less technical who are still buying songs from the iTunes store with no knowledge that if they switch away from Apple, their legally purchased music library is utterly useless.
Well, for part a, that would be Apple in breach of the DMCA, unless it's somehow a crime to circumvent the DRM Apple places on their tracks using a piece of software that Apple provides and advertises about, telling you with a step by step guide, how to make music CDs with no DRM from the music you just bought.
As far as part b goes. Apple *encourages* you, with a big warning notice that it puts up, to back up your purchases from the iTunes music store either by burning the songs to CD, or by other means such as Time Machine or your own backup method of choice.
Apple make it as easy as possible to make a CD in iTunes. If you are computer literate enough to be able to purchase the songs in the first place, then you are computer literate enough to make CD backups of that same music and use it with non-Apple products, or even just to make CD backups free from DRM (assuming that the tracks they bought weren't already DRM free tunes from the iTunes store.
Jury stacking is the biggest joke of the whole charade of a fair trial - anyone with even a passing ability to write their own name with a pen or is capable of putting a circular object through a round hole and a square object through the square hole will be rejected as a juror.
The lawyers want a bunch of people that they can spin with their silver tongues to come out with the result they want. There's no critical thinking involved.
This is done with hardware for manufacturing costs and so on, as you state - only one set of tooling needed to make the chips, or the widget or whatever it is your company makes.
Then you can stream it at QA, which I know Intel has done in the past, and put lower quality batches as slower chips, selling them as such. The QA assures that they will work properly at say 1GHz, when it's literally an identical chip to the 1.5GHz in the more expensive box - it just failed QA at that speed.
Not that Intel are innocent of dodgy practices - I'm sure there's some skeletons in that cupboard, it's just a little different to intentionally cripple your software to try and milk the maximum cash out of the public, all the while advertising that the shitty thing they're buying is really the super sexy Aero-enabled, fully-network-working Vista Ultra Ultimate Pro with a free patch of Ballmer's ear hair in each box.
Whoa there boy, and here we expose the guy with an axe to grind.
I think you meant to say "licensing the UI from Xerox PARC". There was no theft. The two companies entered into a mutually beneficial business arrangement.
You make it sound like when Microsoft renamed the Trash the "Recycle Bin" and put it in the opposite corner of the screen and called it "innovation'.
Where does Apple force you to use their DRM and iTunes store?
The iPod is compatible with Apple's own implementation of mp4 audio (AAC), the DRM'ed version of that (AAC protected) and several other codecs that you can choose to use - wav, aif, mp3 etc. The only format it doesn't support is WMV, but Apple doesn't sell WMV files, so that's ok.
Assuming you choose to use the iTunes music store for your purchases (note: just because you use an iPod doesn't mean you have to use the store), you can either buy some tracks with no DRM (not all are available this way, but many are) or you can buy them with DRM and then use iTunes itself to burn them to CD, which you can then rerip into your format of choice - even ogg vorbis if you feel like it (not that the iPod will play that out of the box, but you get my point).
iTunes can trivially defeat the minimal DRM on the tracks you can purchase if you like from the iTunes store. No special tricks, no third party software. You burn to CD, you re-rip. Ok, so you lose some quality by re-encoding if you want to do this, but the point is, you can do this if you really want. You can even rip the CD you just made on a windows box, into WMV format and put those tracks you bought on the iTunes music store, from apple, onto your Zune.
Or am I not talking to either of the two people who bought a Zune?
The iPod doesn't play WMV protected files - but I hardly think that's Apple's fault (you really think MS would allow them to use the format?). It will play other files from competing music stores that don't use WMV though.
Or, y'know, just go to a store and buy a CD - it works with them.
You can't have it both ways. Either both Apple and Microsoft charge for what you call "minor" upgrades or they don't.
MS charged for all the "upgrades " between Win 95, Win 98, Win ME (!), Win 2000, WinXP, Vista in the same way that Apple charged for all the "upgrades" between 10.1, 10.2, 10.3, 10.4, 10.5.
The differences between all those different versions of Windows (that you had to pay for) is not that much different than all those different versions of OS X (which you had to pay for).
The only real difference I can see is that each retail copy of OS X is equivalent to the "super duper balls to wall Ultimate Professional Corporate Non-Crippled" versions of Windows, and yet only cost $129 each time.
So, assuming you paid full retail for your new copy of OS X each time, that's 4 releases (assuming you already had 10.1), which is $516 total over the several years of the product.
How much for 4 retail (full quality, not the crippled XP home versions that came in with XP) copies if W98, Win 2000, Win XP and Vista (I'm leaving out Win ME because I'm feeling generous - no one bought that anyway).
Except that Apple *never* uses "MAC" to refer to their machines or software in its literature anywhere. It is always "Mac" or "Apple Mac" or "Apple Macintosh" or sometimes just "Macintosh" but never "MAC".
The only exception would be if it appeared in an all-caps paragraph or something, which the original post clearly is not.
Perhaps I should have qualified my statement with the bulk of your argument, since that is why I hang around here too. There is a lot of decent material to be found in the comments, among the fanboys and trolls on all sides. I wouldn't use "Slashdot is one of the most polarising environments on the internet." as my sole descriptor for the site, but I would include it in the mix somewhere.
No that works just fine, since your reasoning is well explained. The usual conclusion of "I don't want to pay for that" is "I should get it for free because I do not deem it to be worth paying for", which is obviously not the case for you.
(And in the case of Spaces, it's not worth paying for, for me, since I don't use it. I got 10.5 for other reasons).
It counters the huge Anti-Apple crowd that mods any post that says "I can buy an identical machine to a Macbook Pro with OS X with all the same features and benefits for $399 from newegg!!!!!" that gets a +5 insightful five seconds after going live.
Slashdot is one of the most polarising environments on the internet. The truth is usually somewhere between the hyperbole on both ends.
Slashdot Mirror
"trivial" to hold onto a bag in zero gravity while wearing a cumbersome environment suit, the fingers of which were covered on grease due to the gun leaking on everything inside the bag....
If you think you can do better, I hear NASA are hiring.
Sarah Palin is as dumb as a box of rocks. Her gender has nothing to do with that.
There are men just as dumb as she is.
In Soviet Russia, joke doesn't get you.
Considering the cost of the ISS and the delays in building it, I'm assuming it's made entirely of unicorn bones.
Thus, not magnetic.
Hey, we're all trolls sometimes.
I'm pretty sure it was the Xerox thing were I came back at you with some sarcastic quip about the Recycle Bin.
That's what gets me about the whole thing - hate rags like The Daily Mail go on and on about "law abiding citizens" like "doctors, lawyers and judges" are being "vicitimised" by the police with speeding fines from cameras instead of catching "real criminals" (no joke, they actually went with that as a story), yet the speed cameras have warning signs before them, very well posted speed signs, and to top it all off, they are Bright Fucking Fluorescent Yellow and the law states that they can not be put up where they are impossible to see (ie, they can't be behind a sign, or behind a tree).
The conclusion to draw, as you did, is that if you can't see a speed camera in the UK, or complain that you got caught by one, is that you must not be paying attention to the road, so what the hell are you doing driving a car?
I'm not one of those people that monitors my speed every 5 seconds, but I generally stick to the limits (more more carefully in urban areas, slightly more relaxed on country roads - ie, I think I'm much like most motorists) and I've never been caught by a speed camera or a mobile speed van, even in areas I've never driven before.
All this moaning that they're "nothing but tax collecting boxes" is just people complaining that they were too stupid to see the box and slow down. Or they could just drive at or very close to the posted speed limit and not get a ticket.
People have no grounding to complain about cameras taxing "the hard done to British motorist" because, by definition, they only fine you if you break the law in the first place!
So just because someone cuts up 4 cars in a 3-lane change doing less the the speed limit somehow means that it's ok for you to drive faster than the speed limit because you don;t do that?
It's not eye for an eye out there - if a cop sees someone pull that sort of thing they will pull them over for dangerous driving, even if they were *gasp* under the speed limit.
It's not an unintelligent tirade from the person that replied to you - it was quite eloquent, if a little angry.
I totally agree with him - you were exceeding the speed limit by some distance (ie, totally ignoring it - it;s not like you were a few mph over that you can put down to trying to obey the limit but just being a little on the fast side), and the only justification you give is that it was the middle of the night so "no one was on the road".
How can you possibly stand by that statement as a justification for driving over the limit, getting caught, and then claiming it was unfair that you got the book thrown at you? Can you say with 100% certainty that you won't hit anyone out at that time? perhaps taking a walk, or driving, or parked by the side of the road on their phone, or maybe someone coming the other way doing the same as you.
If you were doing the speed limit, you have a lot more time to react to changes in the road, be it an animal in the road, a person walking or a slower car. Regardless of whether you think you're "safe" at X speed, you cannot deny that you can stop the car more quickly and react more quickly at (X minus 15mph), which just so happens to be the speed limit.
I just recognised this guy as the troll who didn't understand my simple sentence structure in yesterday's Mac/MS thread.
Try and keep it to single syllable words and shy away from any potential source of sarcasm as he'll interpret it as a written confession.
The Tom Tom One here in the UK already does this. It's not a new idea by any stretch of the imagination, but it's the first time it's been done on a phone I guess.
While the primary function of the Tom Tom is as a navigation system, it has optional extras that you can sign up for, like real-time traffic alerts that it picks up (via info texted to your phone) that allows it to automatically pick a route around blocked roads etc, and it also has a list of known speed traps that it can warn you about, including up-to-date lists that you can download over the net and upload to it via USB.
a) You're not technically in breach of the DMCA, no matter how much or little you care about it*, nor
b) That we should ignore the less technical who are still buying songs from the iTunes store with no knowledge that if they switch away from Apple, their legally purchased music library is utterly useless.
Well, for part a, that would be Apple in breach of the DMCA, unless it's somehow a crime to circumvent the DRM Apple places on their tracks using a piece of software that Apple provides and advertises about, telling you with a step by step guide, how to make music CDs with no DRM from the music you just bought.
As far as part b goes. Apple *encourages* you, with a big warning notice that it puts up, to back up your purchases from the iTunes music store either by burning the songs to CD, or by other means such as Time Machine or your own backup method of choice.
Apple make it as easy as possible to make a CD in iTunes. If you are computer literate enough to be able to purchase the songs in the first place, then you are computer literate enough to make CD backups of that same music and use it with non-Apple products, or even just to make CD backups free from DRM (assuming that the tracks they bought weren't already DRM free tunes from the iTunes store.
Jury stacking is the biggest joke of the whole charade of a fair trial - anyone with even a passing ability to write their own name with a pen or is capable of putting a circular object through a round hole and a square object through the square hole will be rejected as a juror.
The lawyers want a bunch of people that they can spin with their silver tongues to come out with the result they want. There's no critical thinking involved.
This is done with hardware for manufacturing costs and so on, as you state - only one set of tooling needed to make the chips, or the widget or whatever it is your company makes.
Then you can stream it at QA, which I know Intel has done in the past, and put lower quality batches as slower chips, selling them as such. The QA assures that they will work properly at say 1GHz, when it's literally an identical chip to the 1.5GHz in the more expensive box - it just failed QA at that speed.
Not that Intel are innocent of dodgy practices - I'm sure there's some skeletons in that cupboard, it's just a little different to intentionally cripple your software to try and milk the maximum cash out of the public, all the while advertising that the shitty thing they're buying is really the super sexy Aero-enabled, fully-network-working Vista Ultra Ultimate Pro with a free patch of Ballmer's ear hair in each box.
Stealing UIs from Xerox
Whoa there boy, and here we expose the guy with an axe to grind.
I think you meant to say "licensing the UI from Xerox PARC". There was no theft. The two companies entered into a mutually beneficial business arrangement.
You make it sound like when Microsoft renamed the Trash the "Recycle Bin" and put it in the opposite corner of the screen and called it "innovation'.
Where does Apple force you to use their DRM and iTunes store?
The iPod is compatible with Apple's own implementation of mp4 audio (AAC), the DRM'ed version of that (AAC protected) and several other codecs that you can choose to use - wav, aif, mp3 etc. The only format it doesn't support is WMV, but Apple doesn't sell WMV files, so that's ok.
Assuming you choose to use the iTunes music store for your purchases (note: just because you use an iPod doesn't mean you have to use the store), you can either buy some tracks with no DRM (not all are available this way, but many are) or you can buy them with DRM and then use iTunes itself to burn them to CD, which you can then rerip into your format of choice - even ogg vorbis if you feel like it (not that the iPod will play that out of the box, but you get my point).
iTunes can trivially defeat the minimal DRM on the tracks you can purchase if you like from the iTunes store. No special tricks, no third party software. You burn to CD, you re-rip. Ok, so you lose some quality by re-encoding if you want to do this, but the point is, you can do this if you really want. You can even rip the CD you just made on a windows box, into WMV format and put those tracks you bought on the iTunes music store, from apple, onto your Zune.
Or am I not talking to either of the two people who bought a Zune?
The iPod doesn't play WMV protected files - but I hardly think that's Apple's fault (you really think MS would allow them to use the format?). It will play other files from competing music stores that don't use WMV though.
Or, y'know, just go to a store and buy a CD - it works with them.
You can't have it both ways. Either both Apple and Microsoft charge for what you call "minor" upgrades or they don't.
MS charged for all the "upgrades " between Win 95, Win 98, Win ME (!), Win 2000, WinXP, Vista in the same way that Apple charged for all the "upgrades" between 10.1, 10.2, 10.3, 10.4, 10.5.
The differences between all those different versions of Windows (that you had to pay for) is not that much different than all those different versions of OS X (which you had to pay for).
The only real difference I can see is that each retail copy of OS X is equivalent to the "super duper balls to wall Ultimate Professional Corporate Non-Crippled" versions of Windows, and yet only cost $129 each time.
So, assuming you paid full retail for your new copy of OS X each time, that's 4 releases (assuming you already had 10.1), which is $516 total over the several years of the product.
How much for 4 retail (full quality, not the crippled XP home versions that came in with XP) copies if W98, Win 2000, Win XP and Vista (I'm leaving out Win ME because I'm feeling generous - no one bought that anyway).
Yes, that's what I said. It was the entire point of my post in fact, that there are sycophants and zealots on both sides of the Microsoft/Apple coin.
Thank you for pointing out the point of my post to me, that I already knew. Or something. Are you from the department of redundancy department?
I ADDRESSED THAT RESPONSE IN MY REPLY TO THIS THREAD ALREADY.
Wow, caps lock really is cruise control for cool. heh.
Lameness filter won;t take so many caps.
Jackdaws love my big sphinx of quartz, but only if it isn't in caps it seems.
Hey, I was making a joke in reply to a troll. I think you need to direct your hostility elsewhere!
Although, given that you're posting anonymously, I don't think there's much credence to your argument.
I think the regular, normal people have names.
Except that Apple *never* uses "MAC" to refer to their machines or software in its literature anywhere. It is always "Mac" or "Apple Mac" or "Apple Macintosh" or sometimes just "Macintosh" but never "MAC".
The only exception would be if it appeared in an all-caps paragraph or something, which the original post clearly is not.
Perhaps I should have qualified my statement with the bulk of your argument, since that is why I hang around here too. There is a lot of decent material to be found in the comments, among the fanboys and trolls on all sides. I wouldn't use "Slashdot is one of the most polarising environments on the internet." as my sole descriptor for the site, but I would include it in the mix somewhere.
No that works just fine, since your reasoning is well explained. The usual conclusion of "I don't want to pay for that" is "I should get it for free because I do not deem it to be worth paying for", which is obviously not the case for you.
(And in the case of Spaces, it's not worth paying for, for me, since I don't use it. I got 10.5 for other reasons).
The printer bundle and the localisations if you include them are huge.
First things to go in an install on any boxes I mange.
It counters the huge Anti-Apple crowd that mods any post that says "I can buy an identical machine to a Macbook Pro with OS X with all the same features and benefits for $399 from newegg!!!!!" that gets a +5 insightful five seconds after going live.
Slashdot is one of the most polarising environments on the internet. The truth is usually somewhere between the hyperbole on both ends.
It's a cliché for sure but something of a speciality of the language, for sure.