A free registration, which requires me to submit my not free e-mail address so they can sell a list including it so I can get annoying spam.
I'd much rather pay $1.99 for registration, thank you. At least that way, the charge on my credit card is for NY Times, and not for bandwidth charges and electricity spent processing spam.
After initial glitches and minor problems, it's much better and problem-free than any Windows installation.
So, after some problems, it's problem-free? What kind of sense does that make? If it has problems, it's not problem-free, regardless of when the problems occurred.
The grandparent wasn't the solution to a problem, it was an alternate situation. The question "Does MS have the right to tell me whether or not I can sell my license to Windows with the computer it's installed on?" is not answered by "Get linux!"
Maybe you saw some other post that read "How can I avoid Microsoft entirely?" to which your answer was correct.
Untrue. I direct you to the 9th Amendment to the US Constitution, Amendment IX, which reads, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Just because they don't say you have the right to it doesn't mean you don't have the right to it. The US government has legislated a great many things, among them the specifics of copyright law, and you do have the right to make copies of any copyrighted work which you have purchased, so long as those copies are for personal or fair use.
I think you are arguing a semantic distinction where none exists. If I am allowed to do something by law, I have the right to do it. The fact that there are conditions on that act does not mean I do not have a right to do so. I have the right to have a million dollars. That doesn't mean the government has to give me $1e6, but I do still have the right to have it.
Not to mention that every time media companies try this sort of thing they forget that people like watching the full movie and not a pan&scan travesty - DVD has opened that door and they keep trying to shut it again, why is beyond me.
They don't forget that consumers want to watch the whole movie. They're counting on it. The original widescreen format (16x9, 1.7:1) was invented to give people who owned TVs a reason to go to the theatre. "Look," said Hollywood, "your TV isn't big enough to show the movie as it was originally filmed, you have to go see it in the theatre!"
TV making companies realized that this was a product waiting to be made, so they made widescreen TVs, again, in the 16x9 format, and Hollywood realized that they were once again in danger of "losing an audience" because people could watch movies in the original format at home. So they widened it again (Now most movies are 2.35:1) and said "You can't even get the full picture on widescreen TVs! Come back to the movie theatre!"
It's not that they are forgetting that consumers want the movie in its original aspect ratio, they created that desire specifically to ensure that home movies would never supplant movie theatres.
Region-encoding on DVDs is completely unjustifiable, save from a monetary standpoint.
Say Australians will pay the equivalent of $25 USD, but Japanese will only pay the equivalent of $15 USD. Region encoding allows them to market to both areas at the price people will pay there without allowing Australians to pay less. It's called price discrimination. If you take economics and study the supply/demand graph for estimated purchases vs. price, you'll see what I mean. Basically it's a method for a company to charge a higher amount for people who are willing to pay more, while not losing those customers who are unwilling to pay the higher price. It's not illegal to do price discrimination, (witness how cell phone companies charge more for minutes during the business day...people who need those minutes during the day will pay more, because, well, they need them.)
However, the method the MPAA has chosen to use does infringe on Fair Use rights.
Well, the US Gov't had no problem applying US laws to Skylarov and the company he worked with, with their only jurisdictional excuse being that the software in question was available in the US, via the internet.
See above reply. Your kid has debian at home where he can use it and learn it every day. These are not laptops to be given to the children, they are school computers. Somehow, I doubt the schools in question are going to give these to kids to take home on a daily basis.
No, we didn't even have computers in school. Wait, you had a BBC C and ZX Spectrum at home? Oh, so you could spend your free time messing around with the internals, figuring out how to work it? In 5th grade, I had an 8086 Sanyo, with 2 5.25" drives and that's it. I managed too, but if I only had access to it when I was writing an essay, I don't think I'd have done nearly as well. These are SCHOOL COMPUTERS. Not computers to be given to the students.
Given that you're trying say how easy to use it is, all you have to do is click on something, then what's wrong with iBooks? I mean, they're point and click too. Face it, there is absolutely no reason for Linux to be on schoolchildren computers other than the fact that you like it more. It has no advantage over an iBook or Windows, unless you want to try to go beyond a point and click GUI.
They showed it was NP-complete to solve even when pieces were known in advance from start to finish, with the goals of maximum lines, maximum tetrises, minimum height of any column, and a couple others.
If the Foundation were truly interested in giving back to the community with no thought of itself, only of what would best aid the poor children of Maine (and there are a lot since the coal mines shut down back in the 70's), they would choose the Linux for its robustness and swath of free software.
And if you can say with a straight face that school children have enough free time and, to be blunt, mental maturity to be able to learn to use Linux while they're in 7th grade, I'll buy you a 1GB stick of DDR RAM.
Linux is great. No questions about it. As long as you use it for a purpose that does not require a truly efficient and low learning curve GUI, it is tremendously stable and can be convinced to do just about anything. Forcing a bunch of schoolchildren to learn linux just so they can borrow a laptop from the school library to type up their paper on John Steinbeck's depressive books.
I have days off, work is not the be-all end-all of my existence. However, it would be hard for me to pay for new pedals for my guitar, buy new computer parts, or go out and see a movie at the theatre without going to work on a regular basis.
However, should I be unable to play my usual game of Soldier of Fortune II before bed, it does not have any effect on my ability to work.
Likewise, an EQ player's ability to play EQ is financed by their work (assuming they fund it themself, of course), not vice versa. Given that one allows the other, by definition, shouldn't the one that allows the other have a higher priority?
In the middle of a video conference with your company's board of directors is a hell of a lot more important than either the respect of other people playing the same game you are, or the amount of time you are "forced" to spend playing the game.
I think if more EverQuest players realized that a game is not as important as a job, they wouldn't have such a bad reputation.
Rendezvous is a system for home and office networks to keep track of which systems have which capabilities. Thinking that it would allow the internet to work without a DNS server is naïve.
Or do you think a bunch of hostnames with "running HTTP server" would be as useful as a DNS system?
Ok I'm not familiar with HDPC or what it is, but if it was cracked because the specification was released it's a good thing. Now instead of implementing a flawed product the flaw is discovered and the money isn't wasted
In theory. However, given that the DMCA makes publishing a paper on how it's flawed illegal, it's still being prepped for deployment, flawed and everything.
The community doesn't like closed source for things we have to trust because we can't veryfy ourselves that it is to be trusted
Well, that's very nice. It still does nothing for the people who rely on making a profit as a business to put food on their table. If MS releases their code (if it's open source, they're releasing the code, don't kid yourself), then no one has any reason to pay for it, and thus MS loses money. But, it's, uh, a business. They have to do things that make them money.
Your talk about UT2003 is way off the mark. UT is a game and closed source is acceptable (to me at least).
Epic is a company out to make a profit. Microsoft is a company out to make a profit. Their business methods are similar because those business methods lead to a profit. I don't know why you expect software that has more work and development put into it to make sure there is good encryption and security to be released open source, where all the work they pay good software engineers good money for is given away. It's not good business. If Honda comes up with a car security system that is really good and appears unbeatable, would you expect them to patent it and sell a patent license for it, or just publish the plans for free so anyone who wants to can make their own?
Well, 1,000,000 CDs x 1/16th in is about 5,208 feet tall. Bit hard to move without tipping over, I'd think.
Counter-intuitively, perhaps, the height of the stack in either square or hex grids does not matter...a set of 6250 stacks of 160 CDs takes up the exact same volume (given rounding errors) as 625 stacks of 1600 CDs. Wasted volume is wasted volume.
Slashdot Mirror
A free registration, which requires me to submit my not free e-mail address so they can sell a list including it so I can get annoying spam.
I'd much rather pay $1.99 for registration, thank you. At least that way, the charge on my credit card is for NY Times, and not for bandwidth charges and electricity spent processing spam.
Word had the capablity of saving as .txt from day one, and nobody uses it.
.rtf file" option is superior.
That's because the "Save as
Both 100,000 and 100,000,000 are hexadecimal.
You just can't read hex correctly.
Your grammar correction might be taken more seriously if you spelled "conjugations" correctly.
Whereas with my Windows 2k install, I had no initial problems, AND here I am 2 years later with no spyware, no DLL messes, and no spyware.
Hmm.
After initial glitches and minor problems, it's much better and problem-free than any Windows installation.
So, after some problems, it's problem-free? What kind of sense does that make? If it has problems, it's not problem-free, regardless of when the problems occurred.
Me.
SS2 multiplayer rocked. One guy could be a psyker, one could be a marine, one could be Navy.
My first language is French and I also speak French but I don't pretend top be a professional translator.
Good thing, your translation skills would be severely limited by only speaking French!
Although it's pretty clear you also know English. =]
but it does answer the question of how you can avoid being screwed at all by EULAs.
Other than EULAs like that pesky BitKeeper one...
The grandparent wasn't the solution to a problem, it was an alternate situation. The question "Does MS have the right to tell me whether or not I can sell my license to Windows with the computer it's installed on?" is not answered by "Get linux!"
Maybe you saw some other post that read "How can I avoid Microsoft entirely?" to which your answer was correct.
You do not have a right to fair use.
Untrue. I direct you to the 9th Amendment to the US Constitution, Amendment IX, which reads, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Just because they don't say you have the right to it doesn't mean you don't have the right to it. The US government has legislated a great many things, among them the specifics of copyright law, and you do have the right to make copies of any copyrighted work which you have purchased, so long as those copies are for personal or fair use.
I think you are arguing a semantic distinction where none exists. If I am allowed to do something by law, I have the right to do it. The fact that there are conditions on that act does not mean I do not have a right to do so. I have the right to have a million dollars. That doesn't mean the government has to give me $1e6, but I do still have the right to have it.
Welcome to the (brother?sister)hood of DMCA-breaking citizens.
Not to mention that every time media companies try this sort of thing they forget that people like watching the full movie and not a pan&scan travesty - DVD has opened that door and they keep trying to shut it again, why is beyond me.
They don't forget that consumers want to watch the whole movie. They're counting on it. The original widescreen format (16x9, 1.7:1) was invented to give people who owned TVs a reason to go to the theatre. "Look," said Hollywood, "your TV isn't big enough to show the movie as it was originally filmed, you have to go see it in the theatre!"
TV making companies realized that this was a product waiting to be made, so they made widescreen TVs, again, in the 16x9 format, and Hollywood realized that they were once again in danger of "losing an audience" because people could watch movies in the original format at home. So they widened it again (Now most movies are 2.35:1) and said "You can't even get the full picture on widescreen TVs! Come back to the movie theatre!"
It's not that they are forgetting that consumers want the movie in its original aspect ratio, they created that desire specifically to ensure that home movies would never supplant movie theatres.
Region-encoding on DVDs is completely unjustifiable, save from a monetary standpoint.
Say Australians will pay the equivalent of $25 USD, but Japanese will only pay the equivalent of $15 USD. Region encoding allows them to market to both areas at the price people will pay there without allowing Australians to pay less. It's called price discrimination. If you take economics and study the supply/demand graph for estimated purchases vs. price, you'll see what I mean. Basically it's a method for a company to charge a higher amount for people who are willing to pay more, while not losing those customers who are unwilling to pay the higher price. It's not illegal to do price discrimination, (witness how cell phone companies charge more for minutes during the business day...people who need those minutes during the day will pay more, because, well, they need them.)
However, the method the MPAA has chosen to use does infringe on Fair Use rights.
So, if I install this and set a new ipchains rule to block packets to this place, I'm violating the license and I can be sued for it?
That's some nerve.
Well, the US Gov't had no problem applying US laws to Skylarov and the company he worked with, with their only jurisdictional excuse being that the software in question was available in the US, via the internet.
I'd say the same flawed logic applies here.
See above reply. Your kid has debian at home where he can use it and learn it every day. These are not laptops to be given to the children, they are school computers. Somehow, I doubt the schools in question are going to give these to kids to take home on a daily basis.
No, we didn't even have computers in school. Wait, you had a BBC C and ZX Spectrum at home? Oh, so you could spend your free time messing around with the internals, figuring out how to work it? In 5th grade, I had an 8086 Sanyo, with 2 5.25" drives and that's it. I managed too, but if I only had access to it when I was writing an essay, I don't think I'd have done nearly as well. These are SCHOOL COMPUTERS. Not computers to be given to the students.
Given that you're trying say how easy to use it is, all you have to do is click on something, then what's wrong with iBooks? I mean, they're point and click too. Face it, there is absolutely no reason for Linux to be on schoolchildren computers other than the fact that you like it more. It has no advantage over an iBook or Windows, unless you want to try to go beyond a point and click GUI.
They showed it was NP-complete to solve even when pieces were known in advance from start to finish, with the goals of maximum lines, maximum tetrises, minimum height of any column, and a couple others.
In short, RTFA.
If the Foundation were truly interested in giving back to the community with no thought of itself, only of what would best aid the poor children of Maine (and there are a lot since the coal mines shut down back in the 70's), they would choose the Linux for its robustness and swath of free software.
And if you can say with a straight face that school children have enough free time and, to be blunt, mental maturity to be able to learn to use Linux while they're in 7th grade, I'll buy you a 1GB stick of DDR RAM.
Linux is great. No questions about it. As long as you use it for a purpose that does not require a truly efficient and low learning curve GUI, it is tremendously stable and can be convinced to do just about anything. Forcing a bunch of schoolchildren to learn linux just so they can borrow a laptop from the school library to type up their paper on John Steinbeck's depressive books.
Which one pays for the other?
I have days off, work is not the be-all end-all of my existence. However, it would be hard for me to pay for new pedals for my guitar, buy new computer parts, or go out and see a movie at the theatre without going to work on a regular basis.
However, should I be unable to play my usual game of Soldier of Fortune II before bed, it does not have any effect on my ability to work.
Likewise, an EQ player's ability to play EQ is financed by their work (assuming they fund it themself, of course), not vice versa. Given that one allows the other, by definition, shouldn't the one that allows the other have a higher priority?
In the middle of a video conference with your company's board of directors is a hell of a lot more important than either the respect of other people playing the same game you are, or the amount of time you are "forced" to spend playing the game.
I think if more EverQuest players realized that a game is not as important as a job, they wouldn't have such a bad reputation.
Rendezvous is a system for home and office networks to keep track of which systems have which capabilities. Thinking that it would allow the internet to work without a DNS server is naïve.
Or do you think a bunch of hostnames with "running HTTP server" would be as useful as a DNS system?
Ok I'm not familiar with HDPC or what it is, but if it was cracked because the specification was released it's a good thing. Now instead of implementing a flawed product the flaw is discovered and the money isn't wasted
In theory. However, given that the DMCA makes publishing a paper on how it's flawed illegal, it's still being prepped for deployment, flawed and everything.
The community doesn't like closed source for things we have to trust because we can't veryfy ourselves that it is to be trusted
Well, that's very nice. It still does nothing for the people who rely on making a profit as a business to put food on their table. If MS releases their code (if it's open source, they're releasing the code, don't kid yourself), then no one has any reason to pay for it, and thus MS loses money. But, it's, uh, a business. They have to do things that make them money.
Your talk about UT2003 is way off the mark. UT is a game and closed source is acceptable (to me at least).
Epic is a company out to make a profit. Microsoft is a company out to make a profit. Their business methods are similar because those business methods lead to a profit. I don't know why you expect software that has more work and development put into it to make sure there is good encryption and security to be released open source, where all the work they pay good software engineers good money for is given away. It's not good business. If Honda comes up with a car security system that is really good and appears unbeatable, would you expect them to patent it and sell a patent license for it, or just publish the plans for free so anyone who wants to can make their own?
Well, 1,000,000 CDs x 1/16th in is about 5,208 feet tall. Bit hard to move without tipping over, I'd think.
Counter-intuitively, perhaps, the height of the stack in either square or hex grids does not matter...a set of 6250 stacks of 160 CDs takes up the exact same volume (given rounding errors) as 625 stacks of 1600 CDs. Wasted volume is wasted volume.