Prof. Geoff Pullum had a great insight into what the *real* punishment should have been [1]. To summarize, the Media Edition-less version of Windows XP should have been called...Windows XP, and would be required to be sold at regular price. The *other* XP would be Windows XP+Media Edition, which would be sold at, say, $30 higher, to reflect the actual cost to Microsoft of the software development.
This makes such perfect sense that we should not be surprised it was not implemented.
I don't think Google has to worry *too* much about that. See the note in the yellow box at:
http://www.norvig.com/vita.html
Google is in a good place if they employ people like Peter Norvig who write disclaimers like that one. So long as they can keep doing whatever it is that fosters such allegiance, they don't have much to worry about.
Now I can get rid of my perfectly functioning, visually appealing operating system in order to install GNU/Linux with X-windows. Just in time, too. I've been very tired of things just working - putting in a DVD and having the player pop up, not having to spend hours tracking down whether my sound card is supported and finding that elusive switch that has to be passed to modprobe. I also miss recompiling kernels to load an alpha video card driver developed by teenagers (good for them, by the way) from specs pried from the reluctant arms of the company who produced it. Now, once again, I'll be able to spend hours manually messing with Modelines in/etc/X11/XF86Config in order to perfectly tune my display for 1280x1024 resolution at 32-bit color!
Yes, this is very exciting. emerge world me, baby.
My wife and I got married in St. Louis, and our photographer (Chris Croy) waived the copyright, giving us cds containing very high resolution copies of every picture taken. We also got the standard proofs and prints bearing his signature, but the signature was only added to the photos he developed and delivered to us in print. Very professional, and very high quality.
I was out of town when my wife and mother-in-law chose the photographer, but from what I understand of their conversations he what I consider to be a very intelligent attitude about it. He adjusts his business model (fancy that) to make his money on the original sale, recognizing that things are different than they were tweny or even ten years ago. Since his name isn't on the digital prints, he doesn't "suffer" from distribution of low-quality prints (although that argument does seem a bit lacking to me). I know that getting copyright-waived digital copies was part of the package we bought, and that it's not part of all the packages. Unfortunately my mother-in-law also paid for the photographer, so I don't know anything about what the costs were.
Copyright lasts a long time, by the way. A few years ago my mom and her brother and sister put together a scrapbook for their parents' fiftieth wedding anniversary, and weren't allowed to make copies of their (my grandparents') wedding pictures because they were still copyrighted, and they couldn't track down the photographer, who may easily have been dead. All in the interest of maintaining that creative incentive in society...
Let go of your prejudices - this is ridiculous. A college like Wheaton doesn't make rules like this so they can control students or undermine their rights: it does so because it believes that the quality of education is better when these things aren't present. Anyone who's been on the campus of a big party school (you know, where they treat you like adults) can see what often happens when alcohol flows free among students not yet mature enough to handle it. Of course it's true that some students could handle it, and you might think it's unfair that those students who are of age are subject to a blanket restriction. But in the end, Wheaton believes that the environment created when *no* undergraduates are drinking contributes to a better learning environment and esprit de corp.
The fact that you "find it kind of like joining the Nazi party" is spurious and unreasonable. As I said before, you're arguing from an emotional reaction, and not from having thought about the either problem - both in your response to the original post, and the ideas behind Wheaton's rules in general.
I'll note that like you I don't agree with Wheaton's ban on drinking, dancing, and tobacco; however, that doesn't prevent me from maintaining a respect for the graduates it produces, nor from seeing their point. Interestingly, Wheaton recently lifted the drinking restriction from its faculty.
It seems to me that it's common procedure to hide certain types of identities when posting questions on Slashdot. This is done partly because the information isn't relevant, and also because it helps reinforce the idea that the situation is more broadly applicable than only to people in that specific situation.
If you had been fair about things instead of changing the subject to that of your personal dislike of policies designed to foster a community where education and personal growth are given utmost priority, you would have acknowledged that the question *was* relevant. Policies like this could easily be implemented in other places - in fact, that was part of "dancedance"'s questions. Wheaton's policy on drinking is irrelevant.
You're probably right that many parents (often alums) give their child a "_college_x_ or nothing" ultimatum with respect to financial support, but that's often for a good reason, i.e., they went their themselves and were happy with the education they received. Anyway, that's their prerogative. And it's hard to claim that anyone is being oppressed (as you implied) at getting an education of Wheaton calibre, costing around $120,000.
I'm not sure how actively this is enforced. This first two songs I bought from iTMS were from an internet connection in Nigeria - I think the uplink went to somewhere in Ghana or Eastern Europe. At first with iTunes 4.0 I was unable to do the actual downloading, but the "controversial" 4.01 upgrade (that prevented streaming outside a local subnet) allowed me to download the songs I had purchased from the store. I assumed this meant that you needed only to hav a credit card billing address in the States, not to actually be there.
If you're mad, vote with your wallet. And print out the following letter and mail it to:
Palm, Inc. Corporate Headquarters
400 N. McCarthy Blvd.
Milpitas, CA 95035
--
This is in reference to the "updated characterization of the Palm m130's color capabilities." I just wanted to let you know that your deliberate attempt to conceal the truth has convinced me that I will NEVER support Palm by buying one of its products. The knowledge base article claims that the difference between the advertised 16-bit display and the delivered 12-bit is 11%, and compares actual colors with "color combinations", using some crazy formula, to arrive at this figure. This is a blatant lie. A 12-bit screen can display only 4096
colors, a 93% difference. You are comparing apples to oranges for the sole purpose of deceiving customers who bought this product and
abating anticipated complaints.
This bit of dishonesty is unacceptable and likely indicative of deeper lying dishonesty. Perhaps your marketing division would benefit from
the honesty lessons that your financial division should have learned in the wake of the public attention brought to corporate dishonesty in
fiscal reportings. I have no wish to deal with a company like yours. It is very clear that your customers are not your first priority, though whether you have made such claims I don't know.
I am a computer science major and tech enthusiast, who both buys many tech products myself and makes recommendations to friends and family who actively seek out my advice; many of them won't make such purchases without first getting my input. Be it known that not only
will I not recommend your products, but will go out of my way to recommend against them.
Thanks for your time.
--
Of course, change it a bit so it makes sense for you.
The more I read articles posted by slashdot, the less fitting the word "news" works for me as a description. News is objective material put in a way that the reader is able to consider all sides of an issue and form his/her own opinion on the issue. There is very little of that on slashdot. It's a great site, good place (occasionally) for information, but frequently it seems like nothing more than a forum for the egos and peeves of those who are able to post stories, and aren't necessarily that good at thinking about them. If I want editorials, I read the appropriate section of my newspaper or Time, and get the opinions of good thinkers. I don't think the same is true here.
The fact that violence exists doesn't mean that it should be flaunted for people and children of all ages. Nor does it mean that someone whose lifestyle causes violence to be done to animals, is a hypocrite because he tries to prevent children from viewing it firsthand. The editorial is a non-sequitur fallacy. 'jamie' says that
person x eats meat, which is the result of violence.
person x wants to prevent children from seeing violence.
Therefore:
person x is a hypocrite; the fact that his habits cause violence precludes his ability to prevent others from viewing that violence.
Following his logic, children should view their parents having sex, or see all kinds of intimate behavior between adults. A man who has had children has had sex, so his children should be acquainted with the details of that process.
Lay off the editorials, or make it a different heading so we can choose not to see them. matt
This means absolutely nothing without more information. For example, we have no idea of the representative sample that Altavista indexes. Maybe Altavista [inadvertently or not] ignores parts of the web with more sadistic content? I could do a poll on the perspective of gays, and I would get drastically different results if my sample was at a local gay bar or Jerry Falwell's dinner table.
Slashdot Mirror
I think you meant to post this on reddit...
Prof. Geoff Pullum had a great insight into what the *real* punishment should have been [1]. To summarize, the Media Edition-less version of Windows XP should have been called...Windows XP, and would be required to be sold at regular price. The *other* XP would be Windows XP+Media Edition, which would be sold at, say, $30 higher, to reflect the actual cost to Microsoft of the software development.
e s/002047.html
This makes such perfect sense that we should not be surprised it was not implemented.
[1] See http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archiv
I don't think Google has to worry *too* much about that. See the note in the yellow box at:
http://www.norvig.com/vita.html
Google is in a good place if they employ people like Peter Norvig who write disclaimers like that one. So long as they can keep doing whatever it is that fosters such allegiance, they don't have much to worry about.
Whoops. It's not a replacement. Maybe I should have bothered to read *both* sentences of the post...
Now I can get rid of my perfectly functioning, visually appealing operating system in order to install GNU/Linux with X-windows. Just in time, too. I've been very tired of things just working - putting in a DVD and having the player pop up, not having to spend hours tracking down whether my sound card is supported and finding that elusive switch that has to be passed to modprobe. I also miss recompiling kernels to load an alpha video card driver developed by teenagers (good for them, by the way) from specs pried from the reluctant arms of the company who produced it. Now, once again, I'll be able to spend hours manually messing with Modelines in /etc/X11/XF86Config in order to perfectly tune my display for 1280x1024 resolution at 32-bit color!
Yes, this is very exciting. emerge world me, baby.
My wife and I got married in St. Louis, and our photographer (Chris Croy) waived the copyright, giving us cds containing very high resolution copies of every picture taken. We also got the standard proofs and prints bearing his signature, but the signature was only added to the photos he developed and delivered to us in print. Very professional, and very high quality.
I was out of town when my wife and mother-in-law chose the photographer, but from what I understand of their conversations he what I consider to be a very intelligent attitude about it. He adjusts his business model (fancy that) to make his money on the original sale, recognizing that things are different than they were tweny or even ten years ago. Since his name isn't on the digital prints, he doesn't "suffer" from distribution of low-quality prints (although that argument does seem a bit lacking to me). I know that getting copyright-waived digital copies was part of the package we bought, and that it's not part of all the packages. Unfortunately my mother-in-law also paid for the photographer, so I don't know anything about what the costs were.
Copyright lasts a long time, by the way. A few years ago my mom and her brother and sister put together a scrapbook for their parents' fiftieth wedding anniversary, and weren't allowed to make copies of their (my grandparents') wedding pictures because they were still copyrighted, and they couldn't track down the photographer, who may easily have been dead. All in the interest of maintaining that creative incentive in society...
Godwin's law. Boy, you've really made a good point.
: //www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/G/Godwins-Law .html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law
http
Let go of your prejudices - this is ridiculous. A college like Wheaton doesn't make rules like this so they can control students or undermine their rights: it does so because it believes that the quality of education is better when these things aren't present. Anyone who's been on the campus of a big party school (you know, where they treat you like adults) can see what often happens when alcohol flows free among students not yet mature enough to handle it. Of course it's true that some students could handle it, and you might think it's unfair that those students who are of age are subject to a blanket restriction. But in the end, Wheaton believes that the environment created when *no* undergraduates are drinking contributes to a better learning environment and esprit de corp.
The fact that you "find it kind of like joining the Nazi party" is spurious and unreasonable. As I said before, you're arguing from an emotional reaction, and not from having thought about the either problem - both in your response to the original post, and the ideas behind Wheaton's rules in general.
I'll note that like you I don't agree with Wheaton's ban on drinking, dancing, and tobacco; however, that doesn't prevent me from maintaining a respect for the graduates it produces, nor from seeing their point. Interestingly, Wheaton recently lifted the drinking restriction from its faculty.
It seems to me that it's common procedure to hide certain types of identities when posting questions on Slashdot. This is done partly because the information isn't relevant, and also because it helps reinforce the idea that the situation is more broadly applicable than only to people in that specific situation.
If you had been fair about things instead of changing the subject to that of your personal dislike of policies designed to foster a community where education and personal growth are given utmost priority, you would have acknowledged that the question *was* relevant. Policies like this could easily be implemented in other places - in fact, that was part of "dancedance"'s questions. Wheaton's policy on drinking is irrelevant.
You're probably right that many parents (often alums) give their child a "_college_x_ or nothing" ultimatum with respect to financial support, but that's often for a good reason, i.e., they went their themselves and were happy with the education they received. Anyway, that's their prerogative. And it's hard to claim that anyone is being oppressed (as you implied) at getting an education of Wheaton calibre, costing around $120,000.
I'm not sure how actively this is enforced. This first two songs I bought from iTMS were from an internet connection in Nigeria - I think the uplink went to somewhere in Ghana or Eastern Europe. At first with iTunes 4.0 I was unable to do the actual downloading, but the "controversial" 4.01 upgrade (that prevented streaming outside a local subnet) allowed me to download the songs I had purchased from the store. I assumed this meant that you needed only to hav a credit card billing address in the States, not to actually be there.
Then again I never read the license.
Palm, Inc. Corporate Headquarters
400 N. McCarthy Blvd.
Milpitas, CA 95035
--
This is in reference to the "updated characterization of the Palm m130's color capabilities." I just wanted to let you know that your deliberate attempt to conceal the truth has convinced me that I will NEVER support Palm by buying one of its products. The knowledge base article claims that the difference between the advertised 16-bit display and the delivered 12-bit is 11%, and compares actual colors with "color combinations", using some crazy formula, to arrive at this figure. This is a blatant lie. A 12-bit screen can display only 4096 colors, a 93% difference. You are comparing apples to oranges for the sole purpose of deceiving customers who bought this product and abating anticipated complaints.
This bit of dishonesty is unacceptable and likely indicative of deeper lying dishonesty. Perhaps your marketing division would benefit from the honesty lessons that your financial division should have learned in the wake of the public attention brought to corporate dishonesty in fiscal reportings. I have no wish to deal with a company like yours. It is very clear that your customers are not your first priority, though whether you have made such claims I don't know.
I am a computer science major and tech enthusiast, who both buys many tech products myself and makes recommendations to friends and family who actively seek out my advice; many of them won't make such purchases without first getting my input. Be it known that not only will I not recommend your products, but will go out of my way to recommend against them.
Thanks for your time.
Of course, change it a bit so it makes sense for you.--
The fact that violence exists doesn't mean that it should be flaunted for people and children of all ages. Nor does it mean that someone whose lifestyle causes violence to be done to animals, is a hypocrite because he tries to prevent children from viewing it firsthand. The editorial is a non-sequitur fallacy. 'jamie' says that
- person x eats meat, which is the result of violence.
- person x wants to prevent children from seeing violence.
- person x is a hypocrite; the fact that his habits cause violence precludes his ability to prevent others from viewing that violence.
Following his logic, children should view their parents having sex, or see all kinds of intimate behavior between adults. A man who has had children has had sex, so his children should be acquainted with the details of that process.Therefore:
Lay off the editorials, or make it a different heading so we can choose not to see them. matt
The guy created all the pages in Frontpage (take a look at the html source). I can see any of the fonts on my Solaris machine.
This means absolutely nothing without more information. For example, we have no idea of the representative sample that Altavista indexes. Maybe Altavista [inadvertently or not] ignores parts of the web with more sadistic content? I could do a poll on the perspective of gays, and I would get drastically different results if my sample was at a local gay bar or Jerry Falwell's dinner table.