If Windows doesn't need maintenance any more, how come friends running Windows still complain to me that their PCs have ground to a halt and ask if I can help them?
(I don't even try to help them any more. I just tell them I switched to Mac 10 years ago and can't remember how to fix Windows. Which isn't true. The truth is I switched in part because I didn't want to waste time maintaining Windows any more, so I'm certainly not going to end up maintaining their machines for them.)
Actually all these "happens automatically" things you mention are half the problem. All these apps running services trying to phone home at boot up means it's a long time after boot up before a Windows machine becomes responsive.
On the final issue, the rock solid reliability of iOS is worth more than any number of "swype keyboard" customisations.
Must be complete huh? Partial control isn't possible?
I'm afraid you're is the fallacious argument of "false dilemma"
Sorry but Linux isn't a magical woobie that keeps nasty old viruses away, its an OS just like any other and TFA proves that given enough users it WILL get pwned just like any other OS. We are talking millions of lines of code folks, and guys that make serious bank when they find a flaw in that code, this really shouldn't be surprising to anyone but the same type that thought because Apple "thought different" they were immune to all bugs too. We have a term for that, its called "magical thinking" and while its made several companies rich with sales pitches like "Just use (insert product) and never have to worry about security again!" IRL it simply doesn't work. there is no magical OS, no magical pill, that will make all flaws disappear and give all users degrees in Internet Security.
Strange then that OSX has less viruses after 11 years than Android has after 3. And iOS doesn't have any.
It's not imaginary. Take for example Kenneth Branagh's film "In The Bleak Midwinter". A very funny film UK film with a star cast. Only 17 years old. And only available on poor quality VHS tape. When I looked a couple of years ago it was impossible to even find the VHS new. I had to buy a used copy on eBay.
If the copyright were to expire after 20 years we could look forward to DVD and digital downloads appearing.
There's Derren Brown's "Pure Effect" book that's been out of print for a couple of years, and thus is trading at super-inflated prices.
I've also had cases of game ROMS and theatre plays that I've wanted and others have wanted that haven't been available at all.
If you've never had the problem, then that's a lack of experience on your part, not a sign that the problem doesn't exist.
What the fuck are you saying? Because I gave my opinion, and he disagreed and gave his opinion I have to believe his opinion? Are you really that illogical?
That might be what you might want to believe. It might be the conclusion you come to because only the billion dollar earners are newsworthy. But unless you have some stats, it's nothing more than opinion, and I certainly don't believe your opinion.
The problem is that, like now, Big Content will work around that make sure that the lyrics, screenplay, etc. will be published as a literary work (even at $25,000 a copy, it's still "published"). Since we have a Rule of the Longest Term, whatever little tidbit can be found in anything, the effective copyright for the entirety of the work is as long as the longest-copyrighed-part. Even recordings of Mozart performances have the directors "interpretation" = new copyright.
No copyright on recording can extend the term of the copyright on the music itself. So I think your concept of how it works is not right. If a movie is made of a book for example, it would be perfectly possible to have the film copyright expire but not the copyright on the book in the case that copyright terms differer for those mediums.
How many books published in the year 1990 or before did you buy *new* in the year 2011?
The assumption that authors of works over 21 years aren't on average earning much isn't a reason to cut their earnings off entirely.
There is zero reason for authors to get repeated income for eternity for work they did once.... I, and most other people in this world, have to work every day to make a living.
Creating something of worth isn't as simple or repeatable as your burger flipping job.
I'll just put the "old crap" comment down to philistinism.
Bur it is worth pointing out that the problem is not with watching/listening/reading material that is available on the market.
The problems include: 1) Those things that are no longer distributed but could be. 2) The limitations of creating adaptions and derivative works. (Good artists copy, great artists steal.)
A couple of professors in a lab with a large team of students come up with an invention - they get 20 years, after which it becomes public domain. And that's all working out fine, given the number of new patented inventions. Why should this be any different for creators? Are they somehow 1st Class Humans and inventors are 2nd Class?
Authors have a difficult enough time earning a living as it is. I wouldn't support taking their income away during their lifetimes.
Movies on the other hand are made by corporations, and they have enough of them making money in the first few years to make handsome profits. They don't need such long term copyrights.
So perhaps the answer isn't making all copyrights the same length as patents, but rather to differentiate between different art forms.
2011 was the year super-injunctions were beaten in the UK. Previously, in the UK if you were rich, you could get a super-injunction to stop the media publishing stories about the fact that you cheated on your wife etc. In 2011 that was broken by the fact that 70,000+ people on Twitter decided that they weren't going to abide by it. The law simply can't prosecute 70,000+ semi-anonymous people on the internet.
How about a mass movement to respect the pre-1978 copyright law, but ignore the subsequent changes? Or another line in the sand could be drawn on international lines with the Universal Copyright Convention or the Berne Convention.
Have a lare number of web-sites and/or torrent sites with this material, and only this material.
Established torrent sites aren't the answer, because whilst they do contain some of this material, the also have lots of material that morally should still be copyrighted. Such as last years movies.
I'm not drumk but I love incandescent bulbs too. I've tried many CFLs and none of them give warm light, none of them give full brightness immediately at power-on, none of them are mercury free, none of them handle cold temps well.
Sure. But you're only considering one side of the pros and cons list. On the other side you've got the facts that they consume less energy and they last longer.
We waste electricity in so many other ways
Is not an argument for continuing to waste energy with lightbulbs, but an argument to find lots more ways of not wasting energy as well as not using inefficient lightbulbs.
Anything that's "instant on" or uses a transformer ("wall wart") is a vampire sucking off energy and wasting it. Cell phone chargers or any kind of charger, cordless house phones, computers, video game consoles, TVs, VCRs, DVD/BR players, stereos, laptop chargers, monitors, printers, microwaves... these are only a sample of the vampires in your house.
That's uninformed. Someone told me the other day that I ought to unplug my laptop charger when not in use. So I looked it's spec up. When there's no MacBook attached, it uses 0.03W. In other words 1 hour of your 100 watt incandescent lightbulb being left on is equal to 3,333 hours (or 139 days) of my PSU being plugged in.
For sure that didn't used to be the case. PSUs are better than they used to be. The point is that it's not just lighting that's being made more efficient, but other things too. So there's even less excuse for not using more efficient lighting.
If we're going to be pedantic... You can't feed Alternating Current to an LED. By definition, the current won't flow the reverse way, so it's not AC. Alternating voltage, sure, but not AC.
Maybe someday I will be of the 1%, but if I am, it'll be because I WORKED to get there.
Someone still believes in the American Dream? It's not called a dream for nothing. It belongs in the naive 1950s. Do you still believe in Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, Unicorns?
Your hopes of being one of the 1% amount to this: 1) You had rich parents. 2) You're a sociopath of a certain kind. 3) You win the lottery.
Working hard has never been the way. No matter how fast you shovel, those that have other people to do their shovelling will always beat you.
You have a private healthcare system in the US. Of course the wealthy get preferable treatment. If you want fair healthcare for all you need a state run national health service.
Not "The Year of Linux" but "The Year of Linux on the Desktop".
Linux has long been successful as a server OS, and now it's successful as a mobile OS. But all predictions of success as a desktop OS have so far been wrong.
But you never know. Never say never. Duke Nukem Forever did eventually ship.
I'd tend to go with what "the authors claim" rather than your Googling, since this port was done by Google engineers working on Native Client. If they don't know what it does and doesn't do, no one does.
You're probably right that they went for a quick and dirty approach rather than future maintainable port. But why not, if that is what met their objective? They obviously want to test/prove/demonstrate the capabilities of Native Client. They can do that by just getting MAME running and pointing to it. It isn't their job to take much longer (several months in your estimation) to make it fully maintainable.
MAME is one example of a complex C program hard to translate to Javascript but could be ported easily (4 days) to the Native Client platform.
Just because it was done in 4 days doesn't mean it was easy. They said themselves it was relatively challenging. And reading through their description of how many things that MAME does are not supported in Native Client, it does indeed look challenging.
Choice isn't necessarily a good thing. And in this case it isn't a goo thing. Here, a standard way is far more useful than a choice.
Of course ALL general purpose OSs do give a choice: you can do something other than the standard if you need to. But having one paradigm is far more useful than having several different and incompatible ones. And the better that paradigm is... um... the better.
Slashdot Mirror
If Windows doesn't need maintenance any more, how come friends running Windows still complain to me that their PCs have ground to a halt and ask if I can help them?
(I don't even try to help them any more. I just tell them I switched to Mac 10 years ago and can't remember how to fix Windows. Which isn't true. The truth is I switched in part because I didn't want to waste time maintaining Windows any more, so I'm certainly not going to end up maintaining their machines for them.)
Actually all these "happens automatically" things you mention are half the problem. All these apps running services trying to phone home at boot up means it's a long time after boot up before a Windows machine becomes responsive.
On the final issue, the rock solid reliability of iOS is worth more than any number of "swype keyboard" customisations.
only TWO choices
Only two huh?
COMPLETE control
Must be complete huh? Partial control isn't possible?
I'm afraid you're is the fallacious argument of "false dilemma"
Sorry but Linux isn't a magical woobie that keeps nasty old viruses away, its an OS just like any other and TFA proves that given enough users it WILL get pwned just like any other OS. We are talking millions of lines of code folks, and guys that make serious bank when they find a flaw in that code, this really shouldn't be surprising to anyone but the same type that thought because Apple "thought different" they were immune to all bugs too. We have a term for that, its called "magical thinking" and while its made several companies rich with sales pitches like "Just use (insert product) and never have to worry about security again!" IRL it simply doesn't work. there is no magical OS, no magical pill, that will make all flaws disappear and give all users degrees in Internet Security.
Strange then that OSX has less viruses after 11 years than Android has after 3. And iOS doesn't have any.
It's not imaginary. Take for example Kenneth Branagh's film "In The Bleak Midwinter". A very funny film UK film with a star cast. Only 17 years old. And only available on poor quality VHS tape. When I looked a couple of years ago it was impossible to even find the VHS new. I had to buy a used copy on eBay.
If the copyright were to expire after 20 years we could look forward to DVD and digital downloads appearing.
There's Derren Brown's "Pure Effect" book that's been out of print for a couple of years, and thus is trading at super-inflated prices.
I've also had cases of game ROMS and theatre plays that I've wanted and others have wanted that haven't been available at all.
If you've never had the problem, then that's a lack of experience on your part, not a sign that the problem doesn't exist.
And you're the idiot doing the telling. I'm allowed to write an opinion. I'm allowed to not believe someone else's opinion.
What the hell are you talking about?
What the fuck are you saying? Because I gave my opinion, and he disagreed and gave his opinion I have to believe his opinion? Are you really that illogical?
You mean the +5 insightful one?
Actually, my opinion is correct whether or not I dig up links to satisfy your lazy ass.
I'm a "lazy ass" because I don't look up evidence for or against YOUR OPINION? Do your own work.
Or switch to iPhone development and earn enough that you don't need to work for someone else.
That might be what you might want to believe. It might be the conclusion you come to because only the billion dollar earners are newsworthy. But unless you have some stats, it's nothing more than opinion, and I certainly don't believe your opinion.
If you haven't made your billions in the first 14 years, the next 100 don't really matter.
It's not about earning billions. For the vast majority It's about earning a modest amount.
The problem is that, like now, Big Content will work around that make sure that the lyrics, screenplay, etc. will be published as a literary work (even at $25,000 a copy, it's still "published"). Since we have a Rule of the Longest Term, whatever little tidbit can be found in anything, the effective copyright for the entirety of the work is as long as the longest-copyrighed-part. Even recordings of Mozart performances have the directors "interpretation" = new copyright.
No copyright on recording can extend the term of the copyright on the music itself. So I think your concept of how it works is not right. If a movie is made of a book for example, it would be perfectly possible to have the film copyright expire but not the copyright on the book in the case that copyright terms differer for those mediums.
How many books published in the year 1990 or before did you buy *new* in the year 2011?
The assumption that authors of works over 21 years aren't on average earning much isn't a reason to cut their earnings off entirely.
There is zero reason for authors to get repeated income for eternity for work they did once.... I, and most other people in this world, have to work every day to make a living.
Creating something of worth isn't as simple or repeatable as your burger flipping job.
I'm quite sure Gen-Y will be perfectly happy to add Gen-X to the list of generations that screwed everything up.
I'll just put the "old crap" comment down to philistinism.
Bur it is worth pointing out that the problem is not with watching/listening/reading material that is available on the market.
The problems include:
1) Those things that are no longer distributed but could be.
2) The limitations of creating adaptions and derivative works. (Good artists copy, great artists steal.)
A couple of professors in a lab with a large team of students come up with an invention - they get 20 years, after which it becomes public domain. And that's all working out fine, given the number of new patented inventions. Why should this be any different for creators? Are they somehow 1st Class Humans and inventors are 2nd Class?
Authors have a difficult enough time earning a living as it is. I wouldn't support taking their income away during their lifetimes.
Movies on the other hand are made by corporations, and they have enough of them making money in the first few years to make handsome profits. They don't need such long term copyrights.
So perhaps the answer isn't making all copyrights the same length as patents, but rather to differentiate between different art forms.
Getting pleasure from creating stuff yourself is one thing. Getting pleasure from stuff someone else has created is a different thing.
Your suggestion is equivalent to satisfying yourself with masturbation because you can't get sex.
2011 was the year super-injunctions were beaten in the UK. Previously, in the UK if you were rich, you could get a super-injunction to stop the media publishing stories about the fact that you cheated on your wife etc. In 2011 that was broken by the fact that 70,000+ people on Twitter decided that they weren't going to abide by it. The law simply can't prosecute 70,000+ semi-anonymous people on the internet.
How about a mass movement to respect the pre-1978 copyright law, but ignore the subsequent changes? Or another line in the sand could be drawn on international lines with the Universal Copyright Convention or the Berne Convention.
Have a lare number of web-sites and/or torrent sites with this material, and only this material.
Established torrent sites aren't the answer, because whilst they do contain some of this material, the also have lots of material that morally should still be copyrighted. Such as last years movies.
I'm not drumk but I love incandescent bulbs too. I've tried many CFLs and none of them give warm light, none of them give full brightness immediately at power-on, none of them are mercury free, none of them handle cold temps well.
Sure. But you're only considering one side of the pros and cons list. On the other side you've got the facts that they consume less energy and they last longer.
We waste electricity in so many other ways
Is not an argument for continuing to waste energy with lightbulbs, but an argument to find lots more ways of not wasting energy as well as not using inefficient lightbulbs.
Anything that's "instant on" or uses a transformer ("wall wart") is a vampire sucking off energy and wasting it. Cell phone chargers or any kind of charger, cordless house phones, computers, video game consoles, TVs, VCRs, DVD/BR players, stereos, laptop chargers, monitors, printers, microwaves... these are only a sample of the vampires in your house.
That's uninformed. Someone told me the other day that I ought to unplug my laptop charger when not in use. So I looked it's spec up. When there's no MacBook attached, it uses 0.03W. In other words 1 hour of your 100 watt incandescent lightbulb being left on is equal to 3,333 hours (or 139 days) of my PSU being plugged in.
For sure that didn't used to be the case. PSUs are better than they used to be. The point is that it's not just lighting that's being made more efficient, but other things too. So there's even less excuse for not using more efficient lighting.
If we're going to be pedantic... You can't feed Alternating Current to an LED. By definition, the current won't flow the reverse way, so it's not AC. Alternating voltage, sure, but not AC.
Maybe someday I will be of the 1%, but if I am, it'll be because I WORKED to get there.
Someone still believes in the American Dream? It's not called a dream for nothing. It belongs in the naive 1950s. Do you still believe in Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, Unicorns?
Your hopes of being one of the 1% amount to this: 1) You had rich parents.
2) You're a sociopath of a certain kind.
3) You win the lottery.
Working hard has never been the way. No matter how fast you shovel, those that have other people to do their shovelling will always beat you.
Don't blame the doctors, it's the system.
You have a private healthcare system in the US. Of course the wealthy get preferable treatment. If you want fair healthcare for all you need a state run national health service.
Not "The Year of Linux" but "The Year of Linux on the Desktop".
Linux has long been successful as a server OS, and now it's successful as a mobile OS. But all predictions of success as a desktop OS have so far been wrong.
But you never know. Never say never. Duke Nukem Forever did eventually ship.
I'd tend to go with what "the authors claim" rather than your Googling, since this port was done by Google engineers working on Native Client. If they don't know what it does and doesn't do, no one does.
Resume of the person who posted the method of porting:
http://muth.org/Robert/resume.html
You're probably right that they went for a quick and dirty approach rather than future maintainable port. But why not, if that is what met their objective? They obviously want to test/prove/demonstrate the capabilities of Native Client. They can do that by just getting MAME running and pointing to it. It isn't their job to take much longer (several months in your estimation) to make it fully maintainable.
MAME is one example of a complex C program hard to translate to Javascript but could be ported easily (4 days) to the Native Client platform.
Just because it was done in 4 days doesn't mean it was easy. They said themselves it was relatively challenging. And reading through their description of how many things that MAME does are not supported in Native Client, it does indeed look challenging.
This was done by a team of damn good engineers.
Choice isn't necessarily a good thing. And in this case it isn't a goo thing. Here, a standard way is far more useful than a choice.
Of course ALL general purpose OSs do give a choice: you can do something other than the standard if you need to. But having one paradigm is far more useful than having several different and incompatible ones. And the better that paradigm is... um... the better.