I would suggest this be moderated down but fuck it. Trying to make reasonable comments seems pointless sometimes. Instead I'll just say hey yall, how about all us good ol' engineerin boys hop in our trucks and get us some rope and we can lynch us some MBAs. Yeeha.
So slashdot people bitch about it when too much information is being collected in databases which you don't want people to have about you. And you bitch about it when the government might protect people against having their databases copied. Do you want the free flow of information or not? Pick one and stick with it you whiney bastards.
If the court has shifted to the right, care to explain to me Gratz v. Bollinger or Lawrence v. Texas? Those would be the two most recent decisions of great significance I would think, and neither can be construed as being to the right. You shouldn't over simplify like that.
I think all of the examples you listed except the black man in a posh neighborhood are good enough for probable suspicion. It doesn't take much, but then it doesn't let the police do much.
A "hardcore moderate" would do nothing to promote liberalism. Moderates are typically in favor of the Patriot Act, against legalization of marijuana, against gay marriage, disinterested in privacy rights, etc.
I'm not saying your wrong about the medium having no effect on the cost of albums, but your logic is seriously flawed. I don't know what all they factor into setting prices for music, and honestly, I don't really care. But I still feel the need to point out that your argument isn't sound. Lower demand means lower price. There is a much lower demand for tapes than CDs, and has been for a long time. Also, online downloads are cheaper than CDs, so in that case the cheaper medium is cheaper for consumers.
Well, there are WYSIWYG html editors that are more than capable for computer illiterates so, it should really be designed for people who are going to need to do things more advanced than that and if it takes a little more training but saves a lot of work hours it'll be worth the extra training.
It seems to me like the main reason for BSD advocates to dislike the GPL is that it essentially says "We're writing free software, but your software is too free, so you can't use our code. But we'll take plenty of your code." The GPL is supposed to keep proprietary software from taking from free software and not giving back their work, but the GPL doesn't allow work under it to be given back to the non-GPL open source community.
The point is that soon enough, most young people will know how to read and write programs too, just as they know English (or their language of choice).
This will never be true. Maybe some day most young people will have the ability to write simple visual basic programs, but most people will never have, and shouldn't need the ability to modify any large scale program.
I never heard any commitments from Apple to continue releasing new versions of the applications in the iLife suite and distributing them for free for all eternity throughout the universe and so on and so forth. If you don't think OS X upgrades are worth it without iLife, don't fucking buy them. Buy a fucking PC and install Linux on it and never pay for an update again. Linux forums will be even more friendly to your bitching about prices than slashdot is anyway. None of the things you mentioned are actually immoral. Offering something for free to start off with then charging for it later isn't any worse than charging for it from the beginning. OS X 10 was essentially beta software, so once someone gives software out to beta testers they can never charge for a later version? That's news. The old iApps works as well as they ever did. Just keep using them if you don't want to pay for updates.
They definitely can charge more for extra PCs, it's just hard to enforce since they don't really know how your home network is put together. In Michigan a law is in effect which makes it illegal to use NAT to get more than one computer onto your internet connection if your ISP doesn't want to allow it.
There is no difference between voting for your interesting and creating a new law for your own benefit. Even still, just because he's involved with the music industry and is advancing their goals doesn't make it selfish. If you're a programmer you're going to be more sympathetic to their causes, etc.
What the fuck do states rights have to do with copyright infringement? The constitution explicitly gives the federal government to regulate interstate commerce, which one could argue copyright infringement falls into..
And cruel and unusual punishment? The fines are excessive, possibly, but as broadband becomes more and more popular, one person putting a movie that hasn't been released yet available online will have greater and greater potential for lost revenue to theaters, the movie studio, and so on. There's been a lot of fuss made in this discussion about the fact that nobody actually has to download it for it to be punishable. You can be punished for attempting any number of crimes, even if your attempt doesn't have a negative effect on anyone. (Attempted murder, attempted robbery,...)
Your logic is terrible. So is anyone who owns a home and voting on property taxes in a conflict of interest? Or anyone who earns an income and votes on income tax? Maybe it's the case that congressmen shouldn't be allowed to vote on laws against murder, seeing as how they all have a vested interest in not being murdered.
People can bash Apple all they want, if that's what they think. As long as they're not dumbasses. The author of this article is a dumbass. The record companies are extinct? Heh. Yeah. That explains why the DMCA disappeared and I can't get find anywhere that sells CDs anymore. Jobs is offering up is head? No, he's selling lots of iPods for $300 to $500 a pop.
Oh, and I'm sick of hearing about this compulsory licensing shit. Hey, why don't I pay a lot of money to some shit artist because 13 year old girls like them? Oh, hey, how about not. In fact, how about I decide who I want to give my music buying money to, and if they don't like their contracts with the record companies, they stop fucking signing them. I've bought music before directly from the artist via paypal, if the artists are getting fucked so much, why don't more bands do something similar? Maybe because you have to get the word out somehow which isn't quite so easy...
People complain about how artists get screwed over and over and over agian but the record companies make artists famous, and if you're famous then you can make plenty of money through live shows, so it seems like they're providing a valuable service to some people at least.
Ugh, you know what. I don't even care. People can cry about how the record companies are making money off this and Apple has to settle for the sales of Ipods all they want or whatever. I don't care. I hope the whole music industry collapses so that everyone who's whined about it to no end has no choice but to listen to terrible local garage bands who only know three chords if they want to listen to music.
The goal in capitalism is to send your competition to the unemployment line. It doesn't matter whether you're writing open source software, closed source software, building computers, building bridges, selling hamburgers,...
Now I know that sounds like I'm anti-capitalism, but in actuality, I'm very very pro capitalism. I just don't think there's anything wrong with putting your competition out of business.
On the first point, not sure. On the second, MS released a new version of Office for Mac this summer, so that would've definitely been during the OS X 10.2 lifetime.
The main difficulty is that it's a right to left language instead of left to right like english. So editors, i.e. Word, need to be reprogrammed so that as you type the cursor moves to the left, instead of to the right.
Well, if Microsoft is using their monopoly with Office to try and force people to stay on Windows, then they're arguably abusing the monopoly which everyone has long been aware that they've had.
Slashdot Mirror
Who says it's not? I can assure you that there are people who've been fired for making that mistake only once.
I would suggest this be moderated down but fuck it. Trying to make reasonable comments seems pointless sometimes. Instead I'll just say hey yall, how about all us good ol' engineerin boys hop in our trucks and get us some rope and we can lynch us some MBAs. Yeeha.
So slashdot people bitch about it when too much information is being collected in databases which you don't want people to have about you. And you bitch about it when the government might protect people against having their databases copied. Do you want the free flow of information or not? Pick one and stick with it you whiney bastards.
If the court has shifted to the right, care to explain to me Gratz v. Bollinger or Lawrence v. Texas? Those would be the two most recent decisions of great significance I would think, and neither can be construed as being to the right. You shouldn't over simplify like that.
I think all of the examples you listed except the black man in a posh neighborhood are good enough for probable suspicion. It doesn't take much, but then it doesn't let the police do much.
A "hardcore moderate" would do nothing to promote liberalism. Moderates are typically in favor of the Patriot Act, against legalization of marijuana, against gay marriage, disinterested in privacy rights, etc.
I'm not saying your wrong about the medium having no effect on the cost of albums, but your logic is seriously flawed. I don't know what all they factor into setting prices for music, and honestly, I don't really care. But I still feel the need to point out that your argument isn't sound. Lower demand means lower price. There is a much lower demand for tapes than CDs, and has been for a long time. Also, online downloads are cheaper than CDs, so in that case the cheaper medium is cheaper for consumers.
You assume they'll still be buying CDs?
Well, there are WYSIWYG html editors that are more than capable for computer illiterates so, it should really be designed for people who are going to need to do things more advanced than that and if it takes a little more training but saves a lot of work hours it'll be worth the extra training.
It seems to me like the main reason for BSD advocates to dislike the GPL is that it essentially says "We're writing free software, but your software is too free, so you can't use our code. But we'll take plenty of your code." The GPL is supposed to keep proprietary software from taking from free software and not giving back their work, but the GPL doesn't allow work under it to be given back to the non-GPL open source community.
If you replace the word customers with lawyers, it's just about right I think.
This will never be true. Maybe some day most young people will have the ability to write simple visual basic programs, but most people will never have, and shouldn't need the ability to modify any large scale program.
Do you have any reason to back up that it would not be held up in court? Just because it's a stupid law doesn't mean the courts can knock it down.
I never heard any commitments from Apple to continue releasing new versions of the applications in the iLife suite and distributing them for free for all eternity throughout the universe and so on and so forth. If you don't think OS X upgrades are worth it without iLife, don't fucking buy them. Buy a fucking PC and install Linux on it and never pay for an update again. Linux forums will be even more friendly to your bitching about prices than slashdot is anyway. None of the things you mentioned are actually immoral. Offering something for free to start off with then charging for it later isn't any worse than charging for it from the beginning. OS X 10 was essentially beta software, so once someone gives software out to beta testers they can never charge for a later version? That's news. The old iApps works as well as they ever did. Just keep using them if you don't want to pay for updates.
They definitely can charge more for extra PCs, it's just hard to enforce since they don't really know how your home network is put together. In Michigan a law is in effect which makes it illegal to use NAT to get more than one computer onto your internet connection if your ISP doesn't want to allow it.
Conglomerate-A corporation that has diversified its operations usually by acquiring enterprises in widely varied industries.
What the fuck does how nice they are have to do with whether they're a conglomerate?
There is no difference between voting for your interesting and creating a new law for your own benefit. Even still, just because he's involved with the music industry and is advancing their goals doesn't make it selfish. If you're a programmer you're going to be more sympathetic to their causes, etc.
And some people are not sure this is a troll....? Ah well, definitely an amusing troll at least.
And cruel and unusual punishment? The fines are excessive, possibly, but as broadband becomes more and more popular, one person putting a movie that hasn't been released yet available online will have greater and greater potential for lost revenue to theaters, the movie studio, and so on. There's been a lot of fuss made in this discussion about the fact that nobody actually has to download it for it to be punishable. You can be punished for attempting any number of crimes, even if your attempt doesn't have a negative effect on anyone. (Attempted murder, attempted robbery, ...)
Your logic is terrible. So is anyone who owns a home and voting on property taxes in a conflict of interest? Or anyone who earns an income and votes on income tax? Maybe it's the case that congressmen shouldn't be allowed to vote on laws against murder, seeing as how they all have a vested interest in not being murdered.
Oh, and I'm sick of hearing about this compulsory licensing shit. Hey, why don't I pay a lot of money to some shit artist because 13 year old girls like them? Oh, hey, how about not. In fact, how about I decide who I want to give my music buying money to, and if they don't like their contracts with the record companies, they stop fucking signing them. I've bought music before directly from the artist via paypal, if the artists are getting fucked so much, why don't more bands do something similar? Maybe because you have to get the word out somehow which isn't quite so easy...
People complain about how artists get screwed over and over and over agian but the record companies make artists famous, and if you're famous then you can make plenty of money through live shows, so it seems like they're providing a valuable service to some people at least.
Ugh, you know what. I don't even care. People can cry about how the record companies are making money off this and Apple has to settle for the sales of Ipods all they want or whatever. I don't care. I hope the whole music industry collapses so that everyone who's whined about it to no end has no choice but to listen to terrible local garage bands who only know three chords if they want to listen to music.
Now I know that sounds like I'm anti-capitalism, but in actuality, I'm very very pro capitalism. I just don't think there's anything wrong with putting your competition out of business.
On the first point, not sure. On the second, MS released a new version of Office for Mac this summer, so that would've definitely been during the OS X 10.2 lifetime.
The main difficulty is that it's a right to left language instead of left to right like english. So editors, i.e. Word, need to be reprogrammed so that as you type the cursor moves to the left, instead of to the right.
Well, if Microsoft is using their monopoly with Office to try and force people to stay on Windows, then they're arguably abusing the monopoly which everyone has long been aware that they've had.