" Maybe they already figured out which side their bread was buttered on. After all, they are pretty sharp."
They have a reputation for being sharp for not having a taste for butter. Google refued to order search results by ad dollar and by that simple expedient competitors were swept aside and the company name became synonymous with "internet search".
Would you also be inclined to believe copyright holders drink harder and do more cocaine? After all, look at musicians. Don't even get me started on Roman Polanski.
" That goes both ways, who is going to finance the farms, factories or building companies?"
The same type of individuals who made obscene profits doing so in the past, before lawyers and lobbyists erected the current government enforced protection racket?
That's backwards. The US government now proves itself a wholly owned subsidiary of entertainment cartels. Future historians will have a field day with our era, endlessly arguing, picking apart and tracing precisely where and how it was decided to relinquish fundamental rights for the benefit of a tiny minority of business interests specializing in trivialities.
I personally don't care if Asa cares about me or not, the product does the talking and I just much prefer Mozilla to Firefox. The way it handles cookies, forms, etc. in an intuitive pull-down and searches in the main address bar are alone reason enough for me. If the plan is to halt updates I agree it's time to give Opera another look.
The reason for those commercial stretches is that ratings, the lifeblood of any commercial broadcaster, are based on 15 minute segments tuned. Stations are sacrificing 15 minutes an hour on the hope of keeping you for the remaning forty-five. Advertisers pay for contiguous segments tuned.
No, the point is these items aren't shortcomings but preferences for which the Firefox community provide options, quite unlike Microsoft's "we'll tell you what's right" attitude with IE.
Re:MOD REVIEW DOWN! TROLL!
on
Pornified
·
· Score: 1
Pamela Paul's paradox (with apologies to Fermi): if pornography is so destructive and pervasive, the victms should be all around us. Where are they? Everyone here among the computer literate should know at least one who's succumbed. A dozen years of Internet use later, I've never heard of a single case.
Just another moral treatise disguised as neutral research.
Gates is attempting to divert attention from the difference between fierce global, capitalist competition in the hardware market and a near monopoly in software by describing the resultant situation with a pseudo-scientific observation about economy of scale. Ore must be mined, metal smelted, fabrication plants constructed, research budgets to dwarf anything Microsoft spent to arrive at such value in hardware. Shipping physical devices alone guarantees hardware can never be produced for free. The only way his comments make any sense is if Microsoft provided a computer with every OS purchase. The consumer still pays for the hidden cost.
Gates is really whistling in the dark, trying to justify Microsoft's exhorbitant prices, licensing models and profit through misdirection.
Except the Gates disagrees. He's on public record as saying in the future hardware will be free and buying as computer means paying for software. I want to meet his economics professor.
I agree with your overview but not that the situation can any longer can be accurately described as capitalism. Corporatism maybe, oligarchical perhaps, but not capitalism.
Freeloaders? You mean people who pay the taxes, go to war, police the streets, put in all the gruntwork to maintain the safe and stable society in which 'creative types' flourish? Or did you mean the freeloaders who create the folklores, myths, legends and stories others rework and repackage as their personal IP? I'll venture the framers of the Constituition would have used the term citizenry instead, whether they cared about the politics or not, but the country's changed a great deal from those heady and idealistic days.
Not to sound harsh, but who cares what RIAA members think? The reason for granting them legal protection in the form of extended copyright (a very recent development) is demonstrable harm. If file sharing causes no harm, in fact benefits them, the laws are unjust and the wishes of this miniscule minority irrelevant.
Incidentally, the present RIAA 'rights' you mention are not to be confused with what people generally consider rights - to free speech, pursuit of happiness, etc.. There is no natural right to sell trivialy replicable items and force the remaining overwhelming majority of society to not do so by means of federal prosecution. It's instead a gross distortion of copyright's original intent bought and paid for through decades of campaign financing and lobbying.
How many times must this be explained before it sinks in? The GPL is designed to maximize sharing, in fact to require it, while copyright's aim (and this wasn't its original intent but a distortion from literally centuries of special interest corporate lobbying) is to prevent it beyond anyone's reasonable lifetime. There is no contradiction between supporting enforcement of the GPL and non-commercial copying and distribution. In both cases the vision is an open society. Why are so many here and their happy moderators unable to see past the means to this simple goal?
Since RTFA'ing to the end isn't your toolkit today, a helpful cut'n paste:
PC Mag's verdict:
"If you can remember the name of OpenOffice.org, you can remember where to download it for no charge. If you tried the previous 1.1.4 version, the 2.0 beta version currently available will be a pleasant surprise. Unlike the slow, ugly, and underpowered earlier version, 2.0 is swift, smooth, and highly compatible with Office documents. Even better, it has plenty of features that you can't find in MS Office itself.
"Anyone who doesn't want to pay Microsoft's premium prices for rarely used features may prefer this free suite. It does most everything that typical users need it to do, and does some things better than MS Office."
I think a bigger problem is Hollywood's marketing machine has control of the content. I go to few movies and watch very little television and constantly see anew to what shallow and machine-like levels current Hollywood product has sunk. A computer could churn out better scripts, reptiles better representations of human situations. A $9 DVD of "Twelve Angry Men" reminded me last night from what heights Hollywood has fallen. Of the few recent films I've seen recently that expressed any convincing human emotion - and didn't feel as if the main characters all had contract riders specifying how much camera time is devoted to catching their good side - most came from markets too small to have an entertainment establishment in control. Thailand for example.
That current legislation is subverting the very nature of free information exchange in our society on the demand of these rat-fucks is beyond my comprehension.
And if 'coca-cola' was a term in common use for thousands of years I'ld want a society that tells them to blow it out their ass too. How are we coming to a place where using common words is mediated by lawyers?
Thankfully the Japanese abstained or 20th Century history would be a sad chronicle of racing to close Giant Monster Gap. Who today wants to see a Mothra, MechaGodzilla or Ghidra fall into North Korean hands?
"Our government isn't listening. It hears what it wants to - fears over immigration, terrorism, etc - and acts on that."
I'ld quibble with that. Not just your government, any government. They claim to act on public fears but really just use it as lip service to do whatever the hell is necessary to line their pockets with corporate funds in time for the next election.
Slashdot Mirror
They have a reputation for being sharp for not having a taste for butter. Google refued to order search results by ad dollar and by that simple expedient competitors were swept aside and the company name became synonymous with "internet search".
Would you also be inclined to believe copyright holders drink harder and do more cocaine? After all, look at musicians. Don't even get me started on Roman Polanski.
The same type of individuals who made obscene profits doing so in the past, before lawyers and lobbyists erected the current government enforced protection racket?
That's backwards. The US government now proves itself a wholly owned subsidiary of entertainment cartels. Future historians will have a field day with our era, endlessly arguing, picking apart and tracing precisely where and how it was decided to relinquish fundamental rights for the benefit of a tiny minority of business interests specializing in trivialities.
I personally don't care if Asa cares about me or not, the product does the talking and I just much prefer Mozilla to Firefox. The way it handles cookies, forms, etc. in an intuitive pull-down and searches in the main address bar are alone reason enough for me. If the plan is to halt updates I agree it's time to give Opera another look.
Makes no sense? Welcome to broadcasting!
No, the point is these items aren't shortcomings but preferences for which the Firefox community provide options, quite unlike Microsoft's "we'll tell you what's right" attitude with IE.
Hmmmm, what level of computing are the four then?
Just another moral treatise disguised as neutral research.
Gates is really whistling in the dark, trying to justify Microsoft's exhorbitant prices, licensing models and profit through misdirection.
Except the Gates disagrees. He's on public record as saying in the future hardware will be free and buying as computer means paying for software. I want to meet his economics professor.
I agree with your overview but not that the situation can any longer can be accurately described as capitalism. Corporatism maybe, oligarchical perhaps, but not capitalism.
Freeloaders? You mean people who pay the taxes, go to war, police the streets, put in all the gruntwork to maintain the safe and stable society in which 'creative types' flourish? Or did you mean the freeloaders who create the folklores, myths, legends and stories others rework and repackage as their personal IP? I'll venture the framers of the Constituition would have used the term citizenry instead, whether they cared about the politics or not, but the country's changed a great deal from those heady and idealistic days.
Incidentally, the present RIAA 'rights' you mention are not to be confused with what people generally consider rights - to free speech, pursuit of happiness, etc.. There is no natural right to sell trivialy replicable items and force the remaining overwhelming majority of society to not do so by means of federal prosecution. It's instead a gross distortion of copyright's original intent bought and paid for through decades of campaign financing and lobbying.
How many times must this be explained before it sinks in? The GPL is designed to maximize sharing, in fact to require it, while copyright's aim (and this wasn't its original intent but a distortion from literally centuries of special interest corporate lobbying) is to prevent it beyond anyone's reasonable lifetime. There is no contradiction between supporting enforcement of the GPL and non-commercial copying and distribution. In both cases the vision is an open society. Why are so many here and their happy moderators unable to see past the means to this simple goal?
PC Mag's verdict:
"If you can remember the name of OpenOffice.org, you can remember where to download it for no charge. If you tried the previous 1.1.4 version, the 2.0 beta version currently available will be a pleasant surprise. Unlike the slow, ugly, and underpowered earlier version, 2.0 is swift, smooth, and highly compatible with Office documents. Even better, it has plenty of features that you can't find in MS Office itself.
"Anyone who doesn't want to pay Microsoft's premium prices for rarely used features may prefer this free suite. It does most everything that typical users need it to do, and does some things better than MS Office."
Essentially what that 'school kid' wrote.
"CBC picket walker mentions teens across street cheering Canadian Idol fave."
"CBC personalites consider appearance on college radio."
Thanks for the chuckle. It appears we Canadians have a very low scandal threshold. Another bookmark for the Raelian crank file.
That current legislation is subverting the very nature of free information exchange in our society on the demand of these rat-fucks is beyond my comprehension.
For being Catholic or private? It's no secret priviate schools generally offer a better education.
Not a Linux server? ;)
And if 'coca-cola' was a term in common use for thousands of years I'ld want a society that tells them to blow it out their ass too. How are we coming to a place where using common words is mediated by lawyers?
Anyone who needs to see keys in an FPS is a stationary target. Nice keyboard, as much benefit for gaming as neon case lights.
Mod up!
Thankfully the Japanese abstained or 20th Century history would be a sad chronicle of racing to close Giant Monster Gap. Who today wants to see a Mothra, MechaGodzilla or Ghidra fall into North Korean hands?
I'ld quibble with that. Not just your government, any government. They claim to act on public fears but really just use it as lip service to do whatever the hell is necessary to line their pockets with corporate funds in time for the next election.