You can either call your own attorneys, if you have any, and spend several weeks evaluating their contract at the cost of several thousand dollars of your own money, or, they say, you can simply agree to the contract by blinking your eyes.
Or, as is the case with software EULAs, you can tell them to take their catfood and shove it.
I couldn't agree more. A good rule of thumb is that AOL + ANYTHING = crap. I literally got a knot in my stomach when I read "...America Online, whose talks with Google prompted the change in policy..." AOL killed Winamp and Netscape, and now they are threatening Google. This is a sad day, if only it were April 1st there would be hope that this is all just a lie. It is like AOL is a parasite and only remains alive by sucking the life out of everything it touches.
Yes, I know that, but if you want a no hassle Unix, which was my main puchase factor, the Mac was the cheapest option.
Ah, same reason I got one. I was probably confused by "cheapest" - I've seen so few *nix on laptop options it's basically "only."
I don't expect to stick with the Mac though since although I don't regret my choice, I'm not overly impressed with the Unix side of things. Apple may have used a BSD base but it's really hard to find below all the crud, and even then it has been twisted so far that it's become quite difficult to use. Still what there is is nice to have. I'd still prefer a proper Linux or Unix machine though.
Agreed. Compiling OSS apps from source is a major bitch since some required toolkit will invariably puke on the Mac, requiring major Makefile investigation...or, more likely, saying "screw it."
Actually all macs aren't that expensive, when I bought my iBook for 1200 it was after carefully considering the alternative (an Intel/AMD Linux laptop), and the Apple machine certainly was cheaper.
You can get significantly more powerful laptops than an iBook for 1200 Euro. I say this as a Powerbook owner too - the decision was not made from a cost standpoint.
1) Yes, you definitely have to be decently well-off to be a Mac user. However, 2) Mac folks and their ~3% marketshare won't be enough to skew the general trend in a noticeable way.
When you think about it, all these investment banks do is take nothing, divide it up, sell it, and make a huge amount of profit on the hard work of entrepreneurs. Mizuho will no doubt be forced to pay back the difference to J-Com, but that's too late, really. Some lucky souls bought in at that low price and made up to 500,000% profit on the error.
So much capital floating around based on the creation of nothing. Is there a more apt description of the modern world?
Then I'm sure all these entrepeneurs are perfectly free to do their thing without a bank, huh? What's that - they can't because they don't have any money? Guess we need things like "banks" after all.
I don't think you grasp the concept of a service economy.
If you had an "english degree" (I presume you mean a Bachelor of Arts, English major, not a degree from an institution in England) and a portfolio of extra-curricular programming code/projects, I'm sure you'd have no problem getting graduate employment.
Yes, you would. You would have to be far more talented and experienced than the usual CS grad, which would 1) be rare, and 2) raise the question of why you weren't a CS major in the first place.
In general, employers desiring engineers hire people with training in, of all things, engineering. In the sciences and especially engineering, they teach real-world applicable knowledge, which you're expected to know on the job. Getting this outside of class is hard, and proving it much harder still.
It doesn't work for the consumer now. It's a falacy that it would cost more to the consumer. The technology is in place to do ala cart now.
True but irrelevant. It also doesn't cost the cable company any more to give you 200 channels than it does 2.
Keep the packages for the people who like 200+ channels of drek. I'll pay $3/channel for what I want. $15/month from me (do the math, yes that means 5 channels) is better than $0, and I'm guessing I watch a lot less TV than most people. They wouldn't really be hurting themsleves at all. I think Joe six-pack would still go for the bundles anyway.
That's the thing. They're not going to let you do that if it means losing money. You're probably going to pay $20 for the connection, $20 for the first channel, $10 for the next, $5 for the next, etc. If you think the cable companies will let people pay less via a la carte, you're crazy.
In 1986, Middle Tennessee State University established the "John Seigenthaler Chair of Excellence in First Amendment Studies," honoring Seigenthaler's "lifelong commitment to free expression values". He founded the First Amendment Center at Vanderbilt University in 1991.
rather than worrying that the little tyke is at the store buying an M-rated title behind their backs.
What is the kid doing at the store without you, if you're so afraid of the video games he's playing? Why is he playing games at home that you haven't ever looked at?
Try raising your own kids instead of getting the rest of us to do the job for you.
No, it means that you'd pay more per channel, pay the same, and get fewer channels. This won't work out for the consumer.
...Unless the FCC forces content providers. to unbundles what they sell to the cable companies, too. An example: for cable companies to carry the incredibly popular ESPN, they also have to carry ESPN2, ESPN News, and ESPN Classic. I think they even have to carry Disney channels, since ESPN is owned by Disney. So there's no way that the cable company is going to pay for these crappy channels at a per-subscriber basis and then allow you to opt out of them.
The cable company isn't the only bad guy here. Look at the content companies.
Because spoofing a content type is brain surgery. If the problem is that some websites aren't properly tagging the content type, that means it's not tamper-proof, huh? Doesn't imply security.
Are you telling me that if someone emailed you a screensaver, and the content type said screensaver, that you'd open it? If so, you're retarded.
who is paul murphy and why the fuck do I care what some blogger has to say?/. has gone from a blog reporting on news to a blog reporting on blogs. Why bother?
Well, you could read it and realize that it was a very well reasoned article heavy on original thought and not just the usual link-fest. Or you could actually do some research, and find that he is...
"a LinuxInsider columnist, wrote and published The Unix Guide to Defenestration. Murphy is a 20-year veteran of the IT consulting industry, specializing in Unix and Unix-related management issues."
Do you just blindly look at a source and assume it's valid? Tons of crap journalism gets published in NYT, WP, WSJ, etc. This article was far better than most of those. Use your own brain and don't assume credibility based on the masthead and byline.
So... you're saying that it will be earlier than expected (2nd half of 2006), by shipping sometime before Christmas 2006? Doesn't this mean "not late," rather than "early?"
No, see, because they make it in the second half of '06 by 5 days. When they meant second half, they meant New Year's Eve.
Slashdot Mirror
Or, as is the case with software EULAs, you can tell them to take their catfood and shove it.
Or something like "Folding@Home" that isn't a complete waste of time.
OMG ME TOO!!!!!!
Um, OK, for how long? Because the more relevant quantity that we'd actually care about is energy.
Not to be pedantic, but for something like this it actually matters (as opposed to the typical /. grammar-nazi asshattery).
What's wrong with Amazon for electronics?
Ah, same reason I got one. I was probably confused by "cheapest" - I've seen so few *nix on laptop options it's basically "only."
I don't expect to stick with the Mac though since although I don't regret my choice, I'm not overly impressed with the Unix side of things. Apple may have used a BSD base but it's really hard to find below all the crud, and even then it has been twisted so far that it's become quite difficult to use. Still what there is is nice to have. I'd still prefer a proper Linux or Unix machine though.
Agreed. Compiling OSS apps from source is a major bitch since some required toolkit will invariably puke on the Mac, requiring major Makefile investigation...or, more likely, saying "screw it."
You can get significantly more powerful laptops than an iBook for 1200 Euro. I say this as a Powerbook owner too - the decision was not made from a cost standpoint.
1) Yes, you definitely have to be decently well-off to be a Mac user. However, 2) Mac folks and their ~3% marketshare won't be enough to skew the general trend in a noticeable way.
Shaddup dumbass! The RIAA reads /.!
Then I'm sure all these entrepeneurs are perfectly free to do their thing without a bank, huh? What's that - they can't because they don't have any money? Guess we need things like "banks" after all.
I don't think you grasp the concept of a service economy.
At the BS level, CS basically == software engineering. At that level, CS is in no way a science.
Yes, you would. You would have to be far more talented and experienced than the usual CS grad, which would 1) be rare, and 2) raise the question of why you weren't a CS major in the first place.
In general, employers desiring engineers hire people with training in, of all things, engineering. In the sciences and especially engineering, they teach real-world applicable knowledge, which you're expected to know on the job. Getting this outside of class is hard, and proving it much harder still.
They're blaming global warming too.
What the hell world do you live in? I'd like to emigrate.
A lot of filters drop anything encrypted, for that reason.
True but irrelevant. It also doesn't cost the cable company any more to give you 200 channels than it does 2.
Keep the packages for the people who like 200+ channels of drek. I'll pay $3/channel for what I want. $15/month from me (do the math, yes that means 5 channels) is better than $0, and I'm guessing I watch a lot less TV than most people. They wouldn't really be hurting themsleves at all. I think Joe six-pack would still go for the bundles anyway.
That's the thing. They're not going to let you do that if it means losing money. You're probably going to pay $20 for the connection, $20 for the first channel, $10 for the next, $5 for the next, etc. If you think the cable companies will let people pay less via a la carte, you're crazy.
There's some irony for you.
What is the kid doing at the store without you, if you're so afraid of the video games he's playing? Why is he playing games at home that you haven't ever looked at?
Try raising your own kids instead of getting the rest of us to do the job for you.
...Unless the FCC forces content providers. to unbundles what they sell to the cable companies, too. An example: for cable companies to carry the incredibly popular ESPN, they also have to carry ESPN2, ESPN News, and ESPN Classic. I think they even have to carry Disney channels, since ESPN is owned by Disney. So there's no way that the cable company is going to pay for these crappy channels at a per-subscriber basis and then allow you to opt out of them.
The cable company isn't the only bad guy here. Look at the content companies.
Are you telling me that if someone emailed you a screensaver, and the content type said screensaver, that you'd open it? If so, you're retarded.
Well, you could read it and realize that it was a very well reasoned article heavy on original thought and not just the usual link-fest. Or you could actually do some research, and find that he is...
Do you just blindly look at a source and assume it's valid? Tons of crap journalism gets published in NYT, WP, WSJ, etc. This article was far better than most of those. Use your own brain and don't assume credibility based on the masthead and byline.
If you have it on your work computer, you can legally use the same SN for one computer at home.
Troll I hope? Cuz...no you can't.
No, see, because they make it in the second half of '06 by 5 days. When they meant second half, they meant New Year's Eve.
Also forgot labor and overhead, which could add substantially.
You mean like filetype:torrent? Crap, here come the feds!