We already pay for tap water: through our taxes. Pickens wants to change that, however: he wants us to pay a private owner for water, even water that's disputably owned. It think it's a bad idea. Do we really want to see private ownership of water? Then corporate ownership? It's bad enough that most consumers are being fooled by Pepsi and Coca Cola Bottling for their unregulated water products (which aren't any better than tap water, and are possibly worse); water should be free, everywhere, and perhaps the *only* resource government *must* provide.
There was a cover story on this in Business Week a few weeks ago. Pickens is facing alot of resistance from folks over his intention to put a price on drinking water. Though we pay taxes to the government for our tap water, we haven't yet directly paid a private owner for water. Pickens wants to change that; he wants to make water profitable even where it's currently (just about) free.
How in the world do hackers get their hands on these while the children they're intended for don't? BTW there's an interesting article about the OLPC XO's current situation in a recent article in Business Week.
Does anyone have any idea why Apple didn't go with AMD? I have no problem with them going with Intel, but AMD seems like it would have been a logical choice. AMD's already got the lead in the 64-bit space, is still the preferred platform for gamers and other CPU-intensive applications (like video and audio processing), and has always been the Underdog. They could have been a perfect fit for Apple.
That's sounds just about right for me--a lower-priced, AAC-compatible player. However, wait--I wanted to be able to play mp3PRO files, too. Where's that player?
I read a news item about the company that encodes the 30-second preview files for iTunes and other music services. I can't remember their name right now, but they encode directly from the master recordings. I'm not sure if they handle the entire encoding operation, though.
By the way, this company is going to start offering its tools to other companies so they can start their own music services.
...or the Science Channel. The Science Channel has been airing for a few years--I believe it was formerly called the Discovery Science Channel, or maybe it was the original Discovery Channel. They have good programming--the only problem is, they rerun stuff way too much. Wayyyy too much. Alot of the programming has been broadcast for at least a year. Still, if you haven't seen it before, it's new to you...
Is that possible? Well, I guess anything is possible. Here's another, big-hassle way of getting the DRM out of there. Burn a regular audio CD out of your iTunes AACs, then encode that CD back to AAC. Still lossy, but less so that some other methods.
Whenever a new generation of Mac systems comes out, the faster of the oldest systems beats the slowest of the newer systems. The G4's don't need to be traded in for quite some time.
(This is not directed toward you) I want my own legit copy, darnit! I want to feel good about the entire thing. Aargh! It doesn't bother me to "test" software--I really like the way shareware works, or most shareware--but once you start using software on a daily basis, or regularly, then I can't help but feel bad about not buying it.
Good question. I do know a teacher, and I considered doing just what you're saying, but I didn't. It also looks like that deal is over now (the free OS X-for-teachers deal).
I didn't know that. Thanks for the info., but still--why should I buy a "Family Pack" when the only user is me? And I'm pretty honest--I mean, I've been drying to use OS X for the past two years (or is it 3 now?), ever since I bought the beta, but I haven't been able to afford the upgrade, what with all the software I would want to upgrade so as to ensure the best possible compatibility (software like Office, Pro Tools, and other webcasting software)--and I've considered, many times, downloading a pirated copy of OS X to "test it out", but I can't bring myself to do it. I used to download software all the time, but now I use only legal, purchased copies of everything, although I download music from time to time. But it tees me off to think that I would have to pay twice for a product.
Where does Apple make MOST of its money? Is it the OS? Or the other software. I can see why they wouldn't want to have their software run on more than one computer, if the former is the case. However, the concept seems to fly in the face of reality. Why should anyone have to buy two copies of the same software, if they are going to be using it? It's like requiring someone to buy two monitors to use with two different computers, even if you have an adapter that allows you to use the same monitor.
Whether you agree with that analogy or not, I just think it's counter-intuitive to have to go buy another copy of OS X if you have a computer you just purchased on eBay that's ready for an installation of the OS. I think--here's my theory--that this is obvious to Apple, they would simply prefer folks to keep buying up multiple copies of their software. Jobs has his head on straight, and knows that folks are only going to buy what they need. It's one thing to be honest--it's another to go broke just using the technology you want/need to use.
Slashdot Mirror
We already pay for tap water: through our taxes. Pickens wants to change that, however: he wants us to pay a private owner for water, even water that's disputably owned. It think it's a bad idea. Do we really want to see private ownership of water? Then corporate ownership? It's bad enough that most consumers are being fooled by Pepsi and Coca Cola Bottling for their unregulated water products (which aren't any better than tap water, and are possibly worse); water should be free, everywhere, and perhaps the *only* resource government *must* provide.
There was a cover story on this in Business Week a few weeks ago. Pickens is facing alot of resistance from folks over his intention to put a price on drinking water. Though we pay taxes to the government for our tap water, we haven't yet directly paid a private owner for water. Pickens wants to change that; he wants to make water profitable even where it's currently (just about) free.
Ah, right -- I believe that promotion was mentioned in the Business Week article.
How in the world do hackers get their hands on these while the children they're intended for don't? BTW there's an interesting article about the OLPC XO's current situation in a recent article in Business Week.
Hey, me too! P.S. Follow me: twitter.com/harold
Failed bloggers Twitter for an audience; failed Twitterers will try geomicroblogging or whatever its going to be called.
I knew /. were a bunch of leacherz!
Does anyone have any idea why Apple didn't go with AMD? I have no problem with them going with Intel, but AMD seems like it would have been a logical choice. AMD's already got the lead in the 64-bit space, is still the preferred platform for gamers and other CPU-intensive applications (like video and audio processing), and has always been the Underdog. They could have been a perfect fit for Apple.
I thought it was funny.
That's sounds just about right for me--a lower-priced, AAC-compatible player. However, wait--I wanted to be able to play mp3PRO files, too. Where's that player?
I read a news item about the company that encodes the 30-second preview files for iTunes and other music services. I can't remember their name right now, but they encode directly from the master recordings. I'm not sure if they handle the entire encoding operation, though. By the way, this company is going to start offering its tools to other companies so they can start their own music services.
...or the Science Channel. The Science Channel has been airing for a few years--I believe it was formerly called the Discovery Science Channel, or maybe it was the original Discovery Channel. They have good programming--the only problem is, they rerun stuff way too much. Wayyyy too much. Alot of the programming has been broadcast for at least a year. Still, if you haven't seen it before, it's new to you...
What's suprnova? That's the second time I've heard of it this week.
Is that possible? Well, I guess anything is possible. Here's another, big-hassle way of getting the DRM out of there. Burn a regular audio CD out of your iTunes AACs, then encode that CD back to AAC. Still lossy, but less so that some other methods.
Linux version? That's a hack, right?
Finally, something I can mix with Cookie Crisps.
Whenever a new generation of Mac systems comes out, the faster of the oldest systems beats the slowest of the newer systems. The G4's don't need to be traded in for quite some time.
That sounds like that movie, "Brain Storm".
Does anyone still listen to shortwave? By the way, there's an interesting history of shortwave I picked up one day at the library and couldn't put down. It's called "On the Short Waves, 1923-1945: Broadcast Listening in the Pioneer Days of Radio", by Jerome S. Berg.
Oh, yes--I used to enjoy that track. From the CD, "OK Computer".
Yeah, like what if Mars has a great big hole, like Mel's Hole?
(This is not directed toward you) I want my own legit copy, darnit! I want to feel good about the entire thing. Aargh! It doesn't bother me to "test" software--I really like the way shareware works, or most shareware--but once you start using software on a daily basis, or regularly, then I can't help but feel bad about not buying it.
Good question. I do know a teacher, and I considered doing just what you're saying, but I didn't. It also looks like that deal is over now (the free OS X-for-teachers deal).
I didn't know that. Thanks for the info., but still--why should I buy a "Family Pack" when the only user is me? And I'm pretty honest--I mean, I've been drying to use OS X for the past two years (or is it 3 now?), ever since I bought the beta, but I haven't been able to afford the upgrade, what with all the software I would want to upgrade so as to ensure the best possible compatibility (software like Office, Pro Tools, and other webcasting software)--and I've considered, many times, downloading a pirated copy of OS X to "test it out", but I can't bring myself to do it. I used to download software all the time, but now I use only legal, purchased copies of everything, although I download music from time to time. But it tees me off to think that I would have to pay twice for a product.
Where does Apple make MOST of its money? Is it the OS? Or the other software. I can see why they wouldn't want to have their software run on more than one computer, if the former is the case. However, the concept seems to fly in the face of reality. Why should anyone have to buy two copies of the same software, if they are going to be using it? It's like requiring someone to buy two monitors to use with two different computers, even if you have an adapter that allows you to use the same monitor. Whether you agree with that analogy or not, I just think it's counter-intuitive to have to go buy another copy of OS X if you have a computer you just purchased on eBay that's ready for an installation of the OS. I think--here's my theory--that this is obvious to Apple, they would simply prefer folks to keep buying up multiple copies of their software. Jobs has his head on straight, and knows that folks are only going to buy what they need. It's one thing to be honest--it's another to go broke just using the technology you want/need to use.