This is itself a troll. The video does not show Dvorak saying these things, but has him talking with the audio completely out of sync. From the FTA:
he started telling a story about how he deliberately pisses Mac users off to get flow for his stories, and I said, hold a minute, I want to record this, and shit if he didn't stop and repeat it for me and my video camera. I guess now I'm an official video blogger
Think about it, if you were doing well by professional trolling (and I'm not saying he's not) would you talk about it on video, and lose all that revenue by 'serious' news sites deciding not to link to you anymore? This is a hoax. It's also probably one of these things that ring so true that everyone goes on acting as though they were even after they're discredited, like Al Gore inventing the Internet.
The MPAA and RIAA don;t care about the large scale pirates, because these guys are indirectly supporting there business model. If you can get a pirate DVD for ~1/3 of the price in the shop, but the quality if often poor, the packaging is photocopied etc., it kind of reinforces the fact that you pay 3 times as much for the official copy. You see it like there are two different levels of quality being offered at two commensurate prices. In fact you mind less paying top dollar for a special film, or if it;s a gift, because you know that if you only want a crap copy you can get it cheap.
On the other hand, once you start downloading/filesharing/ripping this stuff, a light goes on in your head, and you realise what everyone on/. already knows - the film is just the 0s and 1s, and there is a limitless supply of them. It may sound obvious but it's not. Lots of people really don't understand, and have never really thought about, what actually happens when they 'buy' and 'download' say, a ringtone onto their phone. The RIAA and MPAA are painfully aware that their business model bit the dust in about 1995, and that their real position is now as distribution companies. There is no such thing as a 'content' industry anymore. They're just trying to stop these important economic, political and philosophic truths about the new economy from filtering through to the wider public, at least until such time as they have completely locked down everyone's TV, music player and games machine with DRM, and they can carry on as if nothing had changed.
No the salesperson will tell her whatever he has to persuade her to buy the system that the store has decided they want to push, and dissuade her or any other customer with enormous amounts of FUD from buying the other one. Presumably they will decide which one this will be on the basis of which makes more profit for them.
My understanding was that Perelman basically proved the Conjecture to the satisfaction of other mathematicians, but didn't try to get his work published in a peer-reviewed journal, expressly because he was not interested in the Clay Foundation's money, and wanted to show that.
Still, it should not be thought that the entrepreneurs behind the great telecoms bust were so clumsy as to get caught up in the financial carnage they left in their wake. Between 1997 and 2001, insiders cashed in some $18 billion in shares, unloading more than half this total in 2000, the year the price of telecoms shares peaked. But this only scratches the surface of the titanic redistribution of wealth achieved by US corporate leaders in the 1990s. Between 1995 and 1999, the value of stock options granted to US executives more than quadrupled, from $26.5 billion to $110 billion, or one fifth of non-financial corporate profits, net of interest. In 1992, corporate CEOs held 2 per cent of the equity of US corporations; today, they own 12 per cent. This ranks among the most spectacular acts of expropriation in the history of capitalism.
Yes, this explains that Steve Jobs sold $296m worth of shares in order to pay tax on the other $300m+ worth of shares he was paid by Apple.
In other words: He sold $296m worth of shares (back to Apple) as I stated. He received a massive amount (several hundred million dollars) worth of income off Apple in the last few years, in the form of shares, as I implied.
He didn't say as a result of, he said meanwhile. Meaning CEOs and other execs do reap massive rewards from their companies, but not necessarily as a result of outsourcing, often a cost-saving strategy of dubious effectiveness.
Mr Jobs just sold $295,000,000 worth of Apple stock.
In 1992, CEOs held 2 percent of the stock of US corporations, nowadays they own 12 percent. In less than 15 years, CEOs (not including other executives, just CEOs), have 'earned' themselves 10 whole percent of corporate America. If the division of pay were entirely fair and equitable, Steve Jobs and his fellow CEOs must be responsible for exactly one tenth of all the wealth created by anyone at all who works for a large corporation.
Are you talking about the Dapper Live CD? I had exactly the same problems with the Live CD from either Hoary or Breezy, I forget which, when it used to come on two CDs, a Live CD and an install CD.
Also, I've had the same problem after installing Hoary and updating to Breezy w/o CD, just using apt-get. Upon reboot, everything starts up fine until Gnome, when the mouse pointer appears on a brown background, but no desktop.
Never really bothered to find out what was up. I have a Fujitsu-Siemens Amilo Pro laptop, but I don't really see what kind of hardware problem it would be..
>I can't help but think that Apple's Mac OS X meets all of these. Besides being proprietary, what exactly about Mac OS X is not "nearly as effectiv[e]" compared to these four Linux distributions?
The extremely obvious, and implied criterion: -runs on standard hardware
Why don't you unplug the UPS from the grid, but keep the PC plugged into the UPS juice?
Unless there is some major confusion between myself and yourself about what an Uninterruptible Power Supply is, this is exactly what it's designed for.
You are right in assuming that dietary restrictions do have an important social purpose. My guess however is that this purpose is in fact to get people used to obeying arbitrary and nonsensical rules handed down by some spurious higher moral authority, rather than anything to do with hygiene.
if you don't modify the source code, you don't have to go out of your way to make sure it is present if you redistribute the software. the original source code is already freely available.
the OP's point is that you don't have to worry at all about the legality of burning/uploading free software to which you have access.
Slashdot Mirror
YDRC
I think it's also likely the GP was confusing the EFF with FSF..
Yeah, except he bought that uid on ebay.
that's right, download a copy of solaris and stick it on your pc.
you'll learn fast..
The MPAA and RIAA don;t care about the large scale pirates, because these guys are indirectly supporting there business model. If you can get a pirate DVD for ~1/3 of the price in the shop, but the quality if often poor, the packaging is photocopied etc., it kind of reinforces the fact that you pay 3 times as much for the official copy. You see it like there are two different levels of quality being offered at two commensurate prices. In fact you mind less paying top dollar for a special film, or if it;s a gift, because you know that if you only want a crap copy you can get it cheap.
/. already knows - the film is just the 0s and 1s, and there is a limitless supply of them. It may sound obvious but it's not. Lots of people really don't understand, and have never really thought about, what actually happens when they 'buy' and 'download' say, a ringtone onto their phone. The RIAA and MPAA are painfully aware that their business model bit the dust in about 1995, and that their real position is now as distribution companies. There is no such thing as a 'content' industry anymore. They're just trying to stop these important economic, political and philosophic truths about the new economy from filtering through to the wider public, at least until such time as they have completely locked down everyone's TV, music player and games machine with DRM, and they can carry on as if nothing had changed.
On the other hand, once you start downloading/filesharing/ripping this stuff, a light goes on in your head, and you realise what everyone on
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humor
n/t
there are more like 100 million MySpace users.
No the salesperson will tell her whatever he has to persuade her to buy the system that the store has decided they want to push, and dissuade her or any other customer with enormous amounts of FUD from buying the other one. Presumably they will decide which one this will be on the basis of which makes more profit for them.
My understanding was that Perelman basically proved the Conjecture to the satisfaction of other mathematicians, but didn't try to get his work published in a peer-reviewed journal, expressly because he was not interested in the Clay Foundation's money, and wanted to show that.
the original (Robert Brenner's) source is an interview with John C. Bogle, somewhere on the web, but I haven't been able to track it down.
Robert Brenner, Towards the Precipice in the London Review of Books
as to your second question, the context doesn't make it clear. i'm assuming all publicly quoted (and trying to find his original source..) hth.
Yes, this explains that Steve Jobs sold $296m worth of shares in order to pay tax on the other $300m+ worth of shares he was paid by Apple.
In other words: He sold $296m worth of shares (back to Apple) as I stated. He received a massive amount (several hundred million dollars) worth of income off Apple in the last few years, in the form of shares, as I implied.
What's your point?
He didn't say as a result of, he said meanwhile. Meaning CEOs and other execs do reap massive rewards from their companies, but not necessarily as a result of outsourcing, often a cost-saving strategy of dubious effectiveness.
Mr Jobs just sold $295,000,000 worth of Apple stock.
In 1992, CEOs held 2 percent of the stock of US corporations, nowadays they own 12 percent. In less than 15 years, CEOs (not including other executives, just CEOs), have 'earned' themselves 10 whole percent of corporate America. If the division of pay were entirely fair and equitable, Steve Jobs and his fellow CEOs must be responsible for exactly one tenth of all the wealth created by anyone at all who works for a large corporation.
Are you talking about the Dapper Live CD? I had exactly the same problems with the Live CD from either Hoary or Breezy, I forget which, when it used to come on two CDs, a Live CD and an install CD.
Also, I've had the same problem after installing Hoary and updating to Breezy w/o CD, just using apt-get. Upon reboot, everything starts up fine until Gnome, when the mouse pointer appears on a brown background, but no desktop.
Never really bothered to find out what was up. I have a Fujitsu-Siemens Amilo Pro laptop, but I don't really see what kind of hardware problem it would be..
>I can't help but think that Apple's Mac OS X meets all of these. Besides being proprietary, what exactly about Mac OS X is not "nearly as effectiv[e]" compared to these four Linux distributions?
The extremely obvious, and implied criterion:
- runs on standard hardware
[oops, i almost said
-runs on x86]
In fact, he doesn't even mention Richard Stallman or any trademarks he may have registered, directly or indirectly, throughout the whole article.
http://freshmeat.net/projects/fortune-discworld/
Why don't you unplug the UPS from the grid, but keep the PC plugged into the UPS juice?
Unless there is some major confusion between myself and yourself about what an Uninterruptible Power Supply is, this is exactly what it's designed for.
Democracy serves the people so much better when there are only two parties to choose between.
You are right in assuming that dietary restrictions do have an important social purpose. My guess however is that this purpose is in fact to get people used to obeying arbitrary and nonsensical rules handed down by some spurious higher moral authority, rather than anything to do with hygiene.
Gender is a grammatical term. For instance in German there are 3 genders: masculine, feminine and neuter, but there are not three sexes.
if you don't modify the source code, you don't have to go out of your way to make sure it is present if you redistribute the software. the original source code is already freely available.
the OP's point is that you don't have to worry at all about the legality of burning/uploading free software to which you have access.
Thanks. I'm glad i understood what you said and managed to paraphrase it correctly.
>I think working out that at some stage everyone must have blind faith in something is a kind of relief
Yes, a great relief! (for me at least) I do actually believe in God. But I wouldn't try and justify it except in the way we have discussed.