"*A full screen iPod would have worse battery life, all things being equal, than an iPod with a smaller screen." Live's tradeoffs... I'm sure though that smart software could reduce the consumption when it's working in music mode.
"*A non-physical-clickwheel would be harder to use blindly, as in a pocket." Three words: iPod Radio Remote
"*A non-physical-clickwheel would be an abandonment of the most iconic part of the brand." Bollocks! iPod shuffle doesn't have a clickwheel and it's still pretty successful. The most iconic part of the brand is "iPod" and the apple sign on the back, not the wheel.
"*A "true video" iPod would involve compromises making it a less ideal music player." You already mentioned the worse battery life, what else? To me it seems it would be just a video iPod with a bigger screen.
"When we talk about the lack of Free Speech, we mean that the statements can't be made in the first place. "
That reminds me about this: Q: What is the difference between the Constitutions of the USA and USSR? Both guarantee freedom of speech. A: In principle yes, but the Constitution of the USA also guarantees freedom after the speech.
But hey I apply principles to me and to others only to the extent they interact with me (I choose to listen to them or not) I don't go on trying to inflict my principles on other people. Again, I don't write letters to people to tell them what to do and tell them to be ashamed if they fell the test of my principles (of course I have the right to think whatever I like about them, but if you fail to see the difference I think I can't continue to argue with you).
The difference is that I don't send e-mails to people asking them to be fair or polite, not even to Theo *grins* (then I would be disgusted by myself) It's a difference between having principles and "be dedicated to them".
And by the way being polite and fair are principles that most of the people could agree on, for example I didn't hear many politicians saying "and I promise I won't be fair, and fuck you all if you don't believe me" while most of the people don't even think about open source, even less have opinions about the issue, and from people who have opinions about the issue there are enough people who don't think that proprietary source is Evil or don't think that signing a NDA is the same thing as selling your soul and something to be particularly ashamed of.
"Dedication to their principle is exactly what disgusts me.
You don't really mean that, do you?"
I usually mean what I say. The problem with people who are dedicated to principles (I'm talking in general not about the two guys) is that they tend to ignore other "mere details" such as truth, fairness, decency, etc in order to promote some principles that may or may not be general acceptable or even worth the sacrifice. My problem is that I don't know where to draw the line between "dedication to principle" and "fanaticism" and I definitely don't like the later. I mean, for example I cannot admire P.E.T.A. for their "dedication to their principle", can I? Even if I agree with their principles I can't agree with their means, so, as a matter of personal taste I can't really appreciate somebody for their dedications to their principles. Sorry, but when I hear this expression I immediately think about displeasing things and crimes, not about good things.
I don't impose anything, but I can choose not to listen to them. Hypothetically, if they want to discuss with me about those issue they would need to be polite, I can only assume that other people have similar preferences so if I want to make a point I don't start by accusing people of being against the idea of openness or having some obscure interests that dictates their actions.
"I hope that in time you are made to feel ashamed of the choice you have made." Highlighting the benefits of one idea.
Dedication to their principle is exactly what disgusts me. Principles should not stay in the way of being polite and fair.
It's exactly what I said in my previous post: there's one thing what you chose for yourself and it's another thing when you ask other people to make some choices and what kind of licenses to use and if they should sign a NDA or not. When you ask other people to do something there is a high standard for the language you use, it's not like anybody owes you anything. Also, people have different principles and different priorities, they also have different information, one shouldn't assume that somebody HAS to come to the same conclusion about something and if they don't they should be made to feel ashamed about that.
It's not like RMS nagged into oblivion people to start to write open source, he did it himself. I have the all the respect for people who do what needs to be done in order to archive an objective, but people who want to impose their ideas on other people disgust me.
So in part I have only respect for RMS for what he did, I have less respect for him if he comes and tells me (or anybody else) what license to use.
But you see with evey new feature they introduce they would have to support a security branch for that feature, instead of fixing everything wherever they can they would have to maintain a tree of security branches. (or they would have to introduce feature only in new releases)
Hmm, you should know that even if companies don't "pass the whole of their cost savings on to costumers" US economy gain from it (and thus the ordinary schmuck). Why?
1. Taxes. Higher profits = higher taxes -> money for schools (or for waging war) 2. More money for stock holders -> more money to buy houses, cars, vacations, education -> jobs for builders, GM and Ford don't go bankrupt. 3. More money for stock holders -> more money for investment -> more future jobs, future profits that will pay taxes, etc. 4. If there is enough presure and competition, companies do pass cost savings on to costomers, also some companies would go bankrupt if it were not for this kind of money savings -> that would also mean more costs for society.
We could have a Communist view about the economy and consider that money go to rich and poor will suffer, but that's not how economy really works.
Then I'd recommend a technology that transmits soundwaves through the head bones.
I can explain why I'd like to be able to read in the dark (or in poorly lighted room), can you please explain why you prefer to keep your fingers in your ears?
Not getting security updates is probably the biggest concern. I'm not sure if people will be content to feel like the are in underwear everytime they connect to Internet (heck, I feel that way whenever I use Windows XP)
"I can't help but think that those still working on the free parts of Mandrake are wasting resources"
I can't help but think that those people would not work on some tools if there would be some other free tools that did the same job, the same way, so if there's a need for those tools than it's a good thing that somebody works on them, moreover, being free anyone can use them so is not really a waste.
OK, let me try to bash it on DRM issues. I got a DVD from Netflix and I tried to play it on my Vista Beta 2 I got an error message saying that it cannot play because of DRM issues (don't remember the exact wording).
If that's going to happen in the final product then I predict Vista will be a computing lemon.
You want to say that seeing people die horrible deaths on live TV doesn't give you the right to be emotionally scared by it?
People react differently to tragedies, some people might have a death in family and live their life like nothing happened, somebody else might witness a tragedy and even if they don't have anybody close involved they might suffer from that event for a long time. People are different.
Quality is important, that's why I use Opera not Firefox (yeah, I know funboys will mod me down) however, what's more important is to have the freedom to switch, that's why Firefox is still important to me. I think that Mac OS is a good thing just as long as there is a easy way to switch to another, preferable free, OS (Linux) in case you need.
Correction: "the top 100,000 viruses only work on Windows"
Yes to caution, no to being silly: you can get killed in a good neighborhood, however if someone suggests you move from let's say Harlem to Beverly Hills you don't come with "Beverly Hills could be unsafe too" argument.
Slashdot Mirror
"*A full screen iPod would have worse battery life, all things being equal, than an iPod with a smaller screen."
Live's tradeoffs... I'm sure though that smart software could reduce the consumption when it's working in music mode.
"*A non-physical-clickwheel would be harder to use blindly, as in a pocket."
Three words: iPod Radio Remote
"*A non-physical-clickwheel would be an abandonment of the most iconic part of the brand."
Bollocks! iPod shuffle doesn't have a clickwheel and it's still pretty successful. The most iconic part of the brand is "iPod" and the apple sign on the back, not the wheel.
"*A "true video" iPod would involve compromises making it a less ideal music player."
You already mentioned the worse battery life, what else? To me it seems it would be just a video iPod with a bigger screen.
"How did the Linux users evolve?"
The same way as the homosexuals.
"When we talk about the lack of Free Speech, we mean that the statements can't be made in the first place. "
That reminds me about this:
Q: What is the difference between the Constitutions of the USA and USSR? Both guarantee freedom of speech.
A: In principle yes, but the Constitution of the USA also guarantees freedom after the speech.
But hey I apply principles to me and to others only to the extent they interact with me (I choose to listen to them or not) I don't go on trying to inflict my principles on other people. Again, I don't write letters to people to tell them what to do and tell them to be ashamed if they fell the test of my principles (of course I have the right to think whatever I like about them, but if you fail to see the difference I think I can't continue to argue with you).
The difference is that I don't send e-mails to people asking them to be fair or polite, not even to Theo *grins* (then I would be disgusted by myself) It's a difference between having principles and "be dedicated to them".
And by the way being polite and fair are principles that most of the people could agree on, for example I didn't hear many politicians saying "and I promise I won't be fair, and fuck you all if you don't believe me" while most of the people don't even think about open source, even less have opinions about the issue, and from people who have opinions about the issue there are enough people who don't think that proprietary source is Evil or don't think that signing a NDA is the same thing as selling your soul and something to be particularly ashamed of.
"Dedication to their principle is exactly what disgusts me.
You don't really mean that, do you?"
I usually mean what I say. The problem with people who are dedicated to principles (I'm talking in general not about the two guys) is that they tend to ignore other "mere details" such as truth, fairness, decency, etc in order to promote some principles that may or may not be general acceptable or even worth the sacrifice. My problem is that I don't know where to draw the line between "dedication to principle" and "fanaticism" and I definitely don't like the later. I mean, for example I cannot admire P.E.T.A. for their "dedication to their principle", can I? Even if I agree with their principles I can't agree with their means, so, as a matter of personal taste I can't really appreciate somebody for their dedications to their principles. Sorry, but when I hear this expression I immediately think about displeasing things and crimes, not about good things.
I don't impose anything, but I can choose not to listen to them. Hypothetically, if they want to discuss with me about those issue they would need to be polite, I can only assume that other people have similar preferences so if I want to make a point I don't start by accusing people of being against the idea of openness or having some obscure interests that dictates their actions.
"I hope that in time you are made to feel ashamed of the choice you have made." Highlighting the benefits of one idea.
Dedication to their principle is exactly what disgusts me. Principles should not stay in the way of being polite and fair.
It's exactly what I said in my previous post: there's one thing what you chose for yourself and it's another thing when you ask other people to make some choices and what kind of licenses to use and if they should sign a NDA or not. When you ask other people to do something there is a high standard for the language you use, it's not like anybody owes you anything. Also, people have different principles and different priorities, they also have different information, one shouldn't assume that somebody HAS to come to the same conclusion about something and if they don't they should be made to feel ashamed about that.
It's not like RMS nagged into oblivion people to start to write open source, he did it himself. I have the all the respect for people who do what needs to be done in order to archive an objective, but people who want to impose their ideas on other people disgust me.
So in part I have only respect for RMS for what he did, I have less respect for him if he comes and tells me (or anybody else) what license to use.
But you see with evey new feature they introduce they would have to support a security branch for that feature, instead of fixing everything wherever they can they would have to maintain a tree of security branches. (or they would have to introduce feature only in new releases)
Hmm, you should know that even if companies don't "pass the whole of their cost savings on to costumers" US economy gain from it (and thus the ordinary schmuck). Why?
1. Taxes. Higher profits = higher taxes -> money for schools (or for waging war)
2. More money for stock holders -> more money to buy houses, cars, vacations, education -> jobs for builders, GM and Ford don't go bankrupt.
3. More money for stock holders -> more money for investment -> more future jobs, future profits that will pay taxes, etc.
4. If there is enough presure and competition, companies do pass cost savings on to costomers, also some companies would go bankrupt if it were not for this kind of money savings -> that would also mean more costs for society.
We could have a Communist view about the economy and consider that money go to rich and poor will suffer, but that's not how economy really works.
"we are not getting as much back in the drop in price as we are losing through drops in jobs and real wages.."
How did you calculate that?
Then I'd recommend a technology that transmits soundwaves through the head bones.
I can explain why I'd like to be able to read in the dark (or in poorly lighted room), can you please explain why you prefer to keep your fingers in your ears?
No backlight? That's a deal breaker for me, I'd like to be able to read in bed in the dark.
I'm glad he didn't think Americans were launching rockets in a strange pattern in order to fool guys like him.
Not getting security updates is probably the biggest concern. I'm not sure if people will be content to feel like the are in underwear everytime they connect to Internet (heck, I feel that way whenever I use Windows XP)
"relies on something that does not exist: the perfect human being."
Actually I think it relies on perfect markets, which don't exist either.
It makes sense if you want to improve over something instead of starting from zero.
...no midichloreans joke yet?
"I can't help but think that those still working on the free parts of Mandrake are wasting resources"
I can't help but think that those people would not work on some tools if there would be some other free tools that did the same job, the same way, so if there's a need for those tools than it's a good thing that somebody works on them, moreover, being free anyone can use them so is not really a waste.
OK, let me try to bash it on DRM issues. I got a DVD from Netflix and I tried to play it on my Vista Beta 2 I got an error message saying that it cannot play because of DRM issues (don't remember the exact wording).
If that's going to happen in the final product then I predict Vista will be a computing lemon.
You want to say that seeing people die horrible deaths on live TV doesn't give you the right to be emotionally scared by it?
People react differently to tragedies, some people might have a death in family and live their life like nothing happened, somebody else might witness a tragedy and even if they don't have anybody close involved they might suffer from that event for a long time. People are different.
Quality is important, that's why I use Opera not Firefox (yeah, I know funboys will mod me down) however, what's more important is to have the freedom to switch, that's why Firefox is still important to me. I think that Mac OS is a good thing just as long as there is a easy way to switch to another, preferable free, OS (Linux) in case you need.
In real life things that are "Pure nor Beautiful" die fast.
Correction: "the top 100,000 viruses only work on Windows"
Yes to caution, no to being silly: you can get killed in a good neighborhood, however if someone suggests you move from let's say Harlem to Beverly Hills you don't come with "Beverly Hills could be unsafe too" argument.