I don't know about you, but I've never seen an internal hard drive with a Firewire connector; hence the suggestion for SATA (which, sooner or later, should propagate to 2.5" drives).
I've ordered one of these with the SXGA+ display. On Windows, you'd be right because it doesn't have a resolution-independent display. However, I think I'll be okay because I plan to use KDE on it.
What he really failed to mention is that the X60t has a choice of three screens: a regular 1024x768, a 1024x768 touchscreen/outdoor readable, or a 1400x1050 SXGA+ screen. Granted, it still has Intel graphics, but a 6200 isn't that much better, and since the X60t is (much) lighter and smaller than the Toshiba it's worth it.
Of course, the downside is that the SXGA+ screen is backordered or something -- according to Lenovo's website, my X60t isn't scheduled to ship until February. : (
Talk to me in about a month or so (when my X60t -- ordered a week ago -- finally arrives). I'll actually be able to tell you whether OSX86 works "well enough" on it.
Do you believe you should be able to walk into the Library, grab a book, and walk out with it. Never pay for the book. EVER.
No, but only because the library wouldn't have it anymore -- a situation which is entirely different than getting a non-DRM'd digital download.
There's nothing that prevents you from copying a download from NetLibrary to your computer and cracking it.
Err, except the DRM -- which, by the way, makes it a FELONY under the DMCA to copy it, REGARDLESS of whether the intended use would otherwise fall under Fair Use.
They're EASY to crack. As easy as "photocopying a book".
No, it's not. Show me where I can download software to crack Windows Media 9 DRM, I dare you. Getting the uncompressed stream doesn't count; that's not the same data. And bonus points if it works on OSX or Linux.
Oh, and no matter what, the fact that I'd have to do anything at all makes it harder than photocopying a book!
Why not? DRM is wrong, and the library is wrong for perpetuating it. If nobody used NetLibrary, it would go out of business and we wouldn't be having this problem, now would we?
Hasn't it occurred to you, as a library employee, that the very premise of a library depends on Fair Use? And don't you realize that DRM, by it's very nature, prohibits Fair Use? How, then, can you not see that DRM is ultimately destructive to everything you and the library hope to accomplish?
How do you suggest a library allow you to check out digital content online?
If they can't do it right, then they shouldn't do it at all! And if that means nobody gets any digital content, well then let that just be a lesson on the evils of DRM.
Hmm, well, the fact is that Internet Explorer is free too.
No, it's not free (not even "as in beer"). It's just already paid for, because it's included in the price of Windows.
Especially considering that the computers are only being used for Internet access, there's no excuse whatsoever for not using Linux and Firefox instead, and saving taxpayers the cost of Windows licenses.
You'd think that, wouldn't you? I, on the other hand, am actually rather upset at the Gwinnett (note: a county in Georgia) Public Library, because they make digital media available only in proprietary DRM'd WMA format. It's bad enough that DRM exists, but it really pisses me off when my taxes are paying for it!
We all know that unless Sony drops the ball they're getting the Final Fantasy's, the Metal Gear Solids, and the Devil May Crys.
What do you mean, "unless Sony drops the ball?" Not only has the ball been dropped, but it's rolled down the driveway and is sitting in traffic! The only thing the remaining exclusives could be waiting for is to see if Sony can retrieve it without becoming road kill.
Unix gurus that still consider linux a "hacker's toy". i work with one of the later types.
If you don't mind, could you ask him this question for me: what's the meaningful difference between Unix and Linux, from a user perpective, and why should the user care which one he uses?
Protected content is DRMed movies and music. We're not talking about encrypted financial documents.
You know, this point is apparently harder to understand than you realize. After all, even some people who aren't affiliated with the publishing industry still support DRM, because they mistakenly think it'll help them "protect" their own data. They fail to understand that that doesn't require DRM, but works perfectly well with plain encryption (in which the owner knows the key).
And I agree with you that it doesn't matter, unless someone comes up with a way to predict what exactly you're going to do, which doesn't seem likely (or possible) without time travel, and at that point there are bigger things to worry about.
If there is no free will then it still wouldn't matter even with time travel, because the time travel would be (or rather, have been) completely deterministic!
They are not set from some place outside the universe. As such, they are completely deterministic.
Stuff can come from within the universe without being "completely deterministic." Ever hear of the brownian motion or the Heisenberg uncertainty principle? Who is to say that free will couldn't exist because of that?
Offer stupid extras or game downloads or other crap as premiums, but don't charge for basic multiplayer game functionality.
That goes for all of the other console mfgrs as well.
That's what happens when you choose to support proprietary crap instead of an open standard like PC gaming is [supposed to be, MS's attempts to hijack it via DirectX notwithstanding].
The basis for things like copyright, as explicitly stated in the Constitution, is "to promote the progress of science and the useful arts." As such, copyright must be designed to do that. If you disagree, you're necessarily claiming that copyright is unconstitutional.
This was a civil suit, where one guy was, despite being asked not to, leveraging someone else's material and bandwidth to fatten up his website with owning the content or doing the work or paying the bills
Correction: This was a civil suit, where one guy was doing exactly what the World Wide Web was designed to do, who nevertheless lost because the judge was apparently a dumbass!
And as usual, it's up to the copyright holder to tell someone to knock it off.
No, what's usual -- and appropriate -- would be for the copyright holder to take down content he doesn't want other people to see, not whine to the court (using up public resources) to cover for his own stupidity!
I hate phone PDAs. Too many functions in a phone detracts from its usefulness, IMO. I want a phone with a phone book, period. If I want more, I'll use my PDA.:-)
Personally, I want a phone without it's own phone book, that instead just accesses my PDA's over Bluetooth or something.
The problem with your argument, though, is that there is not an "absence of State regulation!" The reason the big telecom companies exist at all is that the government paid for the infrastructure in the first place. Because of that, new companies will not be able to enter this market.
Incidentally, the whole point of the build-out requirements was the principle that because the public was paying for it, the whole public should benefit.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know about you, but I've never seen an internal hard drive with a Firewire connector; hence the suggestion for SATA (which, sooner or later, should propagate to 2.5" drives).
I've ordered one of these with the SXGA+ display. On Windows, you'd be right because it doesn't have a resolution-independent display. However, I think I'll be okay because I plan to use KDE on it.
The NON-TABLET X60 (such as your X60s) has been out for a long time; the TABLET X60 just came out.
What he really failed to mention is that the X60t has a choice of three screens: a regular 1024x768, a 1024x768 touchscreen/outdoor readable, or a 1400x1050 SXGA+ screen. Granted, it still has Intel graphics, but a 6200 isn't that much better, and since the X60t is (much) lighter and smaller than the Toshiba it's worth it.
Of course, the downside is that the SXGA+ screen is backordered or something -- according to Lenovo's website, my X60t isn't scheduled to ship until February. : (
Talk to me in about a month or so (when my X60t -- ordered a week ago -- finally arrives). I'll actually be able to tell you whether OSX86 works "well enough" on it.
If you plan to run Linux on it, on the other hand, the onboard video is perfect -- yay Intel GPL video drivers!
No, but only because the library wouldn't have it anymore -- a situation which is entirely different than getting a non-DRM'd digital download.
Err, except the DRM -- which, by the way, makes it a FELONY under the DMCA to copy it, REGARDLESS of whether the intended use would otherwise fall under Fair Use.
No, it's not. Show me where I can download software to crack Windows Media 9 DRM, I dare you. Getting the uncompressed stream doesn't count; that's not the same data. And bonus points if it works on OSX or Linux.
Oh, and no matter what, the fact that I'd have to do anything at all makes it harder than photocopying a book!
Why not? DRM is wrong, and the library is wrong for perpetuating it. If nobody used NetLibrary, it would go out of business and we wouldn't be having this problem, now would we?
Hasn't it occurred to you, as a library employee, that the very premise of a library depends on Fair Use? And don't you realize that DRM, by it's very nature, prohibits Fair Use? How, then, can you not see that DRM is ultimately destructive to everything you and the library hope to accomplish?
If they can't do it right, then they shouldn't do it at all! And if that means nobody gets any digital content, well then let that just be a lesson on the evils of DRM.
No, it's not free (not even "as in beer"). It's just already paid for, because it's included in the price of Windows.
Especially considering that the computers are only being used for Internet access, there's no excuse whatsoever for not using Linux and Firefox instead, and saving taxpayers the cost of Windows licenses.
You'd think that, wouldn't you? I, on the other hand, am actually rather upset at the Gwinnett (note: a county in Georgia) Public Library, because they make digital media available only in proprietary DRM'd WMA format. It's bad enough that DRM exists, but it really pisses me off when my taxes are paying for it!
What do you mean, "unless Sony drops the ball?" Not only has the ball been dropped, but it's rolled down the driveway and is sitting in traffic! The only thing the remaining exclusives could be waiting for is to see if Sony can retrieve it without becoming road kill.
If you don't mind, could you ask him this question for me: what's the meaningful difference between Unix and Linux, from a user perpective, and why should the user care which one he uses?
You know, this point is apparently harder to understand than you realize. After all, even some people who aren't affiliated with the publishing industry still support DRM, because they mistakenly think it'll help them "protect" their own data. They fail to understand that that doesn't require DRM, but works perfectly well with plain encryption (in which the owner knows the key).
Actually, the odds are pretty good for current HD media, because the publishers want more market penetration before they tighten the noose.
If there is no free will then it still wouldn't matter even with time travel, because the time travel would be (or rather, have been) completely deterministic!
Stuff can come from within the universe without being "completely deterministic." Ever hear of the brownian motion or the Heisenberg uncertainty principle? Who is to say that free will couldn't exist because of that?
That's what happens when you choose to support proprietary crap instead of an open standard like PC gaming is [supposed to be, MS's attempts to hijack it via DirectX notwithstanding].
The basis for things like copyright, as explicitly stated in the Constitution, is "to promote the progress of science and the useful arts." As such, copyright must be designed to do that. If you disagree, you're necessarily claiming that copyright is unconstitutional.
Correction: This was a civil suit, where one guy was doing exactly what the World Wide Web was designed to do, who nevertheless lost because the judge was apparently a dumbass!
No, what's usual -- and appropriate -- would be for the copyright holder to take down content he doesn't want other people to see, not whine to the court (using up public resources) to cover for his own stupidity!
Do you realize you're entirely offtopic, since nothing whatsoever was stolen here? Even the RIAA's lawyers are smart enough to figure that out!
Yeah, they'll just bankrupt you and let you live out the rest of your days as a homeless wretch. But hey, at least you'd be alive, right?
Personally, I want a phone without it's own phone book, that instead just accesses my PDA's over Bluetooth or something.
The problem with your argument, though, is that there is not an "absence of State regulation!" The reason the big telecom companies exist at all is that the government paid for the infrastructure in the first place. Because of that, new companies will not be able to enter this market.
Incidentally, the whole point of the build-out requirements was the principle that because the public was paying for it, the whole public should benefit.
I don't know about that, but I do know it was a Venture Brothers episode.