I know what you mean. However, there is hope. After hearing all about the better security of OpenBSD for quite some time now, I decided to take the plunge this afternoon: I've ordered my official OpenBSD CDs and they should be here soon! I can't wait to play with it...
"This is a very profound moment historically," Time Warner President Richard Parsons says. "This isn't just about a bunch of kids stealing music. It's about an assault on everything that constitutes the cultural expression of our society."
Yep. And you're the one assaulting it. You are the one who shoves crap like the Backstreet Boys on us. You are the uncivilized cretin, Mr. Parsons. The sooner your kind die, the sooner real culture can thrive. I won't miss you at all.
If we fail to protect and preserve our intellectual property system, the culture will atrophy. And corporations won't be the only ones hurt. Artists will have no incentive to create.
Mr. Parsons, consider yourself to have met an artist with the incentive to create no matter what monetary rewards (or lack thereof) are present. Perhaps your world, where so-called "artists" are in it for the money, would perish; but this would definitely be a boon to civilization. We can do without Britany Spears.
Worst-case scenario: The country will end up in a sort of cultural Dark Ages."
It already is and you are to blame. I've seen the sort of garbage that Warner produces and I can tell you that it is responsible for all the cultural decay you see around you now. You are a fool, Mr. Parsons.
2D or CGI? They're only tools--you can make crap with either one and you can make a masterpiece with either one. But like someone else here said, "One of the many problems in Hollywood is that a studio will release something original, thoughtful, and creative, and that triggers a huge wave of "me too" copies."
This happens everywhere; when DooM was released, everyone started working on FPS. Little did they realize that, although 3D environments were pretty neat, it was the design and thought behind the game that really sold. If the first FPS game had been crappy, someone good would have seen it and said, "That's a great idea; now what can I do to make it better?"
Well, I know that Intel puts absolutely huge margins for error in their processors (not sure about AMD, though). With the kind of tolerances they're using, there's very little chance of doing any damage (if you do it right, of course). Many people look at it as if they've been sold a 900 MHz machine that's been underclocked by the manufacturer.
I'd go with WindowMaker. It may be personal bias (and I'm definitely *STEP biased) but I think it is the most solid and clean WM out there. It's especially better than all the Windows clones out there. It can use more resources than Blackbox or something, but it's a lot better than E.
There has been a low-latency patch that enables Linux to match or beat BeOS for quite some time now. Linus wouldn't accept it becase it contained things he thought were too kludgy (and he may be right). At any rate, a new patch by Andrew Morton is being tested right now; it should be acceptable to Linus. It's coming, just be patient!
It would seem as if the obvious solution for the music industry would be to adapt to changing times more quickly by offerring digital downloads for a small fee, I don't know why they just don't go ahead and do it.
Amen. I mean, haven't they heard of re-inventing oneself? Any corporation or industry that doesn't adapt to the changing market dies. Economic darwinism in action. I find it hard to believe that they're that dumb; but maybe they are.
Besides, how many times have you heard a CD with one or two good tracks on it? Buying only parts of The Wall would be stupid; but most stuff being done today has nowhere near that much unity.
Is there any use in trying to compete against PB.app and IB.app? I mean, Borland was never bad exactly; but the NeXT-derived development envioronment blows everything else out of the water.
OK, let me get this straight. A non-multitasking, ugly-as-crap OS, with no real memory protection is innovative; but a fine implementation of UNIX is obsolete? If I had to go with innovative and still stay within the Steve Jobs realm, I'd say NeXTSTEP.
Besides, when did "well-tested" become "obsolete"? Y'know, the human hand has been around for thousands of years but it seems to work just fine. Good design is never out of style.
I know what you're getting at; but if enough people break the rules (or don't turn in those who are breaking rules), then the FCC and ITU will start getting far more authoritarian than they already are. It is kind of silly. But that's the way bureaucracy works, unfortunately.
It's because we worship (yes, worship) equality. Not as in, "Don't discriminate against someone different from you," but as in, "Everyone must be exactly the same!" Our quest for the elusive "equality" has gone beyond what is reasonable and possible. And I don't want to hear any utopian socialists saying that mankind will evolve to perfection or other such crap. Ain't gonna happen.
I have seen some cases where they abuse the term. Usually in stories about some boneheaded ISP getting rid of someone's account because they said something the ISP didn't like.
I really suggest you don't hang out on IRC. My experience with it has been similar to yours. I once entered a Linux IRC channel and *immediately* was kicked. It was my first time ever on IRC, and I hadn't even said anything yet!
I *have* been able to find good help with USENET; I've found people to be very friendly. You should also try searching deja.com first to see if someone has already answered your question. Hope that helps. Just remember that there are a lot of losers out there who get their kicks by being nasty.
The point is that the maximum environment-friendliness comes at a cost that cuts into corporate profits. Period. They make more money letting the oil spill once in a while than by spending money making it as sure as possible it won't happen.
I guess we should just agree to disagree on this particular point.
But if you say you care about something, say you'd like to give money, but don't do it and start whining about how the people who are actually doing stuff aren't making it easy enough for you, expect no pity.
Look, I'm not one to defend wimps any more than you are; however, I don't think the idea of letting people contribute money over the Internet without leaving their seat is a bad thing. Perhaps you weren't reacting to this idea so much as his statement about not sending a fax or mail. I don't know what his motives are for this (perhaps he has just made the decision to do everything over the Internet without exception--I don't know), but making things easier can only make things better, IMHO. If I have misinterpreted your views, I apologize.
Where the hell did I claim that it is the interest of oil companies to spill oil? Can you point out the precise words that say that?
I suppose I misunderstood your comment. You said that the oil companies and those who wish to protect wildlife have "precisely the opposite interests". Obviously, the "interest" of environmentalists is to not spill oil; the opposite of this would be to indeed spill oil. Voila.
Oil companies are simply not interested in preventing oil spills to the max degree possible, since that would cut a big bite off their profits.
Not as much as they'd lose from boycotts, fines, lower stocks, and lost product (not to mention the fact that the ship is sometimes lost as well). I know you probably find it hard to believe but oil companies really really really really really don't want their oil in the ocean. They'd like it to stay in the tanker and reach its destination. When you consider how much oil is shipped every day, and how few oil spills there really are, I'd say they aren't doing too bad. Air travel doesn't have as good a record.
They simply want the biggest profits, and if that means spilling their oil regularly out of unsufficient precautions, they are happy with that.
Believe it or not, they really aren't happy with that. They lose profits even if they spill oil occasionally. If they lost it regularly, they'd go out of business.
No. That would be known as selling peace of mind to smug and clueless gringo yuppies who don't really care about anyone or anything but themselves.
And the problem with this is? If they donate money and it helps out with the cause what do you care about their motives? Or are you just an elitist who can't stand those who donate money to something you care about for "the wrong reasons"?
This kind of attitude needs to go, if any good is to come.
I just can't believe you said this. How can extra people donating money to a cause make bad things happen (unless it's a bad cause)?
I read this comment. Please don't dignify it by calling it a troll. It was just a poor attempt at sarcasm that involved bathroom humor (which I find disgusting anyway). One thing I do wish is that the moderators would stop confusing Troll with Offtopic.
Why is it that Doritos are constantly changing "their look" but never the taste or ingredients? Every time I go to the store, I see a bag of Doritos with "New and Improved" stamped on it. Upon closer inspection, I always find that only the look is "New and Improved."
While we're at it, how can something be both new and improved. If it's new, what are they improving on?
Social resposibility is not a commodity-- it requires actual work and effort.
For the best results, it should be as streamlined and simple as possible. That would be known as a Good Thing.
No, because these companies have precisely the opposite interests they do.
I'm sorry, but you are simply wrong--oil companies have no interest in spilling their oil all over the ocean. First, they lose their stock that way (reduced profits); second, they get quite a lot of heat from enviromental groups. This often results in boycotts (especially if it can be shown that negligence or a drunk captain was involved). And boycotts (,if they are big enough,) *definitely* translate into reduced profits. Oil covered oceans doesn't make the oil companies happy and it doesn't make the fish and water fowl happy.
How many of us can actually hear 22khz or more? My hearing probably fades somewhere between 17-19khz.. Yes, we can argue about the effects of inaudible high frequency components but cd-quality is more than enough for me.
Yes. There are a few people who can hear up to 24kHz or so, but that's pretty much the limit. 48kHz should do just fine. What we really need is more resolution. 16 bits just doesn't cut it. I think DVD will do 24. I want 32.
"C'mon, these are simple consumer printing devices! You can't ban something simply because somebody might be able to use it for music!"
"I'm sorry, but if you PIRATES hadn't used this technology to STEAL our intellectual property, it wouldn't have come to this. It's all your fault; and we're not just going to sit idly by and watch a bunch of pirates take the food out of the mouths of our starving children! DO YOU WANT STARVING CHILDREN?!?"
Slashdot Mirror
There's nothing worse than a braggart. ;-)
I know what you mean. However, there is hope. After hearing all about the better security of OpenBSD for quite some time now, I decided to take the plunge this afternoon: I've ordered my official OpenBSD CDs and they should be here soon! I can't wait to play with it...
Yep. And you're the one assaulting it. You are the one who shoves crap like the Backstreet Boys on us. You are the uncivilized cretin, Mr. Parsons. The sooner your kind die, the sooner real culture can thrive. I won't miss you at all.
If we fail to protect and preserve our intellectual property system, the culture will atrophy. And corporations won't be the only ones hurt. Artists will have no incentive to create.
Mr. Parsons, consider yourself to have met an artist with the incentive to create no matter what monetary rewards (or lack thereof) are present. Perhaps your world, where so-called "artists" are in it for the money, would perish; but this would definitely be a boon to civilization. We can do without Britany Spears.
Worst-case scenario: The country will end up in a sort of cultural Dark Ages."
It already is and you are to blame. I've seen the sort of garbage that Warner produces and I can tell you that it is responsible for all the cultural decay you see around you now. You are a fool, Mr. Parsons.
This happens everywhere; when DooM was released, everyone started working on FPS. Little did they realize that, although 3D environments were pretty neat, it was the design and thought behind the game that really sold. If the first FPS game had been crappy, someone good would have seen it and said, "That's a great idea; now what can I do to make it better?"
Well, I know that Intel puts absolutely huge margins for error in their processors (not sure about AMD, though). With the kind of tolerances they're using, there's very little chance of doing any damage (if you do it right, of course). Many people look at it as if they've been sold a 900 MHz machine that's been underclocked by the manufacturer.
Down with Aqua and all its inherant "Mac-ness"! Up with NeXT! Hooray!
I'd go with WindowMaker. It may be personal bias (and I'm definitely *STEP biased) but I think it is the most solid and clean WM out there. It's especially better than all the Windows clones out there. It can use more resources than Blackbox or something, but it's a lot better than E.
There has been a low-latency patch that enables Linux to match or beat BeOS for quite some time now. Linus wouldn't accept it becase it contained things he thought were too kludgy (and he may be right). At any rate, a new patch by Andrew Morton is being tested right now; it should be acceptable to Linus. It's coming, just be patient!
Amen. I mean, haven't they heard of re-inventing oneself? Any corporation or industry that doesn't adapt to the changing market dies. Economic darwinism in action. I find it hard to believe that they're that dumb; but maybe they are.
Besides, how many times have you heard a CD with one or two good tracks on it? Buying only parts of The Wall would be stupid; but most stuff being done today has nowhere near that much unity.
Is there any use in trying to compete against PB.app and IB.app? I mean, Borland was never bad exactly; but the NeXT-derived development envioronment blows everything else out of the water.
Besides, when did "well-tested" become "obsolete"? Y'know, the human hand has been around for thousands of years but it seems to work just fine. Good design is never out of style.
I know what you're getting at; but if enough people break the rules (or don't turn in those who are breaking rules), then the FCC and ITU will start getting far more authoritarian than they already are. It is kind of silly. But that's the way bureaucracy works, unfortunately.
It's because we worship (yes, worship) equality. Not as in, "Don't discriminate against someone different from you," but as in, "Everyone must be exactly the same!" Our quest for the elusive "equality" has gone beyond what is reasonable and possible. And I don't want to hear any utopian socialists saying that mankind will evolve to perfection or other such crap. Ain't gonna happen.
I have seen some cases where they abuse the term. Usually in stories about some boneheaded ISP getting rid of someone's account because they said something the ISP didn't like.
Prog rock
Some crazy little women
I *have* been able to find good help with USENET; I've found people to be very friendly. You should also try searching deja.com first to see if someone has already answered your question. Hope that helps. Just remember that there are a lot of losers out there who get their kicks by being nasty.
I guess we should just agree to disagree on this particular point.
But if you say you care about something, say you'd like to give money, but don't do it and start whining about how the people who are actually doing stuff aren't making it easy enough for you, expect no pity.
Look, I'm not one to defend wimps any more than you are; however, I don't think the idea of letting people contribute money over the Internet without leaving their seat is a bad thing. Perhaps you weren't reacting to this idea so much as his statement about not sending a fax or mail. I don't know what his motives are for this (perhaps he has just made the decision to do everything over the Internet without exception--I don't know), but making things easier can only make things better, IMHO. If I have misinterpreted your views, I apologize.
I suppose I misunderstood your comment. You said that the oil companies and those who wish to protect wildlife have "precisely the opposite interests". Obviously, the "interest" of environmentalists is to not spill oil; the opposite of this would be to indeed spill oil. Voila.
Oil companies are simply not interested in preventing oil spills to the max degree possible, since that would cut a big bite off their profits.
Not as much as they'd lose from boycotts, fines, lower stocks, and lost product (not to mention the fact that the ship is sometimes lost as well). I know you probably find it hard to believe but oil companies really really really really really don't want their oil in the ocean. They'd like it to stay in the tanker and reach its destination. When you consider how much oil is shipped every day, and how few oil spills there really are, I'd say they aren't doing too bad. Air travel doesn't have as good a record.
They simply want the biggest profits, and if that means spilling their oil regularly out of unsufficient precautions, they are happy with that.
Believe it or not, they really aren't happy with that. They lose profits even if they spill oil occasionally. If they lost it regularly, they'd go out of business.
No. That would be known as selling peace of mind to smug and clueless gringo yuppies who don't really care about anyone or anything but themselves.
And the problem with this is? If they donate money and it helps out with the cause what do you care about their motives? Or are you just an elitist who can't stand those who donate money to something you care about for "the wrong reasons"?
This kind of attitude needs to go, if any good is to come.
I just can't believe you said this. How can extra people donating money to a cause make bad things happen (unless it's a bad cause)?
I read this comment. Please don't dignify it by calling it a troll. It was just a poor attempt at sarcasm that involved bathroom humor (which I find disgusting anyway). One thing I do wish is that the moderators would stop confusing Troll with Offtopic.
While we're at it, how can something be both new and improved. If it's new, what are they improving on?
For the best results, it should be as streamlined and simple as possible. That would be known as a Good Thing.
No, because these companies have precisely the opposite interests they do.
I'm sorry, but you are simply wrong--oil companies have no interest in spilling their oil all over the ocean. First, they lose their stock that way (reduced profits); second, they get quite a lot of heat from enviromental groups. This often results in boycotts (especially if it can be shown that negligence or a drunk captain was involved). And boycotts (,if they are big enough,) *definitely* translate into reduced profits. Oil covered oceans doesn't make the oil companies happy and it doesn't make the fish and water fowl happy.
Which is why it's called Copyleft, right?
Yes. There are a few people who can hear up to 24kHz or so, but that's pretty much the limit. 48kHz should do just fine. What we really need is more resolution. 16 bits just doesn't cut it. I think DVD will do 24. I want 32.
Beautiful! I wish I had thought of something like this for my roommate.
"C'mon, these are simple consumer printing devices! You can't ban something simply because somebody might be able to use it for music!"
"I'm sorry, but if you PIRATES hadn't used this technology to STEAL our intellectual property, it wouldn't have come to this. It's all your fault; and we're not just going to sit idly by and watch a bunch of pirates take the food out of the mouths of our starving children! DO YOU WANT STARVING CHILDREN?!?"