I don't want to sound like a sitck-in-the-mud, and I'm a bit drunk, but why is this moderated "insightful"? Vista is fine on my pc, and it's no fantastic piece of kit. But then I guess that's the booze talking.
Well, I can think of a whole host of companies that have access to that information, which if denied access to it, would pretty much break the service. I guess you can't escape it:)
It's not ironic that all the other OSs are *nix. I don't think it means what you think it does.
As for Vista, we tried it out in our company, and it's fine for our uses. All our software works on it, the performance is more than impressive, administration costs are down (due to it being far more configurable when participating on an active directory).
The installer takes a time because of what it's actually doing. If you've been trying it out at your company, you obviously have read the literature describing what it's doing as it's installing. Vista was made to gain performance as it's used. The installation procedure sets up a computer with an almost infinite number of ways it can be used, and as you use them Vista reconfigures itself (precaching various applications to memory at a certain time, etc.). So, the installer is slow because it's only installed once. After that, the performance increases greatly. It's better that way than having a quick installer, and feeling the repercussions of that haste later on. If you don't like the interface's changes, you can make it function almost exactly like Windows XP, or even 2000. You can turn off the new GUI, you can turn off the new security features (if you so desire). You can even do all that via Active Directory, so the users don't even know it's being done. The difference between Vista and XP is slight when compared to the difference between XP and any other non-Windows operating system. Speed is not an issue, as I've said before, Vista's performance increases as it's used. It gets used to what the users are doing, and organises itself around that. It uses available memory far more intelligently, using as much as it can for as much speed as possible, relinquishing it when other applications need it. Older machines work fine with it, and indeed from my experience get a new lease of life with it.
So, there is great benefit to Vista, and the cost isn't that great. The fact Vista's sales are out-pacing XP's at the same point after XP's release speaks volumes.
No, XP threw up a whole host of compatibility issues, just as Vista is doing now. Vista will appear on more and more desktops as time goes on, just as XP did. The software vendors will have to update their sloppy code to work on Vista, and eventually we'll be were we were with XP when it was the de facto desktop OS.
And, btw, Vista does not have a huge learning curve - I picked it up in an afternoon, and I'm still searching for a reason to go back to XP. You can even make it run practically identical to XP by configuring a few options (if the computer is on an active directory, that can be done automatically).
Well, they know who bought the handset, so they do know who owns the IMEI in question. And, unlike sim cards, you can't change your IMEI easily (or possibly at all - it's a crime to do so in some countries). So if they wanted to, they could trace pretty much everything you did. But then AT&T can do that (and much more), so people worrying about this when AT&T is poised to rape their data seems a bit silly:)
Of course they should do with it as they want. But as cars in showrooms aren't seen as promotional items that should be given away to get repeat custom, albums shouldn't be put on the "oooh this costs money" pedestal. The owners are obviously free to do with it what they want, it's just that at the moment most of them are ignorant of the real reason albums exist.
I got a Dell with Vista pre-installed, and I decided to see if I could get along with it. I made sure I had an XP CD lying around to install should Vista not suit my needs. Well, it's a few months later, and I'm still using it. The performance is excellent, all my software works (granted it's pretty much only Adobe CS3, an SSH/FTP client, VPN client, packet sniffers, and games), and I've had no reason to change back to XP. I happen to appreciate the new GUI - it's very smooth, responsive, and coherent. I'm using it in conjunction with a Small Business Server 2003 box, and they play very nicely together. It's behaving well on the domain, the volume shadow copy functionality is working well. There are no stability problems - it doesn't crash, it doesn't need rebooting to "clear" the memory, nothing. It flies.
Seeing as Vista is selling better than XP was at this stage in its release, I don't think Vista is going anywhere. There were compatibility problems with XP, too, and they were overcome.
That guy's crackers. Have you read what he says about String Theory? It's insane. It's like it's his baby or something. His opinion of this new theory matters not to its accuracy.
Fair enough - they do make money from record sales, but then they make far, far more from live shows. They also lose money from record sales, as it means people have to pay money to hear their music, which might mean some folks who like their music don't realise that, and don't end up going to the live show. So, if the albums were released for free, they'd get maximum exposure, and the chances of them finding more of their audience increase greatly. Records are an anachronism, just like the record industry. Live music was here before both of them, and will be here long after they're both ancient history.
Just because a record is a protected work doesn't mean to say it shouldn't be distributed freely. If artists heard the real, true story about record companies, they'd come to the same conclusion. Of course it's up to the artists, and the fact some don't like it means they have no idea what's going on. If they'd never even heard of a record company, chances are they wouldn't give a rat's ass people are downloading it for free, I'm sure. And records are advertisements for live shows, regardless of what anyone might say. They can still be protected, but their main function, whether desired or not, is to advertise a band and build awareness of their music.
Musicians make money from live performances, not record sales. Records are advertisements for their live shows. Every time they get a sale of more than $0, they're making money where they shouldn't expect to. Because people get to listen to the music for free (or as much as they want to pay), the band gets much greater exposure, and so their ticket sales for live performances go through the roof, which is where they make their money. The only people who get hurt through these pay-what-you-want schemes is the record label, and they shouldn't even exist any more. They should feel lucky they lasted this long, count their millions, and fuck right off.
Not to mention in his warped example actual physical goods are being given away. Downloads are not physical, obviously, so the example is retarded at best.
How does it work? I'm saying the record company's claim to the copyright is bankrupt and shouldn't be honoured. The bands don't get much, money from record sales, with most of that taken by the record company for "marketing" the band and for anachronisms like breakages, etc. Why should record companies strong-arm performers into creating music for the record companies to whore out to the world for excessively large amount of money? I know two wrongs don't make a right, but when one's directly targetting the other, as in this case, then surely it's a step in the right direction. Sharing music online doesn't hurt bands, as bands don't give a shit about record sales, just publicity and public performances (which get them the majority of their income).
So, in short, if you like music, it's your duty to share. Even bands are realising this now.
"Stealing" is depriving someone of property, not gaining something for free. Downloading is copyright infringement, not stealing, as no-one is losing anything. The only way you can say someone's losing something is saying that maybe each and every person who downloads the music will no longer buy the album in a store - but if they're not going to buy it anyway, no-one's losing out. The music industry is different from nearly every other industry out there, as it exists only to further itself, and not that which it claims to promote - the artists. Artists get hardly anything from record sales, due to the labels using out-dated payment schemes based on low-yield vinyl production, which means artists get most of their income from live performances and merchandise. If you take the record labels out of the picture, the bands get just as much money as they did before, the bands get even more exposure (as everyone's downloading their music, thinking "wow this is great!" and going to their shows, netting the artists a cool $20 or more (compared to the cents an album sale gets), or the people listening don't like their music, and instead spend that $20 on a band they do like. You end up with artists getting paid a decent amount for their work, and music fans finding music they absolutely love, and getting to see these bands/artists live for the money they save on buying overpriced albums that only serve to fund the cartels controlling the sale of this promotional material (as that's what albums are - advertising for live gigs).
Vote all you want - it won't make the slightest bit of difference. Considering how much it costs to run for pretty much any public office in the US, it's already too late for voting to change anything. Politicians are in their own circles, flirting with rich folks, getting tea-bagged by lobbyists, only listening to those who can affect their next election. Policies are set by what those people want to hear - no-one's going to rock this boat, as it's far too lucrative for that to happen. Either the elected decent person gets perverted by the world they encounter, or someone else, scared of losing their cushy position, spends some of those ill-gotten funds in making the problem disappear. It's self-perpetuating, and we've been taken out of the loop. Politicians shouldn't be doing what they do for money - they should be doing it for the importance. It shouldn't cost anything to run for a public office, and there should be an honest, factual way of getting information about what each candidate stands for. Until you can guarantee that every voter knows exactly what each candidate stands for, and that each candidate isn't lying, democracy is democratic only in its image, not in its substance. Until then, it's a sham, and not voting is a great way to show that. No more of this "I now have a mandate to fuck shit up even more" bullshit because people hear the "you have to vote or you're a terrorist/a communist/french/King George" nonsense and sprint to the polling station in some ill-founded notion of patriotism or civic duty. Democracy is not the act of voting. In the west, the best we can hope for is the act of an educated people sincerely giving support to politicians who will do everything they can to truthfully represent those who have elected them. Thinking about that while looking at democracy as we see it is enough to make you laugh.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't want to sound like a sitck-in-the-mud, and I'm a bit drunk, but why is this moderated "insightful"? Vista is fine on my pc, and it's no fantastic piece of kit. But then I guess that's the booze talking.
Well, I can think of a whole host of companies that have access to that information, which if denied access to it, would pretty much break the service. I guess you can't escape it :)
It's not ironic that all the other OSs are *nix. I don't think it means what you think it does.
As for Vista, we tried it out in our company, and it's fine for our uses. All our software works on it, the performance is more than impressive, administration costs are down (due to it being far more configurable when participating on an active directory).
The installer takes a time because of what it's actually doing. If you've been trying it out at your company, you obviously have read the literature describing what it's doing as it's installing. Vista was made to gain performance as it's used. The installation procedure sets up a computer with an almost infinite number of ways it can be used, and as you use them Vista reconfigures itself (precaching various applications to memory at a certain time, etc.). So, the installer is slow because it's only installed once. After that, the performance increases greatly. It's better that way than having a quick installer, and feeling the repercussions of that haste later on. If you don't like the interface's changes, you can make it function almost exactly like Windows XP, or even 2000. You can turn off the new GUI, you can turn off the new security features (if you so desire). You can even do all that via Active Directory, so the users don't even know it's being done. The difference between Vista and XP is slight when compared to the difference between XP and any other non-Windows operating system. Speed is not an issue, as I've said before, Vista's performance increases as it's used. It gets used to what the users are doing, and organises itself around that. It uses available memory far more intelligently, using as much as it can for as much speed as possible, relinquishing it when other applications need it. Older machines work fine with it, and indeed from my experience get a new lease of life with it.
So, there is great benefit to Vista, and the cost isn't that great. The fact Vista's sales are out-pacing XP's at the same point after XP's release speaks volumes.
Vista is selling more than XP was at this time after XP's release, fyi.
No, XP threw up a whole host of compatibility issues, just as Vista is doing now. Vista will appear on more and more desktops as time goes on, just as XP did. The software vendors will have to update their sloppy code to work on Vista, and eventually we'll be were we were with XP when it was the de facto desktop OS.
And, btw, Vista does not have a huge learning curve - I picked it up in an afternoon, and I'm still searching for a reason to go back to XP. You can even make it run practically identical to XP by configuring a few options (if the computer is on an active directory, that can be done automatically).
Well, one reason I found is that it has 800 more options for group policies, which would be appealing to some admins, I'm sure.
"Common gutter computer"? grow up :)
... and go to jail! It's illegal to change your IMEI in the UK, fyi, so this isn't the best advice for anyone in the UK.
Well, they know who bought the handset, so they do know who owns the IMEI in question. And, unlike sim cards, you can't change your IMEI easily (or possibly at all - it's a crime to do so in some countries). So if they wanted to, they could trace pretty much everything you did. But then AT&T can do that (and much more), so people worrying about this when AT&T is poised to rape their data seems a bit silly :)
Even if Apple weren't collecting this information, AT&T has access to it. And stock quotes are hardly "financial information" :)
Of course they should do with it as they want. But as cars in showrooms aren't seen as promotional items that should be given away to get repeat custom, albums shouldn't be put on the "oooh this costs money" pedestal. The owners are obviously free to do with it what they want, it's just that at the moment most of them are ignorant of the real reason albums exist.
I got a Dell with Vista pre-installed, and I decided to see if I could get along with it. I made sure I had an XP CD lying around to install should Vista not suit my needs. Well, it's a few months later, and I'm still using it. The performance is excellent, all my software works (granted it's pretty much only Adobe CS3, an SSH/FTP client, VPN client, packet sniffers, and games), and I've had no reason to change back to XP. I happen to appreciate the new GUI - it's very smooth, responsive, and coherent. I'm using it in conjunction with a Small Business Server 2003 box, and they play very nicely together. It's behaving well on the domain, the volume shadow copy functionality is working well. There are no stability problems - it doesn't crash, it doesn't need rebooting to "clear" the memory, nothing. It flies.
Seeing as Vista is selling better than XP was at this stage in its release, I don't think Vista is going anywhere. There were compatibility problems with XP, too, and they were overcome.
Many, many of them. I'm one. It suits me perfectly.
I've seen it. He's talking into a walkie-talkie the whole movie.
That guy's crackers. Have you read what he says about String Theory? It's insane. It's like it's his baby or something. His opinion of this new theory matters not to its accuracy.
Fair enough - they do make money from record sales, but then they make far, far more from live shows. They also lose money from record sales, as it means people have to pay money to hear their music, which might mean some folks who like their music don't realise that, and don't end up going to the live show. So, if the albums were released for free, they'd get maximum exposure, and the chances of them finding more of their audience increase greatly. Records are an anachronism, just like the record industry. Live music was here before both of them, and will be here long after they're both ancient history.
Just because a record is a protected work doesn't mean to say it shouldn't be distributed freely. If artists heard the real, true story about record companies, they'd come to the same conclusion. Of course it's up to the artists, and the fact some don't like it means they have no idea what's going on. If they'd never even heard of a record company, chances are they wouldn't give a rat's ass people are downloading it for free, I'm sure. And records are advertisements for live shows, regardless of what anyone might say. They can still be protected, but their main function, whether desired or not, is to advertise a band and build awareness of their music.
Musicians make money from live performances, not record sales. Records are advertisements for their live shows. Every time they get a sale of more than $0, they're making money where they shouldn't expect to. Because people get to listen to the music for free (or as much as they want to pay), the band gets much greater exposure, and so their ticket sales for live performances go through the roof, which is where they make their money. The only people who get hurt through these pay-what-you-want schemes is the record label, and they shouldn't even exist any more. They should feel lucky they lasted this long, count their millions, and fuck right off.
What are they today?
Not to mention in his warped example actual physical goods are being given away. Downloads are not physical, obviously, so the example is retarded at best.
How does it work? I'm saying the record company's claim to the copyright is bankrupt and shouldn't be honoured. The bands don't get much, money from record sales, with most of that taken by the record company for "marketing" the band and for anachronisms like breakages, etc. Why should record companies strong-arm performers into creating music for the record companies to whore out to the world for excessively large amount of money? I know two wrongs don't make a right, but when one's directly targetting the other, as in this case, then surely it's a step in the right direction. Sharing music online doesn't hurt bands, as bands don't give a shit about record sales, just publicity and public performances (which get them the majority of their income).
So, in short, if you like music, it's your duty to share. Even bands are realising this now.
Fuck yeah! Why stop there? Poor people shouldn't get to vote in anything, because as you said - they have the least to lose! Votes for the rich!
So the fact the US is a non-democratic nation that creates undemocratic regimes of terror doesn't figure into your thinking?
What about the evil dimension? Is that in there yet?
"Stealing" is depriving someone of property, not gaining something for free. Downloading is copyright infringement, not stealing, as no-one is losing anything. The only way you can say someone's losing something is saying that maybe each and every person who downloads the music will no longer buy the album in a store - but if they're not going to buy it anyway, no-one's losing out. The music industry is different from nearly every other industry out there, as it exists only to further itself, and not that which it claims to promote - the artists. Artists get hardly anything from record sales, due to the labels using out-dated payment schemes based on low-yield vinyl production, which means artists get most of their income from live performances and merchandise. If you take the record labels out of the picture, the bands get just as much money as they did before, the bands get even more exposure (as everyone's downloading their music, thinking "wow this is great!" and going to their shows, netting the artists a cool $20 or more (compared to the cents an album sale gets), or the people listening don't like their music, and instead spend that $20 on a band they do like. You end up with artists getting paid a decent amount for their work, and music fans finding music they absolutely love, and getting to see these bands/artists live for the money they save on buying overpriced albums that only serve to fund the cartels controlling the sale of this promotional material (as that's what albums are - advertising for live gigs).
Vote all you want - it won't make the slightest bit of difference. Considering how much it costs to run for pretty much any public office in the US, it's already too late for voting to change anything. Politicians are in their own circles, flirting with rich folks, getting tea-bagged by lobbyists, only listening to those who can affect their next election. Policies are set by what those people want to hear - no-one's going to rock this boat, as it's far too lucrative for that to happen. Either the elected decent person gets perverted by the world they encounter, or someone else, scared of losing their cushy position, spends some of those ill-gotten funds in making the problem disappear. It's self-perpetuating, and we've been taken out of the loop. Politicians shouldn't be doing what they do for money - they should be doing it for the importance. It shouldn't cost anything to run for a public office, and there should be an honest, factual way of getting information about what each candidate stands for. Until you can guarantee that every voter knows exactly what each candidate stands for, and that each candidate isn't lying, democracy is democratic only in its image, not in its substance. Until then, it's a sham, and not voting is a great way to show that. No more of this "I now have a mandate to fuck shit up even more" bullshit because people hear the "you have to vote or you're a terrorist/a communist/french/King George" nonsense and sprint to the polling station in some ill-founded notion of patriotism or civic duty. Democracy is not the act of voting. In the west, the best we can hope for is the act of an educated people sincerely giving support to politicians who will do everything they can to truthfully represent those who have elected them. Thinking about that while looking at democracy as we see it is enough to make you laugh.