All I can say is: you're obviosly listening to the wrong albums:)
Seriously though, I would never even dream of listening to, e.g., OK Computer, Come On Die Young or Twenty Twenty Sound out of order. Actually, that would probably go for anything by those artists. I generally distrust shuffle play because it doesn't give me any sort of consistent atmosphere. If I'm listening to Godspeed You Black Emperor! and it cuts straight into The Divine Comedy or Metallica my whole mood would be spoiled.
Coke, being the original inventors of the formula - and having no way to patent it - have done their damnedest to keep it secret from the rest of the world. The Other Big Company you mention (Pepsi, in this example) can do what they like to attempt to reverse engineer the recipe. They can even get it spot on if they like. There's nowt Coke can do to stop if it's all done legally (none of that racy industrial espionage stuff).
RCA is simply making it easier for me to SELF-CENSOR what I watch.
Well it doesn't allow you to self-censor. As far as I can make out the machine provides a built-in edit list for a known list of films (it says 500 in the article). What if your idea of acceptable content differs from the compilers of the edit list? You don't have a choice. Either way you have to put up with the film they give you. If you're not willing to watch the film in its original format what's the point? Whose story is it anyway - the director's or yours? He/she has deemed what's pertinent to the production and there shouldn't be anything you can do about it. Watch it whole, or don't watch it. How you can ever expect to get a whole story from a piece of work that's been bowdlerised in this fashion is beyond me. Tarantino without reference to drugs, sex, violence or swearing - ahahaha. Some of the greatest films since cinema began would be rendered utterly meaningless. Let's have a look shall we?
Godfather, The (1972)
Shawshank Redemption, The (1994)
Godfather: Part II, The (1974)
Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King, The (2003)
Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers, The (2002)
Schindler's List (1993)
Shichinin no samurai (1954)
Casablanca (1942)
Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring, The (2001)
Star Wars (1977)
This is the top 10 as voted by IMDb members, and whilst I can't agree with them all, none of them are films anyone should miss. Now can you imagine how much sense Kurasawa or LotR would make without violence? Schindler's List would last about 15 minutes.
Dumbest idea ever. Plain and simple. If you don't want to watch a film because of its content just admit it. Don't pretend you can go do it half-assed. It makes about as much sense as listening to a synth version of a song because you don't like the instrument the original was played on...
"However, if that's the case, wouldn't Cisco's fix simply change the password?"
Doesn't sound like much of a fix to me... That barely comes into the category of workaround. Maybe issue-evasion.
I see a great many people buying hardware from Cisco's competitors in the near-future. Like right now. I wonder how long it'll be before we find out what the user/pass pairs are?
Cool, thanks for that. So it's not open source, it would appear not to be closed source (in that we can see it if we want to) - so what is it? Is there a name for what this is?
Maybe open source should be called something else (free?) so we can use open to describe this circumstance?
Damn good point. I never listen to the radio, so whenever a song comes out that I like I may hear it occasionally but not to the point that I get sick of it. If I then obtain a copy (legally or otherwise) my friends often complain of not liking the song cos they've heard it too often, even if they admit it's a good song.
I suppose the best example of this would be Christmas jingles. Nobody likes Christmas songs, even ones with musical merit, because for a solid 6 weeks at the end of every year they're played round the clock in every superstore and shopping mall in the land.
Maybe I'm just getting definitions mixed up here but surely this is open source, because the source is revealed. If the source was not revealed it would be closed source. Does that not make sense?
That's what I would have assumed anyway. The source is revealed, so it's open, but we don't have a licence to use it. Obviously it's not GPL or BSD or any other licence like that, so people aren't allowed to use any of the contents of source in other software.
Um, your link makes no reference to "mad cow disease" in anything but cows. Aye, coos get BSE, sheep get scrapie, humans get (v-)CJD and no doubt there are a lovely pile of prion-related diseases amongst many different animals. Doesn't mean we call them all the same thing.
Well if that's the case why does no one get done for breaking and entering if they walked into an unsecured building? The answer is because they *can't* be. Sheesh.
Quality (reliability, security) comes first, then backwards compatability if it doesn't compromise the former.
Have you ever asked anyone whether they wanted a simple, reliable system, or a complex, flaky system and got a response you weren't expecting? It's fairly plain to see that if that were the choice (rather than, do you want the next version of Windows which will be better, or something you don't know) people always choose what you want them to.
As for providing backwards compatability it hasn't taken Apple too long to migrate their systems (and related developers) to a totally new environment with backwards emulation. Granted there exists a certain Mac-owning buying ethic which the rest of the world will never quite understand - but that doesn't mean the principle isn't the same.
It is not too late. If we thought it was what would the point be in any of this? If computers could never progress beyond ever-more-complex, silted up and kludged MS systems... would there be much point in trying? Is that where you see computers in 50 years time?
"Just as breaking into someones home, even if you don't rob them, can mentally scar them and scare them horribly."
Yes, but as we're talking about unsecured systems it's very hard to prosecute someone for that kind of behaviour. If someone walks in an open door or window to your house and takes a good ol' look around then leaves it's very difficult to do anything about it.
Even if you're there and you got the fright of your life, what have they done? Nothing, fortunately. No theft, no B&E. It happens, and when it does the polis have to lift the kids for breach of the peace. It's a catch-all, in these kinda situations.
"Whatever you say it's against the law. They shouldnt' have done it."
Hey, I never said it wasn't. Read my post.
"...I hope you end up in federal pound me in the ass prison."
What, no conjugal visits? You're too cruel.
"Or if you feel so strongly about this, hack the FBI to show their security is bad, please please try. Then we'll be rid of you."
Now why would I want to do something like that? So I get sent to the aforementioned prison and forego my conjugal visits? There's no reason; they have very little effect on my and I wouldn't do it even if they did. It shows a distinct lack of respect of others' privacy that kind of behaviour. Maybe if you feel there's just cause you should do it.
"...then slaughter all you zealots boxen with my 31337 5k177z."
(My emphasis.)
Are you sure you mean that? It looks remarkably like we're going to be slaughtered by your eleet skitts. Is this really wise? What's going to happen - will you be spraying us with superior slurry?;)
"We're still down to the assertion that his riches make him evil, reagrdless of what he uses them for."
If it was me that said that I didn't mean to... but I'm pretty sure I didn't. If so, I apologise for misleading you. The actions maketh the man. How he got those riches and what he is using them for are both very good things to judge him on. Not the number of zeroes in his bank balance. (Otherwise we'd have to blame people for inheriting fortunes. Whether this actually happens outside fairy tales is a moot point.)
But the same goes for any large corporation. (Not that MS are even any good in this regard. Read up on their relationship with temping agencies if you want to know where the money inside Microsoft and many other big companies goes.)
But really you're avoiding the issue. He makes large amounts of money from selling very poor software for *no* reason. That looks like avarice and sloth to me - and you say he's not evil:)
I'm sorry you regard me as a troll. I do not mean to inflame the conversation, merely fan;)
Anyway, I know little about you so maybe the above statements were somewhat OTT. Maybe you do have some regard for society, maybe you don't. But as you say yourself we're not uber-wealthy and it's rarely our type who get to mould the way things are.
However, I still stand by what I said about Gates. He clearly can, in so many ways, do a great deal of good for society. But he feels the urge to use his resources attempting to retain his stranglehold on the desktop OS market and elsewhere. Surely you can see what good can be done from such a position of power.
But as with all dictatorships, the end becomes retaining power rather than using power, for good or ill. But then, as I get told daily, I'm just a cynical bastard.
(Well, wherever you get that 90% figure from, you can keep it. But anyway...)
If you think giving money away means you have respect for the human race you must lead a very shallow existence indeed.
"Cutting the space budget really restores my faith in humanity. It eliminates dreams, goals, and deals and lets us get straight to the business of hate, debauchery, and self-annihilation."
-- Johnny Hart
"What would he have to do to abosolve himself of his horrid crimes (making a lot of money off crappy software)?"
That should be fairly obvious, as you've answered the question yourself. Stop making lots of money off crappy software. There are evidently plenty people out there who can write good software for free, why can't the richest man in the world (who I'm constantly told is so smart) get any of them motivated and organised enough to write any of his software well?
When he's dead and gone all he'll be remembered for is poor software and a large bank account. Even if he gives it all away by the end - what will that have achieved? Probably the fastest area of technological discovery these days (maybe behind biotech/genetics these days, but whatever) and all the Microsoft Corporation can do is stagnate the industry. I find that incredibly sad.
"And for the record, I have very little respect for the human race myself. Does that make me evil too? I guess not - I'm not uber-wealthy."
Well, I guess it does make you evil. You don't like people, and by your own admission too. You do not value human life, nor hold in any regard those about you. You don't sound like a very nice person to know, do you?
Slashdot Mirror
--
I feel so cold of hookers and gin / This mess we're in
Seriously though, I would never even dream of listening to, e.g., OK Computer, Come On Die Young or Twenty Twenty Sound out of order. Actually, that would probably go for anything by those artists. I generally distrust shuffle play because it doesn't give me any sort of consistent atmosphere. If I'm listening to Godspeed You Black Emperor! and it cuts straight into The Divine Comedy or Metallica my whole mood would be spoiled.
Coke, being the original inventors of the formula - and having no way to patent it - have done their damnedest to keep it secret from the rest of the world. The Other Big Company you mention (Pepsi, in this example) can do what they like to attempt to reverse engineer the recipe. They can even get it spot on if they like. There's nowt Coke can do to stop if it's all done legally (none of that racy industrial espionage stuff).
Yeah, but in Soviet Russia YOU install YaST Online Update!
Now why is it that economists seem to be so full of shit all the time?
my black what?
Well it doesn't allow you to self-censor. As far as I can make out the machine provides a built-in edit list for a known list of films (it says 500 in the article). What if your idea of acceptable content differs from the compilers of the edit list? You don't have a choice. Either way you have to put up with the film they give you. If you're not willing to watch the film in its original format what's the point? Whose story is it anyway - the director's or yours? He/she has deemed what's pertinent to the production and there shouldn't be anything you can do about it. Watch it whole, or don't watch it. How you can ever expect to get a whole story from a piece of work that's been bowdlerised in this fashion is beyond me. Tarantino without reference to drugs, sex, violence or swearing - ahahaha. Some of the greatest films since cinema began would be rendered utterly meaningless. Let's have a look shall we?
- Godfather, The (1972)
- Shawshank Redemption, The (1994)
- Godfather: Part II, The (1974)
- Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King, The (2003)
- Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers, The (2002)
- Schindler's List (1993)
- Shichinin no samurai (1954)
- Casablanca (1942)
- Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring, The (2001)
- Star Wars (1977)
This is the top 10 as voted by IMDb members, and whilst I can't agree with them all, none of them are films anyone should miss. Now can you imagine how much sense Kurasawa or LotR would make without violence? Schindler's List would last about 15 minutes.Dumbest idea ever. Plain and simple. If you don't want to watch a film because of its content just admit it. Don't pretend you can go do it half-assed. It makes about as much sense as listening to a synth version of a song because you don't like the instrument the original was played on...
Doesn't sound like much of a fix to me... That barely comes into the category of workaround. Maybe issue-evasion.
I see a great many people buying hardware from Cisco's competitors in the near-future. Like right now. I wonder how long it'll be before we find out what the user/pass pairs are?
Maybe open source should be called something else (free?) so we can use open to describe this circumstance?
Snake, aagh! Snake!
I suppose the best example of this would be Christmas jingles. Nobody likes Christmas songs, even ones with musical merit, because for a solid 6 weeks at the end of every year they're played round the clock in every superstore and shopping mall in the land.
That's what I would have assumed anyway. The source is revealed, so it's open, but we don't have a licence to use it. Obviously it's not GPL or BSD or any other licence like that, so people aren't allowed to use any of the contents of source in other software.
Yes? Or not?
I think he means NiMH, as in "Nickel Metal Hydride" (I think that's the spelling anyway.)
And this from someone who calls himself Dark Lord Seth...
Um, your link makes no reference to "mad cow disease" in anything but cows. Aye, coos get BSE, sheep get scrapie, humans get (v-)CJD and no doubt there are a lovely pile of prion-related diseases amongst many different animals. Doesn't mean we call them all the same thing.
Well if that's the case why does no one get done for breaking and entering if they walked into an unsecured building? The answer is because they *can't* be. Sheesh.
Have you ever asked anyone whether they wanted a simple, reliable system, or a complex, flaky system and got a response you weren't expecting? It's fairly plain to see that if that were the choice (rather than, do you want the next version of Windows which will be better, or something you don't know) people always choose what you want them to.
As for providing backwards compatability it hasn't taken Apple too long to migrate their systems (and related developers) to a totally new environment with backwards emulation. Granted there exists a certain Mac-owning buying ethic which the rest of the world will never quite understand - but that doesn't mean the principle isn't the same.
It is not too late. If we thought it was what would the point be in any of this? If computers could never progress beyond ever-more-complex, silted up and kludged MS systems... would there be much point in trying? Is that where you see computers in 50 years time?
"Just as breaking into someones home, even if you don't rob them, can mentally scar them and scare them horribly."
...I hope you end up in federal pound me in the ass prison."
Yes, but as we're talking about unsecured systems it's very hard to prosecute someone for that kind of behaviour. If someone walks in an open door or window to your house and takes a good ol' look around then leaves it's very difficult to do anything about it.
Even if you're there and you got the fright of your life, what have they done? Nothing, fortunately. No theft, no B&E. It happens, and when it does the polis have to lift the kids for breach of the peace. It's a catch-all, in these kinda situations.
"Whatever you say it's against the law. They shouldnt' have done it."
Hey, I never said it wasn't. Read my post.
"
What, no conjugal visits? You're too cruel.
"Or if you feel so strongly about this, hack the FBI to show their security is bad, please please try. Then we'll be rid of you."
Now why would I want to do something like that? So I get sent to the aforementioned prison and forego my conjugal visits? There's no reason; they have very little effect on my and I wouldn't do it even if they did. It shows a distinct lack of respect of others' privacy that kind of behaviour. Maybe if you feel there's just cause you should do it.
(My emphasis.)
Are you sure you mean that? It looks remarkably like we're going to be slaughtered by your eleet skitts. Is this really wise? What's going to happen - will you be spraying us with superior slurry? ;)
"We're still down to the assertion that his riches make him evil, reagrdless of what he uses them for."
If it was me that said that I didn't mean to... but I'm pretty sure I didn't. If so, I apologise for misleading you. The actions maketh the man. How he got those riches and what he is using them for are both very good things to judge him on. Not the number of zeroes in his bank balance. (Otherwise we'd have to blame people for inheriting fortunes. Whether this actually happens outside fairy tales is a moot point.)
But the same goes for any large corporation. (Not that MS are even any good in this regard. Read up on their relationship with temping agencies if you want to know where the money inside Microsoft and many other big companies goes.)
:)
But really you're avoiding the issue. He makes large amounts of money from selling very poor software for *no* reason. That looks like avarice and sloth to me - and you say he's not evil
I'm sorry you regard me as a troll. I do not mean to inflame the conversation, merely fan ;)
Anyway, I know little about you so maybe the above statements were somewhat OTT. Maybe you do have some regard for society, maybe you don't. But as you say yourself we're not uber-wealthy and it's rarely our type who get to mould the way things are.
However, I still stand by what I said about Gates. He clearly can, in so many ways, do a great deal of good for society. But he feels the urge to use his resources attempting to retain his stranglehold on the desktop OS market and elsewhere. Surely you can see what good can be done from such a position of power.
But as with all dictatorships, the end becomes retaining power rather than using power, for good or ill. But then, as I get told daily, I'm just a cynical bastard.
If you think giving money away means you have respect for the human race you must lead a very shallow existence indeed.
"Cutting the space budget really restores my faith in humanity. It eliminates dreams, goals, and deals and lets us get straight to the business of hate, debauchery, and self-annihilation."
-- Johnny Hart
"What would he have to do to abosolve himself of his horrid crimes (making a lot of money off crappy software)?"
That should be fairly obvious, as you've answered the question yourself. Stop making lots of money off crappy software. There are evidently plenty people out there who can write good software for free, why can't the richest man in the world (who I'm constantly told is so smart) get any of them motivated and organised enough to write any of his software well?
When he's dead and gone all he'll be remembered for is poor software and a large bank account. Even if he gives it all away by the end - what will that have achieved? Probably the fastest area of technological discovery these days (maybe behind biotech/genetics these days, but whatever) and all the Microsoft Corporation can do is stagnate the industry. I find that incredibly sad.
"And for the record, I have very little respect for the human race myself. Does that make me evil too? I guess not - I'm not uber-wealthy."
Well, I guess it does make you evil. You don't like people, and by your own admission too. You do not value human life, nor hold in any regard those about you. You don't sound like a very nice person to know, do you?