We don't care about being a traitor to Britian at the time, because all of our founding fathers were in a sense a traitor to them.
Huh? I was the one excusing his traitorous actions not the one complaining about them. I agree with you about the founding fathers. I don't get what you mean about me or you "caring" about them being traitors, why would we, or what's that got to do with anything?
Obviously that would be making things in such a grossly inefficient way as to require twice as much labor, thereby doubling the price which would nevertheless be eagerly paid by a grateful public.
Benedict Arnold was a traitor - he betrayed his country and his people for money.
It is true that he betrayed Britain but it seems that he was looking for glory more than for money. Also, to be fair, there were a LOT of traitors in the colonies at that time including such infamous characters as George Washington, and it seems harsh to pick on Benedict Arnold in particular.
Furthermore, he did later repent the treasonous acts of his youth and, an older and wiser man, he returned to the British fold, gave valuable service to the Crown and was forgiven his past. I think you're too harsh on him.
The original meaning of "acronym" was something along the lines of "a word formed from the initial letters of other words". Obvious examples would be laser, sonar, radar and scuba. Groups of initial letters that could not pronounced as words were not acronyms as they were not words.
However, about 20 years ago more and more people who were far too stupid to be capable of remembering more of the definition than "doesn't it have something to do with initial letters?" started to encounter home computers. Lots of the terminology of home computers used initial letters, sometimes acronyms, more often not. "Oh my god", screamed these people, "look something with initial letters in it! that must be an acronym.".
English is a living language and evolves through use. Today acronym can reasonably be taken to mean "something to do with initial letters isn't it?". So you're right, your friend is out of date.
Sad, really. People here talk about Apple Apologists.. I wonder about the OSS Appologists, though.
I'm not an apologist for anyone, nor have I accused you of being an apologist for anyone. Your resort to ad hominem attacks does you no credit at all.
I was surprised and intrigued by your willingness to state as fact what is and isn't lawful in Norway, nothing more nothing less. Your follow up post has, however, left me confused. Are you saying that these "Terms of sale" make it illegal in Norway for someone to use the iTunes service or are you speculating that they do, perhaps regretting your previous categorical statement, or are you no longer commenting on that side of things at all?
I'm still curious, though.. DVD Jon can't legally buy from the iTMS
Nice to encounter a Slashdot poster with the necessary expertise to give advice on Norwegian law. Could you provide some of the necessary cites to help educate the rest of us? TIA
The guy is on the board of 25 companies. How do you draw the conclusion that this is a "canopy goup representative". You might as well say the trolltech has a representative on the canopy board.
It's clear that you have no idea what you're talking about.
What is Ralph J. Yarro of Canopy infamy doing on the Trolltech board of directors?
There's a perfectly reasonable explanation. I simply play my Lawful Good paladin when attending Trolltech board meetings, my Chaotic Evil mage when attending SCO board meetings and my True Neutral druid when attending Canopy board meetings. This is quite common practice and nothing to be worried about.
You're thinking did SCO file six lawsuits or only five. And to tell you the truth I forgot myself in all this excitement. But being this is David Boies, the most powerful lawyer in the world and will blow your countersuit clean off, you've got to ask yourself a question. Do I feel lucky? Well do you, punk?
If your point is that companies can grow too powerful and that there are times when intervention to keep them under control and regulate them in the best interests of society as a whole then I agree with you.
On the other hand, if you're suggesting that use of blue versus green or red or whatever color LEDs is an issue meriting such action then I think you're insane. There is no vast blue LED conspiracy and if companies find that consumers would rather buy products with non-blue LEDs then they will provide them.
You are correct of course. Companies grow and fail, powers rise and fall, empires are built and crumble and through it all everyone thinks that whatever they have now will last.
Whether it's the Roman Empire or the Cold War or dominance of this or that country or continuation of this or that alliance or the domination over an industry of Ford or of IBM or of Microsoft, there's a determination that now things are different because this is NOW and how can things ever be different to that?
You're wasting your time reasoning with him. A large number of people have spent an enormous amount of mental effort convincing themselves that traffic laws exist only for revenue generation, because to their way of "thinking" this provides them with an excuse to drive dangerously. The fact that the approach under discussion doesn't raise any revenues whatsoever won't stop them from going into their pre-programmed routine.
They talk on the phone, flirt with the girl in the car next to them, adjust the radio, whatever. And they do that because they saw the next light just turn green 5 seconds ago.
So we never make any changes to our traffic signals and control systems ever again, because drivers might not expect it? The changes should be well publicised, even post hazard signs, sure, but that's not a reason to not try it at all.
Driving is hazardous. If these signals require people to stay more alert then that's at least as arguably a good thing as a bad thing.
"If you want your computer to be secure, don't park illegally."
"What does parking illegaly have to do with computer security?"
"So you're suggesting breaking the law?"
You might have a valid point about exposing computers to viruses by downloading pirated software, but you haven't made it. Your response here was just silly.
Pretty much all window managers-themes look/horrible/ on linux, this looks nice and might just make it more attractive for people to switch.
Might encourage them to try it but it also makes them less likely to stick with it when they find thing don't work quite right. A different appearance helps people with the learning experience because they have visual cues that things ARE different. Mimicking XP's appearance will mean they're constantly caught off guard by small differences, and they'll find that harder to cope with than bigger differences would have been.
Because you know that a floppy drive adds hundreds to the manufacturing cost.
How much does it have to add to hit your profits on a $300 item? Say they make a 10% profit, that's $30, say the floppy drive costs $3. Not including the drive would increase profits by 10%. If a 10% increase in profits doesn't sound appealing to you then I'm going to guess that nobody lets you make those sorts of decisions.
Occams razor doesn't help in this context. sure, it's plausible that the $10M is more likely than $20M-$10M, but it does not provide you with any proof that that is actually the case.
So why doesn't Ockham's razor help? The razor never provides proof that one possibility is wrong, it only ever helps you to choose between a number of outcomes all of which are possible. That's what it's for.
Unless humans learn to take care of what they have, we should not even begin to consider "jumping planets" just 'cause we don't want to fix up Earth.
I'd say that unless humans learn to take care of what they have then we'd better get working on jumping planets 'cause we don't want to fix up the earth. Seems more of a practical approach to me.
"Best" is so obviously subjective as to tell you nothing. There's no real test that you could use to refute it, especially about a hamburger. A lot more people will take "fastest" as being a factual claim, because that's what it sounds like.
Slashdot Mirror
Capitalism doesn't know patriotism, it's purely opportunistic.
99.9% of the time patriotism is purely opportunistic too. The two go well together.
We don't care about being a traitor to Britian at the time, because all of our founding fathers were in a sense a traitor to them.
Huh? I was the one excusing his traitorous actions not the one complaining about them. I agree with you about the founding fathers. I don't get what you mean about me or you "caring" about them being traitors, why would we, or what's that got to do with anything?
What is an "equitable" way to get rich?
Obviously that would be making things in such a grossly inefficient way as to require twice as much labor, thereby doubling the price which would nevertheless be eagerly paid by a grateful public.
Benedict Arnold was a traitor - he betrayed his country and his people for money.
It is true that he betrayed Britain but it seems that he was looking for glory more than for money. Also, to be fair, there were a LOT of traitors in the colonies at that time including such infamous characters as George Washington, and it seems harsh to pick on Benedict Arnold in particular.
Furthermore, he did later repent the treasonous acts of his youth and, an older and wiser man, he returned to the British fold, gave valuable service to the Crown and was forgiven his past. I think you're too harsh on him.
The original meaning of "acronym" was something along the lines of "a word formed from the initial letters of other words". Obvious examples would be laser, sonar, radar and scuba. Groups of initial letters that could not pronounced as words were not acronyms as they were not words.
However, about 20 years ago more and more people who were far too stupid to be capable of remembering more of the definition than "doesn't it have something to do with initial letters?" started to encounter home computers. Lots of the terminology of home computers used initial letters, sometimes acronyms, more often not. "Oh my god", screamed these people, "look something with initial letters in it! that must be an acronym.".
English is a living language and evolves through use. Today acronym can reasonably be taken to mean "something to do with initial letters isn't it?". So you're right, your friend is out of date.
Sad, really. People here talk about Apple Apologists.. I wonder about the OSS Appologists, though.
I'm not an apologist for anyone, nor have I accused you of being an apologist for anyone. Your resort to ad hominem attacks does you no credit at all.
I was surprised and intrigued by your willingness to state as fact what is and isn't lawful in Norway, nothing more nothing less. Your follow up post has, however, left me confused. Are you saying that these "Terms of sale" make it illegal in Norway for someone to use the iTunes service or are you speculating that they do, perhaps regretting your previous categorical statement, or are you no longer commenting on that side of things at all?
I'm still curious, though.. DVD Jon can't legally buy from the iTMS
Nice to encounter a Slashdot poster with the necessary expertise to give advice on Norwegian law. Could you provide some of the necessary cites to help educate the rest of us? TIA
The guy is on the board of 25 companies. How do you draw the conclusion that this is a "canopy goup representative". You might as well say the trolltech has a representative on the canopy board.
It's clear that you have no idea what you're talking about.
What is Ralph J. Yarro of Canopy infamy doing on the Trolltech board of directors?
There's a perfectly reasonable explanation. I simply play my Lawful Good paladin when attending Trolltech board meetings, my Chaotic Evil mage when attending SCO board meetings and my True Neutral druid when attending Canopy board meetings. This is quite common practice and nothing to be worried about.
I think we're supposed to be amazed that a big company did something that isn't illegal. Not sure though, that's the best I could get out of it.
Really there isn't just one question to ask.
You're thinking did SCO file six lawsuits or only five. And to tell you the truth I forgot myself in all this excitement. But being this is David Boies, the most powerful lawyer in the world and will blow your countersuit clean off, you've got to ask yourself a question. Do I feel lucky? Well do you, punk?
If your point is that companies can grow too powerful and that there are times when intervention to keep them under control and regulate them in the best interests of society as a whole then I agree with you.
On the other hand, if you're suggesting that use of blue versus green or red or whatever color LEDs is an issue meriting such action then I think you're insane. There is no vast blue LED conspiracy and if companies find that consumers would rather buy products with non-blue LEDs then they will provide them.
Single-person boycotts don't work.
Individuals deciding what they do and don't like then buying what they like and not what they don't is exactly how markets do normally work.
You are correct of course. Companies grow and fail, powers rise and fall, empires are built and crumble and through it all everyone thinks that whatever they have now will last.
Whether it's the Roman Empire or the Cold War or dominance of this or that country or continuation of this or that alliance or the domination over an industry of Ford or of IBM or of Microsoft, there's a determination that now things are different because this is NOW and how can things ever be different to that?
You're wasting your time reasoning with him. A large number of people have spent an enormous amount of mental effort convincing themselves that traffic laws exist only for revenue generation, because to their way of "thinking" this provides them with an excuse to drive dangerously. The fact that the approach under discussion doesn't raise any revenues whatsoever won't stop them from going into their pre-programmed routine.
They talk on the phone, flirt with the girl in the car next to them, adjust the radio, whatever. And they do that because they saw the next light just turn green 5 seconds ago.
So we never make any changes to our traffic signals and control systems ever again, because drivers might not expect it? The changes should be well publicised, even post hazard signs, sure, but that's not a reason to not try it at all.
Driving is hazardous. If these signals require people to stay more alert then that's at least as arguably a good thing as a bad thing.
If you're driving the speed limit, but the jackass ahead of you is speeding - you may just get stuck at every damn light.
True, but that's far from being the worst thing that can happen to someone as a result of some idiot speeding.
So you're suggesting breaking the law?
Huh?
"If you want your computer to be secure, don't park illegally."
"What does parking illegaly have to do with computer security?"
"So you're suggesting breaking the law?"
You might have a valid point about exposing computers to viruses by downloading pirated software, but you haven't made it. Your response here was just silly.
Pretty much all window managers-themes look /horrible/ on linux, this looks nice and might just make it more attractive for people to switch.
Might encourage them to try it but it also makes them less likely to stick with it when they find thing don't work quite right. A different appearance helps people with the learning experience because they have visual cues that things ARE different. Mimicking XP's appearance will mean they're constantly caught off guard by small differences, and they'll find that harder to cope with than bigger differences would have been.
This sounds great at first glance but my gut feeling is that most of these units sold will be reformatted with Windows.
Yes, it's frightening the lengths people will go to to avoid paying their $699 licensing fee.
Because you know that a floppy drive adds hundreds to the manufacturing cost.
How much does it have to add to hit your profits on a $300 item? Say they make a 10% profit, that's $30, say the floppy drive costs $3. Not including the drive would increase profits by 10%. If a 10% increase in profits doesn't sound appealing to you then I'm going to guess that nobody lets you make those sorts of decisions.
Occams razor doesn't help in this context. sure, it's plausible that the $10M is more likely than $20M-$10M, but it does not provide you with any proof that that is actually the case.
So why doesn't Ockham's razor help? The razor never provides proof that one possibility is wrong, it only ever helps you to choose between a number of outcomes all of which are possible. That's what it's for.
Great answer. But since we still can live here on earth today, it is not the million dollar answer. You need to provide a better one.
Well, it'd be something to do. Keeps people out of trouble. Could be fun. What more do you need?
Unless humans learn to take care of what they have, we should not even begin to consider "jumping planets" just 'cause we don't want to fix up Earth.
I'd say that unless humans learn to take care of what they have then we'd better get working on jumping planets 'cause we don't want to fix up the earth. Seems more of a practical approach to me.
"Best" is so obviously subjective as to tell you nothing. There's no real test that you could use to refute it, especially about a hamburger. A lot more people will take "fastest" as being a factual claim, because that's what it sounds like.