What I'd like is a reasonably fast wireless service that is good enough to let VPN work over it. My boss has had a terrible time getting that working on his Sprint PCS connection.
I almost feel bad when he calls from Hawaii and he can't get access to our database from the beach chair.
I haven't seen the FOTR:extended edition commentary, but I remember them saying, "We don't know what people are talking about...there's no car in this scene."
Let's see... why bring it up at all on the DVD if they were really trying to cover it up? I'll stake your life on it and say they were JOKING AROUND??
P.S. I need to check, but I think they even removed the car in the Oscar screener.
Do you honestly think they create a new Oscar screener DVD from the film transfer? I am guessing they take it straight from the original DVD.
Who says a real-world desktop is the best way to work? Computers should make it EASIER to work, not just duplicate what a pain in the ass it is to get stuff done at a real desk.
I definitely find it easier to use expose and instantly see all my documents that I am working with, rather than having them stacked in piles that I need to dig through.
And even if he wins, can he expect to get enough in damages to that the "big guy" really cares?
The countersuit depends on the situation, so of course I can't give a blanket answer. The primary reason to countersue would be to have them pay for your lawyer fees and lost time at work.
In other words, does that do anything to stop the "big guys" like RIAA from randomly suing people, in RIAA's case just for the PR scare value? In other words, is there *anything* in the US legal system that would actually discourage the kind of suing practices RIAA has atm?
Yes, the states could sue the RIAA much like they sued Microsoft. The government could sue the RIAA, much like they've done in the past over antitrust issues. A citizen could start a class-action lawsuit against the RIAA with attorneys working for free unless they win, in which case they take a percentage.
unless they want to go out of their way to show that they're innocent, which will probaby cost them more money (lost wages, stress, lawyer fees) even if they'd win in the court
This is why the person can countersue for things like lost wages, attorney's fees, harassment, etc. That was the parent poster's point.
OnStar seems kind of useless to me. It came free for a year in my new Grand Prix and I never used it.
My boss uses his all the time, they are very friendly. On vacation, hit the button, "Hi, we'd like to stop for dinner at a decent chinese food restaurant in the next hour or so."
They'll search around near where you'll be in 60 minutes based on your speed and direction, call the place, make reservations if needed, explain to you how to get there. They'll even stay on the line with you as you navigate around. They don't usually seem to be in a hurry... nice service.
BTW, according to the article, it wasn't OnStar, it was their competitor being used by the FBI, FWIW.
But the educational discount is not as high as the ADC discount. The EDU discount gives you a $300 savings on the $2999 G5. The ADC discount gives you a $600 savings, minus the $99 to join, you're still saving $200 more than the EDU discount.
"We allow everyone to check the security for themselves, because we're the only ones who publish the source code," said Rop Gonggrijp at Amsterdam-based NAH6. Gonggrijp, who helped develop the software, owns a stake in Germany's GSMK.
That sounds great, but this is a hardware device. How can we be sure the phones we buy are actually running this source code? Would we be able to compile the source code and install it into the phones?
I don't see how it violates the settlement, unless they prevent Windows users from using other music services. As long as you can still play the other stuff on your computer, there is nothing to stop you choosing whichever service you want. So they are not using market power to tie people in to their service.
Microsoft are still allowed to compete, as long as they do it fairly.
What about if the price for each song is low enough that they are losing money on every transaction initially. Apple is nearly at that level now, yet they do not hold a monopoly.
How about Funny. An amusing quote, but it falls apart under any sort of scrutiny, such as, ohhh what videogames were kids playing in the 40's and 50's that "made" them take drugs during the 60's and 70's?
This is very special case. Since MPs are the representatives of the people, they should basically stick their own opinions up their asses and defend the opinions of the voters. That's how representative democracy was supposed to work.
Well, even just ignoring the obvious point that not all of their constituents are of the same mind, I would like to point out that you are not correct. A representative democracy means the people elect someone to represent them, based on their platform of issues. Not that they must represent YOUR SPECIFIC VIEWS while in office.
You vote for them because you want someone that has the time to sit through all the bills, absorb all the facts, and try to vote the "right way."
I sampled scenes from several DVDs: Toy Story, Men In Black II, Glengarry Glen Ross and The Lord of the Rings:The Fellowship of the Ring.
Ahh yes, GGR... a cacaphony of surround sound! (?)
If I didn't know better, I'd think the physical and verbal explosions... were emerging from the six speakers, including subwoofer
Umm, voices of main characters shown on the screen are supposed to come from the center channel in almost all cases. They shouldn't sound like they are "emerging from the six speakers."
It really sounds like this guy is not qualified to review a surround sound package?
Actually I was speaking very generally. Microsoft is just the very obvious example.
Microsoft is one of the few (only) software companies with a monopoly. They shouldn't be used in any examples to make generalizations about software companies.
My point was simply that there really isn't any major relationship between the quality of a piece of software and whether or not it is open source.
That was not my argument. If you go to the very top of this thread, the original guy was saying essentially 'Microsoft is concerned with money, open source is concerned with quality.'
IMHO, to say that either open source or proprietary software is generally higher quality than the other is just unfounded.
Sure quality is upmost. After all, the reason people develop open source software is because they want to USE IT themselves, in contrast to many commercial projects which are out of the scope of interest of the developers, and who may not even use it. Sure, everybody is proud of their work, but developing software for self-use is a much higher bar of quality than developing software for a friggin' check.
Are you serious? I have developed software for myself to use. Being totally honest, I find this to be the LOWEST bar for "quality." I find that people developing software for themselves tend to do just enough to get it to work FOR THEM. It's only once you get other people using and testing the software that your code gets hit from all other angles and bugs emerge to be fixed. When it is mostly error free and works as most people expect it to -- that's quality.
Also, the reason open source software is released as beta or RC is for bug hunting. It isn't released because sombody wants top throw out some crap and have other people make it good.
Sorry, I think those sentences say the same thing basically. Not that they think it's "crap," but developers know their first releases are rife with bugs. Very few projects I have seen stick with closed betas, bug databases, etc to improve quality before a wide release.
Just because quality may not be an OSS coder's primary goal does not mean that they aren't just as concerned with it as a commercial, proprietary software vendor. The two goals can coexist very nicely together.
True, but honestly it is only apparant to me in a handful of projects like I mentioned earlier in this thread -- things like Perl, Apache, Linux, Mozilla. There is a shitload of, well, shit open source software. Overall, the mindset is, "well IT'S FREE and YOU can fix the bugs!" Really.
Remember, the main goal of a commercial software vendor is not to produce quality software. It is to make money. Quality software does not always make money and software that makes money is not always high quality. Just look at Microsoft.;-)
But therein is the flaw in your thinking. You are only considering Microsoft. Think about other companies that compete in the software market that are not monopolies: Apple, Adobe, Oracle, and thousands of smaller companies -- they produce quality products, because they have to worry about selling those products. Take games for example. If the quality of a game sucks, it will get bad reviews, bad word of mouth, etc. It won't sell.
These are all generalizations though. I just don't see quality as being the primary focus of the OS community. Nor innovation. Mozilla is probably the most innovative open source product out there. Most other projects seem content to just copy the ideas already available in the closed source world. (Which is necessary, but still a valid point.)
Jeez dude, we are saying the SAME THING. That is MY POINT. The open source projects don't try to release a quality product, they release a product and then improve it as they get feedback from people that use the program and/or look at the source.
Therefore you cannot say the primary thing on their mind is quality -- it is the free aspects of their program. They don't have to worry about selling the product, so it is natural that quality is not their number one concern. This was my entire point to the first guy, who was trying to imply "Microsoft cares about money, and Open Source projects care about quality."
Slashdot Mirror
Blood dripping into the streets? Yup, someone in a high place is going to be told about this and raise a firestorm.
And this is bad for their advertising campaign HOW?
What happens every time a product is "boycotted" or these angry mom groups raise a stink? The company sells more of the product than ever before.
They are doing this on purpose.
What I'd like is a reasonably fast wireless service that is good enough to let VPN work over it. My boss has had a terrible time getting that working on his Sprint PCS connection.
I almost feel bad when he calls from Hawaii and he can't get access to our database from the beach chair.
Do you honestly think that when the Oscar screener DVD was sent out (January? February?), the regular DVD (August) was already done?
D'oh?
The scouring of the shire will not be in the films, this is widely known.
I haven't seen the FOTR:extended edition commentary, but I remember them saying, "We don't know what people are talking about...there's no car in this scene."
Let's see... why bring it up at all on the DVD if they were really trying to cover it up? I'll stake your life on it and say they were JOKING AROUND??
P.S. I need to check, but I think they even removed the car in the Oscar screener.
Do you honestly think they create a new Oscar screener DVD from the film transfer? I am guessing they take it straight from the original DVD.
Who says a real-world desktop is the best way to work? Computers should make it EASIER to work, not just duplicate what a pain in the ass it is to get stuff done at a real desk.
I definitely find it easier to use expose and instantly see all my documents that I am working with, rather than having them stacked in piles that I need to dig through.
69 percent of underage teenagers were able to buy M-rated games at retail stores
So then attack the retail stores who are not following the guidelines, not the game companies that label the games correctly.
If kids were renting R-rated movies, would this group lambast Hollywood or the company renting them to kids?
(Sadly, the answer is, probably Hollywood.)
And even if he wins, can he expect to get enough in damages to that the "big guy" really cares?
The countersuit depends on the situation, so of course I can't give a blanket answer. The primary reason to countersue would be to have them pay for your lawyer fees and lost time at work.
In other words, does that do anything to stop the "big guys" like RIAA from randomly suing people, in RIAA's case just for the PR scare value? In other words, is there *anything* in the US legal system that would actually discourage the kind of suing practices RIAA has atm?
Yes, the states could sue the RIAA much like they sued Microsoft. The government could sue the RIAA, much like they've done in the past over antitrust issues. A citizen could start a class-action lawsuit against the RIAA with attorneys working for free unless they win, in which case they take a percentage.
unless they want to go out of their way to show that they're innocent, which will probaby cost them more money (lost wages, stress, lawyer fees) even if they'd win in the court
This is why the person can countersue for things like lost wages, attorney's fees, harassment, etc. That was the parent poster's point.
OnStar seems kind of useless to me. It came free for a year in my new Grand Prix and I never used it.
My boss uses his all the time, they are very friendly. On vacation, hit the button, "Hi, we'd like to stop for dinner at a decent chinese food restaurant in the next hour or so."
They'll search around near where you'll be in 60 minutes based on your speed and direction, call the place, make reservations if needed, explain to you how to get there. They'll even stay on the line with you as you navigate around. They don't usually seem to be in a hurry... nice service.
BTW, according to the article, it wasn't OnStar, it was their competitor being used by the FBI, FWIW.
But the educational discount is not as high as the ADC discount. The EDU discount gives you a $300 savings on the $2999 G5. The ADC discount gives you a $600 savings, minus the $99 to join, you're still saving $200 more than the EDU discount.
Assuming you are a student. Ahem.
"We allow everyone to check the security for themselves, because we're the only ones who publish the source code," said Rop Gonggrijp at Amsterdam-based NAH6. Gonggrijp, who helped develop the software, owns a stake in Germany's GSMK.
That sounds great, but this is a hardware device. How can we be sure the phones we buy are actually running this source code? Would we be able to compile the source code and install it into the phones?
Or you could sign up for the student ADC program for $99, and then buy the dual 2Ghz setup for $2399.
Same price, better machine.
I don't see how it violates the settlement, unless they prevent Windows users from using other music services. As long as you can still play the other stuff on your computer, there is nothing to stop you choosing whichever service you want. So they are not using market power to tie people in to their service.
Microsoft are still allowed to compete, as long as they do it fairly.
What about if the price for each song is low enough that they are losing money on every transaction initially. Apple is nearly at that level now, yet they do not hold a monopoly.
How about Funny. An amusing quote, but it falls apart under any sort of scrutiny, such as, ohhh what videogames were kids playing in the 40's and 50's that "made" them take drugs during the 60's and 70's?
But you're still downloading our malware.
Enjoy!
You better hope the performance is better than the Windows version.
(I might be biased because I am one.)
Irregardless of what the current bill concerns, this is my feeling:
The only people that should be locked up are violent criminals -- criminals that physically harm other people. Everyone else should pay restitution.
Think about it.
This is very special case. Since MPs are the representatives of the people, they should basically stick their own opinions up their asses and defend the opinions of the voters. That's how representative democracy was supposed to work.
Well, even just ignoring the obvious point that not all of their constituents are of the same mind, I would like to point out that you are not correct. A representative democracy means the people elect someone to represent them, based on their platform of issues. Not that they must represent YOUR SPECIFIC VIEWS while in office.
You vote for them because you want someone that has the time to sit through all the bills, absorb all the facts, and try to vote the "right way."
I sampled scenes from several DVDs: Toy Story, Men In Black II, Glengarry Glen Ross and The Lord of the Rings:The Fellowship of the Ring.
... were emerging from the six speakers, including subwoofer
Ahh yes, GGR... a cacaphony of surround sound! (?)
If I didn't know better, I'd think the physical and verbal explosions
Umm, voices of main characters shown on the screen are supposed to come from the center channel in almost all cases. They shouldn't sound like they are "emerging from the six speakers."
It really sounds like this guy is not qualified to review a surround sound package?
Actually I was speaking very generally. Microsoft is just the very obvious example.
Microsoft is one of the few (only) software companies with a monopoly. They shouldn't be used in any examples to make generalizations about software companies.
My point was simply that there really isn't any major relationship between the quality of a piece of software and whether or not it is open source.
That was not my argument. If you go to the very top of this thread, the original guy was saying essentially 'Microsoft is concerned with money, open source is concerned with quality.'
IMHO, to say that either open source or proprietary software is generally higher quality than the other is just unfounded.
Yeah, that's why I never said that.
Sure quality is upmost. After all, the reason people develop open source software is because they want to USE IT themselves, in contrast to many commercial projects which are out of the scope of interest of the developers, and who may not even use it. Sure, everybody is proud of their work, but developing software for self-use is a much higher bar of quality than developing software for a friggin' check.
Are you serious? I have developed software for myself to use. Being totally honest, I find this to be the LOWEST bar for "quality." I find that people developing software for themselves tend to do just enough to get it to work FOR THEM. It's only once you get other people using and testing the software that your code gets hit from all other angles and bugs emerge to be fixed. When it is mostly error free and works as most people expect it to -- that's quality.
Also, the reason open source software is released as beta or RC is for bug hunting. It isn't released because sombody wants top throw out some crap and have other people make it good.
Sorry, I think those sentences say the same thing basically. Not that they think it's "crap," but developers know their first releases are rife with bugs. Very few projects I have seen stick with closed betas, bug databases, etc to improve quality before a wide release.
Just because quality may not be an OSS coder's primary goal does not mean that they aren't just as concerned with it as a commercial, proprietary software vendor. The two goals can coexist very nicely together.
;-)
True, but honestly it is only apparant to me in a handful of projects like I mentioned earlier in this thread -- things like Perl, Apache, Linux, Mozilla. There is a shitload of, well, shit open source software. Overall, the mindset is, "well IT'S FREE and YOU can fix the bugs!" Really.
Remember, the main goal of a commercial software vendor is not to produce quality software. It is to make money. Quality software does not always make money and software that makes money is not always high quality. Just look at Microsoft.
But therein is the flaw in your thinking. You are only considering Microsoft. Think about other companies that compete in the software market that are not monopolies: Apple, Adobe, Oracle, and thousands of smaller companies -- they produce quality products, because they have to worry about selling those products. Take games for example. If the quality of a game sucks, it will get bad reviews, bad word of mouth, etc. It won't sell.
These are all generalizations though. I just don't see quality as being the primary focus of the OS community. Nor innovation. Mozilla is probably the most innovative open source product out there. Most other projects seem content to just copy the ideas already available in the closed source world. (Which is necessary, but still a valid point.)
Yes, it's just you. The "fans" will buy every special edition anyway... that's why they are called fans. They are fanatical.
I got the SE of the first, was hidiously expensive
Hideously expensive? It was around $25 - $30 for a 4 DVD special edition that included, among many other things, THIRTY MINUTES of new footage.
A typical blockbuster DVD costs $20, so for $5 to $10 more, you got an awesome SE, and it was "hideously expensive"?
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B
Jeez dude, we are saying the SAME THING. That is MY POINT. The open source projects don't try to release a quality product, they release a product and then improve it as they get feedback from people that use the program and/or look at the source.
Therefore you cannot say the primary thing on their mind is quality -- it is the free aspects of their program. They don't have to worry about selling the product, so it is natural that quality is not their number one concern. This was my entire point to the first guy, who was trying to imply "Microsoft cares about money, and Open Source projects care about quality."