Does your company lease computers? That could be why they replace them after three years.
All systems at my company are on a 36-month lease, so we don't get rid of computers because they're too slow - most of them work just fine even with our latest software templates - we get rid of them because the lease period is over and they have to be returned.
In California, a poll worker's day is fourteen hours or more. They have to be there at least one hour before the polls open at 7:00 am and at between one and two after the polls close at 8:00. Add to this the fact that most of the time you are sitting in one place and that makes for a very, very long day. I'm not yet at the age to be called a senior citizen and I'd have a tough time of it if I had to work more than one of these days in a row.
I was thinking that I wouldn't like it until I used it a bit.
My main keyboard is a Northgate (1989 vintage!), so I'm used to having quite a bit of key travel and positive feedback from the keys. Surprisingly enough, I find my MacBook Pro's keyboard to be very comfortable to use and can key with it just about as fast with it as I can with the Northgate.
Unless they're setting up a test case (and this only works if one party has a super-majority), just about no one introduces bills that are intentionally unconstitutional. It's entirely possible to send a bill to the Governor that is supported by both sides of the aisle that is later determined to be unconstitutional. So who's the bad guy? The legislator that introduced the bill? The one that carried the bill to the other house? The ones who voted for it? The one who signed it into law?
Constitutionality can only be determined after a bill has been signed into law, so you can never be completely certain that the bill you are submitting won't pass Constitutional muster until your shiny new law is subject to judicial review processes.
He's as wrong about this as he was his "cyberspace."
What's "wrong" about it? It hasn't come to pass yet. Mice aside, we still interact with computers in roughly the same way as we did thirty years ago - prettier colors, some video, but still largely a keyboard, a monitor and text.
When someone comes with a truly different way to interact with information, then we can call Gibson "wrong".
Racers don't weave to warm up their tires, they weave to clean them. Sticky racing tires accumulate a lot of junk that can affect starts/restarts, so they weave to keep them clean.
If you really have to build heat into your tires, use your brakes or spin your tires. Of course, the only time you ever need to do this is when racing...
As most still cameras support only jpeg, you're pretty much stuck. They're the ones that processing speed and memory requirements affect most directly. When you get the images off of the camera, you can store them in any format that you want.
Is it possible that law (and tax code) is so complex because people want it that way?
Someone "falls" into an open construction site that is clearly marked as one and promptly sues both the construction company and the company that is having the construction done. Someone sues a gun company under product safety laws because the gun did something that it was clearly designed to do. After 40 years of continuous (mandated) warnings about the risks of smoking, plaintiffs sue the cigarette industries because they have cancer. Someone's young unsupervised child dies while in a pool. Parent sues. There are countless other examples of the general populace refusing to take personal responsibility for their actions and then looking to the law for remedies.
Lawyers aren't suing each other with such gleeful abandon, people are. Yes, the existing laws enable them to do so, but the laws are there as a reaction to something, not because someone came up with them out of the blue. Look at the some of the "quality of life" laws in San Francisco, for example. People don't want homeless hanging around their neighborhoods, so the Board of Supervisors made certain things specific to the homeless illegal and subject to fine. Does it really make sense to sue them? If they had loads of money, do you think that most of them would be homeless?
If were looking to replace the existing laws, we could replace ninety percent of the existing laws with one: Thou shalt take responsibility for thine own actions - and cut case loads to almost nothing.
I still depend upon broadcast radio because the majority of my day is spent in places that I flat out don't have access to Internet radio. Internet access at work is heavily filtered and is it nonexistent when I'm traveling from place to place through public transit or in my car.
When Internet access becomes ubiquitous, yes, you can say that it is the most important channel for distribution. Until then, however, radio is still the most important (and most accessible) form of access to music.
Unless you encrypt the information, or at the very least do a checksum (and store it elsewhere), you're pretty much hosed if someone is able to remove the original physical media.
But Anime is hand drawn lines by usually a very talented cartoonist/illustrator, which is then colored by someone just as talented. Videogames cannot compete on this level.
They are both done by talented artists, the difference is that you can't "play" anime. Video game screens have to be rendered in real time, animation is pre-rendered.
Aren't going to happen until artists in the medium, 'good' artists rather, decide to start working for free the same way coders do. Some artists will work for publicity alone, bu they seem to be by far in the minority.
Of course they're in the minority. For them, there's nothing to be gained in providing their services for free.
The publicity for working on games is almost nonexistent. For example, can you, name any artist that worked on any one of the most popular games? I can, but I know a bunch of artists that work in the games industry.
Besides, artwork doesn't work as FOSS. Unlike code, artwork for games isn't inherently "sharable" - it's designed for the purposes of that game and that game only. Game engines can be used for multiple different kinds of game. Artwork almost always can't. It may be used for sequels (but generally isn't as the requirements change from game to game) but it can't be used across different types of games.
My college computer was an Exidy Sorcerer with a 2.5 MHz Zilog Z80 processor, 32KB RAM and a Radio Shack portable tape recorder. I used it to do my compiler and assembler class assignments. In Microsoft 8K BASIC. My instructors loved it because they had never seen one before.
The CS lab had an Imsai 8080, but was used by the card reader and was unavailable to students.
From TFA, about 11 hours. The "Tivo Lite" will have a 160GB (holds about 20 hours) disk rather than the 250GB (which holds up to 31 hours) disk on the existing Series 3.
I can see your point if everybody had used at least one word processing program before, but how about if they haven't? If you don't know the basic concepts of word processors work, how are you going to know what to look for in the help system?
My company hires a lot of people who have little to no prior experience using computers, let alone extensive experience in Word, WordPerfect, OpenOffice Writer or anything else. Which means that not only do we have to bring them up to speed on the tools that they'll need to work here, but also on the forms, macros and other things that are specific to how they will be doing it.
It's much more cost effective for us to schedule a short class for everyone than have the people who don't know what they're doing flailing around for the first couple of days trying to figure out how to use things. Sure, it annoys the people who have used the software before, but at the very least we know that all of our people have a common starting point.
Wait. Why is it again libraries "aren't going away?"
Aside from the already mentioned fact that all books aren't digitized, it may be because Internet access is not universal, the barrier to access is still high (computers aren't free, right?) and one of the few places that you can get free access and access to a device to do it is, of course, a library.
Not completely true. It would have required the use some of Microsoft's IP (which would have rendered it unusable by people who strongly adhere to the GPL) and a lot of folks felt that Microsoft's responses to questions about it were, ultimately, less than persuasive.
Anybody who has lived in an apartment building with cats in it knows that cats'll mate pretty much anywhere and anytime they want to.
As to animals attacking when you stare at them, they're not attacking because they want to be alone, they're reacting to what they perceive is a threat.
1. Distributors have every right to charge whatever they think their product is worth. If you don't agree, you have the right not to buy it but not the right to force them to accept what you want to pay or not to pay them at all.
You seem to think that the RIAA has more power than they actually do. They can possibly persuade legislative bodies to extend protection by restricting the ability to copy, but there's not enough money in the world to coerce Congress to subsidize music distribution to the degree that you're talking about or to force consumers to pay an additional fee post facto. Legislators may be corrupt (which I doubt), but they're not idiots.
2. If movie distributors think they aren't getting enough money for their movies, they're perfectly free to attempt to negotiate a new deal with theater chains. Which the chains would be free to accept or not.
Neither of your examples fits what's being done. A better example would be if you were broadcasting movies or television shows over the Internet. Television stations have to pay for the right to broadcast their content and you are doing it for free. Because their's no technically feasible way to stop you from doing it, isn't it reasonable for the owners of the content to ask for some type of fee? Net radio stations (the ones that stream copyrighted content, not the ones that produce their own content or are licensees, such as NPR) have had a free ride. Radio stations have had to pay licensing fees, why not Net Radio?
I don't agree with the fee structure, which I think prohitively high (probably on purpose), but the idea of asking for fees for copyrighted content (and ONLY copyrighted content) are perfectly fair.
So what's the point of E3? Why should the press bother with all the expense and effort of covering an event that shows nothing new?
The same point of just about any trade show. Showing off your products in a way that you can control, allowing the troops to travel once in a while and throwing parties on the company's dime.
In what way was it hostile? Apple offered to pay the primary developer for his rights. He agreed.
You may not like Apple bought the rights or you may not like that the developer "sold out", but unless Apple applied some type of pressure that was neither written about nor implied by TFA, how was the transaction hostile?
Slashdot Mirror
All systems at my company are on a 36-month lease, so we don't get rid of computers because they're too slow - most of them work just fine even with our latest software templates - we get rid of them because the lease period is over and they have to be returned.
In California, a poll worker's day is fourteen hours or more. They have to be there at least one hour before the polls open at 7:00 am and at between one and two after the polls close at 8:00. Add to this the fact that most of the time you are sitting in one place and that makes for a very, very long day. I'm not yet at the age to be called a senior citizen and I'd have a tough time of it if I had to work more than one of these days in a row.
My main keyboard is a Northgate (1989 vintage!), so I'm used to having quite a bit of key travel and positive feedback from the keys. Surprisingly enough, I find my MacBook Pro's keyboard to be very comfortable to use and can key with it just about as fast with it as I can with the Northgate.
Unless they're setting up a test case (and this only works if one party has a super-majority), just about no one introduces bills that are intentionally unconstitutional. It's entirely possible to send a bill to the Governor that is supported by both sides of the aisle that is later determined to be unconstitutional. So who's the bad guy? The legislator that introduced the bill? The one that carried the bill to the other house? The ones who voted for it? The one who signed it into law?
Constitutionality can only be determined after a bill has been signed into law, so you can never be completely certain that the bill you are submitting won't pass Constitutional muster until your shiny new law is subject to judicial review processes.
What's "wrong" about it? It hasn't come to pass yet. Mice aside, we still interact with computers in roughly the same way as we did thirty years ago - prettier colors, some video, but still largely a keyboard, a monitor and text.
When someone comes with a truly different way to interact with information, then we can call Gibson "wrong".
If you really have to build heat into your tires, use your brakes or spin your tires. Of course, the only time you ever need to do this is when racing...
They still do, just on the DSLRs. My Nikon D200 can write TIFF, jpeg and Camera RAW.
As most still cameras support only jpeg, you're pretty much stuck. They're the ones that processing speed and memory requirements affect most directly. When you get the images off of the camera, you can store them in any format that you want.
Someone "falls" into an open construction site that is clearly marked as one and promptly sues both the construction company and the company that is having the construction done. Someone sues a gun company under product safety laws because the gun did something that it was clearly designed to do. After 40 years of continuous (mandated) warnings about the risks of smoking, plaintiffs sue the cigarette industries because they have cancer. Someone's young unsupervised child dies while in a pool. Parent sues. There are countless other examples of the general populace refusing to take personal responsibility for their actions and then looking to the law for remedies.
Lawyers aren't suing each other with such gleeful abandon, people are. Yes, the existing laws enable them to do so, but the laws are there as a reaction to something, not because someone came up with them out of the blue. Look at the some of the "quality of life" laws in San Francisco, for example. People don't want homeless hanging around their neighborhoods, so the Board of Supervisors made certain things specific to the homeless illegal and subject to fine. Does it really make sense to sue them? If they had loads of money, do you think that most of them would be homeless?
If were looking to replace the existing laws, we could replace ninety percent of the existing laws with one: Thou shalt take responsibility for thine own actions - and cut case loads to almost nothing.
I still depend upon broadcast radio because the majority of my day is spent in places that I flat out don't have access to Internet radio. Internet access at work is heavily filtered and is it nonexistent when I'm traveling from place to place through public transit or in my car.
When Internet access becomes ubiquitous, yes, you can say that it is the most important channel for distribution. Until then, however, radio is still the most important (and most accessible) form of access to music.
Yes, what type of career would Bernie Taupin (songwriter for most of Elton John's songs) have had without someone to sing his songs? It takes both.
It's a big ball of wires and tubes, but that's not important right now.
You know, I really didn't see it that way until I read your post. Now I can't read it any other way. Thanks.
Unless you encrypt the information, or at the very least do a checksum (and store it elsewhere), you're pretty much hosed if someone is able to remove the original physical media.
They are both done by talented artists, the difference is that you can't "play" anime. Video game screens have to be rendered in real time, animation is pre-rendered.
Of course they're in the minority. For them, there's nothing to be gained in providing their services for free.
The publicity for working on games is almost nonexistent. For example, can you, name any artist that worked on any one of the most popular games? I can, but I know a bunch of artists that work in the games industry.
Besides, artwork doesn't work as FOSS. Unlike code, artwork for games isn't inherently "sharable" - it's designed for the purposes of that game and that game only. Game engines can be used for multiple different kinds of game. Artwork almost always can't. It may be used for sequels (but generally isn't as the requirements change from game to game) but it can't be used across different types of games.
My college computer was an Exidy Sorcerer with a 2.5 MHz Zilog Z80 processor, 32KB RAM and a Radio Shack portable tape recorder. I used it to do my compiler and assembler class assignments. In Microsoft 8K BASIC. My instructors loved it because they had never seen one before.
The CS lab had an Imsai 8080, but was used by the card reader and was unavailable to students.
From TFA, about 11 hours. The "Tivo Lite" will have a 160GB (holds about 20 hours) disk rather than the 250GB (which holds up to 31 hours) disk on the existing Series 3.
My company hires a lot of people who have little to no prior experience using computers, let alone extensive experience in Word, WordPerfect, OpenOffice Writer or anything else. Which means that not only do we have to bring them up to speed on the tools that they'll need to work here, but also on the forms, macros and other things that are specific to how they will be doing it.
It's much more cost effective for us to schedule a short class for everyone than have the people who don't know what they're doing flailing around for the first couple of days trying to figure out how to use things. Sure, it annoys the people who have used the software before, but at the very least we know that all of our people have a common starting point.
Aside from the already mentioned fact that all books aren't digitized, it may be because Internet access is not universal, the barrier to access is still high (computers aren't free, right?) and one of the few places that you can get free access and access to a device to do it is, of course, a library.
Not completely true. It would have required the use some of Microsoft's IP (which would have rendered it unusable by people who strongly adhere to the GPL) and a lot of folks felt that Microsoft's responses to questions about it were, ultimately, less than persuasive.
As to animals attacking when you stare at them, they're not attacking because they want to be alone, they're reacting to what they perceive is a threat.
You seem to think that the RIAA has more power than they actually do. They can possibly persuade legislative bodies to extend protection by restricting the ability to copy, but there's not enough money in the world to coerce Congress to subsidize music distribution to the degree that you're talking about or to force consumers to pay an additional fee post facto. Legislators may be corrupt (which I doubt), but they're not idiots.
2. If movie distributors think they aren't getting enough money for their movies, they're perfectly free to attempt to negotiate a new deal with theater chains. Which the chains would be free to accept or not.
Neither of your examples fits what's being done. A better example would be if you were broadcasting movies or television shows over the Internet. Television stations have to pay for the right to broadcast their content and you are doing it for free. Because their's no technically feasible way to stop you from doing it, isn't it reasonable for the owners of the content to ask for some type of fee? Net radio stations (the ones that stream copyrighted content, not the ones that produce their own content or are licensees, such as NPR) have had a free ride. Radio stations have had to pay licensing fees, why not Net Radio?
I don't agree with the fee structure, which I think prohitively high (probably on purpose), but the idea of asking for fees for copyrighted content (and ONLY copyrighted content) are perfectly fair.
The same point of just about any trade show. Showing off your products in a way that you can control, allowing the troops to travel once in a while and throwing parties on the company's dime.
Why does the press go? Vendor parties.
You may not like Apple bought the rights or you may not like that the developer "sold out", but unless Apple applied some type of pressure that was neither written about nor implied by TFA, how was the transaction hostile?