Again, I say, the brain can be as tall is it desires to be.
And again you are wrong. Cite any evidence whatsoever for this position. You're stating your heartfelt belief, but your belief is misguided. It has no basis: it's simply a feeling -- or perhaps hope -- that you have and nothing more.
We are all capable of any level of potential. The only thing limiting us is what we believe we can do. What we believe we can do is often limited by people who have a vested emotional interest in ensuring you do not believe you are capable of more than they. From that simple need, a vast array of fascinating behaviors emerge.
Either:
a) you are saying that anyone can train to hit a major league fastball or quarterback the Superbowl winner, or
I also wonder how many studies have not been published for fear of a lawsuit, or even discredit to the scientific community...
Or even more disturbing, because the results didn't correspond well with the researcher's political beliefs. "That can't possibly be right; that would mean that..." Sigh.
Huge compared to what? You're right that portable televisions (and DVD players) with small screens have been on the market for some time, but how often do you ever see anyone using one?
The state has a valid interest in preventing emotionally immature children from being taken-advantage-of by malicious adults.
Really? What is that valid interest? A child's parents might have a valid interest, but why the state? What does the state have to do with it? The expanding view of what "the state has a valid interest in" is responsible for erosion of freedom. The state "has a valid interest" in making you wear your seatbelt, because somebody has to pay to put your sorry behind back together after an accident and since it might be the state, the state has an interest. Bogus. If the state had no obligation in the event you have an accident, then it would have no valid interest in whether or not you wear your seatbelt. The state has acquired these "valid interests" by assuming responsibilities which it should never have been permitted to assume. Your freedoms haven't been stolen, they've been sold by people unwilling to take responsibility for their own actions.
Actually, A/UX 3.x wasn't bad at all. The 1.0 release was essentially vanilla SVR2 with the capability of running a single System 6 session under X11 -- no real Multifinder. When 2.x came along, things were much better in the sense that it had a "real" System 6 interface complete with Multifinder, and 3.0 had a pretty complete System 7 interface. I can remember doing some tests when the same disk with System 7 launched a Word Perfect document in half the time under A/UX 3.0 than it did when booted under native System 7. There was even a secure version of 3.0 which was never released commercially, though HFSI (Honeywell) sold a version of it to the government.
Perhaps you have the idea that "free speech" should mean "free of responsibility". It doesn't. Every freedom that you have is simply a freedom to do something without government interference -- nothing more. There is nothing to protect you from the consequences of exercising your freedom; that doesn't make you less free, it simply makes you consider the consequences. There is no freedom from responsibility; if you're not willing to take the responsibility then you have a problem of your own creation. And as a side point, your freedom to perform an action is not a claim on someone else's resources in order to support your action. If you can't pay, you can't play.
Anything that provides quality product free of charge is going to cut into the sales of overpriced crap.
And also into its production. Don't kid yourself, even new bands struggling to get a start can't get started by giving everything away. Oh, sure, they can provide some appetizers, but sooner or later they are going to have to get paid or they will either starve or find another way to pass the time.
Historically, I'll think you'll find that a great many technological advances were made with the original purpose of killing other beings -- usually other humans. Seems to be one of the basic human characteristics. Pretty effective, too.
What is the cost of the energy required to charge the batteries? What is the cost of disposing of the batteries once they have become unusable (which they will)?
How much additional energy (regardless of source) is consumed by hauling the substantial extra weight of the batteries? Are the people who are doing this also pressing for more nuclear energy plants?
About three years ago I got an email from Amazon telling me that a new account had been opened using a credit card I used from my account.
They closed that account and notified me immediately without authorizing any sales. I called the credit card company and found that in fact there had been three or four transactions on my card which I hadn't made. They weren't for a lot: there was one for a tank of gas, and the total was for less than a thousand dollars. The credit card company took care of the charges but seemed totally uninterested in pursuing the matter, even after I provided them contact information at Amazon. Amazon could not give me the information directly, but were anxious to provide it to the issuing bank. and urged me to contact my local law enforcement agencies.
Stupidly, I didn't contact local law, but kept badgering the issuing bank. Finally I gave up and cancelled the account. The original card had of course been cancelled immediately when I reported the problem, but I no longer had any confidence in the bank.
It's pretty bad when Amazon does a better job of tracking my credit card than the issuing bank does. Of course, I still do business with Amazon and I don't do business with that bank so maybe there's a moral there somewhere.
Personally, I take the view that if a song, movie, book, etc. is DRM'd then it isn't truly mine.
That's certainly a reasonable view. On the other hand, it's also reasonable to say that a song, book, or movie isn't truly yours unless you created it.
When you buy a hammer, you can reasonably say that you own the hammer and it is truly yours. When you buy a book or song it's more accurate to say that you own the media containing the work. In that case, you are certainly free to do whatever you like with the media, but it is not necessarily true that you are free to do what you like with the contents. It may be true that you are, but it's certainly arguable, and it is not a given.
Sosumi was a sound resource stolen from a game released over a year earlier called "Crystal Quest" a game for system 6.
Actually, that sound did not originate with Crystal Quest. Spectrum analysis shows that it's identical to a segment from the third movement of Prokofiev's second piano sonata (d-minor, Op 14) from an early 1990's recording by Diane Walsh on some obscure label. I don't recall the exact measure.
It's certainly possible that Crystal Quest used the same sound, but it did not originate with Crystal Quest.
Sosumi was a sound resource stolen from a game released over a year earlier called "Crystal Quest" a game for system 6.
Actually, that sound did not originate with Crystal Quest. Spectrum analysis shows that it's identical to a segment from the third movement of Prokofiev's second piano sonata (d-minor, Op 14) from an early 1990's recording by Diane Walsh on some obscure label. I don't recall the exact measure.
It's certainly possible that Crystal Quest used the same sound, but it did not originate with Crystal Quest.
It's like someone built a very large wall with 1 door in it, offering a service to people who want to look at what's behind the wall and making those people use that door (i.e. Apple). Then someone else comes around, looks at the wall (or listens to stories of people describing the wall) and says: "Well, here is this periscope like contraption, that you can use to look over the wall if you should choose to."
Very similar to someone who provides a cable decoder, you mean?
We love not getting told what to do constantly because we are smart enough to think for ourselves.
Or alternatively, you're not smart enough to realize that you're not smart enough to think for yourself. There doesn't appear to be any obvious way to determine that the first is more likely than the second in any isolated case,
Until Apple demonstrates otherwise, I don't think my claims were overstated. (I've been covering the company for 15 years, and I've yet to see Apple present any numbers to back a claim of this sort.)
Since we seem to have drifted a bit away from the original question of whether Apple had the right to defend the confidentiality of their release dates, let's drift a little further: How about staking a little bit of that 15 years of credibility by telling us what you think the chances are of the April 1 date being correct? Would you say "nearly a sure thing", "good bet", "maybe", "not likely" or "no way"? And how much of your credibility are you willing to bet on your answer? Hm?
Then come back on April 2 and tell us how you think you did. OK?
It's not impossilbe, but I don't think Apple's demonstrated it yet. I'll be curious to see how the company documents such a claim.
Then perhaps your original claims were a bit overstated? Or was that journalistic freedom?
Of course, considering that other rumor sites have reported that making a Tiger release by the end of June was beginning to seem a bit iffy, perhaps the whole thing is a little overblown. On the other hand, if Apple does indeed make an announcement on April 1, I think they would be fully justified in demanding to know the source of the published information. I'm sure you don't, but then I wouldn't expect you to. I would expect you in that event to be wrong, however.
But are there grounds to sue over your hurt feelings?
Do you find it conceivable that there could be some monetary costs involved as well as hurt feelings? Do you think it impossible that getting less than the impact you pay for is a monetary loss? Or are such things absolutely impossible?
It isn't your place to determine that. A product roll-out is an expensive proposition, and may be planned as a well-coordinated operation. If in releasing information about that release prior to public announcement of it you interfere in any way with the company's plans, then you have cost them. You may not understand that, but there is no need for you to. If I damage you through my own actions, it isn't necessary for me to understand that damage for it to occur.
If you plan a surprise birthday party for your child, or your wife, and someone gratuitously tells them all about it in advance, then I suspect you will feel damaged. Whether the person who did the telling thinks you should feel damaged isn't really relevant, is it?
Slashdot Mirror
a) you are saying that anyone can train to hit a major league fastball or quarterback the Superbowl winner, or
b) your statement is complete rubbish.
Which is it?
Actually, A/UX 3.x wasn't bad at all. The 1.0 release was essentially vanilla SVR2 with the capability of running a single System 6 session under X11 -- no real Multifinder. When 2.x came along, things were much better in the sense that it had a "real" System 6 interface complete with Multifinder, and 3.0 had a pretty complete System 7 interface. I can remember doing some tests when the same disk with System 7 launched a Word Perfect document in half the time under A/UX 3.0 than it did when booted under native System 7. There was even a secure version of 3.0 which was never released commercially, though HFSI (Honeywell) sold a version of it to the government.
Perhaps you have the idea that "free speech" should mean "free of responsibility". It doesn't. Every freedom that you have is simply a freedom to do something without government interference -- nothing more. There is nothing to protect you from the consequences of exercising your freedom; that doesn't make you less free, it simply makes you consider the consequences. There is no freedom from responsibility; if you're not willing to take the responsibility then you have a problem of your own creation. And as a side point, your freedom to perform an action is not a claim on someone else's resources in order to support your action. If you can't pay, you can't play.
Historically, I'll think you'll find that a great many technological advances were made with the original purpose of killing other beings -- usually other humans. Seems to be one of the basic human characteristics. Pretty effective, too.
What is the cost of the energy required to charge the batteries?
What is the cost of disposing of the batteries once they have become unusable (which they will)?
How much additional energy (regardless of source) is consumed by hauling the substantial extra weight of the batteries?
Are the people who are doing this also pressing for more nuclear energy plants?
Sounds reasonable to me. Good idea, actually.
They closed that account and notified me immediately without authorizing any sales. I called the credit card company and found that in fact there had been three or four transactions on my card which I hadn't made. They weren't for a lot: there was one for a tank of gas, and the total was for less than a thousand dollars. The credit card company took care of the charges but seemed totally uninterested in pursuing the matter, even after I provided them contact information at Amazon. Amazon could not give me the information directly, but were anxious to provide it to the issuing bank. and urged me to contact my local law enforcement agencies.
Stupidly, I didn't contact local law, but kept badgering the issuing bank. Finally I gave up and cancelled the account. The original card had of course been cancelled immediately when I reported the problem, but I no longer had any confidence in the bank.
It's pretty bad when Amazon does a better job of tracking my credit card than the issuing bank does. Of course, I still do business with Amazon and I don't do business with that bank so maybe there's a moral there somewhere.
Sure! As soon as I see a link for the original...
Ah, but then your analogy is better than his, don't you think? I have the feeling that the orignal poster meant his pretty much as stated.
When you buy a hammer, you can reasonably say that you own the hammer and it is truly yours. When you buy a book or song it's more accurate to say that you own the media containing the work. In that case, you are certainly free to do whatever you like with the media, but it is not necessarily true that you are free to do what you like with the contents. It may be true that you are, but it's certainly arguable, and it is not a given.
It's certainly possible that Crystal Quest used the same sound, but it did not originate with Crystal Quest.
It's certainly possible that Crystal Quest used the same sound, but it did not originate with Crystal Quest.
And certainly no one would object if a rumor site were to claim that Tiger would be out this summer. So?
Don't need to. All Apple has to do is show they were damaged.
Then come back on April 2 and tell us how you think you did. OK?
Of course, considering that other rumor sites have reported that making a Tiger release by the end of June was beginning to seem a bit iffy, perhaps the whole thing is a little overblown. On the other hand, if Apple does indeed make an announcement on April 1, I think they would be fully justified in demanding to know the source of the published information. I'm sure you don't, but then I wouldn't expect you to. I would expect you in that event to be wrong, however.
If you plan a surprise birthday party for your child, or your wife, and someone gratuitously tells them all about it in advance, then I suspect you will feel damaged. Whether the person who did the telling thinks you should feel damaged isn't really relevant, is it?