Not as many as all that. Personally, my issue is with government-backed protections of "corporation" and "long-term intellectual property."
Note the "long-term" part... I approve of things like patents, copyright, and even trademark, but since sales cycles are shortening, so too should the protections of intellectual property be shortened.
However, there's a massive number of companies out there that are duking it out in the honest, capitalistic way. We just happen to focus a lot on the few crooks.
It may not be of any real quality, but let's face it, people DO get something... relatively usable... even from Microsoft and Bill Gates. Hell, even I get some use out of Windows (even though I'm still using 98), since some of the games I play do not work under Linux.
They don't rob people without giving back. Although it would be a stretch to say that they didn't con people into making it worth more than it should be, the value of the product is still fed by the fact that people will actually pay that amount.
You don't like it? Better brush up on your salesmanship skills, and start to talk to people about Linux. Or the Mac. Or whatever system you happen to support. You'll end up helping lower the demand for Microsoft Windows (which, according to economic theory, lowers prices or increases quality), and helping raise the value of computers and operating systems.
At least these companies offer something in return for that money. Say what you want about the greedy "rich people," they got to be that way by trade, not theft.
Simply put, the hardware grabs the radio-wave signals from the air, while the computer then proceeds to turn it into something a human can understand, or something a computer can use.
I wonder if this new toy would double as a random number generator, even if it's just to make/dev/urandom that much more random?
The real skill of sales is to convince those who do not have your point of view to adopt your point of view, and perhaps expend your resources toward following that point of view. That's why skilled salespeople are so highly sought after, no matter WHAT the type of product or industry.
I really don't agree with the whole "If it's not free, it shouldn't be used, period" mentality he has going on.
I don't agree with it, and here's why:
When I am using a computer, I use it. I am not a programmer, and I lack the resources to hire someone else to do my programming for me.
I have a specific set of needs that must be acknowledged. I want X, Y, Z, and the rights to do this, that, and the other thing. I must be able to do A, and it should behave like B.
Now, the above list is what I use to decide what I am going to use. Now, I have a choice of Applications 1, 2, and 3.
1 is completely Free Software. It has X in spades, manages to include Y, and while lacking a direct Z, you can use P and Q in such a way as to emulate Z. I can easily do this, that, the other thing, and a few things besides. So far so good. But I can't do A... Uh oh... I'm up against a need that is not being met. I might email someone some kind of question about A, but I'm up against a time limit, and I don't have any to waste waiting for a response. So, 1 is out.
2 is Open Source. Now, I can easily and quickly do A, and it is a perfect match where B is concerned. Once again, X and Y are there. Yet there's still no Z, and this time, there's no P nor Q to simulate Z. Damn! I don't have everything I need, and this doesn't interoperate with 1, so I can't just use them together.
*sigh* I guess I still have no choice but to use the Proprietary 3 program, since it does have everything I want, but I'll just have to part with the money first. And wait for 1 or 2 to come up to speed... only to find myself more and more dependent as I go.
---
In the above example, you just witnessed my thought process regarding three programs. This is where the whole "must not use non-free software" argument breaks down; people have needs that must be filled; they have tasks and projects to complete, and they are not going to settle if something that fits their needs is out there. If they have to spend the money, so be it, they find value in that proposition if their money buys them the solution to their full problem.
This is what the free market is all about, guys. You choose what fills your needs. If freedom is truly your goal, than Free Software is your niche. If you have a need that isn't filled by FS or OSS, then you will take the proprietary solution (whether honestly, or through... less-reputable means).
RMS, if you want people to subscribe to your freedom, you'd better think a little harder about how you sell freedom to them. By saying that people need to deal with the loss in functionality in order to be free is saying they need to be caged by your freedom. You are basically giving one freedom to them, and taking another away, and then arrogantly saying they don't need that other freedom, because it's not a fundamental one.
That is why GNU is losing mindshare to Open Source.
You kidding? Xerox's primary benefit is the fact that their company name is used as synonymous for "copy." Brand recognition is never a bad thing.
As for RMS, I can understand his mentality, but let's face it; he needs to realize that freedom works both ways; he can shout "GNU/Linux" at the top of his lungs... but if I want to call it "Linux" for simplicity's sake, I have every freedom to do so, and there's nothing he can do about it without making himself out to be a hypocrite.
Freedom was never an easy business. And while he's got the cajones to stick with his crusade, he's not got the skill to sell his point of view, and that is why "Open Source" is all the rage, while "Free Software" is still out on the edge of peoples' radar.
They mocked American McGee's "Alice" concept by guessing their next gothic thriller would be "Strawberr* Shor??ake," (Using wildcards to protect my posterior from legal system penetration.) and drawing how they would imagine the cover to be drawn.
*chuckle* I don't know who modded this as funny, but it's actually factual. My version of Firefox (1.0 on Gentoo) seems to be either immune to the vulnerability, or I have a secure enough configuration to prevent this particular explot from working.
And since it can't seem to pop up the window, it just keeps trying. I wasn't kidding that it was up to 2000 when I was done posting.
Perhaps, but since the newer threats are more interested in destroying everything that isn't of their own belief system, it stands to pretty good reason that such a storyline isn't going to have the same level of plot twists as the current Indy storylines do, since the "recapturing the artifact" plotline can't take place, and if the bad guys get there, they won't bother looking to make sure some artifact is going to be there.
No, I think the Nazis' tendencies add depth to the storylines that you can't have against Al Quaida or any other terrorist organization these days.
Indiana Jones is a historical fiction with a touch of fantasy.
Personally, I think that it would be better to create a new character in this particular film that would produce his own spinoff series, and continue the "Archaeologist vs. Nazi" saga in there. This way, he won't need to try and fit Indiana Jones' shoes, and create a character all his own, while still sharing continuity with the Indiana Jones universe.
*chuckle* I think I'll take your word for that. I'm not sure I understand half of that page.:-/
I'm a computer geek, not physical sciences. I just assumed about water because I lost a couple ice cube trays due to expanding water (and my idiocy in placing things on top of them).
We're only now reaching the point where private spaceflight is possible. This is not even taking into consideration the likelihood of terraforming in anything resembling a century timespan, much less a millennium, and this is not taking into account the vast distances between stars, or the likelihood of any other planets that would support human life.
Now, if millenial longevity were to take place, the human population would grow virtually nonstop for one millennium before the death rate would once again match the birthrate. Without anyplace to go, this could have horrible repercussions on humanity at this time.
And all that's not taking into account the resource requirements for such a population explosion. You thought the Baby Boom was a problem? This would make the Baby Boom look like a slight tremor in birthrate.
Now, I'm not saying I wouldn't want to live 1000 years. I would, very much, like to live that long, because I am very determined to see the future, even if I can't get there right away. I'd also like to have more than 10 years to enjoy my retirement when I finally achieve independence from the need for a job. But now is not the time for this breakthrough.
I can name one instance where this could be an issue... albeit a mere annoyance, rather than anything resembling a showstopper.
I have one of those multimedia keyboards, with volume control buttons on it. Since the volume knob on my speakers isn't working properly, I tend to use the keyboard to adjust volume. Problem is, if the sound is too loud, I will try to immediately lower the volume, and it takes approximately 5 seconds for GNOME to respond.
Slashdot Mirror
Not as many as all that. Personally, my issue is with government-backed protections of "corporation" and "long-term intellectual property."
Note the "long-term" part... I approve of things like patents, copyright, and even trademark, but since sales cycles are shortening, so too should the protections of intellectual property be shortened.
However, there's a massive number of companies out there that are duking it out in the honest, capitalistic way. We just happen to focus a lot on the few crooks.
It may not be of any real quality, but let's face it, people DO get something... relatively usable... even from Microsoft and Bill Gates. Hell, even I get some use out of Windows (even though I'm still using 98), since some of the games I play do not work under Linux.
They don't rob people without giving back. Although it would be a stretch to say that they didn't con people into making it worth more than it should be, the value of the product is still fed by the fact that people will actually pay that amount.
You don't like it? Better brush up on your salesmanship skills, and start to talk to people about Linux. Or the Mac. Or whatever system you happen to support. You'll end up helping lower the demand for Microsoft Windows (which, according to economic theory, lowers prices or increases quality), and helping raise the value of computers and operating systems.
You make that sound like a bad thing.
At least these companies offer something in return for that money. Say what you want about the greedy "rich people," they got to be that way by trade, not theft.
Something like a WinModem, but for radio.
/dev/urandom that much more random?
Oh, and it's not limited to Windows.
Simply put, the hardware grabs the radio-wave signals from the air, while the computer then proceeds to turn it into something a human can understand, or something a computer can use.
I wonder if this new toy would double as a random number generator, even if it's just to make
Has anyone seen the Guardian yet?
*chuckle* You realize that the monologue was spoken by one of its writers, right? Scary thing is how completely he seems to believe it.
The real skill of sales is to convince those who do not have your point of view to adopt your point of view, and perhaps expend your resources toward following that point of view. That's why skilled salespeople are so highly sought after, no matter WHAT the type of product or industry.
I really don't agree with the whole "If it's not free, it shouldn't be used, period" mentality he has going on.
I don't agree with it, and here's why:
When I am using a computer, I use it. I am not a programmer, and I lack the resources to hire someone else to do my programming for me.
I have a specific set of needs that must be acknowledged. I want X, Y, Z, and the rights to do this, that, and the other thing. I must be able to do A, and it should behave like B.
Now, the above list is what I use to decide what I am going to use. Now, I have a choice of Applications 1, 2, and 3.
1 is completely Free Software. It has X in spades, manages to include Y, and while lacking a direct Z, you can use P and Q in such a way as to emulate Z. I can easily do this, that, the other thing, and a few things besides. So far so good. But I can't do A... Uh oh... I'm up against a need that is not being met. I might email someone some kind of question about A, but I'm up against a time limit, and I don't have any to waste waiting for a response. So, 1 is out.
2 is Open Source. Now, I can easily and quickly do A, and it is a perfect match where B is concerned. Once again, X and Y are there. Yet there's still no Z, and this time, there's no P nor Q to simulate Z. Damn! I don't have everything I need, and this doesn't interoperate with 1, so I can't just use them together.
*sigh* I guess I still have no choice but to use the Proprietary 3 program, since it does have everything I want, but I'll just have to part with the money first. And wait for 1 or 2 to come up to speed... only to find myself more and more dependent as I go.
---
In the above example, you just witnessed my thought process regarding three programs. This is where the whole "must not use non-free software" argument breaks down; people have needs that must be filled; they have tasks and projects to complete, and they are not going to settle if something that fits their needs is out there. If they have to spend the money, so be it, they find value in that proposition if their money buys them the solution to their full problem.
This is what the free market is all about, guys. You choose what fills your needs. If freedom is truly your goal, than Free Software is your niche. If you have a need that isn't filled by FS or OSS, then you will take the proprietary solution (whether honestly, or through... less-reputable means).
RMS, if you want people to subscribe to your freedom, you'd better think a little harder about how you sell freedom to them. By saying that people need to deal with the loss in functionality in order to be free is saying they need to be caged by your freedom. You are basically giving one freedom to them, and taking another away, and then arrogantly saying they don't need that other freedom, because it's not a fundamental one.
That is why GNU is losing mindshare to Open Source.
You kidding? Xerox's primary benefit is the fact that their company name is used as synonymous for "copy." Brand recognition is never a bad thing.
As for RMS, I can understand his mentality, but let's face it; he needs to realize that freedom works both ways; he can shout "GNU/Linux" at the top of his lungs... but if I want to call it "Linux" for simplicity's sake, I have every freedom to do so, and there's nothing he can do about it without making himself out to be a hypocrite.
Freedom was never an easy business. And while he's got the cajones to stick with his crusade, he's not got the skill to sell his point of view, and that is why "Open Source" is all the rage, while "Free Software" is still out on the edge of peoples' radar.
Dude... did that guy just say "re-architecting?"
They mocked American McGee's "Alice" concept by guessing their next gothic thriller would be "Strawberr* Shor??ake," (Using wildcards to protect my posterior from legal system penetration.) and drawing how they would imagine the cover to be drawn.
The problem is convincing said friends that it's easy without travelling 2000 miles to show them. :-/
*chuckle* I don't know who modded this as funny, but it's actually factual. My version of Firefox (1.0 on Gentoo) seems to be either immune to the vulnerability, or I have a secure enough configuration to prevent this particular explot from working.
And since it can't seem to pop up the window, it just keeps trying. I wasn't kidding that it was up to 2000 when I was done posting.
"Firefox has prevented this site from opening 1632 pop-up windows. Click here for options..."
...And now 2000... persistent little bugger...
And this is a version of Firefox I installed approximately two weeks ago.
...IBM has a different platform in mind?
Perhaps, but since the newer threats are more interested in destroying everything that isn't of their own belief system, it stands to pretty good reason that such a storyline isn't going to have the same level of plot twists as the current Indy storylines do, since the "recapturing the artifact" plotline can't take place, and if the bad guys get there, they won't bother looking to make sure some artifact is going to be there.
No, I think the Nazis' tendencies add depth to the storylines that you can't have against Al Quaida or any other terrorist organization these days.
Only in America do they mod a joke as insightful...
Dr. Who, however, is pure science fiction.
Indiana Jones is a historical fiction with a touch of fantasy.
Personally, I think that it would be better to create a new character in this particular film that would produce his own spinoff series, and continue the "Archaeologist vs. Nazi" saga in there. This way, he won't need to try and fit Indiana Jones' shoes, and create a character all his own, while still sharing continuity with the Indiana Jones universe.
*chuckle* I think I'll take your word for that. I'm not sure I understand half of that page. :-/
I'm a computer geek, not physical sciences. I just assumed about water because I lost a couple ice cube trays due to expanding water (and my idiocy in placing things on top of them).
Assuming the average current age to lose drive is 55, with this form of longevity, the sex drive would start to fail at approximately 733 years old.
Here's my thought.
We're only now reaching the point where private spaceflight is possible. This is not even taking into consideration the likelihood of terraforming in anything resembling a century timespan, much less a millennium, and this is not taking into account the vast distances between stars, or the likelihood of any other planets that would support human life.
Now, if millenial longevity were to take place, the human population would grow virtually nonstop for one millennium before the death rate would once again match the birthrate. Without anyplace to go, this could have horrible repercussions on humanity at this time.
And all that's not taking into account the resource requirements for such a population explosion. You thought the Baby Boom was a problem? This would make the Baby Boom look like a slight tremor in birthrate.
Now, I'm not saying I wouldn't want to live 1000 years. I would, very much, like to live that long, because I am very determined to see the future, even if I can't get there right away. I'd also like to have more than 10 years to enjoy my retirement when I finally achieve independence from the need for a job. But now is not the time for this breakthrough.
Actually, water expands as it gets colder.
*chuckle* I don't think a 2.4GHz Pentium 4 running Stage-1-based Gentoo is what one would call slow.
However, there is the possibility of a misconfiguration somewhere, since you say your volume wheel seems pretty snappy. I'll just have to hunt for it.
I can name one instance where this could be an issue... albeit a mere annoyance, rather than anything resembling a showstopper.
I have one of those multimedia keyboards, with volume control buttons on it. Since the volume knob on my speakers isn't working properly, I tend to use the keyboard to adjust volume. Problem is, if the sound is too loud, I will try to immediately lower the volume, and it takes approximately 5 seconds for GNOME to respond.
'Blog is short for "Weblog."
Get used to it. It's a word to describe online journals.