Well, first we take this craaaazy thing called a "computer", and hook it up to a little bubbly thing called a "monitor," and also through a little, tiny, thin wire to a *third thing* called "the Intarweb."
After that we open up our "Intarweb Browser" and...
...wait, this *is* what tiltowait is asking for, isn't it?
"How can microsoft continue to grow with it's current market share?"
I don't know; maybe... actually concentrate on releasing quality, bug-free products that people want to buy?
I happen to agree with the article, in that the Internet WILL make our kids more creative than us. I mean, just look at what's happening now! Children and teenagers everywhere are breaking free from the artificial bonds known as "basic English" that the oppressive adult regime foists upon them! Why, just j00 wait and see! Soon these kids will be r future poets, artists, n arkitects! Like, OMFGLOLz! that wud b teh r0xx0r!
Because I always wanted to play more shooter/tactical strategy clones with people named "H4X0RRD00D" and "Assmonkey" who type like they failed a third-grade English class.
Seriously though - am I one of the only people looking for a good single-player experience anymore? While I can see the appeal of online play in certain areas, it seems to discourage innovation in the areas of gameplay, story and dialog, and, well, *fun.* Just look at the options for online games right now - you have shooter clones, Splinter Cell and its clones, and MMO's. BO-ring. Give me the days of Morrowind, Planescape: Torment, and Deus Ex (or, for that matter, Metroid, Mario Kart, and Zelda: A Link to the Past) over those any day.
Because of the expired or mishandled copyrights on these titles, a new generation now has an opportunity to rediscover them at bargain-basement prices. In other words, because of a LACK of copyrights on them, they are providing benefits to society through their artistic value (nevermind that calling a movie like The Killer Shrews "artistic" is a bit of a stretch. I think you get what I mean though.)
Isn't enriching the public as a whole supposed to be what copyrights are for? Yet, in nearly every case today, the opposite seems to be true. I couldn't provide a better example as to why copyrights should not exist, or, at the very least, should be severely limited in scope.
Oh, and just a side note: Before you go ahead and label me a "commie pinko", or whatever, know that I'm a miniarchist libertarian. I simply believe that copyrights are not a legitimate function of government.
Hobbiton: Wealthy hobbit Frodo Baggins today filed a lawsuit against the Dark Lord Sauron claiming damages from an army of orcs, as well as personal injury from the so-called "One Ring."
The charges brought up against Sauron include: The invasion of Rohan and Gondor via orcs, trolls, and evil men; the scouring of the Shire; the corruption of Saruman the White and the subsequent turning of Isengard into a fortress of evil; and, last but certainly not least, the use of a Ring of Power to twist the mind of the young hobbit.
Frodo's legal counsel, one Tom Bombadil, believes that the prosecution has a very good chance of winning. "La de da," Mr. Bombadil sang, "all of my elves are very happy and joyous! And we love singing too! La la la..." At that, this reporter proceded to stab him several times with a nearby broadsword.
In court today, the defense for Mr. Sauron called forth one Smeagol, more commonly known as Gollum. When asked whether Mr. Baggins could be trusted, Gollum commented, "They STOLES it from us! Filthy, tricksy hobbitses! They STOLES my preciousssss!" Sauron's defense then proceded to testify that, due to the fact that Mr. Baggins' father was, in fact, recruited as a "burglar" by the late Thorin Oakenshield, and the fact that he did indeed steal the ring from Mr. Gollum, Frodo's entire testimony concerning the ring was suspect. Frodo's counsel did not offer a rebuttal.
Sauron's lawyers declined to comment on any of the charges being brought up before them, except with a very cryptic, "One Countersuit to rule them all..."
"the DUTY, the OBLIGATION for every American to repay the debt and serve at least a 2-year commitment their own country."
In case I'm mistaken, the government is here to serve our interests, and not the other way around. We have no "duty" or "obligation" towards an entity that decides to give us things, especially a compulsory one.
Let me put it this way: A salesman walks up to your house and offers you $1000. You gladly accept it, but subsequently ask if there's a catch. The salesman says that there is, and that it's one month of extremely hard and excruciating labor away from your friends, family, and real job. At this, you change your mind and decide to give the money back. "Oh, no," the salesman replies, "you are required to keep the money. It's a rule. And now you're coming with me for a month." At that, two armed thugs grab you and forcibly drag you into the back of an unmarked van sitting outside.
Sound silly? You're right; it does. But that's what governments do every day. Should you have the right to refuse the salesman's money, and with it the consequenses? Of course. Should you be able to do the same for government handouts? I don't see why not, especially since the government isn't supposed to be giving out handouts anyway. Check the Constitution; do you see anything in there about subsidies, Social Security, or Medicare? Didn't think so.
So, therefore, NO ONE has a duty to serve his or her "country."
...is that what happened in the past does not necessarily mean the same thing will happen in the future. Microsoft has so many built-in defense mechanisms and ways of controlling and monopolizing the market that there's no real end in sight for their domination of it.
Therefore, while I would like to believe that what Linus says is true, I sincerely doubt it will happen, at least not in the forseeable future.
Fact: Wikitorial was shut down after people began posting obscene content.
Fact: The trouble started after a/. posting about Wikitorial.
So what? All this proves is that the Slashdot posting and the malicious kiddies happened to coincide. Unless the LA Times editorial staff has proof that the people who posted the obscenities WERE, in fact,/. readers, they don't have much of a case.
Nothing to see here, folks; move along.
3-D Star Wars Prequels? I Can't Wait!
on
Star Wars 3D And TV
·
· Score: 5, Funny
Finally, my chance to actually realistically attempt to strangle Jar Jar Binks!
And I suppose running OSX or Linux would make the school a "bastion of intellectual neutrality" again? Either way, the "brand loyalty" argument holds true. The only way I could see around this problem, in fact, would be to have a custom OS designed by a third party. But that would be both needlessly expensive and time-consuming.
I mean, I hate MS as much as the next guy, but do you really need to use every opportunity to bash them, even if it's in a completely illogical way?
"Some scientists speculate that assortive mating of high IQ people is contributing to a rising incidence of autism and Asperger's Syndrome."
Different interpretation: Only stupid people should breed. That way, our political overlords can have more people to vote for them, our government can have more people to decieve, and Big Businesses have more people to sell junk no one needs to.
Hmm, maybe the scientists behind this study have ulterior motives after all...
Hold it right there. You're trusting the same United States government that brought us such amazing programs as the Iraq war that made our country less safe, the war on drugs that put more drugs on the streets, the gun control laws that put more guns in the hands of criminals and less in the hands of responsible citizens, and the "No Child Left Behind" act which left thousands of children behind, to actually do a good job with environmental issues?
Many proponents of "natural capitalism" hypothesize that if businesses started offering recycling services, rather than simply selling products, they could then be environmentally sound while saving money at the same time. Imagine if all of the parts of your old PC were recycled into new computer equipment, with little to no loss of quality! Since new metals/chemicals/etc. wouldn't need to be created, the manufacturing companies wouldn't need to tap natural resources or pollute, and the cost of recycling most components is less than creating them from scratch.
With that in mind, imagine if any given computer company - say, Dell - offered a small to moderate trade-in value on a new PC if you gave them your old one. They would then break down the components and use them to make new PC's, while the consumer would get a discount on a new one. Both sides would benefit.
Then again, as long as companies are stuck on their short-term, quarterly business models, the goal of which is simply to move as many units as possible in as little time as possible, this type of thing will never catch on. Because of this business model, there's ample evidence of market failure, since state governments need to legislate recycling computers.
But, really, what can you expect from corporate America?
Slashdot Mirror
After that we open up our "Intarweb Browser" and...
...wait, this *is* what tiltowait is asking for, isn't it?
And here I am stuck without mod points again...
...frankly, with a name like that, I wouldn't be able to write much of anything.
"Overabundance of Commercials and Tons of Bad Reality Shows - Not TiVo - To Blame For Decline in Television Audience."
Slashdot - News for Nerds, Stuff you Already Knew.
"How can microsoft continue to grow with it's current market share?" I don't know; maybe... actually concentrate on releasing quality, bug-free products that people want to buy?
...
*sigh* Who am I kidding...
...ow. I think my brain cells just died.
Yes, the breadth of... shooter clones. And survival-horror clones. And Final Fantasy-clones. And sports-game clones, and racing-game clones.
And the depth of... sequels to clones.
*yawn*
Seriously though - am I one of the only people looking for a good single-player experience anymore? While I can see the appeal of online play in certain areas, it seems to discourage innovation in the areas of gameplay, story and dialog, and, well, *fun.* Just look at the options for online games right now - you have shooter clones, Splinter Cell and its clones, and MMO's. BO-ring. Give me the days of Morrowind, Planescape: Torment, and Deus Ex (or, for that matter, Metroid, Mario Kart, and Zelda: A Link to the Past) over those any day.
Haha! Get it? "Windows" with a "transluscent" UI?
And just when I thought Windows usage couldn't get any murkier, too...
Isn't enriching the public as a whole supposed to be what copyrights are for? Yet, in nearly every case today, the opposite seems to be true. I couldn't provide a better example as to why copyrights should not exist, or, at the very least, should be severely limited in scope.
Oh, and just a side note: Before you go ahead and label me a "commie pinko", or whatever, know that I'm a miniarchist libertarian. I simply believe that copyrights are not a legitimate function of government.
Bah, you're right. I hereby hand over my "LotR Geek" membership card.
Hobbiton: Wealthy hobbit Frodo Baggins today filed a lawsuit against the Dark Lord Sauron claiming damages from an army of orcs, as well as personal injury from the so-called "One Ring."
The charges brought up against Sauron include: The invasion of Rohan and Gondor via orcs, trolls, and evil men; the scouring of the Shire; the corruption of Saruman the White and the subsequent turning of Isengard into a fortress of evil; and, last but certainly not least, the use of a Ring of Power to twist the mind of the young hobbit.
Frodo's legal counsel, one Tom Bombadil, believes that the prosecution has a very good chance of winning. "La de da," Mr. Bombadil sang, "all of my elves are very happy and joyous! And we love singing too! La la la..." At that, this reporter proceded to stab him several times with a nearby broadsword.
In court today, the defense for Mr. Sauron called forth one Smeagol, more commonly known as Gollum. When asked whether Mr. Baggins could be trusted, Gollum commented, "They STOLES it from us! Filthy, tricksy hobbitses! They STOLES my preciousssss!" Sauron's defense then proceded to testify that, due to the fact that Mr. Baggins' father was, in fact, recruited as a "burglar" by the late Thorin Oakenshield, and the fact that he did indeed steal the ring from Mr. Gollum, Frodo's entire testimony concerning the ring was suspect. Frodo's counsel did not offer a rebuttal.
Sauron's lawyers declined to comment on any of the charges being brought up before them, except with a very cryptic, "One Countersuit to rule them all..."
In case I'm mistaken, the government is here to serve our interests, and not the other way around. We have no "duty" or "obligation" towards an entity that decides to give us things, especially a compulsory one.
Let me put it this way: A salesman walks up to your house and offers you $1000. You gladly accept it, but subsequently ask if there's a catch. The salesman says that there is, and that it's one month of extremely hard and excruciating labor away from your friends, family, and real job. At this, you change your mind and decide to give the money back. "Oh, no," the salesman replies, "you are required to keep the money. It's a rule. And now you're coming with me for a month." At that, two armed thugs grab you and forcibly drag you into the back of an unmarked van sitting outside.
Sound silly? You're right; it does. But that's what governments do every day. Should you have the right to refuse the salesman's money, and with it the consequenses? Of course. Should you be able to do the same for government handouts? I don't see why not, especially since the government isn't supposed to be giving out handouts anyway. Check the Constitution; do you see anything in there about subsidies, Social Security, or Medicare? Didn't think so.
So, therefore, NO ONE has a duty to serve his or her "country."
Quutes From The Microsoft Post:
"Microsoft is (metaphorically) sticking out its tongue at the Unix/Linux universe..."
"Isn't it great to have such a fine company looking out for the needs of the marketplace by removing unnecessary choice from our lives?"
" we are the borg, resistance is futile..."
And Now, The Apple Post:
"This is not only good news, but great news."
"As a Mac user I love this kind of news."
"Go Apple Go!!"
Slashdot: A Fair and Balanced Community.
Therefore, while I would like to believe that what Linus says is true, I sincerely doubt it will happen, at least not in the forseeable future.
"Dvorak Shuts Up."
Fact: The trouble started after a /. posting about Wikitorial.
So what? All this proves is that the Slashdot posting and the malicious kiddies happened to coincide. Unless the LA Times editorial staff has proof that the people who posted the obscenities WERE, in fact, /. readers, they don't have much of a case.
Nothing to see here, folks; move along.
Finally, my chance to actually realistically attempt to strangle Jar Jar Binks!
Farewell, O ye of little faith.
I mean, I hate MS as much as the next guy, but do you really need to use every opportunity to bash them, even if it's in a completely illogical way?
Different interpretation: Only stupid people should breed. That way, our political overlords can have more people to vote for them, our government can have more people to decieve, and Big Businesses have more people to sell junk no one needs to.
Hmm, maybe the scientists behind this study have ulterior motives after all...
How exactly did this get modded insightful? This last line clearly betrays the parent as having trollish intentions.
Oh, wait, he's an Apple fanboy, so I guess that makes it okay...
Hold it right there. You're trusting the same United States government that brought us such amazing programs as the Iraq war that made our country less safe, the war on drugs that put more drugs on the streets, the gun control laws that put more guns in the hands of criminals and less in the hands of responsible citizens, and the "No Child Left Behind" act which left thousands of children behind, to actually do a good job with environmental issues?
Which country are you living in again?
With that in mind, imagine if any given computer company - say, Dell - offered a small to moderate trade-in value on a new PC if you gave them your old one. They would then break down the components and use them to make new PC's, while the consumer would get a discount on a new one. Both sides would benefit.
Then again, as long as companies are stuck on their short-term, quarterly business models, the goal of which is simply to move as many units as possible in as little time as possible, this type of thing will never catch on. Because of this business model, there's ample evidence of market failure, since state governments need to legislate recycling computers.
But, really, what can you expect from corporate America?