Re:Does it have a monitor and full-size keyboard?
on
Flight of the Desktops
·
· Score: 1
Mine does. USB + HDMI ports. Not quite a docking station, but it works.
I recently bought a new laptop. They've come a long way in the five years since I bought my previous laptop. It was a bit more expensive than my desktop was (now three years old) but it's superior in every way except the monitor and input devices. These I can plug in. Right now it's sitting on my desk plugged into my 22" LCD, keyboard, and mouse. When it's time to hit the road, I unplug it and go.
When I bought my other laptop, I couldn't find one that was reasonably priced and could hold its own against a mid-range desktop machine. It was actually cheaper to buy two separate machines than to buy a laptop that could do both jobs. That's changed.
It certainly has some drawbacks. I can't upgrade the video card, so playing the latest games will probably be a problem in a few years. While I can run both the laptop display and the external monitor at the same time, it's not as good as having two full sized monitors like my desktop could handle. And (though this is probably a blessing in disguise) I now back up regularly because now I don't just have to worry about hardware failure, I have to worry about theft a lot more as well. But overall I'm really happy with this setup.
Our software can handle eight of those. Possibly nine, I don't know how long Sri Lankan's names get.
The company I work for gets paid to make software. If someone wants to pay my employer to support certain features, then we'll build in that support. If the client says "Anyone without a last name can suck it" (and that has happened) then the system won't support that.
As a hired gun (keyboard?) whether what i believe about names is true or false is irrelevant. I believe what I get paid to believe.
By the way, the bill specifically states that such rare and difficult-to-obtain forms of identification like A DRIVER'S LICENSE is acceptable evidence that you're here legally. Actually read the bill for yourself and stop relying on biases "news" sources to feed you twisted summaries and you might actually learn the truth.
The problem isn't the "lockin" part, it's the "Windows" part.
Apple wants is lock-in. But they recognized that the mobile, tough interface driven platform was a different world, so they didn't use OSX for iPhone, iPod, or iPad. They built a shiny new cage for their customers, specifically tailored to the new environment.
The folks at Microsoft don't just want to trap the customers, they want to do it using the same shackles they use in every other dungeon they run. But the shackles are ill-fitting for this purpose.
However, there ARE people out there who practice irresponsible dissent, and their sole purpose is to disrupt the lives of everyone in order to make a point which most find irrational. I am all for these people getting shut down, so long as those who are responsible and do not infringe on the liberty of others are left in peace.
It would be insane to allow the government to shut down people who engage in "irresponsible" dissent. The government has no business getting involved unless the conduct crosses the line into criminality. Irresponsible is so vague that it could be applied to just about any form of dissent. Indeed, the time when it's most important to engage in dissent is when the powers that be claim it's most irresponsible to do so. For example: "It's irresponsible to question the President's decisions while we're at war."
This is marketing, pure and simple.
Seagate is a major player in the hard drive business, but not in the SSD business. All we have here is the CTO of a hard drive manufacturer saying that the technology that current looks like it's most likely to put him out of a job won't put him out of a job for at least a decade. So his customers certainly shouldn't consider SSD over hard drives at least until then. That gives them plenty of time to work on their own SSD solution.
Every time I see the Axe deodorant commercial I want to find the person who made it (approved it, came up with it, etc.) and kick them in the face for a very long time!
You're not nearly ambitious enough. Personally, I recommend going for the classic "double-nads-to-chesty". Difficult, yes, but the payoff is well worth it.
A year ago you were earning $75K/year. Now business has slowed and you're earning $68K/year. Would you say that the recession has had no significant effect on your income?
As I heard it, the old CD long boxes were designed so that music stores wouldn't have to replace their racks. Two CD cases side by side were the same size as a single vinyl record case.
We are changing our systems so that in the future we will not remove books from customers' devices in these circumstances.
So under what circumstances does Mr. Herdener believe it's okay to delete content from his customers' devices? What legitimate use is there for this capability?
That's pretty much my attitude towards IE (and every other browser, actually): I'll support whatever I'm being paid to support. My employer will happily sign off on a spec that requires IE4 compatibility as long as the client writes a big enough check. Sure, we'll tell him it's a waste of money and provide stats on browser market shares. But ultimately the client knows his users better than we do. We'll price it out, and either it's worth the money to him or it isn't.
For my personal sites I refuse to use browser specific hacks. Over the years I've found that it's better to stick with standards compliant code. I work on them in my spare time, so I want my work to have longevity. A hack could easily break in future browsers, while standard code only becomes better supported as time goes on.
If the fire marshal is getting the job done through vigorous inspections to make sure everyone's up to code, then nobody's going to question him. A fire safety inspection isn't something that offends the sensibilities. And, more importantly, it isn't illegal.
But what if this effective fire marshal claimed that the reason the city was so safe from fires was that he was torturing his employees to ensure their compliance? "I beat them regularly to keep them in line, and they get the job done. I could stop beating them, but then they would slack off and that would make the city less safe. Is relieving the suffering of a few civil servants worth putting millions of Americans in danger? I don't think so."
Regardless of how effective he is, we need to ask if this is something that we as a society want to condone. And it's certainly reasonable to ask "Is this really effective? And even if it is, are there methods that are as effective that don't involve physically assaulting the fire inspectors?"
Furthermore, some of us are going to say "Fuck it, I don't care if it works, this is wrong and he shouldn't be doing it! He needs to stop this shit right fucking now! If putting out the occasional fire is the price of living in a civilized society, then so be it."
No, this is not a worthy cause and is potentially quite dangerous. This isn't about health, this is about collecting more money for the government. And that means that the government will decide what's unhealthy based on how big the budget shortfall is in any given year.
Re:Sophistry To Kill First Sale Doctrine
on
Why Bother With DRM?
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
My argument against DRM is that I want to use the shit that I fucking paid for.
If it was just about getting shit for free, I wouldn't be bitching about it on Slashdot. I'd be downloading the pirated version, which doesn't have a limit on the number of installs and doesn't require me to ask permission from some company's server before I can play.
Slashdot Mirror
Mine does. USB + HDMI ports. Not quite a docking station, but it works.
I recently bought a new laptop. They've come a long way in the five years since I bought my previous laptop. It was a bit more expensive than my desktop was (now three years old) but it's superior in every way except the monitor and input devices. These I can plug in. Right now it's sitting on my desk plugged into my 22" LCD, keyboard, and mouse. When it's time to hit the road, I unplug it and go.
When I bought my other laptop, I couldn't find one that was reasonably priced and could hold its own against a mid-range desktop machine. It was actually cheaper to buy two separate machines than to buy a laptop that could do both jobs. That's changed.
It certainly has some drawbacks. I can't upgrade the video card, so playing the latest games will probably be a problem in a few years. While I can run both the laptop display and the external monitor at the same time, it's not as good as having two full sized monitors like my desktop could handle. And (though this is probably a blessing in disguise) I now back up regularly because now I don't just have to worry about hardware failure, I have to worry about theft a lot more as well. But overall I'm really happy with this setup.
Our software can handle eight of those. Possibly nine, I don't know how long Sri Lankan's names get.
The company I work for gets paid to make software. If someone wants to pay my employer to support certain features, then we'll build in that support. If the client says "Anyone without a last name can suck it" (and that has happened) then the system won't support that.
As a hired gun (keyboard?) whether what i believe about names is true or false is irrelevant. I believe what I get paid to believe.
By the way, the bill specifically states that such rare and difficult-to-obtain forms of identification like A DRIVER'S LICENSE is acceptable evidence that you're here legally. Actually read the bill for yourself and stop relying on biases "news" sources to feed you twisted summaries and you might actually learn the truth.
[Citation needed]
I'll help you out. Here's the full text of the law: http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf
I couldn't find any mention of a driver's license being sufficient proof of legality.
The problem isn't the "lockin" part, it's the "Windows" part.
Apple wants is lock-in. But they recognized that the mobile, tough interface driven platform was a different world, so they didn't use OSX for iPhone, iPod, or iPad. They built a shiny new cage for their customers, specifically tailored to the new environment.
The folks at Microsoft don't just want to trap the customers, they want to do it using the same shackles they use in every other dungeon they run. But the shackles are ill-fitting for this purpose.
That's the trojan that Sony is able to use.
Hey, at least Sony is considerate enough to use a trojan when fucking its customers.
Confirmation from Netcraft.
Their servers might be overseas, but their asses would still be within US jurisdiction.
However, there ARE people out there who practice irresponsible dissent, and their sole purpose is to disrupt the lives of everyone in order to make a point which most find irrational. I am all for these people getting shut down, so long as those who are responsible and do not infringe on the liberty of others are left in peace.
It would be insane to allow the government to shut down people who engage in "irresponsible" dissent. The government has no business getting involved unless the conduct crosses the line into criminality. Irresponsible is so vague that it could be applied to just about any form of dissent. Indeed, the time when it's most important to engage in dissent is when the powers that be claim it's most irresponsible to do so. For example: "It's irresponsible to question the President's decisions while we're at war."
I think "thrust" might be more appropriate here.
You ARE a dim-witted douchebag.
ARE.
This is marketing, pure and simple. Seagate is a major player in the hard drive business, but not in the SSD business. All we have here is the CTO of a hard drive manufacturer saying that the technology that current looks like it's most likely to put him out of a job won't put him out of a job for at least a decade. So his customers certainly shouldn't consider SSD over hard drives at least until then. That gives them plenty of time to work on their own SSD solution.
Every time I see the Axe deodorant commercial I want to find the person who made it (approved it, came up with it, etc.) and kick them in the face for a very long time!
You're not nearly ambitious enough. Personally, I recommend going for the classic "double-nads-to-chesty". Difficult, yes, but the payoff is well worth it.
A year ago you were earning $75K/year. Now business has slowed and you're earning $68K/year. Would you say that the recession has had no significant effect on your income?
As I heard it, the old CD long boxes were designed so that music stores wouldn't have to replace their racks. Two CD cases side by side were the same size as a single vinyl record case.
We are changing our systems so that in the future we will not remove books from customers' devices in these circumstances.
So under what circumstances does Mr. Herdener believe it's okay to delete content from his customers' devices? What legitimate use is there for this capability?
Try searching IMDB for "Beauty and the Beast" or "Cinderella", and see how effective these hypothetical lawyers have been.
"Critical hit", perhaps?
That's pretty much my attitude towards IE (and every other browser, actually): I'll support whatever I'm being paid to support. My employer will happily sign off on a spec that requires IE4 compatibility as long as the client writes a big enough check. Sure, we'll tell him it's a waste of money and provide stats on browser market shares. But ultimately the client knows his users better than we do. We'll price it out, and either it's worth the money to him or it isn't.
For my personal sites I refuse to use browser specific hacks. Over the years I've found that it's better to stick with standards compliant code. I work on them in my spare time, so I want my work to have longevity. A hack could easily break in future browsers, while standard code only becomes better supported as time goes on.
If the fire marshal is getting the job done through vigorous inspections to make sure everyone's up to code, then nobody's going to question him. A fire safety inspection isn't something that offends the sensibilities. And, more importantly, it isn't illegal.
But what if this effective fire marshal claimed that the reason the city was so safe from fires was that he was torturing his employees to ensure their compliance? "I beat them regularly to keep them in line, and they get the job done. I could stop beating them, but then they would slack off and that would make the city less safe. Is relieving the suffering of a few civil servants worth putting millions of Americans in danger? I don't think so."
Regardless of how effective he is, we need to ask if this is something that we as a society want to condone. And it's certainly reasonable to ask "Is this really effective? And even if it is, are there methods that are as effective that don't involve physically assaulting the fire inspectors?"
Furthermore, some of us are going to say "Fuck it, I don't care if it works, this is wrong and he shouldn't be doing it! He needs to stop this shit right fucking now! If putting out the occasional fire is the price of living in a civilized society, then so be it."
So guys, you kept saying everyone pirates because of DRM. Well, this doesnt have one now. What excuse should we use now?
[Citation needed]
Who are these guys who said everyone pirates because of DRM?
Not necessarily sick. Just sufficiently motivated.
With 4 gigs, you have to pirate.
Bullshit. I filled up 8 gigs on my iPod just ripping my CDs. My roommate's music collection is over 50 GB, all from CDs he's purchased.
No, this is not a worthy cause and is potentially quite dangerous. This isn't about health, this is about collecting more money for the government. And that means that the government will decide what's unhealthy based on how big the budget shortfall is in any given year.
My argument against DRM is that I want to use the shit that I fucking paid for.
If it was just about getting shit for free, I wouldn't be bitching about it on Slashdot. I'd be downloading the pirated version, which doesn't have a limit on the number of installs and doesn't require me to ask permission from some company's server before I can play.
I can get shit for free now, regardless of DRM.
It's open source. You'd starve the company, force it into bankruptcy, and then everybody would get their source code.