Oh come on... why would they lie about that? Apple freely acknowledge that the money they make from the iPod is on the hardware. The music is just there to give people a reason to own the ipod in the first place. Can you work out just how long they would have stayed in business in the states *without* drm? Weeks? Days? It would have ended in a very loud lawsuit, I can work out that much.
Besides, how many well organised online music stores were there before iTunes? I can't think of a single one. Plenty of promises, but no decent existing stores.
And how many that exist now are as good as iTunes? Um... None comes to mind..
With an even playing field, free of drm, the iPod+iTunes combo would almost certainly win hands down. The only people I know who don't like iPods are tech snops who won't like it just because its made by apple, even though its a very competant little player.
I got one a couple of months ago. Thus far I haven't found a single urban myth about the difficulties in using them to be true.
File transfers? Check. Copying music back off it? Check, nicely organised by artist too.
Plus the interface is easy (yes yes, I know it's like Creatives one who gives a crap, the clickwheel rocks), and the sound quality is great. Thats just about everything I want right there.
True, ext3 is not supported by windows. That however is a corporate choice by microsoft. also the lack of ntfs support for windows is the result of a lack of cooperation by microsoft in not enabling the foss community to write the required support into linux.
Given that it has audio playback software, its certain there will be music placed on them. The implication of its inclusion is that they knew wiping for music might happen, so this is a convenience that in more cases assures this will not occur.
As Knuth said, Computer Science has nothing to do with physical computers. That technology changes all the time, people can't point to computers and say, 'oh, you do them'. Computer Science itself is a complex subject, in my area its heavy with theory.
I only occasionally use computers when working, most of my time is spent on a whiteboard or walking, figuring algorithms out. Usually by the time I hit the computer, its just to instantiate an algorithm.
I've been doing this for many years, and I wouldn't have a clue how to fix a computer if it broke, that's hardware, I don't care about that.
I was more meaning that he personally financed and undertook the construction of the worlds first computer, and yes, it was him who designed it, he was one smart cookie.
Dr flowers actually built collossus away from bletchley park, and away from Turing. Not that I disagree that Turing may have dabbled, but he was not there when colossus was constructed
He was not the father of the modern computer at all. Dr Tommy Flowers was http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tommy_Flowers . He created Collosus, so in every sense *he* was one of the fathers of modern computing. However he was constrained by the official secrets act to never discuss his creation, so his contribution was forgotten. Turing knew how to use Colossus, and did some very impressive things. Certainly he could be assigned the title father of AI, but not of modern computing by a long shot. There are people in america with a greater claim to that throne.
I know it doesn't do to say these things about Turing. However, while he would no doubt have made far greater contributions had he not been held to secrecy and driven to suicide by the restrictions and monitoring of the secret service, the fact remains that his actual contribution were somewhat limited. Being prosecuted for being gay didn't help much either.
Its a tragedy that we lost him when we did, and how we did, mostly because of the homophobia of the then UK establishment. I wonder what he would have gone on to discover. Perhaps we'd have got the positron a good deal sooner.
What a peculier thing to open with... No, I am an academic and open source developer.
"There are plenty licenses which are permanent and irrevokable"
There are many classes of licence, why would I be meaning an irrovocable one when I'm talking about revoking it? Besides which, licences that are irrovocable have usually been paid for, or are fixed term. Those under discussion here have not been classified as such.
"As long as I comply with the GPL there's nothing you can do to revoke my license".
And if you were complying, what would be the point? At issue here is a politically inspired beleif that Novell are not in fact in compliance. If by certain theory they are not complient, and this theory is ruled valid, then Novell lose, and so do the rest of us.
I think they are in complience, but I'm not a zealot.
A license holder has the right to revoke anothers right to use that license. I don't think it matters if it's GPL2 or 3. They are copyright holders of the technology in question, and can simply refuse to let Novell distribute their stuff any more.
However, this could kill SUSE, thus hurting a lot of blameless businesses that use it, no doubt pissing them off considerably, and costing a lot of money. Microsoft would love that, they can charge to the rescue amid the confusion, offer cheap license deals with great support packages. Kind of like they did in the 1980s in the Unix wars.
It's a dumb move, and contrary to the very essense of Open Source. Good stuff survives, bad stuff dies, no direct intervention is required. This is no more than politicking of the very kind that got Stallman excluded from the conference where they decided on the new name Open Source (to differentiate from free software). They run the risk of marginalising themselves if they do this. It's in no-ones interest to intervene and damage *any* linux distro.
I could go on for hours, but in defference to the fact thast this is/. I'll shut up now...
Actually my favorite Douglas Adams books aren't the Hitch-hiker ones. For that story I prefer the padio play, which I listened to when it was first out.
The Dirk Gently series, and Last Chance to see are my favorites.
Strictly speaking it makes you someone who bases his reading choices on things other then 'well their queueing up at might to buy it, it must be great'.
My local bookstore had pallet loads of the stuff, and garish signs advertising it. No doubt they made a lot of sales, but I get the feeling the manager did it because of the sales potential, not the quality of the books themselves. How do I know this? When there isn't a new Potter book to hype up her books are relegated to an out of the way part of the shop.
Frankly though, the hype and dump nature of the major book chains pisses me off. I vastly prefer a small local bookshop that sells second hand and new books, and has free coffee. They can get new books too, so they get all my considerable book spending budget nowadays. Probably this is over £100 a month.
Note that they have not one single J.K Rowling book, not one.
Hmm, I may well do that, with 'now go buy a decent book' after. The Harry Potter books, or as I like to call them 'that crap that people who'd never read a book with a real plot like' piss me off.
They've been critisized as being the book equivilent of a Tabloid newspaper. That is to say, containing no content of substance. The main problem I found with the stories (yes, I did read them to my son for a short while before realising how shit they were and moving on to Douglas adams instead), is that the plotlines are completelly, utterly predictable. You can work out what's going to happen so easily its unreal.
Personally I think she knows this, which is why this is the last book.
My internet access is Pipex, so any boobs I find are forever tainted by the fact that they arrive at my screen through a service David Hasselhoff advertises...
I got my gmail.com address in the UK before all this trouble, and if I send an invite to myself and create a mail account for someone I can still get them gmail.com addresses.
Slashdot Mirror
pah, we had to write software to do this in the second year of my degree, and they're charging $99 for it?
Anyone fool enough to shell out that much for this deserves everything they get.
Oh come on... why would they lie about that?
Apple freely acknowledge that the money they make from the iPod is on the hardware. The music is just there to give people a reason to own the ipod in the first place.
Can you work out just how long they would have stayed in business in the states *without* drm? Weeks? Days? It would have ended in a very loud lawsuit, I can work out that much.
Besides, how many well organised online music stores were there before iTunes? I can't think of a single one. Plenty of promises, but no decent existing stores.
And how many that exist now are as good as iTunes? Um... None comes to mind..
With an even playing field, free of drm, the iPod+iTunes combo would almost certainly win hands down. The only people I know who don't like iPods are tech snops who won't like it just because its made by apple, even though its a very competant little player.
I got one a couple of months ago. Thus far I haven't found a single urban myth about the difficulties in using them to be true.
File transfers? Check.
Copying music back off it? Check, nicely organised by artist too.
Plus the interface is easy (yes yes, I know it's like Creatives one who gives a crap, the clickwheel rocks), and the sound quality is great. Thats just about everything I want right there.
"We'll just have the Chinese clear it out with their new laser death beam things."
that will never work unless they can breed sharks that can survive in space..
Where did you say it was microsofts fault?
for how long. They'll 'discover' some minor change that 'increases performance' of the drug, patent that, and wham! its profit and price jacking time.
You miss the point.
True, ext3 is not supported by windows. That however is a corporate choice by microsoft. also the lack of ntfs support for windows is the result of a lack of cooperation by microsoft in not enabling the foss community to write the required support into linux.
Both counts its microsofts fault.
Given that it has audio playback software, its certain there will be music placed on them. The implication of its inclusion is that they knew wiping for music might happen, so this is a convenience that in more cases assures this will not occur.
so long as you don't want to write to ntfs....
As Knuth said, Computer Science has nothing to do with physical computers. That technology changes all the time, people can't point to computers and say, 'oh, you do them'. Computer Science itself is a complex subject, in my area its heavy with theory.
I only occasionally use computers when working, most of my time is spent on a whiteboard or walking, figuring algorithms out. Usually by the time I hit the computer, its just to instantiate an algorithm.
I've been doing this for many years, and I wouldn't have a clue how to fix a computer if it broke, that's hardware, I don't care about that.
ok then, I elaborate.
'what do you get if you multiply six by nine'
'forty two'
A little adams humour...
surely you mean 6*9....
I was more meaning that he personally financed and undertook the construction of the worlds first computer, and yes, it was him who designed it, he was one smart cookie.
Dr flowers actually built collossus away from bletchley park, and away from Turing. Not that I disagree that Turing may have dabbled, but he was not there when colossus was constructed
I do jhave addblock, which was why it was so shocking, normally I don't see the cruft of the interwebs
He was not the father of the modern computer at all. Dr Tommy Flowers was http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tommy_Flowers . He created Collosus, so in every sense *he* was one of the fathers of modern computing. However he was constrained by the official secrets act to never discuss his creation, so his contribution was forgotten.
Turing knew how to use Colossus, and did some very impressive things. Certainly he could be assigned the title father of AI, but not of modern computing by a long shot. There are people in america with a greater claim to that throne.
I know it doesn't do to say these things about Turing. However, while he would no doubt have made far greater contributions had he not been held to secrecy and driven to suicide by the restrictions and monitoring of the secret service, the fact remains that his actual contribution were somewhat limited. Being prosecuted for being gay didn't help much either.
Its a tragedy that we lost him when we did, and how we did, mostly because of the homophobia of the then UK establishment. I wonder what he would have gone on to discover. Perhaps we'd have got the positron a good deal sooner.
Jesus, that site is horrifically designed. The first thing I got was an auto playing video, then a floating advert that followed me down the screen.
I may be wrong, but this strikes me as 'hey, lets make something slashdot might put up and fill it with adverts'. What a heap.
Oh, and web 2.0 is, so far as I've been able to tell, all about making money, and that means advertising, so yes, expect worse to come.
"Do you work for SCO or something?"
What a peculier thing to open with... No, I am an academic and open source developer.
"There are plenty licenses which are permanent and irrevokable"
There are many classes of licence, why would I be meaning an irrovocable one when I'm talking about revoking it? Besides which, licences that are irrovocable have usually been paid for, or are fixed term. Those under discussion here have not been classified as such.
"As long as I comply with the GPL there's nothing you can do to revoke my license".
And if you were complying, what would be the point? At issue here is a politically inspired beleif that Novell are not in fact in compliance. If by certain theory they are not complient, and this theory is ruled valid, then Novell lose, and so do the rest of us.
I think they are in complience, but I'm not a zealot.
A license holder has the right to revoke anothers right to use that license. I don't think it matters if it's GPL2 or 3. They are copyright holders of the technology in question, and can simply refuse to let Novell distribute their stuff any more.
/. I'll shut up now...
However, this could kill SUSE, thus hurting a lot of blameless businesses that use it, no doubt pissing them off considerably, and costing a lot of money. Microsoft would love that, they can charge to the rescue amid the confusion, offer cheap license deals with great support packages. Kind of like they did in the 1980s in the Unix wars.
It's a dumb move, and contrary to the very essense of Open Source. Good stuff survives, bad stuff dies, no direct intervention is required. This is no more than politicking of the very kind that got Stallman excluded from the conference where they decided on the new name Open Source (to differentiate from free software). They run the risk of marginalising themselves if they do this. It's in no-ones interest to intervene and damage *any* linux distro.
I could go on for hours, but in defference to the fact thast this is
Actually my favorite Douglas Adams books aren't the Hitch-hiker ones. For that story I prefer the padio play, which I listened to when it was first out.
The Dirk Gently series, and Last Chance to see are my favorites.
Strictly speaking it makes you someone who bases his reading choices on things other then 'well their queueing up at might to buy it, it must be great'.
My local bookstore had pallet loads of the stuff, and garish signs advertising it. No doubt they made a lot of sales, but I get the feeling the manager did it because of the sales potential, not the quality of the books themselves. How do I know this? When there isn't a new Potter book to hype up her books are relegated to an out of the way part of the shop.
Frankly though, the hype and dump nature of the major book chains pisses me off. I vastly prefer a small local bookshop that sells second hand and new books, and has free coffee. They can get new books too, so they get all my considerable book spending budget nowadays. Probably this is over £100 a month.
Note that they have not one single J.K Rowling book, not one.
A reasoned response with well thought out arguments? On Slashdot?
Dude, I mean really, that's just not the way its supposed to happen....
Hmm, I may well do that, with 'now go buy a decent book' after. The Harry Potter books, or as I like to call them 'that crap that people who'd never read a book with a real plot like' piss me off.
They've been critisized as being the book equivilent of a Tabloid newspaper. That is to say, containing no content of substance. The main problem I found with the stories (yes, I did read them to my son for a short while before realising how shit they were and moving on to Douglas adams instead), is that the plotlines are completelly, utterly predictable. You can work out what's going to happen so easily its unreal.
Personally I think she knows this, which is why this is the last book.
My internet access is Pipex, so any boobs I find are forever tainted by the fact that they arrive at my screen through a service David Hasselhoff advertises...
Oh yhes, he is teh king of the internets
since all you need is a basic xp install, isn't it simple just to do that first? It takes my machine 20 minutes to install xp.
I got my gmail.com address in the UK before all this trouble, and if I send an invite to myself and create a mail account for someone I can still get them gmail.com addresses.
I don't know why this is, but it's very handy.