The fight for freedom has many fronts. This front's name is freedom of speech (for music writers, that is - if a record label won't publish some singers' song because it doesn't benefit them or because of government crap, how effective his message will be? In this case, "Art wants to be free" (free as in freedom, not as in beer).
First: I'd gladly buy a CD if it's cheap enough and it's worth it. I don't want to spend my money in a giant marketing apparatus promoting tours. People who go to the tours ARE ALREADY paying. If I'm not going, why should my money go to them? I don't want to spend twice on a product. On the other hand, if a musician puts up his website and has a "donate" button for some tour, i'd gladly click if I consider the artist good enough.
Second, if you had to choose between spending $100 on the poor, and giving them to record companies, which one would you choose? You kill no one by downloading a file. And I'd rather download a song from the internet than financing kidnapper bands or druglords who sell pirated goods on the street.
Third, you can't force a teenager to give away his money to the poor. But in the same way, you can't force him to feed the RIAA monster companies who are already obsolete anyway. Why invest money in something that has no reason to exist?
Fourth, The only reason people have to pay for music is because the RIAA has twisted the law in their favor, lobbing them with the money the customers have paid. If I'm spending money on a music as a government tax (in the form of lobbying), I have the right to decide what should be done with my money, don't I? I'd rather download a song and donate a dollar to the group, than paying $20 to the RIAA, who will only give about 50 cents (or less) to the group in question.
Finally, The RIAA has stolen a lot of money from customers. Is it wrong to want to take that money back?
These are some of the reasons file sharers believe it's not only "not wrong", but a just cause, to share files. One thing can be wrong and legal, or viceversa. The laws supporting evil monopolies like the RIAA can, and must go away.
(You can quote, copy and link to this as the "File Sharer's manifesto". This is free speech and belongs to the public domain - permission to correct spelling / grammar is granted)
Err...right. Because no other culture in history before the US ever thought the world was created through supernatural means rather than through physics.
That wasn't the point. The point is NOT that creationists believe in God, but that they have REJECTED science. And so have all those people who buy crystals to protect their auras, read their horoscopes, believe in UFO's, miracle-products infomercials, etc.
America is the MOST IGNORANT COUNTRY in the world. With that I mean that the average american is ignorant about Science, politics, the outer world AND DOESN'T CARE. As long as he can watch the superbowl or the latest Britney's concert, he's fine and doesn't worry about anything else.
Sometimes I really wonder if there is a difference between the United States and the Matrix. Well, there is one. The Matrix had smart people in charge.
If there's one thing that can confirm Gates' lack of vision, was the dumping of Microsoft Xenix (it later became SCO UNIX). If Microsoft had kept Xenix, they'd be ALREADY competing with Linux right now.
Another thing that wasn't even on MS' radar screen, was the concept of Open Source.
Some TRUE visionaries: The W3C guys, the XML inventor (forgot his name, sorry), Bram Cohen, DVD Jon, the DivX guys, the Sourceforge guys, and of course, Linus and friends.
The only vision Gates had was the internet one. But that was just marketing, rather than a true vision.
Well, I'd like to thank Roland for his pillow article. Recently i began experiencing sore throats and nasal problems. After reading the pillow story, I decided to buy myself a new pillow.
Problem solved:) These 2 days I've slept much better than in a long time.
(Ironically, this might also have to do with nanotoxicity *cough*:P )
is that (at least with buckyballs and nanotubes) they're non-biodegradable (in this they're similar to asbestos). I recall watching the photo of a macrophage destroyed because it tried to swallow an asbestos particle.
The questions to be asked are:
Can the nanoparticles destroy the human cells, or alter their DNA as a side effect? Can they clutter in the bloodstream or inside the organs?
Alright, i'll have to answer your little-off topic complain.
The main point for the Coral link is to help the SERVER. If even the coral caches are slashdotted, nothing will happen to the server they got the info from. Which is a win-win situation.
Your question could as well be rephrased into "why use P2P when i can FTP? It's really slow anyway".
Seems it's slashdotted already after 8 posts. Finally when will all slashdot-links be coralized automatically?
When Microsoft opensources Windows, probably. And that's because it would be the most read link in slashdot history EVER, so it would HAVE to be coralized. And then again, only maybe.
Do you have any idea how much it costs to have a computer in every house, each one consuming about 300 Watts*hour?
Only when the world's oil supplies are limited, researchers are struggling to find alternative energy sources (fuel cells, flexible solar cells, etc.). But right now the majority of energy plants burn fuel to generate electricity.
By making CPUs save power, the chip manufacturers are indirectly fighting against the greenhouse effect.
I'm NOT a wikipedia editor, just a reader. So I can't tell if there's an error or not. Who'll correct the errors for me, a common Joe Reader? And how am I guaranteed that such error WILL be corrected? When? My point is, wikipedia needs DISCIPLINE. There should be dedicated (paid maybe?) editors who get random articles mailed to them at a regular basis, and make corrections.
Everytime something gets out of our control we get scared. InnoBase is no exception.
I think that the only people who can answer if the move was good or bad, are the MySQL developers. I'd suggest Slashdot to have an interview with them so they can dissipate our fears.
Yes, but wouldn't the same thing apply to traditional encycolpedias?
That was precisely one of the arguments mentioned in TFA.
That just because other encyclopedias had some errors, the wikipedia shouldn't be criticized. And here lies the problem: Instead of correcting errors, the wikipedia editors indulge them.
And that's very dangerous for an encyclopedia. Because it lets the errors accumulate. Yes, it's a wiki, but that's no excuse for making a defective reference work.
The big difference in my mind is that those traditional media typically have fewer people involved, and therefore fewer agendas... Bingo. But according to (my interpretation of) the article, wikipedia suffers from a greater evil: A collective mindset (think slashdot regarding certain issues, like censorship). And that mindset is not simple like an agenda, it's worse, because it's about criticism to the wikipedia itself.
Traditionally, encyclopedias are peer-reviewed. But the wikipedia does not guarantee that an article will be peer-reviewed by PEOPLE WITH DIFFERENT IDEAS AND KNOWLEDGE. At most, it'll be reviewed by other users. So? The bias in wikipedia is dangerous because it's not accidental. It's inherent to its social infrastructure.
In other words, the problem with the wikipedia is the wiki.
the Ubuntu guys JUST told me that Ubuntu wasn't ready yet - at least regarding audio support. And someone else here on/. recommended me to move to SUSE.
I guess that takes care of your wonderful Ubuntu review.
From TFA: Many IT professionals ask me when Linux will finally "make it" on the desktop. How will they know when Linux has made it? What's holding it back?
I don't know about him, but the last time I checked, software installation in Linux was still a mess.
The US seems to have stagnated in its own corporation architecture.
First they were the most innovative country (technologically speaking). But upon their technological advances, they built a structure conformed by companies, associations and organisms (The FCC, RIAA, MPAA, the Patent Office, and yes, even political parties). But they became more and more powerful, inhibiting the growth of additional economical resources. Sooner or later, their inner resources will exhaust. And the U.S. will be left with nothing.
In other words, the U.S. has become a corporative timebomb.
*cough cough* ack! Have you EVER seen the ugliness inside MSWord produced html?
Anwyay, HTML is a markup language - just as OpenDocument. The difference is that HTML was meant to be read by web browsers. Printing and formatting is out of its scope.
Slashdot Mirror
The fight for freedom has many fronts. This front's name is freedom of speech (for music writers, that is - if a record label won't publish some singers' song because it doesn't benefit them or because of government crap, how effective his message will be? In this case, "Art wants to be free" (free as in freedom, not as in beer).
First: I'd gladly buy a CD if it's cheap enough and it's worth it. I don't want to spend my money in a giant marketing apparatus promoting tours. People who go to the tours ARE ALREADY paying. If I'm not going, why should my money go to them? I don't want to spend twice on a product. On the other hand, if a musician puts up his website and has a "donate" button for some tour, i'd gladly click if I consider the artist good enough.
Second, if you had to choose between spending $100 on the poor, and giving them to record companies, which one would you choose? You kill no one by downloading a file. And I'd rather download a song from the internet than financing kidnapper bands or druglords who sell pirated goods on the street.
Third, you can't force a teenager to give away his money to the poor. But in the same way, you can't force him to feed the RIAA monster companies who are already obsolete anyway. Why invest money in something that has no reason to exist?
Fourth, The only reason people have to pay for music is because the RIAA has twisted the law in their favor, lobbing them with the money the customers have paid. If I'm spending money on a music as a government tax (in the form of lobbying), I have the right to decide what should be done with my money, don't I? I'd rather download a song and donate a dollar to the group, than paying $20 to the RIAA, who will only give about 50 cents (or less) to the group in question.
Finally, The RIAA has stolen a lot of money from customers. Is it wrong to want to take that money back?
These are some of the reasons file sharers believe it's not only "not wrong", but a just cause, to share files. One thing can be wrong and legal, or viceversa. The laws supporting evil monopolies like the RIAA can, and must go away.
(You can quote, copy and link to this as the "File Sharer's manifesto". This is free speech and belongs to the public domain - permission to correct spelling / grammar is granted)
Err...right. Because no other culture in history before the US ever thought the world was created through supernatural means rather than through physics.
That wasn't the point. The point is NOT that creationists believe in God, but that they have REJECTED science. And so have all those people who buy crystals to protect their auras, read their horoscopes, believe in UFO's, miracle-products infomercials, etc.
America is the MOST IGNORANT COUNTRY in the world. With that I mean that the average american is ignorant about Science, politics, the outer world AND DOESN'T CARE. As long as he can watch the superbowl or the latest Britney's concert, he's fine and doesn't worry about anything else.
Sometimes I really wonder if there is a difference between the United States and the Matrix. Well, there is one. The Matrix had smart people in charge.
If there's one thing that can confirm Gates' lack of vision, was the dumping of Microsoft Xenix (it later became SCO UNIX). If Microsoft had kept Xenix, they'd be ALREADY competing with Linux right now.
Another thing that wasn't even on MS' radar screen, was the concept of Open Source.
Some TRUE visionaries: The W3C guys, the XML inventor (forgot his name, sorry), Bram Cohen, DVD Jon, the DivX guys, the Sourceforge guys, and of course, Linus and friends.
The only vision Gates had was the internet one. But that was just marketing, rather than a true vision.
So, yes, you're right. Gates = !Visionary.
Well, I'd like to thank Roland for his pillow article. Recently i began experiencing sore throats and nasal problems. After reading the pillow story, I decided to buy myself a new pillow.
:) These 2 days I've slept much better than in a long time.
:P )
Problem solved
(Ironically, this might also have to do with nanotoxicity *cough*
is that (at least with buckyballs and nanotubes) they're non-biodegradable (in this they're similar to asbestos). I recall watching the photo of a macrophage destroyed because it tried to swallow an asbestos particle.
The questions to be asked are:
Can the nanoparticles destroy the human cells, or alter their DNA as a side effect?
Can they clutter in the bloodstream or inside the organs?
Mercedes-Benz also has a prototype. Their concept car will be available for production around 2015, using a fuelcell+lithium ion combo.
If this is an optimization, is there any chance of using some of the Swiftshader code to optimize hardware renderers?
Alright, i'll have to answer your little-off topic complain.
The main point for the Coral link is to help the SERVER. If even the coral caches are slashdotted, nothing will happen to the server they got the info from. Which is a win-win situation.
Your question could as well be rephrased into "why use P2P when i can FTP? It's really slow anyway".
You'll need more than your tin foil hat if the ISS lands on you.
:D (or should that be Google decaying orbit?)
Google earth links, pls?
Armour , +5 plate mail of Anti-trust avoidance
Except in Nebraska!
IANAL, so could he be arrested or not?
So, your point is, because the UN would have corruption, let's spare lying to the people and let a publicly known corrupted govt. take over?
Great idea, indeed.(/sarcasm)
Seems it's slashdotted already after 8 posts. Finally when will all slashdot-links be coralized automatically?
When Microsoft opensources Windows, probably. And that's because it would be the most read link in slashdot history EVER, so it would HAVE to be coralized. And then again, only maybe.
Do you have any idea how much it costs to have a computer in every house, each one consuming about 300 Watts*hour?
Only when the world's oil supplies are limited, researchers are struggling to find alternative energy sources (fuel cells, flexible solar cells, etc.). But right now the majority of energy plants burn fuel to generate electricity.
By making CPUs save power, the chip manufacturers are indirectly fighting against the greenhouse effect.
allow me to share my excitement.
:)
(points at intel)
MWA HA HA! HA HA!
MWA HA HA! HA HA!
Ah... felt so good. Thanks
I'm NOT a wikipedia editor, just a reader. So I can't tell if there's an error or not. Who'll correct the errors for me, a common Joe Reader? And how am I guaranteed that such error WILL be corrected? When? My point is, wikipedia needs DISCIPLINE. There should be dedicated (paid maybe?) editors who get random articles mailed to them at a regular basis, and make corrections.
Everytime something gets out of our control we get scared. InnoBase is no exception.
I think that the only people who can answer if the move was good or bad, are the MySQL developers. I'd suggest Slashdot to have an interview with them so they can dissipate our fears.
Yes, but wouldn't the same thing apply to traditional encycolpedias?
That was precisely one of the arguments mentioned in TFA.
That just because other encyclopedias had some errors, the wikipedia shouldn't be criticized. And here lies the problem: Instead of correcting errors, the wikipedia editors indulge them.
And that's very dangerous for an encyclopedia. Because it lets the errors accumulate. Yes, it's a wiki, but that's no excuse for making a defective reference work.
The big difference in my mind is that those traditional media typically have fewer people involved, and therefore fewer agendas...
Bingo. But according to (my interpretation of) the article, wikipedia suffers from a greater evil: A collective mindset (think slashdot regarding certain issues, like censorship). And that mindset is not simple like an agenda, it's worse, because it's about criticism to the wikipedia itself.
Traditionally, encyclopedias are peer-reviewed. But the wikipedia does not guarantee that an article will be peer-reviewed by PEOPLE WITH DIFFERENT IDEAS AND KNOWLEDGE. At most, it'll be reviewed by other users. So?
The bias in wikipedia is dangerous because it's not accidental. It's inherent to its social infrastructure.
In other words, the problem with the wikipedia is the wiki.
the Ubuntu guys JUST told me that Ubuntu wasn't ready yet - at least regarding audio support. And someone else here on /. recommended me to move to SUSE.
I guess that takes care of your wonderful Ubuntu review.
TODO: Update Slashdot Eezi Post.
[X] Copy/Paste "How do I get Quake 3 to run in Linux"
From TFA:
Many IT professionals ask me when Linux will finally "make it" on the desktop. How will they know when Linux has made it? What's holding it back?
I don't know about him, but the last time I checked, software installation in Linux was still a mess.
The US seems to have stagnated in its own corporation architecture.
First they were the most innovative country (technologically speaking). But upon their technological advances, they built a structure conformed by companies, associations and organisms (The FCC, RIAA, MPAA, the Patent Office, and yes, even political parties). But they became more and more powerful, inhibiting the growth of additional economical resources. Sooner or later, their inner resources will exhaust. And the U.S. will be left with nothing.
In other words, the U.S. has become a corporative timebomb.
First, Google Earth. Next, your online privacy! Who knows if they'll be spying on your house to see what kind of products you might want to buy!
*puts on tinfoil hat (purchased, btw, via google AdSense)*
Soon he will slip, and soon after that he won't be a lawyer anymore, and won't THAT be a shame?
Nah, the RIAA will probably hire him.
*cough cough* ack! Have you EVER seen the ugliness inside MSWord produced html?
Anwyay, HTML is a markup language - just as OpenDocument. The difference is that HTML was meant to be read by web browsers. Printing and formatting is out of its scope.