When he meets her later she has little magic of her own
I don't have to book in front of me, but I think I remember her running hot lead into the bones of some guards. That sounds fairly significant. Anyway, I certainly did not get a clear view of the difference in magic for men and women in the first few books. It is strongly implied that they did not attend the school at Roke. The later books also drew some strong divisions between men and women, but it has been a long time. I seem to recall at the time thinking that they seemed rather femi-nazi and wondered if Miss LeGuin had just gone through a break up. Of course I think I was about 12 at the time, so I could be way off. She deals with gender issues in some of her other works as well. I have not yet decided whether or not to watch the TV series. After reading the reviews here, I am inclined to delete it.
Stephen King is the very very very rare exception. He wrote a number of books, under contract for very little money and whose rights he did not retain and became so popular that he had real bargaining power for the rest of his works (and was thus able to retain the rights to them). Most authors are not so fortunate. And most publishers now require even more lengthy contracts just to prevent this from happening again.
If you surrender your rights to control of your work, you pay the price.
You seem very unsympathetic to some screwed over by our intellectual property system. She never claimed to have any control, and in fact refrained from making any comments about the film at all until the producers made a bunch of wrongheaded comments about "what Miss Le Guin really meant" in her book and tried to draw some parallels with the middle east fighting those horrible unbelievers. I think she showed remarkable restrain to not comment on the butchering of her work by pseudo-intellectual asshats until they tried to speak on her behalf, expressing opinions that were shallow and ignorant.
I had some real hope for this series upon learning that only the first two books were to be covered (I did not care for the later ones). It sounds like a pretty bad hatchet job in any case. I have one minor beef with your summary, however. The statement, "and only men perform magic" is incorrect. The first book had a witch girl character with whom Sparrowhawk interacts as a student of Ogion, and who he later encounters allied with "old powers" in the north somewhere. She performs several feats of magic.
However one very rarely hears about them returning the money they received when they sold the rights.
Heh, you've obviously never looked into the publishing industry. 20 years ago it was pretty bad, you could publish your own works, which were never put in book stores, or available to the public and no one would ever read your work. Or you could sign a contract to give up the rights to your work and your next several works, and a publishing house would ship it to all kinds of stores. Most stories were then ignored but some became popular and the authors wrote more stories (already owned by the publisher) for the already negotiated fee. Today things are even worse. You see some authors, like Stephen King, developed a large following and then, were able to make money on their fourth or fifth novel, and dictate terms to publishing houses who wanted to make some profit. Now they pretty much make you sign away the rights to anything you want to write for the next 10 years if you want a shot at a mainstream audience. It is ironic that avoiding this exact situation in Europe was one of the primary concerns of the authors of our copyright law. Ben Franklin predicted this outcome which was why he railed against the passage of our copyright laws.
Simply the fact that one can make a movie based on and using the title of a copy-written work without consulting the author, is proof that our system is horribly broken. No author wants to give up rights to their creations, but if they want to be published, they have little choice.
So if you are a Linux guy, OSX is a pretty good place to be. It really does "just work" the vast majority of the time. The thing is, it is not Linux. If you are going to enjoy OSX you really have to be aware that it does things differently. Some things that you know how to do on Linux will not work easily on OSX. I know lots of Linux users who have moved to OSX in the last few years, and most of them are very happy with it. The ones that have issues are the ones who want to do things the "Linux Way" but still use all the OSX features. You mentioned.ogg files, and it is a reasonable example. OSX favors mp3, AAC and a few other formats. Getting itunes to play.ogg is as simple as dropping a plugin in the appropriate folder. You can put it in your user account or the system wide plugin directory. Where people run into problems is when they have all their music sorted in a particular way, with lots of tags, and they try to use iTunes for the first time. By default, it sorts all of your music for you and rearranges things to suit it. You can keep it from doing so, but most people do not think to adjust the preferences before importing their music. This can drive some people absolutely nuts. This is a good analogy for OSX in general, if you do things the way Apple intends, things work well and easily. If you want to do things another way, well maybe it is better to stick with non-Apple-created apps.
Another thing to keep in mind is there is an application hierarchy. Not all apps are first class citizens. Cocoa apps are fully functional, Carbon apps are pretty good, and X-windows apps just feel like bad ports. Some of the best features of the OS, like system wide services, are only available for Cocoa apps and select Carbon apps. It is so amazing to be able to do spell checking and grammar checking and translations in every program with text, that it just seems so wrong when you use a program where suddenly, none of that is available.
Finally, a Linux switcher should keep in mind that if they dual boot into Windows, a good number of those programs will be unavailable. If you are a hard core gamer, or heavily reliant on some Windows program, you might want to do some research into what applications are available.
Good luck. I'm sure you can tell by your posting, but the mac community is very good about providing help and advice. If you are struggling with something forums are even more helpful than linux ones (and no one tells you to RTFM.) If my post has not put you off, go ahead any buy the laptop, you'll be amazed by just how enjoyable using OSX can be. It is just so much nicer for so many little things that you will never notice unless you really think about it.
I know as a student it often seems like you're powerless, but if 25 of you (and your parents -- I know you're an adult, but schools listen to parents) get together and make yourselves heard, you'll probably end up with a satisfactory outcome.
That was not my experience. I had one prof in particular (Former president of the IEEE, you know who you are), who tested on ridiculous subject matter, never taught in the class. The midterm had a 13% average and the final was created by the prof's secretary. It was matching up pictures and diagrams in the textbook with their captions. You try figuring out which of 4 blurry pictures of people standing around in lab coats is "IBM engineers have developed 13 layer circuit board fabrication techniques." We all complained, but nothing was done because that prof was bringing in lots of grant money. The same year the "professor of the year" was let go for bringing in 10K less grant money that was specified in his contract. Universities are businesses these days. When the goal of a University is to make money, they will probably do it. But don't expect them to educate you, that is not their purpose anymore. It is all about certification, get the paper and teach yourself along the way.
it's entirely about making killer apps unavailable to Windows users as a strategy for the survival of open source applications and platforms.
Yes, that is true, but it does not contradict my point. The author does not propose forcing anyone to do anything through licensing. He does propose devoting resources to other areas as a strategy to counter MS's illegal and unethical practices.
if Firefox could not be ported to Windows and IE is as poor as it is today, then some Windows programmer or company will probably give away or sell a replacement browser. How would the further success of Opera (presumably taking over the Firefox market share) help Firefox or Linux very much?
First, you are making a big assumption based upon the existence of Opera. If a company decides it's current software is not performing it's duties well enough for whatever reason they have a number of options. They can request features from the vendor, find another vendor, commission a replacement, or commission an add-on package. In some cases that would mean staying on the same OS. In others, that would not be an option. In most cases, both would be options. So, to use your Firefox/Opera example. Some companies might switch to opera or another Windows browser, some might switch to Linux to use Firefox, Some might switch to OSX and use Safari. Some might write add-ons to IE. Some will just suck it up and stay with IE on Windows because they do not believe other options exist. The end result is the same. There is more diversity of web browsers, and probably more people who switch to alternative OSs. This puts pressure on all vendors to interoperate smoothly and follow open standards for their applications. Even given that every user who would have used Firefox, uses Opera, there is not really any difference for the open source movement. I think, however, some companies would prefer Linux+Firefox to Windows+Opera and this would inspire some movement to Linux (and other OSs that are not Windows).
How likely are they to switch to something totally foreign just because it's free beer/speech?
They are very likely in my opinion. Individuals have no technical or economic barrier to try it and companies who see it as a strategic and economic advantage can mandate it from the top down. You seem to think that different and unfamiliar are the biggest stumbling blocks to open source adoption. I strongly disagree. People like to try different things. A new business that opens, and does the same thing as an existing business almost always has an advantage simply because it is new. The stumbling blocks for Linux are ease of use, MSs anti-standards and corporate/govt. influence, and overcoming the momentum of developers and applications dedicated to the Windows platform.
removing the "kill yourself immediately" requirement from the analogy almost seems that you're deliberately trying to misunderstand it.
I did not deliberately misunderstand it. I just disagreed with such an unrealistic and vague question. How exactly can one be required to kill oneself? Are you talking about some sort of brainwashing? If some authority mandates that you must kill yourself if you take a HIV test that comes back positive, how exactly could it be enforced. Kill yourself or we'll kill you? The whole premise is ridiculous and I find it irresponsible to advocate ignorance as a defense against AIDs in any forum (even as an analogy).
Public Service Message/Rant:
AIDS/HIV is one of the most serious health problems on our planet and people are dying in droves because of ignorance. Authorities and religious groups are advocating and contributing to ignorance by funding programs that deceive and lie to people in such a way as to further the spread of this disease. I find your very question to be very irresponsible.
Seriously, absolutely everyone should have themselves tested for HIV, and if you are sexually active, or engage in other risky behavior, you should be te
just because the loser wants to fight dirty does not mean that you should too.
I agree completely, nor am I advocating doing anything underhanded, illegal, or unethical.
When you are out to achieve something the best thing you can do is keep your goals in mind and make them the priority - not the situation/circumstances.
With this, I disagree. In order to survive when someone is not playing fair, you need to pay attention to what they are doing and in some cases make strategic decisions to counter their tactics. An open source project boycott of development on windows is in no way an underhanded move. It is merely not doing business with someone who is being unethical. Now I'm by no means sure that such a boycott would be a good thing, but I don't see that it should be ruled out because it is not "fair" to MS. Of course this sort of a boycott would be completely voluntary, and in no way enforced by a license. It is just a thought of something that could spur development and migration to open source OSs (or completely backfire and scare people away).
How is what Apple is doing any different from Lexmark trying to make their printers reject any ink jet cartridges that aren't digitally signed by Lexmark?
Well, Apple lets you use any standard files in their ipod. Nor have they tried using legal means to ban anyone from hacking the ipod, or even just using Real's files. This is a lot closer to Lexmark updating the firmware of a couple of models of their printers which made a particular 3rd party's ink cartridges return an error, because they were trying to use a special feature Lexmark built in where the printer reports the ink levels to some servers at Lexmark, and sends you auto replacements. After Lexmark told all users that the third party ink cartridges using that feature would probably break after their next update.
Now, Apple evidently has found a technical basis for identifying Real-sourced files and excluding them
If you were selling an authenticated service, and you found one of your competitors had reverse engineered your security, and was tricking your servers into thinking that the files were signed by you, are you saying that you would have no right to correct the security hole???
Apple has no legal basis to bar Real from doing what it did.
Umm, Apple has every legal right to do what they did. They are not a monopoly, and it is hardware they sell. They can send out any updates they want.
The customers own the iPods, and what the customers legally do with them is their business.
True enough. What exactly has Apple done that any customers have a problem with? They updated the firmware on 2 models of ipod, and it happens to break functionality with Real's hack. No one even noticed or cared. They did this over a month ago. And anyone is free not to install the new firmware, or to hack it after the fact. Real is free to come up with a new work around to fix their hack.
all this talk of 'maybe it was an accident that it stopped working with Real files' is utterly naive
I don't see any proof either way. Maybe it was intentional, maybe not. It seems odd to me that if they are trying to break compatibility that they only updated 2 of their 6 supported models. Why not all of them?
What crappy, proprietary format is that?
Real media, you know.rm files. That is what Real has been trying to force or cajole Apple to support on ipods for years. Real complaining about restrictive DRM is the pot calling the kettle black. They have been promoting their own for years, and installing spyware along with their player. This is not exactly someone that attracts my sympathy.
In any case, this is a non-issue. Apple updated some firmware and may or may not have intentionally broken a hack of their DRM scheme, that they specifically stated would not be supported, for a format that no one uses and was created simply as a bargaining chip by a bunch of unscrupulous spyware purveyors in a failed attempt to blackmail Apple. The only people that care at all are people that like to argue about DRM issues and people astroturfing for Real.
Allow me to respond with Vampire Raiders: Ninja Queen!!! OK, your point is taken, some video games are just as bad as some movies. I highly recommend watching the referenced movie, however. It is sort of like a painting done by a mentally retarded elephant. You should see it just to see what a mentally retarded elephant can paint.
I don't know why you are being so pedantic. You actually think that if someone says cats and dog are bigger than mice, it is not appropriate ask if they are implying that cats are really big, or nearly as big as dogs?
This person made the trollish claim that blockbuster movies are more artistic than video games and are attended for artistic value not for fun. I incredulously questioned their judgment and asked for clarification. And you, well you decided to start a semantic argument about what was or was not implied by the original statement, something about which I had just asked a question. What exactly are you trying to say here? Do you have a point or are you just really, really bored?
...and that does not exactly motivate me. I did see Ocean's Eleven and it was a passable remake, although I was not exactly blown away by the acting. Now the sequel to a remake, of a movie I thought was clever, and moderately entertaining does not exactly make me want to spend good money on it. Maybe I'll see it at the cheap theater, if it is convenient. The choice quote from Mr. Cranky is "It's not unlike watching the monkeys at the zoo. The monkeys are entertaining as long as they're playing with the tires and swinging from the ropes, but once they start throwing their own feces at the window, it's time to move on to another exhibit." which is really not too bad of a review from him. Did this movie really contain something truly artistic on the level of a great orchestral work? Were you moved by it in a meaningful way? Was it great art, or just fun entertainment?
If I was to say a mouse is not a dog and a mouse is not a cat would I be comparing a dog and a cat?
No. But neither is that what he said. What he did was state a property on one subject, and then state that two other objects were not [similar to] that object. The implication is that the stated property was the way in which they are differentiated from it, hence they are similar in that they do not share that property.
A closer comparison would be:
These are mice, they are small. It's not a dog, it's not a cat.
The above sentence implies (but does not state) that dogs and cats are not small, they are large as compared to mice. You will note, I did not state that what the original poster implied was something he stated. I asked if that was what he was trying to say.
There are a number of them. When most users upgrade, they buy a machine with the OS pre-loaded, not a shrink wrapped OS. You're assuming they will not have needed or strongly desired applications that will not run on Linux, this is naive. Most users, either corporate or home, will have some old software that they will not want to repurchase, or for which there is no linux version. In many cases the cost for a home user to repurchase all their old games, is more than a new OS. Also, the availability of pirated, mainstream software for Windows keeps many on the platform. It may very well be that cash is the motivating factor for a Linux switch, but it will be happening in foreign governments and companies, not in the U.S. The people who will switch to Linux first, en masse, will be those who look for long term cost savings, freedom from American IT, benefits to local software production, and features not wanted or needed by mainstream users. I predict a top-down movement overseas will be the Linux of tomorrow, not a grassroots campaign in the U.S.
These are video games that people play for fun. It's not a symphany orchestra, it's not a blockbuster movie.
Did you just compare a symphony orchestra to a blockbuster movie? Did you just imply that a blockbuster movie has more depth, or more art than a video game? Have you seen any blockbuster movies in the last 10 years? I'm sorry but most people go to see blockbuster movies because they are fun and because you don't have to think very hard.
The top three blockbusters right now are: Ocean's Twelve, Blade: Trinity, and National Treasure. Yeah, that's some real art for you.
Let's say it hurts free software. What is anybody going to do about it? Close the source?
I don't think anyone is proposing that open source software be closed in any way. This is not about forcing people to do something, it is about a group deciding where to devote their resources. Everyone will code what they want and need, but they may decide they don't really want to devote the effort to porting if people provide them with logical reasons as to why that might hurt the open source movement. Personally, I'm not sure whether it helps more or hurts more, but I don't mind expressing my opinion, in case someone else has not considered something I mention.
If you are required to kill yourself immediately if you are HIV positive, would you bother getting tested?
Yes. Yes I would, because I believe in personal responsibility. On the other hand, I doubt I would kill myself, regardless of any requirements anyone else tries to impose.
The applications are what actually does anything. Whether it's Apache or mysql or Tux Racer. Who really gives a shit about the OS? It's about as relevant as the brand of mouse you're using.
I strongly disagree. Applications do things, but the OS enables it to do those things and provides common features between applications. A generic web browser, browses the web. The OS, allows it to display that content on the screen. In some OSs that browser can spellcheck, grammar check, translate instantly to german, speak a page in latin, make a PDF of the web page, route the data to one of a dozen other applications, make a screenshot of the web page, or apply predefined scripts to the web page. (Yes I was just reading down the menu listing of system services offered to my browser from my OS for this page.) If you think the OS does not matter, maybe you just need a better OS.
I would have to see some facts before I can really accept this statement.
I don't have any concrete proof of this assertion (obviously since it is a prediction), only a logical assumption. I know there are companies and government agencies that require web access to do their jobs, but have deemed IE to be too insecure. I also know that some of these companies still run on Windows in order to have certain application support. I am 90% that secure web browsing is important enough to them, to trump their legacy app requirements. I speculate that this would mean a move to an open source OS, although they could keep windows and commission a secure browser, or switch to a closed source OS with a more secure browser. In any case this would hurt MS's hijack of HTML, and help promote open standards to some degree.
You see OSS is all about freedom - not about battling some behemoth company.
Sometimes in order to fight for a cause, you have to hit the enemy of your cause. It is often more efficient to shoot the bastard who is poisoning your crops, rather than wash them every night. MS is causing real damage to both the open source movement and to the computing industry. They have enormous amounts of money and resources. They don't seem to mind breaking the law, or behaving unethically. I agree that the open source movement is not about hurting MS, but that does not mean hurting MS (in terms of market share), does not greatly benefit the open source movement.
Look, if you want people to run your software, MAKE GOOD SOFTWARE. Period.
Lots of companies and organizations have tried that tactic, Microsoft has not destroyed all of them...completely...yet. The open source movement is a tough customer, and cannot be killed by the same methods used to kill many commercial businesses. Even so, MS may very well be able to kill it in the U.S. and many other countries through purchased legislation, barratry, abuse of patents, copyrights, trademarks, and the rest of the legal system, bribes, and other dirty and usually illegal tactics.
I don't think it is a bad thing to apply some strategy to the movement's resource deployment. Mind you, it's not like this is some sort of an army or anything. Everyone always has and will, do what they want, and build what they want and need.
The question of making OS programs for Windows or boycotting the platform entirely is a valid one. The former will bring OS programs to more users, and possibly introduce people to alternatives. The latter will railroad more people into using an open source OS when they need certain features, tools, or levels of security and may help promote open platforms for development.
why is it still considered a viable option to get people to dive headfirst into OSS...platform, OS, GUI, apps, the whole lot at once? What's wrong with just giving them one part at a time?
Nothing is wrong with giving people OS bit by bit, but the danger to such an approach is that a sufficient number of users will never move off of Windows, and the rest of us will still have to put up with MS's destructive and stifling monopoly that is damaging the entire industry.
You don't hear people complaining about Firefox running on Windows, do you?
You make a very valid point, but there is uncertainty here. Would the open source movement be better off if there was no windows version of Firefox? Fewer people would use it, and there would be less support for standard HTML, but HTML is still pretty broken on the majority of sites, so it is hard to say if that incentive is working. On the other hand, If there was no Firefox for Windows, more users would switch to Linux and create momentum for companies to write apps for it. Given the crappy state of IE these days, many companies, especially ones with security requirements, have banned it from use. Some of these companies (no one can say how many of course) would have switched to Linux if it was the only way to have reasonably secure web browsing. Likewise with Open Office, some companies have switched to it as a cheap and open alternative, but if it was an all or nothing plunge, there would be fewer users of open office, but more users of Linux. I guess it boils down to whether providing open source to the largest number of people is more important to the movement than upsetting MS's OS dominance and having an open OS to build from.
Yeah, I never said it could not. I said I disagreed with your labeling of energy based solely on generation, since all energy is generated repeatedly.
That's a lie. I explained it several times but you refuse to listen. The definition I and geologists prefer is more valid because it more accurately identifies the progenitor of the energy
OK, you were wrong about the origin of the word, disagree with how it is used by industry shills like the dept. of energy, the geothermal education office, geothermal resources council, and the international geothermal association. You disagree with wikipedia. You disagree with the dictionary, which I quoted in an earlier post. You disagree with the geologist I just consulted via aim.
It only takes one. How is that a failure?
You agree with your own stubborn opinion and with the one web site you could find that agrees with you. If you don't understand why only having one source for you assertions is bad science then maybe you should read a few books on what science is.
99- "don't provide any reasons for your assertions (e.g. why can't something be both solar and goethermal)... "
Oh, but I did. You just refuse to acknowledge my argument.
Allow me to quote your brilliant argument. "Energy can't be both solar and geothermal, period." Gee, that sure is a compelling argument. Period, huh? Well, I guess I can't argue with that.
You can split hairs all you want about the meaning of greek prefixes but I don't believe you can substantiate your claim that this greek prefix differentiates between the ground and the planet
Here is a treatise on that very subject. And you're the one who brought up the greek roots, not I. To summarize geo=dirt, aero=air, terra=the habitable land where mortals live.
Answer the question: When does solar energy turn into geothermal energy?
Your question is a logical fallacy. It contains an inherent implication that energy cannot meet the definitions of both solar and geothermal at the same point in time. Of course I already stated that several times, you just did not bother to read it.
The dictionary defines geothermal energy as heat contained within the earth. It defines solar energy as relating to, derived from, or utilizing energy from the sun. If energy is stored as heat, in the Earth, it meets both definitions.
I am tired of talking to you about this, and don't see much likelihood that can reason or apply logic. You have made up your mind, and don't care about the facts. I will not be responding to further posts, so don't bother unless you like talking to yourself.
The UK are taking apple to court over price fixing, and did they ever sort out that issue with the beatles?
The whole UK price fixing thing is idiotic. Basically there is a law in the european union that says you have to charge the same price for goods and services to people in all member countries. They also told all the recording industry associations to license music at one price across the EU. The recording companies haven't, so to license music in each country costs a different price, and licenses are only good within that country. Apple sold licenses for different prices in different countries (because they are different things from a business perspective and cost Apple a different amount). Now the UK is complaining because the BPI (UK version of RIAA) charges more than other country's mini-monopolies and UK customers are complaining. So for Apple to comply, they would have to either unnecessarily raise prices in the rest of the EU, or subsidize UK purchases with money from purchases in other countries (basically funneling money to the BPI from the rest of Europe). To top it all off, Apple runs the itunes store as a promotion and a hedge against MS, so they are not even making any money off the deal.
On the contrary, they are not a monopoly. Monopolies are illegal.
You are misinformed. In the U.S. monopolies are not illegal. It is illegal to use a monopoly in an anticompetitive way, or to leverage a move into other markets. Microsoft was found to be a monopoly by the U.S. Courts, and they were found to be abusing that monopoly. (At which point a new administration was elected, to whose campaign MS had donated a huge sum of money.) MS was then reprimanded and given a slap on the wrist by the U.S. courts. The declaration by the courts that MS is a monopoly, however, has opened them up to a slew of lawsuits, which they are settling right and left for hefty sums of cash.
The basic difference here is that Apple is obeying the laws, and doing things some customers and competitors don't like. MS has taken the all-american way and is just breaking the laws and paying off politicians and greedy CEOs.
Slashdot Mirror
When he meets her later she has little magic of her own
I don't have to book in front of me, but I think I remember her running hot lead into the bones of some guards. That sounds fairly significant. Anyway, I certainly did not get a clear view of the difference in magic for men and women in the first few books. It is strongly implied that they did not attend the school at Roke. The later books also drew some strong divisions between men and women, but it has been a long time. I seem to recall at the time thinking that they seemed rather femi-nazi and wondered if Miss LeGuin had just gone through a break up. Of course I think I was about 12 at the time, so I could be way off. She deals with gender issues in some of her other works as well. I have not yet decided whether or not to watch the TV series. After reading the reviews here, I am inclined to delete it.
Does Stephen King have this problem?
Stephen King is the very very very rare exception. He wrote a number of books, under contract for very little money and whose rights he did not retain and became so popular that he had real bargaining power for the rest of his works (and was thus able to retain the rights to them). Most authors are not so fortunate. And most publishers now require even more lengthy contracts just to prevent this from happening again.
If you surrender your rights to control of your work, you pay the price.
You seem very unsympathetic to some screwed over by our intellectual property system. She never claimed to have any control, and in fact refrained from making any comments about the film at all until the producers made a bunch of wrongheaded comments about "what Miss Le Guin really meant" in her book and tried to draw some parallels with the middle east fighting those horrible unbelievers. I think she showed remarkable restrain to not comment on the butchering of her work by pseudo-intellectual asshats until they tried to speak on her behalf, expressing opinions that were shallow and ignorant.
I had some real hope for this series upon learning that only the first two books were to be covered (I did not care for the later ones). It sounds like a pretty bad hatchet job in any case. I have one minor beef with your summary, however. The statement, "and only men perform magic" is incorrect. The first book had a witch girl character with whom Sparrowhawk interacts as a student of Ogion, and who he later encounters allied with "old powers" in the north somewhere. She performs several feats of magic.
However one very rarely hears about them returning the money they received when they sold the rights.
Heh, you've obviously never looked into the publishing industry. 20 years ago it was pretty bad, you could publish your own works, which were never put in book stores, or available to the public and no one would ever read your work. Or you could sign a contract to give up the rights to your work and your next several works, and a publishing house would ship it to all kinds of stores. Most stories were then ignored but some became popular and the authors wrote more stories (already owned by the publisher) for the already negotiated fee. Today things are even worse. You see some authors, like Stephen King, developed a large following and then, were able to make money on their fourth or fifth novel, and dictate terms to publishing houses who wanted to make some profit. Now they pretty much make you sign away the rights to anything you want to write for the next 10 years if you want a shot at a mainstream audience. It is ironic that avoiding this exact situation in Europe was one of the primary concerns of the authors of our copyright law. Ben Franklin predicted this outcome which was why he railed against the passage of our copyright laws.
Simply the fact that one can make a movie based on and using the title of a copy-written work without consulting the author, is proof that our system is horribly broken. No author wants to give up rights to their creations, but if they want to be published, they have little choice.
No problem here, and I did not even repair permissions yet. What kind of an error are you getting? Locking? Core? not in your path anymore?
So if you are a Linux guy, OSX is a pretty good place to be. It really does "just work" the vast majority of the time. The thing is, it is not Linux. If you are going to enjoy OSX you really have to be aware that it does things differently. Some things that you know how to do on Linux will not work easily on OSX. I know lots of Linux users who have moved to OSX in the last few years, and most of them are very happy with it. The ones that have issues are the ones who want to do things the "Linux Way" but still use all the OSX features. You mentioned .ogg files, and it is a reasonable example. OSX favors mp3, AAC and a few other formats. Getting itunes to play .ogg is as simple as dropping a plugin in the appropriate folder. You can put it in your user account or the system wide plugin directory. Where people run into problems is when they have all their music sorted in a particular way, with lots of tags, and they try to use iTunes for the first time. By default, it sorts all of your music for you and rearranges things to suit it. You can keep it from doing so, but most people do not think to adjust the preferences before importing their music. This can drive some people absolutely nuts. This is a good analogy for OSX in general, if you do things the way Apple intends, things work well and easily. If you want to do things another way, well maybe it is better to stick with non-Apple-created apps.
Another thing to keep in mind is there is an application hierarchy. Not all apps are first class citizens. Cocoa apps are fully functional, Carbon apps are pretty good, and X-windows apps just feel like bad ports. Some of the best features of the OS, like system wide services, are only available for Cocoa apps and select Carbon apps. It is so amazing to be able to do spell checking and grammar checking and translations in every program with text, that it just seems so wrong when you use a program where suddenly, none of that is available.
Finally, a Linux switcher should keep in mind that if they dual boot into Windows, a good number of those programs will be unavailable. If you are a hard core gamer, or heavily reliant on some Windows program, you might want to do some research into what applications are available.
Good luck. I'm sure you can tell by your posting, but the mac community is very good about providing help and advice. If you are struggling with something forums are even more helpful than linux ones (and no one tells you to RTFM.) If my post has not put you off, go ahead any buy the laptop, you'll be amazed by just how enjoyable using OSX can be. It is just so much nicer for so many little things that you will never notice unless you really think about it.
I know as a student it often seems like you're powerless, but if 25 of you (and your parents -- I know you're an adult, but schools listen to parents) get together and make yourselves heard, you'll probably end up with a satisfactory outcome.
That was not my experience. I had one prof in particular (Former president of the IEEE, you know who you are), who tested on ridiculous subject matter, never taught in the class. The midterm had a 13% average and the final was created by the prof's secretary. It was matching up pictures and diagrams in the textbook with their captions. You try figuring out which of 4 blurry pictures of people standing around in lab coats is "IBM engineers have developed 13 layer circuit board fabrication techniques." We all complained, but nothing was done because that prof was bringing in lots of grant money. The same year the "professor of the year" was let go for bringing in 10K less grant money that was specified in his contract. Universities are businesses these days. When the goal of a University is to make money, they will probably do it. But don't expect them to educate you, that is not their purpose anymore. It is all about certification, get the paper and teach yourself along the way.
it's entirely about making killer apps unavailable to Windows users as a strategy for the survival of open source applications and platforms.
Yes, that is true, but it does not contradict my point. The author does not propose forcing anyone to do anything through licensing. He does propose devoting resources to other areas as a strategy to counter MS's illegal and unethical practices.
if Firefox could not be ported to Windows and IE is as poor as it is today, then some Windows programmer or company will probably give away or sell a replacement browser. How would the further success of Opera (presumably taking over the Firefox market share) help Firefox or Linux very much?
First, you are making a big assumption based upon the existence of Opera. If a company decides it's current software is not performing it's duties well enough for whatever reason they have a number of options. They can request features from the vendor, find another vendor, commission a replacement, or commission an add-on package. In some cases that would mean staying on the same OS. In others, that would not be an option. In most cases, both would be options. So, to use your Firefox/Opera example. Some companies might switch to opera or another Windows browser, some might switch to Linux to use Firefox, Some might switch to OSX and use Safari. Some might write add-ons to IE. Some will just suck it up and stay with IE on Windows because they do not believe other options exist. The end result is the same. There is more diversity of web browsers, and probably more people who switch to alternative OSs. This puts pressure on all vendors to interoperate smoothly and follow open standards for their applications. Even given that every user who would have used Firefox, uses Opera, there is not really any difference for the open source movement. I think, however, some companies would prefer Linux+Firefox to Windows+Opera and this would inspire some movement to Linux (and other OSs that are not Windows).
How likely are they to switch to something totally foreign just because it's free beer/speech?
They are very likely in my opinion. Individuals have no technical or economic barrier to try it and companies who see it as a strategic and economic advantage can mandate it from the top down. You seem to think that different and unfamiliar are the biggest stumbling blocks to open source adoption. I strongly disagree. People like to try different things. A new business that opens, and does the same thing as an existing business almost always has an advantage simply because it is new. The stumbling blocks for Linux are ease of use, MSs anti-standards and corporate/govt. influence, and overcoming the momentum of developers and applications dedicated to the Windows platform.
removing the "kill yourself immediately" requirement from the analogy almost seems that you're deliberately trying to misunderstand it.
I did not deliberately misunderstand it. I just disagreed with such an unrealistic and vague question. How exactly can one be required to kill oneself? Are you talking about some sort of brainwashing? If some authority mandates that you must kill yourself if you take a HIV test that comes back positive, how exactly could it be enforced. Kill yourself or we'll kill you? The whole premise is ridiculous and I find it irresponsible to advocate ignorance as a defense against AIDs in any forum (even as an analogy).
Public Service Message/Rant:
AIDS/HIV is one of the most serious health problems on our planet and people are dying in droves because of ignorance. Authorities and religious groups are advocating and contributing to ignorance by funding programs that deceive and lie to people in such a way as to further the spread of this disease. I find your very question to be very irresponsible.
Seriously, absolutely everyone should have themselves tested for HIV, and if you are sexually active, or engage in other risky behavior, you should be te
just because the loser wants to fight dirty does not mean that you should too.
I agree completely, nor am I advocating doing anything underhanded, illegal, or unethical.
When you are out to achieve something the best thing you can do is keep your goals in mind and make them the priority - not the situation/circumstances.
With this, I disagree. In order to survive when someone is not playing fair, you need to pay attention to what they are doing and in some cases make strategic decisions to counter their tactics. An open source project boycott of development on windows is in no way an underhanded move. It is merely not doing business with someone who is being unethical. Now I'm by no means sure that such a boycott would be a good thing, but I don't see that it should be ruled out because it is not "fair" to MS. Of course this sort of a boycott would be completely voluntary, and in no way enforced by a license. It is just a thought of something that could spur development and migration to open source OSs (or completely backfire and scare people away).
How is what Apple is doing any different from Lexmark trying to make their printers reject any ink jet cartridges that aren't digitally signed by Lexmark?
Well, Apple lets you use any standard files in their ipod. Nor have they tried using legal means to ban anyone from hacking the ipod, or even just using Real's files. This is a lot closer to Lexmark updating the firmware of a couple of models of their printers which made a particular 3rd party's ink cartridges return an error, because they were trying to use a special feature Lexmark built in where the printer reports the ink levels to some servers at Lexmark, and sends you auto replacements. After Lexmark told all users that the third party ink cartridges using that feature would probably break after their next update.
Now, Apple evidently has found a technical basis for identifying Real-sourced files and excluding them
If you were selling an authenticated service, and you found one of your competitors had reverse engineered your security, and was tricking your servers into thinking that the files were signed by you, are you saying that you would have no right to correct the security hole???
Apple has no legal basis to bar Real from doing what it did.
Umm, Apple has every legal right to do what they did. They are not a monopoly, and it is hardware they sell. They can send out any updates they want.
The customers own the iPods, and what the customers legally do with them is their business.
True enough. What exactly has Apple done that any customers have a problem with? They updated the firmware on 2 models of ipod, and it happens to break functionality with Real's hack. No one even noticed or cared. They did this over a month ago. And anyone is free not to install the new firmware, or to hack it after the fact. Real is free to come up with a new work around to fix their hack.
all this talk of 'maybe it was an accident that it stopped working with Real files' is utterly naive
I don't see any proof either way. Maybe it was intentional, maybe not. It seems odd to me that if they are trying to break compatibility that they only updated 2 of their 6 supported models. Why not all of them?
What crappy, proprietary format is that?
Real media, you know .rm files. That is what Real has been trying to force or cajole Apple to support on ipods for years. Real complaining about restrictive DRM is the pot calling the kettle black. They have been promoting their own for years, and installing spyware along with their player. This is not exactly someone that attracts my sympathy.
In any case, this is a non-issue. Apple updated some firmware and may or may not have intentionally broken a hack of their DRM scheme, that they specifically stated would not be supported, for a format that no one uses and was created simply as a bargaining chip by a bunch of unscrupulous spyware purveyors in a failed attempt to blackmail Apple. The only people that care at all are people that like to argue about DRM issues and people astroturfing for Real.
Allow me to respond with Vampire Raiders: Ninja Queen!!! OK, your point is taken, some video games are just as bad as some movies. I highly recommend watching the referenced movie, however. It is sort of like a painting done by a mentally retarded elephant. You should see it just to see what a mentally retarded elephant can paint.
I don't know why you are being so pedantic. You actually think that if someone says cats and dog are bigger than mice, it is not appropriate ask if they are implying that cats are really big, or nearly as big as dogs?
This person made the trollish claim that blockbuster movies are more artistic than video games and are attended for artistic value not for fun. I incredulously questioned their judgment and asked for clarification. And you, well you decided to start a semantic argument about what was or was not implied by the original statement, something about which I had just asked a question. What exactly are you trying to say here? Do you have a point or are you just really, really bored?
Have you SEEN Ocean's 12?
Nope.
but Ocean's 12 is as great as Ocean's 11
...and that does not exactly motivate me. I did see Ocean's Eleven and it was a passable remake, although I was not exactly blown away by the acting. Now the sequel to a remake, of a movie I thought was clever, and moderately entertaining does not exactly make me want to spend good money on it. Maybe I'll see it at the cheap theater, if it is convenient. The choice quote from Mr. Cranky is "It's not unlike watching the monkeys at the zoo. The monkeys are entertaining as long as they're playing with the tires and swinging from the ropes, but once they start throwing their own feces at the window, it's time to move on to another exhibit." which is really not too bad of a review from him. Did this movie really contain something truly artistic on the level of a great orchestral work? Were you moved by it in a meaningful way? Was it great art, or just fun entertainment?
If I was to say a mouse is not a dog and a mouse is not a cat would I be comparing a dog and a cat?
No. But neither is that what he said. What he did was state a property on one subject, and then state that two other objects were not [similar to] that object. The implication is that the stated property was the way in which they are differentiated from it, hence they are similar in that they do not share that property.
A closer comparison would be:
These are mice, they are small. It's not a dog, it's not a cat.
The above sentence implies (but does not state) that dogs and cats are not small, they are large as compared to mice. You will note, I did not state that what the original poster implied was something he stated. I asked if that was what he was trying to say.
what's the incentive not to migrate to Linux?
There are a number of them. When most users upgrade, they buy a machine with the OS pre-loaded, not a shrink wrapped OS. You're assuming they will not have needed or strongly desired applications that will not run on Linux, this is naive. Most users, either corporate or home, will have some old software that they will not want to repurchase, or for which there is no linux version. In many cases the cost for a home user to repurchase all their old games, is more than a new OS. Also, the availability of pirated, mainstream software for Windows keeps many on the platform. It may very well be that cash is the motivating factor for a Linux switch, but it will be happening in foreign governments and companies, not in the U.S. The people who will switch to Linux first, en masse, will be those who look for long term cost savings, freedom from American IT, benefits to local software production, and features not wanted or needed by mainstream users. I predict a top-down movement overseas will be the Linux of tomorrow, not a grassroots campaign in the U.S.
These are video games that people play for fun. It's not a symphany orchestra, it's not a blockbuster movie.
Did you just compare a symphony orchestra to a blockbuster movie? Did you just imply that a blockbuster movie has more depth, or more art than a video game? Have you seen any blockbuster movies in the last 10 years? I'm sorry but most people go to see blockbuster movies because they are fun and because you don't have to think very hard.
The top three blockbusters right now are: Ocean's Twelve, Blade: Trinity, and National Treasure. Yeah, that's some real art for you.
Let's say it hurts free software. What is anybody going to do about it? Close the source?
I don't think anyone is proposing that open source software be closed in any way. This is not about forcing people to do something, it is about a group deciding where to devote their resources. Everyone will code what they want and need, but they may decide they don't really want to devote the effort to porting if people provide them with logical reasons as to why that might hurt the open source movement. Personally, I'm not sure whether it helps more or hurts more, but I don't mind expressing my opinion, in case someone else has not considered something I mention.
If you are required to kill yourself immediately if you are HIV positive, would you bother getting tested?
Yes. Yes I would, because I believe in personal responsibility. On the other hand, I doubt I would kill myself, regardless of any requirements anyone else tries to impose.
The applications are what actually does anything. Whether it's Apache or mysql or Tux Racer. Who really gives a shit about the OS? It's about as relevant as the brand of mouse you're using.
I strongly disagree. Applications do things, but the OS enables it to do those things and provides common features between applications. A generic web browser, browses the web. The OS, allows it to display that content on the screen. In some OSs that browser can spellcheck, grammar check, translate instantly to german, speak a page in latin, make a PDF of the web page, route the data to one of a dozen other applications, make a screenshot of the web page, or apply predefined scripts to the web page. (Yes I was just reading down the menu listing of system services offered to my browser from my OS for this page.) If you think the OS does not matter, maybe you just need a better OS.
I would have to see some facts before I can really accept this statement.
I don't have any concrete proof of this assertion (obviously since it is a prediction), only a logical assumption. I know there are companies and government agencies that require web access to do their jobs, but have deemed IE to be too insecure. I also know that some of these companies still run on Windows in order to have certain application support. I am 90% that secure web browsing is important enough to them, to trump their legacy app requirements. I speculate that this would mean a move to an open source OS, although they could keep windows and commission a secure browser, or switch to a closed source OS with a more secure browser. In any case this would hurt MS's hijack of HTML, and help promote open standards to some degree.
You see OSS is all about freedom - not about battling some behemoth company.
Sometimes in order to fight for a cause, you have to hit the enemy of your cause. It is often more efficient to shoot the bastard who is poisoning your crops, rather than wash them every night. MS is causing real damage to both the open source movement and to the computing industry. They have enormous amounts of money and resources. They don't seem to mind breaking the law, or behaving unethically. I agree that the open source movement is not about hurting MS, but that does not mean hurting MS (in terms of market share), does not greatly benefit the open source movement.
Look, if you want people to run your software, MAKE GOOD SOFTWARE. Period.
Lots of companies and organizations have tried that tactic, Microsoft has not destroyed all of them...completely...yet. The open source movement is a tough customer, and cannot be killed by the same methods used to kill many commercial businesses. Even so, MS may very well be able to kill it in the U.S. and many other countries through purchased legislation, barratry, abuse of patents, copyrights, trademarks, and the rest of the legal system, bribes, and other dirty and usually illegal tactics.
I don't think it is a bad thing to apply some strategy to the movement's resource deployment. Mind you, it's not like this is some sort of an army or anything. Everyone always has and will, do what they want, and build what they want and need.
The question of making OS programs for Windows or boycotting the platform entirely is a valid one. The former will bring OS programs to more users, and possibly introduce people to alternatives. The latter will railroad more people into using an open source OS when they need certain features, tools, or levels of security and may help promote open platforms for development.
why is it still considered a viable option to get people to dive headfirst into OSS...platform, OS, GUI, apps, the whole lot at once? What's wrong with just giving them one part at a time?
Nothing is wrong with giving people OS bit by bit, but the danger to such an approach is that a sufficient number of users will never move off of Windows, and the rest of us will still have to put up with MS's destructive and stifling monopoly that is damaging the entire industry.
You don't hear people complaining about Firefox running on Windows, do you?
You make a very valid point, but there is uncertainty here. Would the open source movement be better off if there was no windows version of Firefox? Fewer people would use it, and there would be less support for standard HTML, but HTML is still pretty broken on the majority of sites, so it is hard to say if that incentive is working. On the other hand, If there was no Firefox for Windows, more users would switch to Linux and create momentum for companies to write apps for it. Given the crappy state of IE these days, many companies, especially ones with security requirements, have banned it from use. Some of these companies (no one can say how many of course) would have switched to Linux if it was the only way to have reasonably secure web browsing. Likewise with Open Office, some companies have switched to it as a cheap and open alternative, but if it was an all or nothing plunge, there would be fewer users of open office, but more users of Linux. I guess it boils down to whether providing open source to the largest number of people is more important to the movement than upsetting MS's OS dominance and having an open OS to build from.
Half the time I install cygwin on a windows box, it is so the user can run perl scripts. This should save me some time.
P.S. I can't believe there is not a quick and free way to run perl scripts on Windows. /p.
Energy can be generated again and again
Yeah, I never said it could not. I said I disagreed with your labeling of energy based solely on generation, since all energy is generated repeatedly.
That's a lie. I explained it several times but you refuse to listen. The definition I and geologists prefer is more valid because it more accurately identifies the progenitor of the energy
OK, you were wrong about the origin of the word, disagree with how it is used by industry shills like the dept. of energy, the geothermal education office, geothermal resources council, and the international geothermal association. You disagree with wikipedia. You disagree with the dictionary, which I quoted in an earlier post. You disagree with the geologist I just consulted via aim.
It only takes one. How is that a failure?
You agree with your own stubborn opinion and with the one web site you could find that agrees with you. If you don't understand why only having one source for you assertions is bad science then maybe you should read a few books on what science is.
99- "don't provide any reasons for your assertions (e.g. why can't something be both solar and goethermal)... " Oh, but I did. You just refuse to acknowledge my argument.
Allow me to quote your brilliant argument. "Energy can't be both solar and geothermal, period." Gee, that sure is a compelling argument. Period, huh? Well, I guess I can't argue with that.
You can split hairs all you want about the meaning of greek prefixes but I don't believe you can substantiate your claim that this greek prefix differentiates between the ground and the planet
Here is a treatise on that very subject. And you're the one who brought up the greek roots, not I. To summarize geo=dirt, aero=air, terra=the habitable land where mortals live.
Answer the question: When does solar energy turn into geothermal energy?
Your question is a logical fallacy. It contains an inherent implication that energy cannot meet the definitions of both solar and geothermal at the same point in time. Of course I already stated that several times, you just did not bother to read it.
The dictionary defines geothermal energy as heat contained within the earth. It defines solar energy as relating to, derived from, or utilizing energy from the sun. If energy is stored as heat, in the Earth, it meets both definitions.
I am tired of talking to you about this, and don't see much likelihood that can reason or apply logic. You have made up your mind, and don't care about the facts. I will not be responding to further posts, so don't bother unless you like talking to yourself.
The UK are taking apple to court over price fixing, and did they ever sort out that issue with the beatles?
The whole UK price fixing thing is idiotic. Basically there is a law in the european union that says you have to charge the same price for goods and services to people in all member countries. They also told all the recording industry associations to license music at one price across the EU. The recording companies haven't, so to license music in each country costs a different price, and licenses are only good within that country. Apple sold licenses for different prices in different countries (because they are different things from a business perspective and cost Apple a different amount). Now the UK is complaining because the BPI (UK version of RIAA) charges more than other country's mini-monopolies and UK customers are complaining. So for Apple to comply, they would have to either unnecessarily raise prices in the rest of the EU, or subsidize UK purchases with money from purchases in other countries (basically funneling money to the BPI from the rest of Europe). To top it all off, Apple runs the itunes store as a promotion and a hedge against MS, so they are not even making any money off the deal.
On the contrary, they are not a monopoly. Monopolies are illegal.
You are misinformed. In the U.S. monopolies are not illegal. It is illegal to use a monopoly in an anticompetitive way, or to leverage a move into other markets. Microsoft was found to be a monopoly by the U.S. Courts, and they were found to be abusing that monopoly. (At which point a new administration was elected, to whose campaign MS had donated a huge sum of money.) MS was then reprimanded and given a slap on the wrist by the U.S. courts. The declaration by the courts that MS is a monopoly, however, has opened them up to a slew of lawsuits, which they are settling right and left for hefty sums of cash.
The basic difference here is that Apple is obeying the laws, and doing things some customers and competitors don't like. MS has taken the all-american way and is just breaking the laws and paying off politicians and greedy CEOs.