I'm actually doing something with any old computers I can find. I'm attempting to set up a Beowulf-ish cluster with old parts. I take anything I can get, including parts as well as complete systems. I promised everyone who donates gets their name on the contributers page, as well as a free shell on the end result.
I'm going to put an ad in the paper asking for donations of old equipment. I just wish I could give the people more of an incentive to give me their old systems (other then freeing up that dusty space in the garage.) It pisses me off when I see someone with an old system doing nothing but taking up space, and they refuse to get rid of it for whatever reason. I could be making real good use of that computer, as could lots of other people. To keep it and not use it is pure selfishness.
You bring up some very good points, but I disagree with you.
Substitute for the variable $(PRODUCT) any tangible object, like "washing machine." Once you have developed and built $(PRODUCT), it is yours to dispose of as you see fit. You may choose to sell it, or you may choose to give it away. We may question how the developer arrived at the price, but the decision is ultimately up to the guy(s) who created $(PRODUCT).
Correct. So, if that person chooses to sell their product, what gives the end user the right to change that mode of distribution? By putting a price tag on his product, he made an obvious decision as to how that product will be fed to the end users. What you are saying, is that it is reasonable for one copy of that game to be purchased, and then he can make copies of that game for everyone so they don't have to buy it.
...there's a little concept of "reasonable expectation of return."
I don't believe that it is unreasonable to expect a return on an investment such as game development. If you put a game out there for sale, the chances that someone will buy it are a HELL of a lot better than landing on #22 on that roulette wheel. That's how business works. It's called supply and demand. The software industry is not based on chance. (while it's not based on chance, there is a certain amount in chance which decides the product's success.)
If I take away your $(PRODUCT), I have deprived you of the ability to exchange it for the price you have assigned it. (This is true whether I purchased it from you or shoplifted it; the end result is that you don't have it anymore.) If I make a copy of your $(PRODUCT), you still have the original. You still have the ability to exchange it for your chosen price.
Copying a software title does the same thing. If you take a copy of (PRODUCT) and give it to your friend, you have deprived the software manufacturer the price your friend would have paid for the product. (Unless your friend buys it anyway, which would be doubtful.)
You offer $(PRODUCT) for sale. I think your price is too high, and walk away. Result: No sale.
You offer $(PRODUCT) for sale. I make a copy of it and take the copy home. Result: No sale.
Wrong. For you to be able to make a copy of that product, an exchange must have taken place somewhere on the line. (Unless the store you go to allows copies to be made of their non-sold items on site...) The only possible way the second one can be true is if someone buys (PRODUCT), goes home, makes a copy of it, then returns it to the store. Fortunately, most stores are strict about returned software which has been opened.
Now, you can make an ethical argument against copying software, and I would in fact, in large part, agree with you. But software publishers (and anyone else who can't think beyond their own pocketbook) are asking us to criminalize this activity.
Because it IS a criminal activity. You are obtaining a product without paying for it, and without approval from the manufacturer. (That's what those license agreements are for!) That license agreement is a contract between YOU and the MANUFACTURER. By making a copy of that software, you have broken the contract. Breaking a contract leaves you open for legal action, and it makes you a criminal. It's very simple.
Walk out on the street, pull someone aside, and ask if they know what ENIAC was. Chances are, you'll get "uhhhh....huh?" Not many people care about the history of Computers. They just want one.
I'm glad NPR aired this piece. ENIAC was quite and accomplishment for it's time, and more people need to know about it. (Hell, there's even a link on my page to info about it.)
They figure: "This whole thing with AOL back and forth is getting really old. There's gotta be something we can do."
Then, one of those guys who REALLY doesn't like working for Microsoft (but does so for the money/experience) approches the executives and says: "Let's release the Source Code!"
The executives ponder it, and eventually come out with: "No....but we can release the Protocol specifications!" thinking that they can get the public to write MS compatible versions of an Instant Messenger (They don't have a choice. It's the Microsoft specs that are public. AOL pulled theirs, remember?) Once the Microsoft(compatible) Instant Messenger is on every computer on the Planet, AOL is forced to do 1 of 2 things.
1) Give up on Instant Messenger completely, eliminating them from the market. This gives Microsoft a good foothold in the IM market, with little competition. (Now we go after ICQ HAHAH!)
NOTE: ICQ is owned by AOL, so they're not totally out.
2) AOL can pull it's Instant Messenger software behind the America Online wall, and make it a "Member Exclusive" service you can't get with any other Provider, (Just like Web access and Chat!)
Either way, guess who won? Guess who Cheated? If you're smart, you'll get the same answer.
It's easier to just use CR to break lines. If you have to use HTML code, use it around the line breaks. You don't necessarily have to use [p] or [br]....Just hit enter. It works for me.
Microsoft provided Ofria's mentor, Chris Adami at Caltech and his colleague Richard Lenski of Michigan State University with $50,000 in seed money to steer the project toward the study the evolvability and robustness of computer languages.
"You can see why Microsoft is interested in robust languages because theirs is not," Adami said.
Damn....Talk about biting the hand that feeds you. Jeez!
"Why can you randomly change instructions and these things tend to survive?" Adler said. "If you went in and did that with Excel, the results wouldn't be good."
Yeah! Take another bite of that hand... heh
Possible applications might include tougher operating systems, programming languages, applications and virtual machines.
Great. Just what we need....Microsoft Windows with a bad temper. "WHAT? You deleted parts of my REGISTRY? Watch this Blue-Screen, Asshole."
Or how about a C compiler that decides it wants to play a joke on you, and deletes a block of your code.
Don't bother fighting them, because the suckers will adapt, or mutate or some crap, and piss you off even more. (I'd hate to see them put that stuff into MS Bob. That would be scary.)
Antimatter is similar in theory to the magnetic + and -.
On one side of the spectrum, you have positive matter. Positive matter makes up everything you know to exist. (Keep in mind that positive matter can have a negative charge.)
Now, it's been theorized that for every positive type of matter, there must be an exact opposite for each type. Helium to Anti-helium (which has yet to be proven), protons to anti-protons, etc.
Antimatter would be easier to study, but unfortunately, when Matter and Antimatter collide, they annihilate each other producing massive amounts of energy. So if you try to put your pet anti-proton in a mayonaise jar, it won't work.:)
It would make sense that Antimatter Galaxies may exist, simply because we have found antimatter. Think about it. As far as that anti-proton is concerned, it's just a proton (With a Negative charge), and everything it encounters is opposite of itself. So, that would mean, to something somewhere, our universe as we know it, is composed of antimatter (Or, matter which is exactly the opposite of what they refer to as matter.)
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
Re:My "old" computer gets lots of use
on
High Tech Junk
·
· Score: 2
How DARE you call a 233mmx/64 "obsolete."
I'm running a 150 (clocked to 180) With 96MB RAM that used to be a p75, and it runs great. My Laptop is a 266MMX with 64MB RAM, and I HARDLY consider it obsolete.
I don't think I would use the word "unbelievable" when describing this story, because to be honest, it is TOTALLY believable. Since when has it been UNcommon to question Microsoft's business practices?
This is very similar to the stunt they pulled with the Mindcraft Study. While not the same in nature, it's the same practice. "Feed disinformation to the public about a competitor's product, and then tell them about OUR product."
I'm no fan of AOL. God knows I hate them enough, however I don't like Microsoft's business procedures at all.
That's a good thing, because I have a habit of going out to my mailbox (the one on my lawn), coming back to the house, and saying "Mom, You've got Mail." (Although, I avoid using the goofy voice.)
Now I don't have to add: "the phrase 'You've got Mail' is a registered trademark of America Online, Inc." That kinda annoyed the family.
What about the people who don't know how to use proper punctuation? The ones who say "Im going to the mall." Do they have to pay AOL for the use of the term "IM"?
/SARCASM
Although this brings up an interesting point....Did AOL own that patent at any time BEFORE this ruling? There was that movie "You've got Mail" with Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan. Did they have to pay AOL royalties for that title? Aren't they entitled to get those royalties back?
Because of the media, everyone seems to have this typical view of computer geeks, and it's expected that all geeks fit that description. It's the same thing with the term "hacker", and what the media did to it's definition. The wrong ideas have been attached to that term for so long, the general public accepts that as the "Correct" meaning.
The reason the keyboard has remained unchanged for so long, is because the design WORKS.
The article says that many keys on the keyboard are redundant. Just a thought, but isn't mentioning SysRq and Print Screen as seperate keys pretty redundant in itself? It also says "And someone should explain why the Caps Lock light is often on the opposite end of the keyboard from the Caps Lock button." Well, I'd be happy to. That's because instead of having the indicator lights sprawled across the keyboard, they're in one little area TOGETHER so you can see what's on, and what's off. (To think that it's so hard to figure that out is amazing.)
Later in the article, it criticizes Print Screen, Scroll Lock, Pause/Break (Mentioned as 2 seperate keys...redundant, eh?) Insert, Delete, End, Home, and Page Down & PageUp. I'll admit, I RARELY use Scroll Lock, but as for all the others, I use them on a daily basis. I'd be pretty pissed if they decided to take them off.
THEN, the article goes on to say "Everyone hates NumLock..." BULLSHIT. I Love NumLock, and I use the keypad for numeric entry every day. I find it's faster then using the numeric row. As for it being redundant, I disagree. Some people use the number row faster then the keypad, and they should have that option.
Unbelievable. We're seeing more and more scientific breakthroughs every day! It's incredible how nothing gets past them, even considering that we've been saying that the whole time.
See John. See John play Quake. See John frag everyone in the level. See John turn off his computer, hop in his car, and go to work JUST LIKE EVERY OTHER NORMAL HUMAN BEING ON THE PLANET. (Unless of course he's playing Quake AT work, in which case he's just like me.:P)
So now, when a media outlet says something to the effect of "This guy walked into his office, took out an automatic weapon, and started splashing bullets everywhere killing 72 co-workers, and injuring 13. He then went outside, stripped naked, and ran down the street shooting pedestrians. We think it's because he played Doom a lot.", we'll have scientific backing to OUR side of the argument. pfft.
It may be cool, but the design doesn't necessarily serve a purpose. Not only that, but you're paying for it too. Don't get me wrong, that's a Bad-ass looking computer. But how much does it run? And considering the price, how much would it be without the fancy design?
This is the same reason I don't like the iMac. Computers should be functional, and not necessarily good looking. SGI makes a nice looking computer, and their designs work because they look sophisticated. The iMac looks like a Pool toy, and the iBook like a Toilet seat. If you're going to make a radical design to a computer, make sure the design is GOOD. (And don't spend all the money on the design. Why? Because if you take crap, sprinkle it with glitter, doll it up, and make it look pretty...in the end, you still have crap.)
Although considering these computers run a well chosen OS, that says something about the components.:)
Your comment about microwave pizza made me think....
Consider the wonderful diversity of available slashboxes here on slashdot. I think it's time we get a Vending Machine slashbox. Have it made similar to the polls, but with pictures. Think about it, we'd never have to leave slashdot -- even to eat! With the click of a mouse, we can get....Pizza, for instance! (Of course, we'd obviously have to drag it to the Microwave slashbox, but that shouldn't be too hard.)
With the Snack-Slashbox, all we'd need is a Toilet slashbox, and a Girlfriend slashbox. Then we can live on slashdot! (We don't already?)
Slashdot Mirror
There's a difference between offering something for sale, and Demanding payment for a product. BIG difference.
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
I'm going to put an ad in the paper asking for donations of old equipment. I just wish I could give the people more of an incentive to give me their old systems (other then freeing up that dusty space in the garage.) It pisses me off when I see someone with an old system doing nothing but taking up space, and they refuse to get rid of it for whatever reason. I could be making real good use of that computer, as could lots of other people. To keep it and not use it is pure selfishness.
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
Substitute for the variable $(PRODUCT) any tangible object, like "washing machine." Once you have developed and built $(PRODUCT), it is yours to dispose of as you see fit. You may choose to sell it, or you may choose to give it away. We may question how the developer arrived at the price, but the decision is ultimately up to the guy(s) who created $(PRODUCT).
Correct. So, if that person chooses to sell their product, what gives the end user the right to change that mode of distribution? By putting a price tag on his product, he made an obvious decision as to how that product will be fed to the end users. What you are saying, is that it is reasonable for one copy of that game to be purchased, and then he can make copies of that game for everyone so they don't have to buy it.
I don't believe that it is unreasonable to expect a return on an investment such as game development. If you put a game out there for sale, the chances that someone will buy it are a HELL of a lot better than landing on #22 on that roulette wheel. That's how business works. It's called supply and demand. The software industry is not based on chance. (while it's not based on chance, there is a certain amount in chance which decides the product's success.)
If I take away your $(PRODUCT), I have deprived you of the ability to exchange it for the price you have assigned it. (This is true whether I purchased it from you or shoplifted it; the end result is that you don't have it anymore.)
If I make a copy of your $(PRODUCT), you still have the original. You still have the ability to exchange it for your chosen price.
Copying a software title does the same thing. If you take a copy of (PRODUCT) and give it to your friend, you have deprived the software manufacturer the price your friend would have paid for the product. (Unless your friend buys it anyway, which would be doubtful.)
You offer $(PRODUCT) for sale. I think your price is too high, and walk away.
Result: No sale.
You offer $(PRODUCT) for sale. I make a copy of it and take the copy home.
Result: No sale.
Wrong. For you to be able to make a copy of that product, an exchange must have taken place somewhere on the line. (Unless the store you go to allows copies to be made of their non-sold items on site...) The only possible way the second one can be true is if someone buys (PRODUCT), goes home, makes a copy of it, then returns it to the store. Fortunately, most stores are strict about returned software which has been opened.
Now, you can make an ethical argument against copying software, and I would in fact, in large part, agree with you. But software publishers (and anyone else who can't think beyond their own pocketbook) are asking us to criminalize this activity.
Because it IS a criminal activity. You are obtaining a product without paying for it, and without approval from the manufacturer. (That's what those license agreements are for!) That license agreement is a contract between YOU and the MANUFACTURER. By making a copy of that software, you have broken the contract. Breaking a contract leaves you open for legal action, and it makes you a criminal. It's very simple.
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
I'm glad NPR aired this piece. ENIAC was quite and accomplishment for it's time, and more people need to know about it. (Hell, there's even a link on my page to info about it.)
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
They figure: "This whole thing with AOL back and forth is getting really old. There's gotta be something we can do."
Then, one of those guys who REALLY doesn't like working for Microsoft (but does so for the money/experience) approches the executives and says: "Let's release the Source Code!"
The executives ponder it, and eventually come out with: "No....but we can release the Protocol specifications!" thinking that they can get the public to write MS compatible versions of an Instant Messenger (They don't have a choice. It's the Microsoft specs that are public. AOL pulled theirs, remember?) Once the Microsoft(compatible) Instant Messenger is on every computer on the Planet, AOL is forced to do 1 of 2 things.
1) Give up on Instant Messenger completely, eliminating them from the market. This gives Microsoft a good foothold in the IM market, with little competition. (Now we go after ICQ HAHAH!)
NOTE: ICQ is owned by AOL, so they're not totally out.
2) AOL can pull it's Instant Messenger software behind the America Online wall, and make it a "Member Exclusive" service you can't get with any other Provider, (Just like Web access and Chat!)
Either way, guess who won? Guess who Cheated? If you're smart, you'll get the same answer.
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
"You can see why Microsoft is interested in robust languages because theirs is not," Adami said.
Damn....Talk about biting the hand that feeds you. Jeez!
"Why can you randomly change instructions and these things tend to survive?" Adler said. "If you went in and did that with Excel, the results wouldn't be good."
Yeah! Take another bite of that hand... heh
Possible applications might include tougher operating systems, programming languages, applications and virtual machines.
Great. Just what we need....Microsoft Windows with a bad temper. "WHAT? You deleted parts of my REGISTRY? Watch this Blue-Screen, Asshole."
Or how about a C compiler that decides it wants to play a joke on you, and deletes a block of your code.
Don't bother fighting them, because the suckers will adapt, or mutate or some crap, and piss you off even more. (I'd hate to see them put that stuff into MS Bob. That would be scary.)
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
On one side of the spectrum, you have positive matter. Positive matter makes up everything you know to exist. (Keep in mind that positive matter can have a negative charge.)
Now, it's been theorized that for every positive type of matter, there must be an exact opposite for each type. Helium to Anti-helium (which has yet to be proven), protons to anti-protons, etc.
Antimatter would be easier to study, but unfortunately, when Matter and Antimatter collide, they annihilate each other producing massive amounts of energy. So if you try to put your pet anti-proton in a mayonaise jar, it won't work.
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
I'm running a 150 (clocked to 180) With 96MB RAM that used to be a p75, and it runs great. My Laptop is a 266MMX with 64MB RAM, and I HARDLY consider it obsolete.
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
This is very similar to the stunt they pulled with the Mindcraft Study. While not the same in nature, it's the same practice. "Feed disinformation to the public about a competitor's product, and then tell them about OUR product."
I'm no fan of AOL. God knows I hate them enough, however I don't like Microsoft's business procedures at all.
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
Now I don't have to add: "the phrase 'You've got Mail' is a registered trademark of America Online, Inc." That kinda annoyed the family.
What about the people who don't know how to use proper punctuation? The ones who say "Im going to the mall." Do they have to pay AOL for the use of the term "IM"?
/SARCASM
Although this brings up an interesting point....Did AOL own that patent at any time BEFORE this ruling? There was that movie "You've got Mail" with Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan. Did they have to pay AOL royalties for that title? Aren't they entitled to get those royalties back?
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
Because of the media, everyone seems to have this typical view of computer geeks, and it's expected that all geeks fit that description. It's the same thing with the term "hacker", and what the media did to it's definition. The wrong ideas have been attached to that term for so long, the general public accepts that as the "Correct" meaning.
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
The article says that many keys on the keyboard are redundant. Just a thought, but isn't mentioning SysRq and Print Screen as seperate keys pretty redundant in itself? It also says "And someone should explain why the Caps Lock light is often on the opposite end of the keyboard from the Caps Lock button." Well, I'd be happy to. That's because instead of having the indicator lights sprawled across the keyboard, they're in one little area TOGETHER so you can see what's on, and what's off. (To think that it's so hard to figure that out is amazing.)
Later in the article, it criticizes Print Screen, Scroll Lock, Pause/Break (Mentioned as 2 seperate keys...redundant, eh?) Insert, Delete, End, Home, and Page Down & PageUp. I'll admit, I RARELY use Scroll Lock, but as for all the others, I use them on a daily basis. I'd be pretty pissed if they decided to take them off.
THEN, the article goes on to say "Everyone hates NumLock..." BULLSHIT. I Love NumLock, and I use the keypad for numeric entry every day. I find it's faster then using the numeric row. As for it being redundant, I disagree. Some people use the number row faster then the keypad, and they should have that option.
I'm going to go hug my NumLock now.
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
See John. See John play Quake. See John frag everyone in the level. See John turn off his computer, hop in his car, and go to work JUST LIKE EVERY OTHER NORMAL HUMAN BEING ON THE PLANET. (Unless of course he's playing Quake AT work, in which case he's just like me.
So now, when a media outlet says something to the effect of "This guy walked into his office, took out an automatic weapon, and started splashing bullets everywhere killing 72 co-workers, and injuring 13. He then went outside, stripped naked, and ran down the street shooting pedestrians. We think it's because he played Doom a lot.", we'll have scientific backing to OUR side of the argument. pfft.
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
This is the same reason I don't like the iMac. Computers should be functional, and not necessarily good looking. SGI makes a nice looking computer, and their designs work because they look sophisticated. The iMac looks like a Pool toy, and the iBook like a Toilet seat. If you're going to make a radical design to a computer, make sure the design is GOOD. (And don't spend all the money on the design. Why? Because if you take crap, sprinkle it with glitter, doll it up, and make it look pretty...in the end, you still have crap.)
Although considering these computers run a well chosen OS, that says something about the components.
(But it's a SERVER. Who needs a pretty SERVER?)
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
Now the all important question: Why?
If you're "getting out of the x86 market", what would you want with a company that produces x86 products? Interesting, if not puzzling.
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
1) NO. The addition of a Bartending Slashbox would not be a good idea, unless Rob is the Bartender. (And all he'd serve is bad whiskey.
2) The Jennicam slashbox does NOT count as a girlfriend slashbox.
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
Consider the wonderful diversity of available slashboxes here on slashdot. I think it's time we get a Vending Machine slashbox. Have it made similar to the polls, but with pictures. Think about it, we'd never have to leave slashdot -- even to eat! With the click of a mouse, we can get....Pizza, for instance! (Of course, we'd obviously have to drag it to the Microwave slashbox, but that shouldn't be too hard.)
With the Snack-Slashbox, all we'd need is a Toilet slashbox, and a Girlfriend slashbox. Then we can live on slashdot! (We don't already?)
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
Definitely written in the same style.
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
31337 open udp BackOrifice
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?