This is something I find really amazing about Linux and probably the reason why it _will_ eventually take a huge bite out of MS's bottom end: This attitude of a holy war against MS, closed source software, or even just the love of coding.
I'm just learning the ins-and-outs of programming right now and haven't always intended on becoming part of the muscle behind Linux or supporting OSS software. However, what convinced me to join the crusade someday was when I read about "trust chips" that would be put in computers someday to monitor and dictate how you could use your computer. Bullshit. Don't tell me that and don't lock me in! I may love OS X, but should Apple head down that path, I don't want to be locked in.
That'd be the one. I installed a nightly last night and that fixed the problem. The only time the nightly has crashed on me is when I have 15+ tabs open or so.
I couldn't tell you. But I do see they didn't fix the middle mouse button problem with this release either. It is in the nightlies though the last time I checked.
I'm not exactly a religious person, but as the parent wondered, I too was curious how the discovery of life elsewhere beyond our planet would affect the more religious of our/. kindred? Would this challenge your faith, or do you see life elsewhere as sort of inconsequential?
IMHO, the impact of the discovery isn't much different than when people were discovered to live in the "new world" (read: the Americas, numerous then unheard of peoples in the Pacific, and elsewhere), who would have been totally absent from any of the on-goings of the "olde world" religions.
[Note: To those who entertain my question, it isn't my intent to start a flame war as I'm genuinely curious. This topic has long been a curiosity for me]
I'm not really in an argumentative mood, but I wanted to say that I mostly agree with you. Don't forget though, entire NEW species have been created through traditional artificial selection methods (e.g. Think of all the apples we have now. Most of them aren't naturally occurring.) For example, take a look at this link here. It shows real carrots as they're naturally found. Wouldn't you call our orange carrot a new species?
But, you are right: we're not sticking a jellyfish gene (e.g. to make ripe plants glow in UV light perhaps) into carrots through traditional methods. However, doing this does not make a carrot a fish nor does it imply that your friend who is allergic to fish will have troubles with it. Your friend is having reactions to specific features of fish proteins that more than likely aren't found by adding the odd fish gene. But, like you implied, we have to be careful about this sort of thing.
Do you like carrots? How about beef? Pork? Apples? Bad news for you buddy: They're all GM'd. Ever since man kind has been agrarian we've been GM'ing our food.
Did you know carrots used to be purple? Carrots have been selected over time to be more orange, thus increasing their B-carotene content.
Cows? Selected for meat and milk production.
Apples? Selected for various traits leading to the varieties we have today.
Corn? Selected for size and taste. (I've got a really cool picture of this in my biotechnology textbook I wish I could find for you.)
Selection by mankind is the very first kind of genetic modifications ever made. Whilst we're talking about genetic modification on much grander scale the idea is similar.
You're right -- The world no longer shakes in their boots when MS enters a market now. Personally I believe this began with the X-Box. The world saw MS wasn't invincible. Followed shortly thereafter was the massive amounts of press Linux began to receive and Apple's revival.
The gorilla is more like a lumbering beast now. Still very capable of damage, but not invulnerable and mysterious.
We also use oil for everything from plastics to fertilizers.
What's really needed is a unilateral commitment towards renewable sources of oils, and energy. Notice I'm saying these as separate. We need renewable oils for all those things that a renewable source of energy can't cover (e.g. you can't grease an engine with Hydrogen).
The theory is that you the restriction should force most of the functions of the program to the foreground such that functions aren't hidden ass deep in contextual menus. Thus the point isn't restriction, the goal is to hopefully make the developer seriously contemplate user interaction.
Q. Can I distribute a program that can read and/or write files that support the Office 2003 XML Reference Schemas in source code form?
A. Yes. You can distribute your program in source code form. But, note that the patent and copyright provisions in the license for the Office 2003 XML Reference Schemas require you to include a notice of attribution in your program
You know, the first few hundred light bulbs weren't that good either. That didn't mean they were all going to be crap. The same thing can be said of all technology, including DRM.
Reality does not always argue against my point. Reality is that hundreds of people exclusively pirate all of their music, and all of their movies. For them watching movies on their monitor is more than good enough, for them a 128kbps MP3 is more than good enough.
These people aren't the minority either -- So whose reality are you arguing for? I agree with you in that watching a movie on my tiny monitor isn't good enough for me always, nor is listening to a lousy encode of an MP3 -- I purchase all my media that I like. However, we are the minority. These companies are still making money because of people like us.
What I see the need for DRM in is to minimize the distribution of software products and services. I just fail to see how a small company can afford to take the sorts of losses you imply are possible. I don't see DRM as much different than having a security guard, or having your employees keep an eye out for someone lifting your products.
I see DRM in it's infancy now, but I see it becoming a part of all our lives now. Actually, if you think about it, isn't software registration the first form of DRM? (i.e. Software that contains features that are locked until you register it.) Whilst this form of DRM has been widely cracked and circumvented, the methods in place seem to largely either discourage the majority of people from stealing and either continue as is, or to register (Probably more often the former).
The real question becomes how a company should protect it's rights without trampling on those of the consumer. Perhaps what we need is approvals for DRM schemas a la food grade approvals for lubricants, or pharmaceutical approvals. We can't just sit back and pout and say that this is bad, we have to be proactive in making an acceptable solution.
OK, so DRM is bad you say. How then do you expect people to make money off of software and services wherein they aren't given the ability to protect the distribution and access of such products and services?
DRM is a necessity of the digital economy. What's needed is a fair DRM scheme, not to abolish all DRM schemes.
And in case it wasn't already obvious enough from the parent's post, using an open format increases the likelihood of competition. Henceforth, it should be easier for you to get your foot in the door with a competing piece of software to make some money.
At the end of the day, I think using open formats is more important than open source software for this very reason. (Albeit, this is MHO. Feel free to disagree respectfully).
What does the residence time for Methane and CO2 have to do with efficiency as a greenhouse gas? Intuitively one would expect that the longer a gas is in the atmosphere the more efficient it'd be as a greenhouse gas.
I've been thinking about whether or not it'd be better to see a dual core G4 or a G5 in PowerBooks. Assuming both could be done with similar heat situations comparable to today's G4 notebooks, which would you rather see?
IMHO, I think I'd rather have the dual core chip. As much as I'd like to see a 64bit chip in a PowerBook, I think a dual core is more likely to be advantageous in the near future as per the MHz wall that the processor industry has hit and how this will affect how we all write software (see this article on the use of concurrency in software design).
Does anyone else have thoughts on this? If it was up to you, what would you put in the next PowerBook: A G5, or dual core G4?
How is Apple being a bunch of dicks? Have you forgotten that violating an NDA is illegal?
You may not like that Apple is suing Nick, but you have to realize that there are repercussions for your actions whether you like it or not.
I suggest you read this article at Daring Fireball to see why Apple is likely doing what they're doing. Ask yourself if you wouldn't do the same if your company, and the livelihood of your employees depended on the technology and secrecy thereof until the appropriate time.
I agree. Even if they added support for web based clients such that when you clicked a mailto link that the appropriate web service started, or even took you to the log in screen, it'd be much appreciated. Actually, I'm surprised no one has thought of this sooner given the ubiquity of hotmail accounts, etc.
Speaking of EMI, I'm sort of surprised they didn't make the losers list. Every last one of the albums they release, to the best of my knowledge, are copy protected. Way to go EMI! The respect you show the consumer is outstanding!
For those of us who still like to own shiny plastic discs, relish in the cover art and packaging, EMI has proven to be quite frustrating. I personally don't own a _real_ CD player (read: dedicated CD player -- i.e. non-computer) and listen to all my music through my computer or my iPod. I've effectively not purchased an EMI disc for at least two years now.
Come on EMI, get with the game. We'll respect you if you respect us.
An Ad-Aware/FireFox combination has served my parent's computer well for quite sometime. My father's business exclusively uses the above combination with great results.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not that people want to hide the things that they're doing, it's just none of the government's damn business what we're doing.
This is something I find really amazing about Linux and probably the reason why it _will_ eventually take a huge bite out of MS's bottom end: This attitude of a holy war against MS, closed source software, or even just the love of coding.
I'm just learning the ins-and-outs of programming right now and haven't always intended on becoming part of the muscle behind Linux or supporting OSS software. However, what convinced me to join the crusade someday was when I read about "trust chips" that would be put in computers someday to monitor and dictate how you could use your computer. Bullshit. Don't tell me that and don't lock me in! I may love OS X, but should Apple head down that path, I don't want to be locked in.
That'd be the one. I installed a nightly last night and that fixed the problem. The only time the nightly has crashed on me is when I have 15+ tabs open or so.
I couldn't tell you. But I do see they didn't fix the middle mouse button problem with this release either. It is in the nightlies though the last time I checked.
That was absolutely fascinating! Thank you for taking the time to write this reply. :)
I'm not exactly a religious person, but as the parent wondered, I too was curious how the discovery of life elsewhere beyond our planet would affect the more religious of our /. kindred? Would this challenge your faith, or do you see life elsewhere as sort of inconsequential?
IMHO, the impact of the discovery isn't much different than when people were discovered to live in the "new world" (read: the Americas, numerous then unheard of peoples in the Pacific, and elsewhere), who would have been totally absent from any of the on-goings of the "olde world" religions.
[Note: To those who entertain my question, it isn't my intent to start a flame war as I'm genuinely curious. This topic has long been a curiosity for me]
I'm not really in an argumentative mood, but I wanted to say that I mostly agree with you. Don't forget though, entire NEW species have been created through traditional artificial selection methods (e.g. Think of all the apples we have now. Most of them aren't naturally occurring.) For example, take a look at this link here. It shows real carrots as they're naturally found. Wouldn't you call our orange carrot a new species?
But, you are right: we're not sticking a jellyfish gene (e.g. to make ripe plants glow in UV light perhaps) into carrots through traditional methods. However, doing this does not make a carrot a fish nor does it imply that your friend who is allergic to fish will have troubles with it. Your friend is having reactions to specific features of fish proteins that more than likely aren't found by adding the odd fish gene. But, like you implied, we have to be careful about this sort of thing.
Do you like carrots? How about beef? Pork? Apples? Bad news for you buddy: They're all GM'd. Ever since man kind has been agrarian we've been GM'ing our food.
Did you know carrots used to be purple? Carrots have been selected over time to be more orange, thus increasing their B-carotene content.
Cows? Selected for meat and milk production.
Apples? Selected for various traits leading to the varieties we have today.
Corn? Selected for size and taste. (I've got a really cool picture of this in my biotechnology textbook I wish I could find for you.)
Selection by mankind is the very first kind of genetic modifications ever made. Whilst we're talking about genetic modification on much grander scale the idea is similar.
You're right -- The world no longer shakes in their boots when MS enters a market now. Personally I believe this began with the X-Box. The world saw MS wasn't invincible. Followed shortly thereafter was the massive amounts of press Linux began to receive and Apple's revival.
The gorilla is more like a lumbering beast now. Still very capable of damage, but not invulnerable and mysterious.
We also use oil for everything from plastics to fertilizers.
What's really needed is a unilateral commitment towards renewable sources of oils, and energy. Notice I'm saying these as separate. We need renewable oils for all those things that a renewable source of energy can't cover (e.g. you can't grease an engine with Hydrogen).
The theory is that you the restriction should force most of the functions of the program to the foreground such that functions aren't hidden ass deep in contextual menus. Thus the point isn't restriction, the goal is to hopefully make the developer seriously contemplate user interaction.
You know, the first few hundred light bulbs weren't that good either. That didn't mean they were all going to be crap. The same thing can be said of all technology, including DRM.
Reality does not always argue against my point. Reality is that hundreds of people exclusively pirate all of their music, and all of their movies. For them watching movies on their monitor is more than good enough, for them a 128kbps MP3 is more than good enough.
These people aren't the minority either -- So whose reality are you arguing for? I agree with you in that watching a movie on my tiny monitor isn't good enough for me always, nor is listening to a lousy encode of an MP3 -- I purchase all my media that I like. However, we are the minority. These companies are still making money because of people like us.
What I see the need for DRM in is to minimize the distribution of software products and services. I just fail to see how a small company can afford to take the sorts of losses you imply are possible. I don't see DRM as much different than having a security guard, or having your employees keep an eye out for someone lifting your products.
I see DRM in it's infancy now, but I see it becoming a part of all our lives now. Actually, if you think about it, isn't software registration the first form of DRM? (i.e. Software that contains features that are locked until you register it.) Whilst this form of DRM has been widely cracked and circumvented, the methods in place seem to largely either discourage the majority of people from stealing and either continue as is, or to register (Probably more often the former).
The real question becomes how a company should protect it's rights without trampling on those of the consumer. Perhaps what we need is approvals for DRM schemas a la food grade approvals for lubricants, or pharmaceutical approvals. We can't just sit back and pout and say that this is bad, we have to be proactive in making an acceptable solution.
OK, so DRM is bad you say. How then do you expect people to make money off of software and services wherein they aren't given the ability to protect the distribution and access of such products and services?
DRM is a necessity of the digital economy. What's needed is a fair DRM scheme, not to abolish all DRM schemes.
And in case it wasn't already obvious enough from the parent's post, using an open format increases the likelihood of competition. Henceforth, it should be easier for you to get your foot in the door with a competing piece of software to make some money.
At the end of the day, I think using open formats is more important than open source software for this very reason. (Albeit, this is MHO. Feel free to disagree respectfully).
I've been thinking about whether or not it'd be better to see a dual core G4 or a G5 in PowerBooks. Assuming both could be done with similar heat situations comparable to today's G4 notebooks, which would you rather see?
IMHO, I think I'd rather have the dual core chip. As much as I'd like to see a 64bit chip in a PowerBook, I think a dual core is more likely to be advantageous in the near future as per the MHz wall that the processor industry has hit and how this will affect how we all write software (see this article on the use of concurrency in software design).
Does anyone else have thoughts on this? If it was up to you, what would you put in the next PowerBook: A G5, or dual core G4?
How is Apple being a bunch of dicks? Have you forgotten that violating an NDA is illegal?
You may not like that Apple is suing Nick, but you have to realize that there are repercussions for your actions whether you like it or not.
I suggest you read this article at Daring Fireball to see why Apple is likely doing what they're doing. Ask yourself if you wouldn't do the same if your company, and the livelihood of your employees depended on the technology and secrecy thereof until the appropriate time.
I agree. Even if they added support for web based clients such that when you clicked a mailto link that the appropriate web service started, or even took you to the log in screen, it'd be much appreciated. Actually, I'm surprised no one has thought of this sooner given the ubiquity of hotmail accounts, etc.
Speaking of EMI, I'm sort of surprised they didn't make the losers list. Every last one of the albums they release, to the best of my knowledge, are copy protected. Way to go EMI! The respect you show the consumer is outstanding!
For those of us who still like to own shiny plastic discs, relish in the cover art and packaging, EMI has proven to be quite frustrating. I personally don't own a _real_ CD player (read: dedicated CD player -- i.e. non-computer) and listen to all my music through my computer or my iPod. I've effectively not purchased an EMI disc for at least two years now.
Come on EMI, get with the game. We'll respect you if you respect us.
An Ad-Aware/FireFox combination has served my parent's computer well for quite sometime. My father's business exclusively uses the above combination with great results.