Given the box office bombs of So and so Carpenter and Battleship, both of which were QUARTER BILLION DOLLAR PRODUCTIONS. I have to ask: WHY IN THE FUCK DO WE NEED MULTIMILLION-DOLLAR FILMS?
Simple. Because despite the derision of intellectual elitists such as yourself, referring to it all as "mediocre slop", people still want flashy movies which cannot be done on shoestring budgets.
The cost per track very much has been cheaper. Before iTunes, we were paying $1.40 per track for music. Now that iTunes is here, we're paying $2.40 per track. That's very much more expensive thank you very much. That aside, I still buy it because fuck 14 track albums with only one good song.
I get that, really. The cheap models are shit - that's what I said. But your original statement was "direct me to the sturdy Dell, HP, Toshiba" - an assertion that such a thing does not exist. However, those machines do exist - but they cost a premium. Much like Apples cost a premium, and are sturdy constructions that run well (my Macbook has hit the ground a couple of times and kept on trucking). It's unfair to pit machines that are most definitely not "cheap shit" end of the market against machines that are definitely "cheap shit" end of the market and use that to claim that good machines do not exist outside of Apple. That's what I said, and I stick to it.
Funny you mention that, because UEFI keys don't have to be signed by MS. Verisign may in fact sign them. Hell, YOU could sign them. The only rub is getting OEMs to include the keys on the boards. Red Hat decided they didn't want to do this as it would mean that they would be in a better position than any other Linux vendor, and instead negotiated with Microsoft to have them sign a GRUB loader for them so that any machine with the keys needed to boot Windows would boot Fedora and RHEL out of the box. Leaving aside that based on this, Red Hat could have gotten an agreement with the OEMs to have a Red Hat key installed in the UEFI and then made their signed GRUB available instead, I can't see how this is an example of MS being anti-competitive.
Microsoft's certification requires those things you dismiss as "elaborate BIOS features" (leaving aside that UEFI is not BIOS, and there won't even be a BIOS on these boards). So, you will be able to change these settings, because Microsoft demanded it. Funny, your "M$ monopoly!!11!!1one" situation is defused by Microsoft's action.
Sandboxing? No, you can not. You can disable Developer ID verification (which is the stupid shit that makes it so random binaries downloaded off the internet need to be signed by an Apple Developer certificate just like App Store ones) for now, but sandboxing is mandatory.
What's your point? It's not his hardware, it belongs to the school district. Him not being able to run alternative operating systems on someone else's hardware is not a problem. In fact, if they don't want to let him run Linux on their hardware that is their right and he should be disciplined for ignoring them. He can bring in his own hardware if he wants to run programs the owners of the hardware don't want.
Then you're clearly looking at the wrong models. But based on your level of Apple fanboyness, you're deliberately avoiding the decent machines so you can use every machine you encounter as support for your anti-not-Mac agenda.
Sony now makes laptops out of aluminium, Toshiba makes laptops which are the very definition of sturdy (just fucking try and damage a Toughbook. You can run one of them fuckers over with your car and do no damage to it). Dell, makes Alienware and XPS, which are among the top of the line for specs and performance. If you're refusing to look at anything but sub-$500 Sonys and Dell Inspirons, no wonder you think every non-Apple is crap.
I'm pretty sure you can convince the NT Boot Loader to start GRUB or LILO though if you wanted to. Then, since the unsigned boot loader was loaded by a signed one, you have no problems there.
That is completely wrong. The server owner has as much claim on the data on the servers as you do - specifically, none. In the event of a liquidation sale, the liquidator would wipe the drives, and if they fail to do so, releasing confidential info from the drives is a criminal offense. Absolutely not "free and clear" and definitely not "public domain".
What part of "Many Microsoft sites that used Silverlight have moved to HTML5" didn't make sense? And need I point out the HTML5 support in IE10, and the HTML5 application support in Windows 8?
That's a good point actually - IIS/Silverlight have really good smooth streaming support, while Flash Media Server tends to have to restart the stream every time it adapts the bitrate.
There's also Apple's HTTP streaming solution too, which is supported by IIS also, and can be consumed by a plethora of devices.
Unlikely. My city is literally half the country, and a force to be reckoned with. And no, cities aren't dependent on the government except insofar as they all claw back (in the form of government loans, would you believe it) tax money to cover infrastructure. Our city is half the country but gets far less than half the tax take. But no, the central government does not have absolute control, and in fact is virtually gutted in power compared to local authorities. Central government can control things like whether something is illegal or not, and the assets under its' direct control (the national airline, 3 of 4 power companies, the rail network) but has no control over local government assets (the country's ports, the larger airport, swathes of pensioner housing, the train companies, etc).
That's simply not true, and never has been. I live in New Zealand, which is a British territory, and we operate in a similar manner - there is local government, and central government. Local government can set bylaws, own stuff, provide services, whatever. They are not in any way shape or form accountable to central government, short of being bound by law - there is no central control whatsoever. In fact, our central government is currently in the middle of a scrap with our city councils (local authorities) because the right wing government is demanding that the left wing councils privatise all their assets to cover their expenses, and the councils are refusing, instead demanding the government stop funneling money to a civil construction firm spending billions on highways to nowhere.
You might notice that until you agree to the cookies, the ICO doesn't actually include the GA script in their pages. Goes to show they don't believe they have enough control over Google to ensure that the no cookie rule is followed.
Most of us haven't seen Amazon's contract. However, I personally don't see that clause in any contract as fair, so if Amazon did include it then it is just as crap as Apple.
They're also creating a severe quality pressure too. Some of the self-published books available on Kindle, etc, are just awful in quality. Typos, grammatical errors, and just plain painful writing. Publishers still have their place, they're just having trouble recognising what it is, and fighting for the old place when there's opportunity knocking.
It's the latter. You cannot sell your book cheaper anywhere than iBooks - it must be your cheapest price (or the same as everywhere else). Where I live, the government would call that a clear cut case of collusion, and they would get that contract clause smacked down so hard they'd be reeling for years. Not so coincidentally, Apple doesn't offer iBooks here.
Far from it. If anything, Amazon sold e-books so cheap to drive more Kindle sales. And loss leading to crush competition is very much illegal (and obvious to boot), so I'd find it a little unlikely that Amazon would risk it. The reason they were cheap before is because it was a wholesale model - Amazon and the publisher negotiated a price, Amazon paid for it, and could then set the price at whatever they wanted. They could have 100% markup, 50% markup, 10% markup, or 0% markup - whatever. They could likely negotiate better prices, as it was actually a negotiation. Under the new model, the prices are set by the publisher, and the seller gets a commission. No negotiation, no discounting, no nothing.
The way it actually worked is that e-books were wholesaled. Amazon bought the books at the agreed price from the publisher, and sold them to the market at whatever they wanted, because Amazon was the seller. Apple changed this by forcing something called the Agency Model, where the former sellers (Amazon) become mere agents of the sellers (publishers) and lose the ability to set the price - the seller sets the price and the agent gets a commission instead. It means that Amazon lost the ability to sell below cost, or discount e-books. It's a shitty model, basically.
Slashdot Mirror
Given the box office bombs of So and so Carpenter and Battleship, both of which were QUARTER BILLION DOLLAR PRODUCTIONS. I have to ask: WHY IN THE FUCK DO WE NEED MULTIMILLION-DOLLAR FILMS?
Simple. Because despite the derision of intellectual elitists such as yourself, referring to it all as "mediocre slop", people still want flashy movies which cannot be done on shoestring budgets.
The cost per track very much has been cheaper. Before iTunes, we were paying $1.40 per track for music. Now that iTunes is here, we're paying $2.40 per track. That's very much more expensive thank you very much. That aside, I still buy it because fuck 14 track albums with only one good song.
I get that, really. The cheap models are shit - that's what I said. But your original statement was "direct me to the sturdy Dell, HP, Toshiba" - an assertion that such a thing does not exist. However, those machines do exist - but they cost a premium. Much like Apples cost a premium, and are sturdy constructions that run well (my Macbook has hit the ground a couple of times and kept on trucking). It's unfair to pit machines that are most definitely not "cheap shit" end of the market against machines that are definitely "cheap shit" end of the market and use that to claim that good machines do not exist outside of Apple. That's what I said, and I stick to it.
Yes, exactly. Those very things that Microsoft demands be present. So no, you'd be wrong.
Funny you mention that, because UEFI keys don't have to be signed by MS. Verisign may in fact sign them. Hell, YOU could sign them. The only rub is getting OEMs to include the keys on the boards. Red Hat decided they didn't want to do this as it would mean that they would be in a better position than any other Linux vendor, and instead negotiated with Microsoft to have them sign a GRUB loader for them so that any machine with the keys needed to boot Windows would boot Fedora and RHEL out of the box. Leaving aside that based on this, Red Hat could have gotten an agreement with the OEMs to have a Red Hat key installed in the UEFI and then made their signed GRUB available instead, I can't see how this is an example of MS being anti-competitive.
Microsoft's certification requires those things you dismiss as "elaborate BIOS features" (leaving aside that UEFI is not BIOS, and there won't even be a BIOS on these boards). So, you will be able to change these settings, because Microsoft demanded it. Funny, your "M$ monopoly!!11!!1one" situation is defused by Microsoft's action.
A key signed by Symantec/Verisign works too. They just didn't want to do that.
Sandboxing? No, you can not. You can disable Developer ID verification (which is the stupid shit that makes it so random binaries downloaded off the internet need to be signed by an Apple Developer certificate just like App Store ones) for now, but sandboxing is mandatory.
No they're not. Symantec/Verisign is. Microsoft doesn't issue certificates, and this entire fucking article is flat out wrong.
What's your point? It's not his hardware, it belongs to the school district. Him not being able to run alternative operating systems on someone else's hardware is not a problem. In fact, if they don't want to let him run Linux on their hardware that is their right and he should be disciplined for ignoring them. He can bring in his own hardware if he wants to run programs the owners of the hardware don't want.
Then you're clearly looking at the wrong models. But based on your level of Apple fanboyness, you're deliberately avoiding the decent machines so you can use every machine you encounter as support for your anti-not-Mac agenda.
Sony now makes laptops out of aluminium, Toshiba makes laptops which are the very definition of sturdy (just fucking try and damage a Toughbook. You can run one of them fuckers over with your car and do no damage to it). Dell, makes Alienware and XPS, which are among the top of the line for specs and performance. If you're refusing to look at anything but sub-$500 Sonys and Dell Inspirons, no wonder you think every non-Apple is crap.
I'm pretty sure you can convince the NT Boot Loader to start GRUB or LILO though if you wanted to. Then, since the unsigned boot loader was loaded by a signed one, you have no problems there.
Only if he wins. All of his money was seized by the New Zealand, Dutch, British, Hong Kong, and American governments. He's actually poor.
That is completely wrong. The server owner has as much claim on the data on the servers as you do - specifically, none. In the event of a liquidation sale, the liquidator would wipe the drives, and if they fail to do so, releasing confidential info from the drives is a criminal offense. Absolutely not "free and clear" and definitely not "public domain".
What part of "Many Microsoft sites that used Silverlight have moved to HTML5" didn't make sense? And need I point out the HTML5 support in IE10, and the HTML5 application support in Windows 8?
That's a good point actually - IIS/Silverlight have really good smooth streaming support, while Flash Media Server tends to have to restart the stream every time it adapts the bitrate.
There's also Apple's HTTP streaming solution too, which is supported by IIS also, and can be consumed by a plethora of devices.
Unlikely. My city is literally half the country, and a force to be reckoned with. And no, cities aren't dependent on the government except insofar as they all claw back (in the form of government loans, would you believe it) tax money to cover infrastructure. Our city is half the country but gets far less than half the tax take. But no, the central government does not have absolute control, and in fact is virtually gutted in power compared to local authorities. Central government can control things like whether something is illegal or not, and the assets under its' direct control (the national airline, 3 of 4 power companies, the rail network) but has no control over local government assets (the country's ports, the larger airport, swathes of pensioner housing, the train companies, etc).
Have a look in /var/log sometime. Holy crap tracking data!
That's simply not true, and never has been. I live in New Zealand, which is a British territory, and we operate in a similar manner - there is local government, and central government. Local government can set bylaws, own stuff, provide services, whatever. They are not in any way shape or form accountable to central government, short of being bound by law - there is no central control whatsoever. In fact, our central government is currently in the middle of a scrap with our city councils (local authorities) because the right wing government is demanding that the left wing councils privatise all their assets to cover their expenses, and the councils are refusing, instead demanding the government stop funneling money to a civil construction firm spending billions on highways to nowhere.
You might notice that until you agree to the cookies, the ICO doesn't actually include the GA script in their pages. Goes to show they don't believe they have enough control over Google to ensure that the no cookie rule is followed.
Most of us haven't seen Amazon's contract. However, I personally don't see that clause in any contract as fair, so if Amazon did include it then it is just as crap as Apple.
They're also creating a severe quality pressure too. Some of the self-published books available on Kindle, etc, are just awful in quality. Typos, grammatical errors, and just plain painful writing. Publishers still have their place, they're just having trouble recognising what it is, and fighting for the old place when there's opportunity knocking.
It's the latter. You cannot sell your book cheaper anywhere than iBooks - it must be your cheapest price (or the same as everywhere else). Where I live, the government would call that a clear cut case of collusion, and they would get that contract clause smacked down so hard they'd be reeling for years. Not so coincidentally, Apple doesn't offer iBooks here.
Far from it. If anything, Amazon sold e-books so cheap to drive more Kindle sales. And loss leading to crush competition is very much illegal (and obvious to boot), so I'd find it a little unlikely that Amazon would risk it. The reason they were cheap before is because it was a wholesale model - Amazon and the publisher negotiated a price, Amazon paid for it, and could then set the price at whatever they wanted. They could have 100% markup, 50% markup, 10% markup, or 0% markup - whatever. They could likely negotiate better prices, as it was actually a negotiation. Under the new model, the prices are set by the publisher, and the seller gets a commission. No negotiation, no discounting, no nothing.
The way it actually worked is that e-books were wholesaled. Amazon bought the books at the agreed price from the publisher, and sold them to the market at whatever they wanted, because Amazon was the seller. Apple changed this by forcing something called the Agency Model, where the former sellers (Amazon) become mere agents of the sellers (publishers) and lose the ability to set the price - the seller sets the price and the agent gets a commission instead. It means that Amazon lost the ability to sell below cost, or discount e-books. It's a shitty model, basically.