Brick? These devices could not be used in any way afterwards, and could never be restored? Are you sure of that?
And is your position that anyone who modifies their operating system in whatever way they want to should be able to install OS updates without any harm?
I'm pretty sure that I can mod Linux so that updates will screw the OS totally. I'm certain I can do it to Windows and OS X. Should my frustration at having to reinstall the OS be aimed at myself, or the OS vendor?
The one case to make in this regards is the argument that Apple could check that the OS being updated is correct in every particular (compared to a reference install). But why should they, and *could* they?
My Vista install was smooth and painless. Every driver worked perfectly.
My computer?
A MacBook Pro with Boot Camp.
Strangely, it seems that Apple's all-in-one approach worked better for Vista than many other vendors.
Having said all the above, I have to say that once Vista was installed, it's caused me some pain. Getting it to recognise my wireless network was... interesting. I still don't know the step that caused it to 'see' the network (I closed an Explorer window), and UAC is irritating even now. None of which bothers me, as I only resort to Windows to play Warhammer Online!
Personally I think liberty takes precedence here, software vendors are way too authoritarian already. Would you accept it if someone told you how to use your car, or your house?
I see what you're trying to say, but you must remember that there are many laws around how you use your car. I think there are plenty of illegal activities that can be done in a house as well, and certainly some local government by-laws restricting noise, etc.
You will accept people telling you how to use your car, house and other property because you have no real choice in the matter.
If Blizzard put up terms of service and you agree to them (which every player did initially, and does again after every patch) and you feel that you don't want to abide by those terms, your choice is to leave or suck it up. If you violate those terms and are banned, then that's fair enough. If someone helps you violate those terms, well now we know that Blizzard are within the (civil) law to go after them.
The damages are higher than I'd have imagined, but there were no surprises in any of this.
If you want a free-as-in-speech MMO game, you either have to make it yourself or convince a vendor that it's a good idea. Currently no such game exists at anything near the scale of WoW, WAR, Eve or other commercial offerings. Maybe that's a better direction to head to, maybe not.
Just to support you - Google would have developed using 'clean' developers. That is, staff who had no knowledge of the iPhone SDK. That is perfectly legal and all above board, but if any hint arises that the staff were not 'clean' then Google can be sued for copyright violation.
Companies do this stuff every now and then, and with a little care, there's no problem.
Surely the damages are more about stopping future Glider-type automators. Along the way, they'll bankrupt the company behind Glider, but that's less important than stopping game-automators.
I can't remember the exact quote but "He heard so many people call book 'Kafkaesque' and wondered what exactly that meant, until he read Kafka and realised that it simply meant 'boring.'"
Neal Stephenson wrote some good books, but after _Quicksilver_ I think "So Neal Stephenson" is a term with mixed meaning.
Ah, someone putting a logical rebuttal being modded down as flamebait. Classic Slashdot modding!
Of course, the parent post should be modded above its own parent post, which posits that "Since X is worse than Y, Z (being less worse than Y) is good."
But hey! why mod down a logical fallacy when you can mod the rebuttal as flamebait?
(I confidently await being modded to -43 Ridiculous meta-meta-moderation comments)
Surely We'll See All New Consoles by 2011?
on
HD Wii By 2011?
·
· Score: 1
I'd be amazed if in 2011 we didn't see something new from Microsoft and Sony as well. Console lifecycles aren't measured in decades, after all.
Just as an aside - was it an executive order, or did both sides vote on this? If the latter, what was the breakdown (for vs against) for each side?
Blame Clinton all you like, but it's likely that both sides supported this, and the intervening Bush presidency did nothing to re-introduce those laws.
On this one, both sides are to blame, but your economy has been further stressed by massive war spending which certainly hasn't helped.
I was going to post about how the economic issues had been brewing for a few years (I heard about the housing bubble in the US at least four years back) but then I realised that the economic collapse with all its history was a probability state that co-existed with all the others, and the resolution (via the LHC) simply collapsed them into the single state. The history was always there, just like it was for the other (now lost) states.
The failures were testing, as was the success. They'll have a higher record of success before they start actually taking on contracts.
But... you didn't actually think that it was easy to build a rocket and send it into orbit, did you? Your criticism seems to imply that you do, but surely no-one expects perfect launches the very first time.
Mind pointing me toward a mac between the Mini and the Pro starting at $2,600? No, the iMacs and laptops don't count. Underpowered, overpriced and no expansion.
Your question would be better phrased as "Mind pointing me toward an expandable tower Mac under $2600?"
That's a lot more reasonable than "Mind pointing me toward a Mac under $2600, except for the Mini, the iMac, the MacBook or the MacBook Pro?"
You're factoring out every model except one. Yes, Apple don't cater for your requirements. Maybe a cheaper tower would sell lots, but it failed last time they tried it (despite all the Slashdot and ArsTechnica posters who swore blind they'd buy one).
The menu bar is still available in OS X, even if no windows exist for an app. That makes it pretty easy to interact with the app. Just switch to the app and use whatever menu item you can.
Don't get too worked up - the story included that line, but few scientists will consider any theory a rock-solid fact. There's always going to be modifications and special cases to be handled, and there's the off-chance of a Nobel Prize to a scientist who can extend an existing theory, or replace it with a better one.
What about a lightning strike that starts a wildfire, burning animals and people to death?
Or a tornado that sweeps through a town, killing a few and destroying everything?
Or an earthquake that kills hundreds?
Can we blame God for those things? After all, if people thank God when good stuff happens, shouldn't they blame Him for the bad stuff?
(As an aside, I always love the athletes who credit God for their win. I'd like, just once, to hear the second placed athlete say "I ran better than ever, but God was against me on this one. His divine might stopped me winning, and thanks for nothing Jesus.")
You don't seem to mind using the products of science - transistors, electricity, plastics, metals - when it suits you. Maybe it's just some areas in science that are objectionable to you. It's a shame that the same rigourous process applies in all areas of science, but perhaps we'll just sweep that under the rug, eh?...pattern of plausible divine intervention...
No, there is no pattern. Just like staring at a cloud, you'll see patterns that aren't really there. Stare at the static on a TV screen. Stare at a fire. Stare at the ocean. Stare at any random visual element long enough, and you'll notice your brain's remarkable ability to pick patterns out of chaos. (As an aside, that'd be a handy survival trait for a hunter/gatherer living in grasslands - spotting hidden predators and all that.) The patterns you perceive in history are not automatically perceived by others.
You're correct to say that absence of evidence does not imply evidence of absence (well, it seemed you were trying to say that) but if religious groups insist on putting up theories of their own that conflict with tried and tested theories, they have a burden of proof - they must demonstrate that their theories fit the observable data better than the current ones. It'd also be nice if their theories were falsifiable (ie actual "theory" instead of "made up stuff").
Slashdot Mirror
Brick? These devices could not be used in any way afterwards, and could never be restored? Are you sure of that?
And is your position that anyone who modifies their operating system in whatever way they want to should be able to install OS updates without any harm?
I'm pretty sure that I can mod Linux so that updates will screw the OS totally. I'm certain I can do it to Windows and OS X. Should my frustration at having to reinstall the OS be aimed at myself, or the OS vendor?
The one case to make in this regards is the argument that Apple could check that the OS being updated is correct in every particular (compared to a reference install). But why should they, and *could* they?
My Vista install was smooth and painless. Every driver worked perfectly.
My computer?
A MacBook Pro with Boot Camp.
Strangely, it seems that Apple's all-in-one approach worked better for Vista than many other vendors.
Having said all the above, I have to say that once Vista was installed, it's caused me some pain. Getting it to recognise my wireless network was... interesting. I still don't know the step that caused it to 'see' the network (I closed an Explorer window), and UAC is irritating even now. None of which bothers me, as I only resort to Windows to play Warhammer Online!
Look into CDbaby as well. Artists get back about $0.63 on every $0.99 track. I'm not sure of the setup fee though.
Personally I think liberty takes precedence here, software vendors are way too authoritarian already. Would you accept it if someone told you how to use your car, or your house?
I see what you're trying to say, but you must remember that there are many laws around how you use your car. I think there are plenty of illegal activities that can be done in a house as well, and certainly some local government by-laws restricting noise, etc.
You will accept people telling you how to use your car, house and other property because you have no real choice in the matter.
If Blizzard put up terms of service and you agree to them (which every player did initially, and does again after every patch) and you feel that you don't want to abide by those terms, your choice is to leave or suck it up. If you violate those terms and are banned, then that's fair enough. If someone helps you violate those terms, well now we know that Blizzard are within the (civil) law to go after them.
The damages are higher than I'd have imagined, but there were no surprises in any of this.
If you want a free-as-in-speech MMO game, you either have to make it yourself or convince a vendor that it's a good idea. Currently no such game exists at anything near the scale of WoW, WAR, Eve or other commercial offerings. Maybe that's a better direction to head to, maybe not.
Just to support you - Google would have developed using 'clean' developers. That is, staff who had no knowledge of the iPhone SDK. That is perfectly legal and all above board, but if any hint arises that the staff were not 'clean' then Google can be sued for copyright violation.
Companies do this stuff every now and then, and with a little care, there's no problem.
>> Where did the globules originate?
> Existentialism.
Damn philosophers! I knew they'd cause problems, but I never dreamt of the scale.
World of Warcraft - A game so fun that people pay for programs to play it for them.
Or a game with a company behind it that prefers players to actually play, rather than automate and sell gold.
But hey! maybe it's all down to interpretation.
Surely the damages are more about stopping future Glider-type automators. Along the way, they'll bankrupt the company behind Glider, but that's less important than stopping game-automators.
It would be so Neal Stephenson
I can't remember the exact quote but
"He heard so many people call book 'Kafkaesque' and wondered what exactly that meant, until he read Kafka and realised that it simply meant 'boring.'"
Neal Stephenson wrote some good books, but after _Quicksilver_ I think "So Neal Stephenson" is a term with mixed meaning.
Ah, someone putting a logical rebuttal being modded down as flamebait. Classic Slashdot modding!
Of course, the parent post should be modded above its own parent post, which posits that "Since X is worse than Y, Z (being less worse than Y) is good."
But hey! why mod down a logical fallacy when you can mod the rebuttal as flamebait?
(I confidently await being modded to -43 Ridiculous meta-meta-moderation comments)
I'd be amazed if in 2011 we didn't see something new from Microsoft and Sony as well. Console lifecycles aren't measured in decades, after all.
So what's MySpace?
It's one of those cloudy thingies that RMS was banging on about the other day.
Just as an aside - was it an executive order, or did both sides vote on this? If the latter, what was the breakdown (for vs against) for each side?
Blame Clinton all you like, but it's likely that both sides supported this, and the intervening Bush presidency did nothing to re-introduce those laws.
On this one, both sides are to blame, but your economy has been further stressed by massive war spending which certainly hasn't helped.
Hey! Provincial France would be a *real* loss. That food is the best thing on this ball'o'mud.
Besides, France is a great place.
I was going to post about how the economic issues had been brewing for a few years (I heard about the housing bubble in the US at least four years back) but then I realised that the economic collapse with all its history was a probability state that co-existed with all the others, and the resolution (via the LHC) simply collapsed them into the single state. The history was always there, just like it was for the other (now lost) states.
It's all going very quantum.
Remember - it's only Switzerland. Unless the crater grows past their borders, it's not so bad.
The failures were testing, as was the success. They'll have a higher record of success before they start actually taking on contracts.
But... you didn't actually think that it was easy to build a rocket and send it into orbit, did you? Your criticism seems to imply that you do, but surely no-one expects perfect launches the very first time.
globaljustin, would you point a gun at me yourself and force me to give money to NASA? Please don't.
He doesn't need to. If you're a US taxpayer, your own government will force you to pay up.
Still, there are worse things to be forced to pay for.
Surely you're in the bathroom. Just chase the 'roo out.
Also - Toilets flushing backwards? Doesn't that mean stuff comes *out* of the bowl and flies up at you? Urgh
ADC = Apple Developer Connection
http://developer.apple.com/
It'd be nice to live in a world where people didn't assume you knew all the acronyms!
Mind pointing me toward a mac between the Mini and the Pro starting at $2,600? No, the iMacs and laptops don't count. Underpowered, overpriced and no expansion.
Your question would be better phrased as "Mind pointing me toward an expandable tower Mac under $2600?"
That's a lot more reasonable than "Mind pointing me toward a Mac under $2600, except for the Mini, the iMac, the MacBook or the MacBook Pro?"
You're factoring out every model except one. Yes, Apple don't cater for your requirements. Maybe a cheaper tower would sell lots, but it failed last time they tried it (despite all the Slashdot and ArsTechnica posters who swore blind they'd buy one).
The menu bar is still available in OS X, even if no windows exist for an app. That makes it pretty easy to interact with the app. Just switch to the app and use whatever menu item you can.
Don't get too worked up - the story included that line, but few scientists will consider any theory a rock-solid fact. There's always going to be modifications and special cases to be handled, and there's the off-chance of a Nobel Prize to a scientist who can extend an existing theory, or replace it with a better one.
What about a lightning strike that starts a wildfire, burning animals and people to death?
Or a tornado that sweeps through a town, killing a few and destroying everything?
Or an earthquake that kills hundreds?
Can we blame God for those things? After all, if people thank God when good stuff happens, shouldn't they blame Him for the bad stuff?
(As an aside, I always love the athletes who credit God for their win. I'd like, just once, to hear the second placed athlete say "I ran better than ever, but God was against me on this one. His divine might stopped me winning, and thanks for nothing Jesus.")
...all the science of yours...
You don't seem to mind using the products of science - transistors, electricity, plastics, metals - when it suits you. Maybe it's just some areas in science that are objectionable to you. It's a shame that the same rigourous process applies in all areas of science, but perhaps we'll just sweep that under the rug, eh? ...pattern of plausible divine intervention...
No, there is no pattern. Just like staring at a cloud, you'll see patterns that aren't really there. Stare at the static on a TV screen. Stare at a fire. Stare at the ocean. Stare at any random visual element long enough, and you'll notice your brain's remarkable ability to pick patterns out of chaos. (As an aside, that'd be a handy survival trait for a hunter/gatherer living in grasslands - spotting hidden predators and all that.) The patterns you perceive in history are not automatically perceived by others.
You're correct to say that absence of evidence does not imply evidence of absence (well, it seemed you were trying to say that) but if religious groups insist on putting up theories of their own that conflict with tried and tested theories, they have a burden of proof - they must demonstrate that their theories fit the observable data better than the current ones. It'd also be nice if their theories were falsifiable (ie actual "theory" instead of "made up stuff").