All drivers for 64-bit XP need to be rebuilt, since the 32-bit versions used with XP won't work in a 64-bit operating system. There are currently no 64-bit XP drivers to be backward-compatible with, so MS is setting the bar where it wants for all new drivers. They can't do the same with 32-bit because they have to be compatible with the unsigned 32-bit drivers already on the market for XP.
64-bit is the future of desktop computing, and MS doesn't want have to support unsigned drivers in future versions of Windows.
Yes, but what if I want to make some changes for my own use, as provided by the GPL? Are you going to compile me my own special version and then sign it? Do I have to submit my changes back to the trunk and hope they get accepted, so that when you build they are included? This forces me to lisence my changes under the GPL, and in fact forces me to accept the GPL because otherwise I would have no right to redistribute it to you. What if I don't want to do that?
Re:MOD PARENT +INF INSIGHTFUL!
on
Disney Buys Pixar
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
It's not the cost to consumers that bothers me, it's the control and the restrictions on derivative works. If I want to use part of steamboat willie in my music video, I can't do so without lisencing the footage from Disney. Works that are that old and have survived are a part of our cultural heritage, and they need to be liberated from the deathgrip that the original creators have gained based on a constitutional provision to grant them temporary monopolies in order to foster the arts.
Lengthy terms of copyright tend to restrict the creation of new works, particularly dirivative works, which it turns out most Disney movies are.
I bought a Pre-n WiFi card to use with my g network. It was one of the ones that Netgear knew would be incompatible with the new spec, so it was really cheap. Basically, I got an 802.11g card with a great antenna for next to nothing. I don't feel ripped off.
I remember this happened a few months back, where one ISP decided that the other ISP needed them more than they needed it, and so they started billing them for the connection. When they didn't pay, they cut off the connection.
This is how the Internet should work. If the connection between two ISPs is not mutually beneficial, then one of them can start charging the other one, and if they don't think it's worth the price, they can do without that particular connection.
If there is an ISP generating a lot of bandwidth due to VOIP (or media content, or whatever) then if there isn't an equal exchange going on, the neighboring ISPs and/or backbone networks can start charging (or raise their rates) for the use of their networks. The ISPs can (and do) in turn pass this expense along to their customers who are generating the high-bandwidth traffic (i.e., the VOIP/media companies).
In any case, a consumer-level ISP shouldn't care where this data is coming from, it should simply consider that the data has been requested by its paying customers and get it to them without extorting the sending parties. If they want the data volume to go down (or to collect more money), they should try to charge their customers more for bandwidth or try to reduce the rate they pay to their backbone ISP.
Yes, that was my understanding of this pills effects when I wrote my comment. This pill enables people to more easily shurg off horrible things. If something horrible happened to me, I would not want a pill to dampen its emotional effects. My point is that painful situations make us realize things. They make us stand up for our rights, demand justice, and shout, "Never again will this happen!"
Were it not for Haulocost survivors, there would be no Museum of Tolerance, in fact, we might not hate hate the way we do at all. There may never have been a Civil Rights Movement in the United States. John McCain was tortured in Vietnam, and because of that experience he is outraged at the idea that America would torture anyone. September 11th gave the United States the balls to go to Afganistan and take out the Taliban.
If we could just shrug off things that would otherwise haunt us, we would be much more likely to not want to deal with them. A rape victem might want to repress the memory of her experience, pretend it didn't happen, and go on with her previous conception of a nicer world, but it would be better for her (and humanity in general, not to mention justice) if she got over her denial, accepted the fact that it happened to her, and then live her life and face its decisions accordingly. This pill might help her to not have to repress the memory, but it will be at the cost of being as strong as she needs to be in the real world.
"Wouldn't it be nice if this never happened" is not a healthy line of thinkning. This pill facilitates that, and for that reason, I don't like it.
"CAMBRIDGE, Mass.--Richard Stallman, the founder of the Free Software Foundation, debated proposed changes to the General Public License at a public forum but made it clear that provisions to protect users from patent litigations will remain intact."
There are other approaches to avoid living in fear for the rest of your life. Chiefly among them is to rationally acknowledge the event, accept it for what it is (i.e., admit that it is real), and not let wreck havoc on your reality. I admit, many people are not capable of this. Many people have their realities tied up in the stability of their sheltered lives. In those cases, this pill might be advisable, but having said that, it is by far NOT the ideal situation. I think most people can see that there are some people who would be better off with a pill like this than without it. The problem is that it grates us the wrong way, because we believe people should live in the real world.
Some people would want to take this pill after finding out how their dinner was killed.
Seriously though, what's the point of this pill? If we had had it in 1944, should we have given it to the Haulocost survivors? Should we give it to rape victems and tell them to just forget it ever happened? Should we have handed it out in America on Sept 12, 2001? What's the point of being alive if you never have to deal with anything? Should John McCain have taken this pill after he got out of torturous prison camp in Vietnam?
How will you grow? How will you find out that you are strong? Oh, that's right: you won't.
It's also somewhat true, and quite relevant to the discussion at hand. Mac elitists think they're untouchable, and the morons (who are almost as ignorant about computers as AOL users are about the Internet) don't know any better, especially since all the elitists keep telling them that they're safe and secure from all possible attacks.
At least with Windows, the OS experts are aware of the problem and actively encourage protection. Linux users, while being somewhat snobbish, are generally well aware of security risks and take it upon themselves to make their boxes secure.
...There was even a recent court case in the US, in which Yahoo, because they are abiding by French law and censoring Nazi memorabilia in general, could not legally make exceptions to this policy.
There's a slight difference between cutting off all contact with someone and refusing to do their dirty work for them. MS, Yahoo, and others (by censoring at China's behest, and more so by providing information about dissidents so they can be arrested) are doing China's dirty work.
This lisence is meant to be included in software code. The only reason it is provided on the web is for people to, without reformatting (once it becomes final) prepend it to their source files. Therefore it should be formatted for code, not the web. When I'm hacking my kernel, I'm going to want to use a command-line editor to view source files, and word-wrapping is just annoying on 25x80 screens. Short lines are not a problem, and 80 columns is the standard.
Back-end software? I'm talking about well-established protocols for putting files into directories and retrieving them: sftp comes to mind. smb. ntfs. rsync.
Precisely what server-side smarts are required to transfer a file for backup, or to publish a webpage? I would be willing to sacrifice the bandwidth to download my stored address book, sync it with updates, and then re-upload it, especially since I would most likely do it over a home network onto a Linux server accessible from the web (for when I'm travelling).
If they implemented a solution that requires their own proprietary server software, then that's part of the problem. I'm not saying they can't innovate, and charge money for the ability to inject a single entry into your address book without wasting bandwidth, but most of the stuff we're talking about is pretty basic functionality that others are charging a lot less for and using standard protocols.
My main complaint is not that you can't use the other providers. You can. They just aren't doing anything at all to facilitate it in hopes that you'll give up and take the offer that they keep shoving in your face.
After all, their solution "just works" and no one else's does. Big surprise.
So how about in stead of having these buttons go only to.mac services, I have the option to configure them (in one place) to use a portion of my hard drive, or, say, a Samba share on my Linux box (or even *shudder* my ISP's webspace) to publish/sync/backup? That way, I'm paying for the software functionality when I buy iLife, and I'm paying for the service, convenience, reliablitiy and support if I choose to use.mac as my host.
If Apple just wants to cover their costs, this would accomplish that. There is no cost to Apple if I never access a.mac server.
They simply don't want to compete with the other service providers out there.
Dell has a version of their Inspiron 9300 that has most of the same basic features of the MacBook Pro: 1.83 GHz/667Mhz FSB Intel Core Duo Processor, 17" Widescreen 1440x900, 256MB NVIDA GeForce Go 7800.
Even comes with Media Center and a remote. The only thing missing is the webcam and backlit keyboard.
I completely agree: the grandparent is clearly a troll.
Still, it wouldn't be a bad thing if scientific-minded people interested in the ID discussion gave the first two chapters of the Bible a quick read to see what it actually says.
Hell, it wouldn't hurt to have a few of the militant creationists read it to remind them of what it does and doesn't say.
Science is primarily concerned with the what and the how. Genesis gives the who and the why.
One thing to keep in mind: the modern television-educated mind tends to see things from an earth-orbital perspective, while the Genesis account is given from the perspective of an observer on the surface of the earth. Genesis 1 gives an overview of creation, and Genesis 2 zooms in on the garden of Eden and man.
Slashdot Mirror
No. Like Flashblock.
Backwards compatability.
All drivers for 64-bit XP need to be rebuilt, since the 32-bit versions used with XP won't work in a 64-bit operating system. There are currently no 64-bit XP drivers to be backward-compatible with, so MS is setting the bar where it wants for all new drivers. They can't do the same with 32-bit because they have to be compatible with the unsigned 32-bit drivers already on the market for XP.
64-bit is the future of desktop computing, and MS doesn't want have to support unsigned drivers in future versions of Windows.
Yes, but what if I want to make some changes for my own use, as provided by the GPL? Are you going to compile me my own special version and then sign it? Do I have to submit my changes back to the trunk and hope they get accepted, so that when you build they are included? This forces me to lisence my changes under the GPL, and in fact forces me to accept the GPL because otherwise I would have no right to redistribute it to you. What if I don't want to do that?
It's not the cost to consumers that bothers me, it's the control and the restrictions on derivative works. If I want to use part of steamboat willie in my music video, I can't do so without lisencing the footage from Disney. Works that are that old and have survived are a part of our cultural heritage, and they need to be liberated from the deathgrip that the original creators have gained based on a constitutional provision to grant them temporary monopolies in order to foster the arts.
Lengthy terms of copyright tend to restrict the creation of new works, particularly dirivative works, which it turns out most Disney movies are.
I bought a Pre-n WiFi card to use with my g network. It was one of the ones that Netgear knew would be incompatible with the new spec, so it was really cheap. Basically, I got an 802.11g card with a great antenna for next to nothing. I don't feel ripped off.
I remember this happened a few months back, where one ISP decided that the other ISP needed them more than they needed it, and so they started billing them for the connection. When they didn't pay, they cut off the connection. This is how the Internet should work. If the connection between two ISPs is not mutually beneficial, then one of them can start charging the other one, and if they don't think it's worth the price, they can do without that particular connection. If there is an ISP generating a lot of bandwidth due to VOIP (or media content, or whatever) then if there isn't an equal exchange going on, the neighboring ISPs and/or backbone networks can start charging (or raise their rates) for the use of their networks. The ISPs can (and do) in turn pass this expense along to their customers who are generating the high-bandwidth traffic (i.e., the VOIP/media companies). In any case, a consumer-level ISP shouldn't care where this data is coming from, it should simply consider that the data has been requested by its paying customers and get it to them without extorting the sending parties. If they want the data volume to go down (or to collect more money), they should try to charge their customers more for bandwidth or try to reduce the rate they pay to their backbone ISP.
Yes, that was my understanding of this pills effects when I wrote my comment. This pill enables people to more easily shurg off horrible things. If something horrible happened to me, I would not want a pill to dampen its emotional effects. My point is that painful situations make us realize things. They make us stand up for our rights, demand justice, and shout, "Never again will this happen!"
Were it not for Haulocost survivors, there would be no Museum of Tolerance, in fact, we might not hate hate the way we do at all. There may never have been a Civil Rights Movement in the United States. John McCain was tortured in Vietnam, and because of that experience he is outraged at the idea that America would torture anyone. September 11th gave the United States the balls to go to Afganistan and take out the Taliban.
If we could just shrug off things that would otherwise haunt us, we would be much more likely to not want to deal with them. A rape victem might want to repress the memory of her experience, pretend it didn't happen, and go on with her previous conception of a nicer world, but it would be better for her (and humanity in general, not to mention justice) if she got over her denial, accepted the fact that it happened to her, and then live her life and face its decisions accordingly. This pill might help her to not have to repress the memory, but it will be at the cost of being as strong as she needs to be in the real world.
"Wouldn't it be nice if this never happened" is not a healthy line of thinkning. This pill facilitates that, and for that reason, I don't like it.
Really? Wow. I thought it was the Gnu Public Lisence.
[goes to look it up on Wikipedia...]
Well, this might explain it:
"GNU General Public License (GNU GPL or simply GPL)"
"CAMBRIDGE, Mass.--Richard Stallman, the founder of the Free Software Foundation, debated proposed changes to the General Public License at a public forum but made it clear that provisions to protect users from patent litigations will remain intact."
"the brain thinking faster than the fingers are typing"
I think you got that backwards, but I understand if you were in a rush.
There are other approaches to avoid living in fear for the rest of your life. Chiefly among them is to rationally acknowledge the event, accept it for what it is (i.e., admit that it is real), and not let wreck havoc on your reality. I admit, many people are not capable of this. Many people have their realities tied up in the stability of their sheltered lives. In those cases, this pill might be advisable, but having said that, it is by far NOT the ideal situation. I think most people can see that there are some people who would be better off with a pill like this than without it. The problem is that it grates us the wrong way, because we believe people should live in the real world.
Some people would want to take this pill after finding out how their dinner was killed.
Cyanide.
Cyanide.
Cyanide.
I don't see a downside.
Seriously though, what's the point of this pill? If we had had it in 1944, should we have given it to the Haulocost survivors? Should we give it to rape victems and tell them to just forget it ever happened? Should we have handed it out in America on Sept 12, 2001? What's the point of being alive if you never have to deal with anything? Should John McCain have taken this pill after he got out of torturous prison camp in Vietnam?
How will you grow? How will you find out that you are strong? Oh, that's right: you won't.
Come to think of it, the French might want these.
It's funny. Laugh.
It's also somewhat true, and quite relevant to the discussion at hand. Mac elitists think they're untouchable, and the morons (who are almost as ignorant about computers as AOL users are about the Internet) don't know any better, especially since all the elitists keep telling them that they're safe and secure from all possible attacks.
At least with Windows, the OS experts are aware of the problem and actively encourage protection. Linux users, while being somewhat snobbish, are generally well aware of security risks and take it upon themselves to make their boxes secure.
"Mac users are divided equally between elitist snobs and fucking morons."p ostcount=852
http://www.cad-forums.com/showpost.php?p=1481181&
...There was even a recent court case in the US, in which Yahoo, because they are abiding by French law and censoring Nazi memorabilia in general, could not legally make exceptions to this policy.
There's a slight difference between cutting off all contact with someone and refusing to do their dirty work for them. MS, Yahoo, and others (by censoring at China's behest, and more so by providing information about dissidents so they can be arrested) are doing China's dirty work.
This is exactly Microsoft's argument that is mentioned in the article, and the author is still right. This is a false dichotomy.
Uneaten cake is pretty to look at.
This lisence is meant to be included in software code. The only reason it is provided on the web is for people to, without reformatting (once it becomes final) prepend it to their source files. Therefore it should be formatted for code, not the web. When I'm hacking my kernel, I'm going to want to use a command-line editor to view source files, and word-wrapping is just annoying on 25x80 screens. Short lines are not a problem, and 80 columns is the standard.
Deal with it.
Back-end software? I'm talking about well-established protocols for putting files into directories and retrieving them: sftp comes to mind. smb. ntfs. rsync.
Precisely what server-side smarts are required to transfer a file for backup, or to publish a webpage? I would be willing to sacrifice the bandwidth to download my stored address book, sync it with updates, and then re-upload it, especially since I would most likely do it over a home network onto a Linux server accessible from the web (for when I'm travelling).
If they implemented a solution that requires their own proprietary server software, then that's part of the problem. I'm not saying they can't innovate, and charge money for the ability to inject a single entry into your address book without wasting bandwidth, but most of the stuff we're talking about is pretty basic functionality that others are charging a lot less for and using standard protocols.
My main complaint is not that you can't use the other providers. You can. They just aren't doing anything at all to facilitate it in hopes that you'll give up and take the offer that they keep shoving in your face.
After all, their solution "just works" and no one else's does. Big surprise.
So how about in stead of having these buttons go only to .mac services, I have the option to configure them (in one place) to use a portion of my hard drive, or, say, a Samba share on my Linux box (or even *shudder* my ISP's webspace) to publish/sync/backup? That way, I'm paying for the software functionality when I buy iLife, and I'm paying for the service, convenience, reliablitiy and support if I choose to use .mac as my host.
If Apple just wants to cover their costs, this would accomplish that. There is no cost to Apple if I never access a .mac server.
They simply don't want to compete with the other service providers out there.
Dell has a version of their Inspiron 9300 that has most of the same basic features of the MacBook Pro: 1.83 GHz/667Mhz FSB Intel Core Duo Processor, 17" Widescreen 1440x900, 256MB NVIDA GeForce Go 7800.
Even comes with Media Center and a remote. The only thing missing is the webcam and backlit keyboard.
Yes, but in the minds of consumers, they are now inseperably linked. MacBook sounds stupid, but it's not confusing.
I completely agree: the grandparent is clearly a troll.
Still, it wouldn't be a bad thing if scientific-minded people interested in the ID discussion gave the first two chapters of the Bible a quick read to see what it actually says.
Hell, it wouldn't hurt to have a few of the militant creationists read it to remind them of what it does and doesn't say.
Science is primarily concerned with the what and the how. Genesis gives the who and the why.
One thing to keep in mind: the modern television-educated mind tends to see things from an earth-orbital perspective, while the Genesis account is given from the perspective of an observer on the surface of the earth. Genesis 1 gives an overview of creation, and Genesis 2 zooms in on the garden of Eden and man.
For a more philisophical take on nature and supernature, see C.S. Lewis' Miracles.