In any case, this is just dumb. This guy just keeps taking pot shots in the hopes that he will one day find the judge who agrees with him?
I hate when people try to legislate morality.
I hate it more when criminals (or their families) try to sue someone else for "causing them to be criminals" - the game companies should sue the kids and their families for slandering their game or something. Just to highlight the absurdity.
You throw away the packaging of your store bought cds? I have never heard of anyone doing that before.
I put mine in a nice CD rack in case I ever need it again.
The other real difference is audio fidelity - there is just a lot more quality to CD audio. I never noticed the difference until one day, after listening to mp3s only for pretty much a year, I decided to break out a cd or two, and was blown away. It's weird.
I dont think I will use the iTMS for full albums. I am still to attached to tangible cd's and such. They are just nice. But it has proven PERFECT for one hit wonders and such....
I used to rip all my cd's and then go on gnutella to grab the few tracks that I don't own but listen to all the time, or single songs from artists who I generally dislike (i.e. Lose Yourself by Eminem) - now I just buy those songs for 99cents from iTMS, avoiding the "must buy a full cd" syndrome that always stopped me before, and suddenly I own every song on my computer for just a few bucks.
In fact, the iTMS taught me something that I hopey the RIAA will learn one of these days: Good Karma is fun.
lol goo.cc - I have a lot of machines. Until OpenBeOS is ready, my mac is my main one. I also have a linux from scratch box, a windows xp laptop, and an old dual p3-500 for beos/zeta/whatever.
But BeOS, as great as it was, is not up to OS X levels. Hopefully OpenBeOS will rock so hard it will catch up. The freedom aspect will be nice.
I know. When I bought it, I knew it was Jaguar. I was ok with that. What pisses me off is that they are not taking a "you bought before we announced, so you get what you bought policy" across the board. The have a weird "unless it's a g5 you've had since august" policy, which doesn't follow the logic of "you knew what you were getting" - It's the selective good will that bugs me.
Maybe this is a case of jealousy, but I tend to think of it more as unfairness. It's life, and it's not like I wasnt budgeting for it.. but I have a hard time seeing the logic, and thus feel shafted.
Mac apps always tend to use features from the latest release, and thus won't run on older ones. This includes updates to apps you may already own. Mac OS upgrades are such a hard sell that they may as well be mandatory. But to be fair, yes, if I was doign everything I need on it right now, didnt ever upgrade my apps, and didn't care about patching any security holes that may arise, then yes... I could stay on Jaguar. (out of curiosity,/does/ apple publish security updates for older releases of OS X? I haven't ever seen it, but I tend to upgrade when it becomes available)
I bought a new powerbook on Friday. Less than 3 weeks from the date I bought, they will be releasing Panther. So far, this is cool. But the fact that the up-to-date program doesn't cover it is not cool. That sucks.
It wouldn't burn so bad if they hadn't made a specific exception for machines that were shipping back in August. That's like a slap in the face.
I wonder who to complain to (clearly complaining to/.ers is not the right approach). Squeaky wheel and all that....
The more I read this letter the more I see the key flaw both the open source community and SCO is making.
SCO is referring to Open Source as a corporate entity, who needs a more solid IP model and a working business model in order to please their corporate customers who will decide their fate. In other words, in the SCO worldview OpenSource is simply some company and can be crushed. (visions of SCO suing thousands of devs/users/etc in an attempt to stop out a complete ant colony with a hammer)
I think this misconception is partially the fault of the open source community in the first place. "Open Source" is a term created to present free software in a way corporations would understand... i.e. to play by their rules. This makes it easier to sell to corporations and thus get funding, and has been remarkably successful. But there is a core problem there.
Free Software (for the sake of argument, let's say GPLed Software) does not exist to give corporations free stuff in order to hurt microsoft. It does not exist to develop a stronger IP policy. It's fate does not depend on the whims of "customers" - It's about the opposite of all of that. It's about killing IP and bringing back Intellectual Freedom. It's about providing the world with a solution -- without waiting on a single customer to pay/request it. It's about building the best software possible for the express goal of BUILDING THE BEST SOFTWARE POSSIBLE.
Open Source and Free Software is not a product. It is not a service. It is a natural resource. It is a conversation. It is what happens when a bunch of smart people get together and amuse each other. All these companies like Red Hat and SuSE and IBM are just bottling that resource and selling it to you - like bottled water. They may include some support or (more likely) some great water advertising - but it's still water.
There is a war going on - corporations have built up a huge wall of "IP" laws and such to try and trap people. Linux started as a trickle of water, and has grown so much that it essentially turned the wall into a dam. And it's still growing.
If you think water is a bad weapon to use against gigantic stones and rock walls, take a look at the grand canyon. Free Software (and Free Thought) will win - it's just a matter of time.
Well done. Course, at least in the real world marble game you can see the ball and the hole at the same time. In the Cell Phone virtual one, you can use the large "virtual screen" to see a high resolution recreation of the play area... the fact that you dont know where the hole is half the time only adds to the challenge.:)
As a guitar player, I can understand the nuances involved in motion patterns, control, differentiation of player/user, etc. But in practice, tilt control provides no real value. It requires you to change the orientation of the device to provide input, even though your primary method of feedback is dependant on the orientation of the device.
Imagine if you typed into your word processor by placing your hands in the middle of the document on your screen and typing on a virtual keyboard - you can't see what you are typing until you stop, look, and then you have to fix mistakes blind as well. It just doesn't work, even though a virtual on screen keyboard has instant geek appeal.
Besides, the nuances you are talking about don't really apply to the cell phone/pda market - that is about getting information into and out of the device as quickly and accurately as possible. subtle wrist flicks and tilting are not the way to do that. I can't actually think of an application (except perhaps security/authentication) that would benefit from nuanced control in this medium. Maybe if they created a virtual theramin or something... but talk about a niche market.;)
If you want to spend your phone real estate on a screen, do two things:
1) Voice dialing. When done right, this is a killer feature.
2) Touch Screen. Scroll maps and such by simply placing your finger (thumb?) on the screen and "pulling" it.
the physical orientation of the device in the real world should have no bearing on the behavior of the systems software.
They keep trying to use this "tilt" technology somewhere. I first saw it at PC Expo several years ago (but before it became "techxNY" or whatever) - It was a SD card add on for a palm V. They were making a big deal out of scrolling maps with it. I demoed it, and tried to be polite about it, but the fact is that it is useless.
There is much less control in tilting a palm while trying to watch the screen scroll, and then tilting it to level again to read the map - and once you tilt it level, you have to switch the toggle to stop it scrolling if you tilt it up to look at it.
It reminds me of those games where you have a marble and have to make it fall in the hole in the middle of a big plate - you always overshoot the hole and end up on the other end.
It's a dumb way to solve a problem that has already been solved via scroll bars and/or buttons.
It's called competition. It's something that exists in the Real World.
Seriously, if you have a product that can be replaced in 2 months via current tools, your products value has diminished to the point where maybe you should make a new product.
Hell, if tools are so good that someone can do it in two months, maybe its time for a rewrite of the codebase so you can cut costs and out market, out sell, and out business the "damned kiddie"
If you are so lethargic that a random kid can write something in two months that has the capability to put you out of business, you deserve to go out of business.
Cosmic Rays or not, we know that carbon monoxide is destroying the ozone, which is contributing. we know that huge glaciers are melting off the icecap, at the rates of inches a day - which is much more than most people realize. We know that the water levels are rising to the point that venice is now risking submersion, and Italy is building huge mobile walls to save it. The ocean level is rising. It's not a coming problem - it's a problem that has been identified for decades and ignored.
Regardless of if Cosmic Rays are a contributing factor, it's very hard to argue that reducing CFC's, cutting down on emissions (or changing fuel types), moving to cleaner fuel sources for power (such as wind, solar, geothermal, and hydro), and in general making sustainability part of our core values wouldn't extremely slow the problem.
There still needs to be research to see if we can fix the damage we have already caused, or if there are any other factors we need to address.
That said, the study of if cosmic rays effect global warming or not strikes me as pointless. It's not exactly a problem we can address. It seems that, true or not, it will end up just being a scapegoat.
It's not that research is bad. It's that people are constantly making excuses for the known causes, and demanding more research while their icecaps melt and their cities submerge. It's pretty clear that our current methods are both unsustainable (it's not if oil runs out, it's when) and destructive (we have factual data about what damage carbon monoxide is causing, for just one example) - So why aren't we fixing it?
Re:That's the point I was making.
on
Menu Shadows in GTK2
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Nothing wrong with ignorance. It's the default state of knowledge for everyone on just about every topic.
The thing you should get upset about is willful ignorance. Choosing, and indeed working, to remain ignorant is unforgivable. Doubly so when that ignorance creates intolerance of others.
Borders partnered with amazon. As did Toys 'R Us and many others.
The point is, whenever someone to "pay the bills" comes along, Amazon makes it cheaper to partner with them than to compete. Hell, I can make 15% right now just by clicking a few forms and putting links on my website.. and I have no leverage whatsoever. Why on earth would I want to go out and dedicate millions of dollars to competing with them when I can get 15% for 1% of the expenditure, and devote the other 99% to something completely different?
There are only two ways to "free the data" - either instill a culture in amazon that convinces them to make the data "free" (all comments belong to the public domain or something) - or start a seperate site that is simply better than it. Better in this case means more, accurate data. Thus we have a bit of an uphill battle ahead of us. At least in that arena. (an arena which gets bigger all the time, as amazon adds "stores")
tis true. I went to buy new cartridges for a z23 i have here. They would be about $70 total. The printer itself was below the cartridges on display. It was selling for $25. I almost just bought a new printer to get the catridges. But then i realized how insane it is to trash a whole printer.
Fuck the printer companies. If there was ever a reason to go paperless, they are it.
Good point. But the XBox isn't really a "home computer" - it's a game console consisting of the same bits + some other crap. Arguably that makes it a home computer thats so proprietary it can't even function as a home computer - but then the definition comes into question again.
I have no idea what the bjork quote is. Your brief comment doesn't leave too much for me to google on, though i tried. I would be interested, if you had a link, or just posted the quote.
You're right on the "since the industrial revolution" bit - I was trying to show that that is sort of the marker that accellerated the whole thing. Prior to that there was still greed, but it was almost always unable to individually scale the way it does today.
The point is not that greed exists. The point is that greed is not "human nature" any more than generosity is. It's all about a balance. No greed means you starve. Too much means someone else does. The whole point is to balance it. And that simply has not been the case these days.. not because of human nature, but because of people making excuses for a broken norm.
Slashdot Mirror
"from the famous-radiohead-song dept"
Which famous radiohead song are we talking about?
In any case, this is just dumb. This guy just keeps taking pot shots in the hopes that he will one day find the judge who agrees with him?
I hate when people try to legislate morality.
I hate it more when criminals (or their families) try to sue someone else for "causing them to be criminals" - the game companies should sue the kids and their families for slandering their game or something. Just to highlight the absurdity.
You throw away the packaging of your store bought cds? I have never heard of anyone doing that before.
:)
I put mine in a nice CD rack in case I ever need it again.
The other real difference is audio fidelity - there is just a lot more quality to CD audio. I never noticed the difference until one day, after listening to mp3s only for pretty much a year, I decided to break out a cd or two, and was blown away. It's weird.
In any case, the iTMS is cool.
Holy Shit dude. That sucks.
I have no good advice. Just wanted to offer sympathy.
Just remember - This too shall pass. Then go beat the living shit out of that asshole, and when he complains about the pain, tell him the same thing.
I dont think I will use the iTMS for full albums. I am still to attached to tangible cd's and such. They are just nice. But it has proven PERFECT for one hit wonders and such....
I used to rip all my cd's and then go on gnutella to grab the few tracks that I don't own but listen to all the time, or single songs from artists who I generally dislike (i.e. Lose Yourself by Eminem) - now I just buy those songs for 99cents from iTMS, avoiding the "must buy a full cd" syndrome that always stopped me before, and suddenly I own every song on my computer for just a few bucks.
In fact, the iTMS taught me something that I hopey the RIAA will learn one of these days: Good Karma is fun.
lol goo.cc - I have a lot of machines. Until OpenBeOS is ready, my mac is my main one. I also have a linux from scratch box, a windows xp laptop, and an old dual p3-500 for beos/zeta/whatever.
:)
But BeOS, as great as it was, is not up to OS X levels. Hopefully OpenBeOS will rock so hard it will catch up. The freedom aspect will be nice.
Anyway, good observation.
AT&T stick to the first one who thinks this joke isn't pure comedy dynamite.
(ok, it's a stretch. deal with it.)
I know. When I bought it, I knew it was Jaguar. I was ok with that. What pisses me off is that they are not taking a "you bought before we announced, so you get what you bought policy" across the board. The have a weird "unless it's a g5 you've had since august" policy, which doesn't follow the logic of "you knew what you were getting" - It's the selective good will that bugs me.
/does/ apple publish security updates for older releases of OS X? I haven't ever seen it, but I tend to upgrade when it becomes available)
Maybe this is a case of jealousy, but I tend to think of it more as unfairness. It's life, and it's not like I wasnt budgeting for it.. but I have a hard time seeing the logic, and thus feel shafted.
Mac apps always tend to use features from the latest release, and thus won't run on older ones. This includes updates to apps you may already own. Mac OS upgrades are such a hard sell that they may as well be mandatory. But to be fair, yes, if I was doign everything I need on it right now, didnt ever upgrade my apps, and didn't care about patching any security holes that may arise, then yes... I could stay on Jaguar. (out of curiosity,
I bought a new powerbook on Friday. Less than 3 weeks from the date I bought, they will be releasing Panther. So far, this is cool. But the fact that the up-to-date program doesn't cover it is not cool. That sucks.
/.ers is not the right approach). Squeaky wheel and all that....
It wouldn't burn so bad if they hadn't made a specific exception for machines that were shipping back in August. That's like a slap in the face.
I wonder who to complain to (clearly complaining to
The more I read this letter the more I see the key flaw both the open source community and SCO is making.
SCO is referring to Open Source as a corporate entity, who needs a more solid IP model and a working business model in order to please their corporate customers who will decide their fate. In other words, in the SCO worldview OpenSource is simply some company and can be crushed. (visions of SCO suing thousands of devs/users/etc in an attempt to stop out a complete ant colony with a hammer)
I think this misconception is partially the fault of the open source community in the first place. "Open Source" is a term created to present free software in a way corporations would understand... i.e. to play by their rules. This makes it easier to sell to corporations and thus get funding, and has been remarkably successful. But there is a core problem there.
Free Software (for the sake of argument, let's say GPLed Software) does not exist to give corporations free stuff in order to hurt microsoft. It does not exist to develop a stronger IP policy. It's fate does not depend on the whims of "customers" - It's about the opposite of all of that. It's about killing IP and bringing back Intellectual Freedom. It's about providing the world with a solution -- without waiting on a single customer to pay/request it. It's about building the best software possible for the express goal of BUILDING THE BEST SOFTWARE POSSIBLE.
Open Source and Free Software is not a product. It is not a service. It is a natural resource. It is a conversation. It is what happens when a bunch of smart people get together and amuse each other. All these companies like Red Hat and SuSE and IBM are just bottling that resource and selling it to you - like bottled water. They may include some support or (more likely) some great water advertising - but it's still water.
There is a war going on - corporations have built up a huge wall of "IP" laws and such to try and trap people. Linux started as a trickle of water, and has grown so much that it essentially turned the wall into a dam. And it's still growing.
If you think water is a bad weapon to use against gigantic stones and rock walls, take a look at the grand canyon. Free Software (and Free Thought) will win - it's just a matter of time.
"perhaps in a deade or so we'll all be able to do what Be did back in '91"
perhaps much sooner.
+1 Funny.
:)
Well done. Course, at least in the real world marble game you can see the ball and the hole at the same time. In the Cell Phone virtual one, you can use the large "virtual screen" to see a high resolution recreation of the play area... the fact that you dont know where the hole is half the time only adds to the challenge.
As a guitar player, I can understand the nuances involved in motion patterns, control, differentiation of player/user, etc. But in practice, tilt control provides no real value. It requires you to change the orientation of the device to provide input, even though your primary method of feedback is dependant on the orientation of the device.
;)
Imagine if you typed into your word processor by placing your hands in the middle of the document on your screen and typing on a virtual keyboard - you can't see what you are typing until you stop, look, and then you have to fix mistakes blind as well. It just doesn't work, even though a virtual on screen keyboard has instant geek appeal.
Besides, the nuances you are talking about don't really apply to the cell phone/pda market - that is about getting information into and out of the device as quickly and accurately as possible. subtle wrist flicks and tilting are not the way to do that. I can't actually think of an application (except perhaps security/authentication) that would benefit from nuanced control in this medium. Maybe if they created a virtual theramin or something... but talk about a niche market.
If you want to spend your phone real estate on a screen, do two things:
1) Voice dialing. When done right, this is a killer feature.
2) Touch Screen. Scroll maps and such by simply placing your finger (thumb?) on the screen and "pulling" it.
the physical orientation of the device in the real world should have no bearing on the behavior of the systems software.
They keep trying to use this "tilt" technology somewhere. I first saw it at PC Expo several years ago (but before it became "techxNY" or whatever) - It was a SD card add on for a palm V. They were making a big deal out of scrolling maps with it. I demoed it, and tried to be polite about it, but the fact is that it is useless.
There is much less control in tilting a palm while trying to watch the screen scroll, and then tilting it to level again to read the map - and once you tilt it level, you have to switch the toggle to stop it scrolling if you tilt it up to look at it.
It reminds me of those games where you have a marble and have to make it fall in the hole in the middle of a big plate - you always overshoot the hole and end up on the other end.
It's a dumb way to solve a problem that has already been solved via scroll bars and/or buttons.
"IMHO If the company plays by the rules, we should play by the rules."
Ok, but only if I get to make the rules.
Why not just make robots that work in the robot factory?
Cry me a fucking river.
It's called competition. It's something that exists in the Real World.
Seriously, if you have a product that can be replaced in 2 months via current tools, your products value has diminished to the point where maybe you should make a new product.
Hell, if tools are so good that someone can do it in two months, maybe its time for a rewrite of the codebase so you can cut costs and out market, out sell, and out business the "damned kiddie"
If you are so lethargic that a random kid can write something in two months that has the capability to put you out of business, you deserve to go out of business.
"Give me Liberty or Give me Death"
Be careful what you wish for.
Cosmic Rays or not, we know that carbon monoxide is destroying the ozone, which is contributing. we know that huge glaciers are melting off the icecap, at the rates of inches a day - which is much more than most people realize. We know that the water levels are rising to the point that venice is now risking submersion, and Italy is building huge mobile walls to save it. The ocean level is rising. It's not a coming problem - it's a problem that has been identified for decades and ignored.
Regardless of if Cosmic Rays are a contributing factor, it's very hard to argue that reducing CFC's, cutting down on emissions (or changing fuel types), moving to cleaner fuel sources for power (such as wind, solar, geothermal, and hydro), and in general making sustainability part of our core values wouldn't extremely slow the problem.
There still needs to be research to see if we can fix the damage we have already caused, or if there are any other factors we need to address.
That said, the study of if cosmic rays effect global warming or not strikes me as pointless. It's not exactly a problem we can address. It seems that, true or not, it will end up just being a scapegoat.
It's not that research is bad. It's that people are constantly making excuses for the known causes, and demanding more research while their icecaps melt and their cities submerge. It's pretty clear that our current methods are both unsustainable (it's not if oil runs out, it's when) and destructive (we have factual data about what damage carbon monoxide is causing, for just one example) - So why aren't we fixing it?
Nothing wrong with ignorance. It's the default state of knowledge for everyone on just about every topic.
The thing you should get upset about is willful ignorance. Choosing, and indeed working, to remain ignorant is unforgivable. Doubly so when that ignorance creates intolerance of others.
Borders partnered with amazon. As did Toys 'R Us and many others.
The point is, whenever someone to "pay the bills" comes along, Amazon makes it cheaper to partner with them than to compete. Hell, I can make 15% right now just by clicking a few forms and putting links on my website.. and I have no leverage whatsoever. Why on earth would I want to go out and dedicate millions of dollars to competing with them when I can get 15% for 1% of the expenditure, and devote the other 99% to something completely different?
There are only two ways to "free the data" - either instill a culture in amazon that convinces them to make the data "free" (all comments belong to the public domain or something) - or start a seperate site that is simply better than it. Better in this case means more, accurate data. Thus we have a bit of an uphill battle ahead of us. At least in that arena. (an arena which gets bigger all the time, as amazon adds "stores")
tis true. I went to buy new cartridges for a z23 i have here. They would be about $70 total. The printer itself was below the cartridges on display. It was selling for $25. I almost just bought a new printer to get the catridges. But then i realized how insane it is to trash a whole printer.
Fuck the printer companies. If there was ever a reason to go paperless, they are it.
Good point. But the XBox isn't really a "home computer" - it's a game console consisting of the same bits + some other crap. Arguably that makes it a home computer thats so proprietary it can't even function as a home computer - but then the definition comes into question again.
;)
Argh. In any case, it's a close race.
-> Sometimes, you just gotta break free from the shackles of proprietary code.
And othertimes, apparently, you have to drop 2-3k on the most proprietary home computer available.
So they are saying the SysV license gives them rights to all derivitive works.. sort of a proprietary version of the GPL's "viral" nature.
/loses/ credibility as a solid license, and it's enforcability comes into question.
So if they win, the GPL also gains strength via precedent, but free software loses credibility as a development model.
And if they lose, the GPL
That's sneaky as hell. Whoever thought this up spent a long time covering their bases. For the first time, I am somewhat worried.
I have no idea what the bjork quote is. Your brief comment doesn't leave too much for me to google on, though i tried. I would be interested, if you had a link, or just posted the quote.
You're right on the "since the industrial revolution" bit - I was trying to show that that is sort of the marker that accellerated the whole thing. Prior to that there was still greed, but it was almost always unable to individually scale the way it does today.
The point is not that greed exists. The point is that greed is not "human nature" any more than generosity is. It's all about a balance. No greed means you starve. Too much means someone else does. The whole point is to balance it. And that simply has not been the case these days.. not because of human nature, but because of people making excuses for a broken norm.