Steve Jobs is right when he mentions that doing what your university teachers tell you in most cases isn't the best thing to get a really good education.
It is however often the best way to get decent grades and a secure job.
And some (if not most) people rather have a secure life than a great education - and I don't blame them at all.
But then again, there can't be enough guys like Steve Jobs, or am I wrong?
Is this good for Sony, because they're going to sell more units?
Or is it bad for Sony, because they're going to sell less games for it?
Personally I think it is a good thing for Sony, even if they will never understand it. Hell I can't even understand why they didn't try to make it an open platform in the first place.
I still can't see why any country other than a dictatorship would need biometric data on all of their citizens.
I would rather be a bit more affraid of terrorists than loosing all my rights as a citizen - because in that case my country would have turned into something I call terror.
Doesn't sound like a good deal at all. Guess in most cases you could get more money for it if you just sell it to somebody else. And 10% off is never much. If it wouldn't be for the Apple brand, they could be 20%-30% cheaper anyway. Doesn't mean that they aren't selling a good product, but still...
By this demented sort of reasoning, laws against murder, theft, arson, etc also support terrorism.
Making something illegal is NOT an act in support of those who do it anyway.
Sorry, but you just don't get it.
Making things like alcohol, drugs or pirated software illegal raises the prices for those things to a hight where criminals can gain from it in the first place.
No criminal could get rich from selling copies of the latest Disney movies if those movies weren't protected by IP laws.
And just look at the American prohibition and how many crime careers just started because of making something illegal.
Even making killing illegal creates a profitable market for killers.
But of course there are other reasons why it should be illegal and there might be other reasons why selling alcohol, drugs or pirated software should be illegal.
But you still support crime with making things illegal - you always do! It's the very nature of making things illegal. The only question remaining is, is it worth it?
Is it worth to support terrorism so Disney can please their shareholders?
I guess most politicians would say yes - but I'm not quite so sure about it.
terrorist groups... may be involved in copyright violations
In other words: Copyright laws SUPPORT terrorism.
And stronger copyright laws will be an even bigger support for terrorism.
Get rid of all IP laws and they couldn't make a dime out of it anymore, but that would also mean the creation of a free market and actually real capitalism.
I don't think that this would be the main reason, because even in the middle ages most scientists got pretty old (60-90 years). The main reason for life expectancy being higher today is that a much higher percentage of children died back then. But if you got old enough to become a scientist and also were rich (like most educated people at those times) then you could become pretty old, at least old enough to make all kinds of inventions. Besides that, since the first Nobel Price Awards life expectancy hasn't increased that dramatically anyways.
some of the research being done by scientists ends up simply stating the obvious
I don't see anything wrong with that alone. Why shouldn't scientists be allowed to do useless things every once in a while? Everbody else does it!
And in some cases doing research on obvious things might even result in great scientific achievments. Don't forget about all the things that were considered obvious in the past: the earth is flat, the earth is the center of the universe, women are physically not able to drive cars, windows is the best operating system,... I could go on for days...
Of course there might still be a problem, but only in one case: When scientists intentially do pointless research.
In a few days we will hear another 3rd party developer say exactly the same, but that time in favour of the Xbox 360.
I think one has to wait till the new gaming platforms hit the shops before one can tell if they are worth their money or not.
And who knows, maybe Nintendo's Revolution will actually be that outstanding that they will dominate the next generation of gaming consoles.
Anyway, there are still lots of titles coming out for this generations gaming consoles that I don't think I will buy a new system before 2007 - and at that time prices will have dropped and it will be clear which console has what to offer and is worth its money.
Do you not understand that the little plus sign next to Netscape means Firefox?
Sure they share a codebase and sure it means that it also should work with Firefox, but since we are in the year 2005 a 'Firefox 1.0+' would make much more sense than a 'Netscape 7.2+', don't you think?
Do you not understand that those are two different brands and that different people profit from it when the one or the other is listed?
They also list for operating systems Windows 98, 2000, NT 4.0 Service Pack 6, and XP; Mac OS 9+
How about 'illegal distribution'. You know that is what is meant by 'stealing' don't be a f'ing tool.
I beg you pardon, but that isn't meant - it might be what it is - but they use those words to discredit people and build up a bias against them - nothing more, nothing less.
And to the genius that modded my original post as offtopic: did you read the article? If so, how can you mod my comment offtopic?
Slashdot Mirror
"Shrawder said the secret password '50Trexler,' was widely-known among the student body..."
;-)
If it's widely-known, how can it be secret?
Who besides criminals would have a real use for this?
Why not simply make sure nobody gets physical access to your HDD?
And what if an intruder simply copies all the data instead of stealing the HDD?
And what about your backups?
Not a surprise if you think about it, or is there any relevant social group where there are no drug users?
And sadly enough art and drug (ab)use almost always were related.
Steve Jobs is right when he mentions that doing what your university teachers tell you in most cases isn't the best thing to get a really good education.
It is however often the best way to get decent grades and a secure job.
And some (if not most) people rather have a secure life than a great education - and I don't blame them at all.
But then again, there can't be enough guys like Steve Jobs, or am I wrong?
I'm all for diversity, but who is going to use it?
Why would I like to use it?
Is this good for Sony, because they're going to sell more units?
Or is it bad for Sony, because they're going to sell less games for it?
Personally I think it is a good thing for Sony, even if they will never understand it. Hell I can't even understand why they didn't try to make it an open platform in the first place.
I still can't see why any country other than a dictatorship would need biometric data on all of their citizens.
I would rather be a bit more affraid of terrorists than loosing all my rights as a citizen - because in that case my country would have turned into something I call terror.
Probably...
Doesn't sound like a good deal at all. Guess in most cases you could get more money for it if you just sell it to somebody else. And 10% off is never much. If it wouldn't be for the Apple brand, they could be 20%-30% cheaper anyway. Doesn't mean that they aren't selling a good product, but still...
Is there life on other planets?
Probably.
Is there intelligent life on other planets?
Probably.
Are any of those planets close enough so we can ever make contact?
Most certainly not.
Why is this posted under Privacy and not It's funny, because that's what it is. :o)
By this demented sort of reasoning, laws against murder, theft, arson, etc also support terrorism.
Making something illegal is NOT an act in support of those who do it anyway.
Sorry, but you just don't get it.
Making things like alcohol, drugs or pirated software illegal raises the prices for those things to a hight where criminals can gain from it in the first place.
No criminal could get rich from selling copies of the latest Disney movies if those movies weren't protected by IP laws.
And just look at the American prohibition and how many crime careers just started because of making something illegal.
Even making killing illegal creates a profitable market for killers.
But of course there are other reasons why it should be illegal and there might be other reasons why selling alcohol, drugs or pirated software should be illegal.
But you still support crime with making things illegal - you always do! It's the very nature of making things illegal. The only question remaining is, is it worth it?
Is it worth to support terrorism so Disney can please their shareholders?
I guess most politicians would say yes - but I'm not quite so sure about it.
terrorist groups ... may be involved in copyright violations
In other words: Copyright laws SUPPORT terrorism.
And stronger copyright laws will be an even bigger support for terrorism.
Get rid of all IP laws and they couldn't make a dime out of it anymore, but that would also mean the creation of a free market and actually real capitalism.
Not gonna happen...
higher life expectancy
I don't think that this would be the main reason, because even in the middle ages most scientists got pretty old (60-90 years). The main reason for life expectancy being higher today is that a much higher percentage of children died back then. But if you got old enough to become a scientist and also were rich (like most educated people at those times) then you could become pretty old, at least old enough to make all kinds of inventions. Besides that, since the first Nobel Price Awards life expectancy hasn't increased that dramatically anyways.
Sure, and that's why nobody does it and spammers still have an easy live.
some of the research being done by scientists ends up simply stating the obvious
... I could go on for days...
I don't see anything wrong with that alone. Why shouldn't scientists be allowed to do useless things every once in a while? Everbody else does it!
And in some cases doing research on obvious things might even result in great scientific achievments. Don't forget about all the things that were considered obvious in the past: the earth is flat, the earth is the center of the universe, women are physically not able to drive cars, windows is the best operating system,
Of course there might still be a problem, but only in one case: When scientists intentially do pointless research.
online 'vigilantes' have started to take justice into their own hands by hacking into suspected fraud sites and defacing them
Besides the fact that self justice generally is a bad idea, how pointless is it if there are thousands and thousands of those sites?
And it seems pretty obvious to me that it will be easier to set up new sites than taking down existing ones.
If you really want to do something against those scammers you need to follow the money trail.
In a few days we will hear another 3rd party developer say exactly the same, but that time in favour of the Xbox 360.
I think one has to wait till the new gaming platforms hit the shops before one can tell if they are worth their money or not.
And who knows, maybe Nintendo's Revolution will actually be that outstanding that they will dominate the next generation of gaming consoles.
Anyway, there are still lots of titles coming out for this generations gaming consoles that I don't think I will buy a new system before 2007 - and at that time prices will have dropped and it will be clear which console has what to offer and is worth its money.
How could lack of heat (=lack of energy) possibly produce energy? The whole thing just sounds like mambo jambo to me.
Also it seems to me that you would need lots of energy to pump up water from down the ocean.
provide unlimited energy [...] by pumping up water from the depths of the ocean
;-)
I guess the energy you need to pump up the water would be provided by the same water - not.
I have no [...] pain of any kind!
Pain-free! Guess that explains it...
Do you not understand that the little plus sign next to Netscape means Firefox?
Sure they share a codebase and sure it means that it also should work with Firefox, but since we are in the year 2005 a 'Firefox 1.0+' would make much more sense than a 'Netscape 7.2+', don't you think?
Do you not understand that those are two different brands and that different people profit from it when the one or the other is listed?
They also list for operating systems Windows 98, 2000, NT 4.0 Service Pack 6, and XP; Mac OS 9+
And not just 'Windows 98, NT 4.0+, Mac OS 9+'...
How about 'illegal distribution'. You know that is what is meant by 'stealing' don't be a f'ing tool.
I beg you pardon, but that isn't meant - it might be what it is - but they use those words to discredit people and build up a bias against them - nothing more, nothing less.
And to the genius that modded my original post as offtopic: did you read the article? If so, how can you mod my comment offtopic?
From the stupid webpage:
BROWSER: Microsoft Internet Explorer 5.0 Service Pack 2 or above, Netscape 7.2+
Seems they are streaming from a cave... it's the year 2005 and they haven't even heard of Firefox yet...
Anybody registered yet?
Which of the stream formats I hate does it come in?
From the biased article:
Government shuts down Web site used to steal "Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith."
It's called distribution not stealing.
The soures you provided are all at least one year old.
Do you have any proof that they didn't actually change their policy on software patents?
Because if so it would clearly show that this now is just a lame publicity stunt by Nokia and that one better stays aways from them...
*searching for a pencil to add Nokia to my evil company list*