People use Windows for the same reason my three-year old kid gets a Playskool drill, and not a power drill. Because they feel secure with their penis size and don't need anything else to make them feel like a man?
Most of the tests we run don't run significantly faster on a dual G5 vs. a single G4. So when Apple announced the Mac mini it wasn't minutes before we were considering how to use it for our automation system. The Mac mini has all the perfect qualifications:
1. Low power
2. Low heat
3. Small
4. Easy to pack together
5. Inexpensive They clearly state that speed is not an issue and as such the mini is perfect for their use because of the smaller space. If speed was an issue, the mini would not be best suited.
I'm not sure what you were trying to prove with this. Did you even bother to read it or did you see a bunch of Macs and go "oooh shiny"?
But putting off Macs and Mac OS X by the blanket statement "The only good thing about Macs is the look of the case" is simply unfair. I agree, the cases look like shit.
It is when that code is de facto offered to the public as software for them to use. The point of the GPL is that the user of a piece of software shall always be free to modify that software as he sees fit so that he can maximize its usefulness to him. If Google offers, say, a spreadsheet application that is largely server-based and uses the server-side loophole to avoid distributing the source, then they violate this principle since the user obviously cannot change the way that it works. The same is true for a search engine, of course, but this case seems a little more muddled. Said spreadsheet application is not being distributed, the results of the application are. The input/output scheme is no different than any other Web 2.0 site. User inputs data, server does something with data, server outputs data. It seems you want to get into some metaphysical debate about the fine line between executing, hosting and distributing software.
It's no different in principle than a website using Apache/mySQL to serve some HTML or using GNU/Linux to host any kind of service. It's not distributing. You get nothing. You lose. Good day sir.
If the law says 0.05 is fine then we should hold ourselves to it. If we wanted 0.00 then write the law as such. Why is carrying out the law properly even an issue?
You didn't expect Firefox to be automagically bug-free did you? So you agree with me then. End of discussion.
Also read AC's comment. It pretty much kills your argument anyways.
If you can suggest some way the ISP could have tested but NOT bent to Vista's screwy implementation and have everything work fine, I'd love to hear it! If nothing else they could have warned their customers and tell them that they are working on a fix. That's what a real business does instead of expecting automagically bug-free software. I'll remember to blame the developers of Firefox for not properly testing it the next time it crashes...
Why should the whole world PAY MS for the privilege of testing interoperbility between their established systems and the MS newcomer? So that you don't screw up your established systems with an untested roll out. Which is exactly what happened. Are you saying this shouldn't have been avoided?
As the new implementation, it's MS's responsability to make sure that their new product actually works with the world... Nobody said otherwise.
...it is not the world's responsability to bend to their crappy implementation. You tell that mean old straw man! Give him one for me. Your rhetoric aside, you're absolutely right that Microsoft is to blame here. However, the issue is should people have the prudence to test Microsoft's implementation or just blindly assume it works. Considering their track record, certainly you don't think people should give them the benefit of the doubt?
Why? If their existing system follows the appropriate standards, why should they have to test someone else's future product to check compatibility? Maybe because you actually care about the results instead of just hoping Micro$haft screws up again so you can do a Nelson? Just a guess...
The simple fact is that I LIKED the idea of communism, but it will NEVER work.
I like things how they are now. A capitalistic free market combined with a socialistic market run by the government. Not competing but overlapping. Many things simply work better in dual markets.
Public school for those that can't afford it, private or home school for those that can. Public libraries for those that can't afford it, private book stores for those that can. And so on...
We need to define a certain set of bare minimum conditions that all citizens deserve, food, water, shelter, clothing, health care, education, voting, all the basic no-frills that democracy and society in general depends on to keep things working smoothly. Most of these systems are in place already but their goals are misaligned or they're poorly managed.
The typical problem with capitalism in these areas is that there is no incentive to provide the highest quality service. By tying cost to QoS many people will make sacrifices and accept sub-par services because they need to save money. At the same time, the service providers have the incentive to minimize costs as much as possible, using fewer supplies, lowering standards and providing poorer service.
When dealing with luxury items like big screen TVs you want it fast and cheap and minimum working conditions. If it breaks you just buy another fast and cheap replacement. This is ideal for competing markets and ideally the consumer. However it just doesn't work with essential services. You don't want the cheapest, make-do education or health care. You want the best and absolute highest quality. There's not much profit to be made that way. Our current health care system actually rewards the service providers by giving out less health care.
Anyone with doubts simply ask yourself this. When you're getting checked out by a doctor, do you want him worrying about keeping costs down or do you want him worrying about giving you the best possible care?
Of course there's problems with this solution, but they are few and far between. The biggest problem is that when you remove the incentive to perform well or risk going out of business. For example, if you're a mechanic and every car you service is complete destroyed, eventually people will stop coming to you and you will be run out of business. The market has fixed itself. The same doesn't apply for public schools. If the teachers provide poor service there is currently no incentive to do otherwise, other than firing the teacher. Obviously we need some sort of performance-reward system to replace the one we took out when we removed it from the free market.
I'm an atheist. I think organized religion is silly at best and more likely harmful. But I don't lump the average person who holds beliefs I find childish or backwards in the same group as the few fanatics of any denomination that carry and have carried out atrocities in the name of their respective religions. That's a very naive view. Where do you think these people get the courage and reenforcement to carry these violent acts out? It's definitely not from God, he's oddly silent throughout all this. It comes from their religious communities. When people claim themselves to be part of a religion they don't get to specify that they only want to endorse the sane parts and not the violently ignorant parts. Especially when it comes to core beliefs such as treatment of non-believers. It's time to stop worrying about hurting people's feelings and start letting them know what other people are doing in the name of their religion.
The entire point was that Christianity has an equally long history of being used to promote violence, and that trying to make everyone believing in a religion responsible for the acts of someone who claim to share their beliefs but who carry out actions that are contrary to the beliefs held by most of those people is meaningless at best. You're downplaying Islamic violence. The number of Muslims in America make about 0.1% of Muslims worldwide (that's a tenth of a percent) and most of them are unorthodox. Time and time again I see people judging the majority by this small progressive minority and that's just plain inaccurate.
Of course, what/. post would be complete without an analogy? So, let me leave you with one. If I claim to be a member of the KKK and contribute to spreading their influence only because I like wearing white sheets and disagree with every other part of their philosophy, would you accept that I'm not supporting racial intolerance?
I don't buy that. I would say that many Muslims welcome violence when it comes to those that are a threat to Islam. I'm not sure how many but I doubt it's a tiny fraction. Also, considering that there are around 1.5 billion Muslims, even a tiny fraction is too much.
As far as responsibility goes, just because you didn't push a button or pull a trigger, doesn't mean you're innocent if your religion encourages intolerance. Calling for the death of non-believers is still heavily tied to Islam, even if many self-claimed practitioners ignore it.
It's about time that someone gets angry over our children being subjected to low quality porn. Hopefully these new filters will fix that. Won't somebody think of the children!
Victim - an unfortunate person who suffers from some adverse circumstance Such a simple word shouldn't be too complex for you.
Google had two types of videos, download-to-rent and download-to-own. Excuse me for being so naive that I took "own" to mean literally when, in reality, they were rentals of different durations. No, clearly that's not misleading at all.
As for the rest of your drivel. What energy? I'm sitting here at my PC, typing to some egotistical person on Slashdot. Maybe that's a full day's load for you but that doesn't equate to much energy on my part. I know you're just trying to exaggerate things and make it look like you have the upper hand but if you don't have anything interesting to say then don't bother with the "you'll get over it" bullshit. I know I'll get over it. I was over it a before we even started. That type of childishness doesn't hurt my feelings. Your desire to belittle me only tells me that I've hurt your own feelings and you're lashing out. I think that's hilarious.
Back on topic. It doesn't matter if I walked into Google headquarters with my pants around my ankles, wallet in one hand and a bottle of lube in the other. If someone does something wrong, it doesn't matter how much the person deserved it or had it coming. It's still wrong. No amount of insults will change that. It's wrong to sell someone something under the pretense of ownership when that's not what it really is. Now feel free to insult me some more but I wish you would stick to something logical that can actually be measured and not just how awesome you are because you totally pwnd that dude on Slashdot.
You didn't read my original comment where I clearly state that I purchased videos from Google that weren't available anywhere else. Kind of hard to take your business someplace else when that someplace else doesn't even exist. That's ok, I wouldn't want you to bother to read what I actually wrote. It's much more insightful to post knee-jerk comments just to show how much smarter you are than me for not buying DRM'd movies.
Also, my previous comment was sarcastic, meant to highlight the absurdity in blaming the victim. Just because people are too weak or dumb to defend themselves doesn't make what others do to them any less wrong. Talking about what I should have or could have done is irrelevant and detracts from the real issue, Google's failed handling of this DRM fiasco. If you think I'm more important than Google, I'm flattered but I would have to disagree with you. They are at issue, not me.
Slashdot Mirror
1. You're an asshole.
2. You don't know what he wanted.
3. What he wants doesn't change the law.
Can I have a refund for the IQ points I lost by reading that?
1. Low power
2. Low heat
3. Small
4. Easy to pack together
5. Inexpensive They clearly state that speed is not an issue and as such the mini is perfect for their use because of the smaller space. If speed was an issue, the mini would not be best suited. I'm not sure what you were trying to prove with this. Did you even bother to read it or did you see a bunch of Macs and go "oooh shiny"?
It's no different in principle than a website using Apache/mySQL to serve some HTML or using GNU/Linux to host any kind of service. It's not distributing. You get nothing. You lose. Good day sir.
There you have it folks. Murder, the answer for everything.
Your pennies have been in my ass!
If the law says 0.05 is fine then we should hold ourselves to it. If we wanted 0.00 then write the law as such. Why is carrying out the law properly even an issue?
...it is not the world's responsability to bend to their crappy implementation. You tell that mean old straw man! Give him one for me. Your rhetoric aside, you're absolutely right that Microsoft is to blame here. However, the issue is should people have the prudence to test Microsoft's implementation or just blindly assume it works. Considering their track record, certainly you don't think people should give them the benefit of the doubt?Why wouldn't a user of said product have no "vested interest" in its development?
The simple fact is that I LIKED the idea of communism, but it will NEVER work.
I like things how they are now. A capitalistic free market combined with a socialistic market run by the government. Not competing but overlapping. Many things simply work better in dual markets.
Public school for those that can't afford it, private or home school for those that can.
Public libraries for those that can't afford it, private book stores for those that can.
And so on...
We need to define a certain set of bare minimum conditions that all citizens deserve, food, water, shelter, clothing, health care, education, voting, all the basic no-frills that democracy and society in general depends on to keep things working smoothly. Most of these systems are in place already but their goals are misaligned or they're poorly managed.
The typical problem with capitalism in these areas is that there is no incentive to provide the highest quality service. By tying cost to QoS many people will make sacrifices and accept sub-par services because they need to save money. At the same time, the service providers have the incentive to minimize costs as much as possible, using fewer supplies, lowering standards and providing poorer service.
When dealing with luxury items like big screen TVs you want it fast and cheap and minimum working conditions. If it breaks you just buy another fast and cheap replacement. This is ideal for competing markets and ideally the consumer. However it just doesn't work with essential services. You don't want the cheapest, make-do education or health care. You want the best and absolute highest quality. There's not much profit to be made that way. Our current health care system actually rewards the service providers by giving out less health care.
Anyone with doubts simply ask yourself this. When you're getting checked out by a doctor, do you want him worrying about keeping costs down or do you want him worrying about giving you the best possible care?
Of course there's problems with this solution, but they are few and far between. The biggest problem is that when you remove the incentive to perform well or risk going out of business. For example, if you're a mechanic and every car you service is complete destroyed, eventually people will stop coming to you and you will be run out of business. The market has fixed itself. The same doesn't apply for public schools. If the teachers provide poor service there is currently no incentive to do otherwise, other than firing the teacher. Obviously we need some sort of performance-reward system to replace the one we took out when we removed it from the free market.
Nobody is claiming that. Religion is one huge cause of problems. There will still be other causes but we would be better off with fewer problems, yes?
Logic. Check it out.
Of course, what
That's what you get for buying something you secretly hate. Dumbass.
I don't buy that. I would say that many Muslims welcome violence when it comes to those that are a threat to Islam. I'm not sure how many but I doubt it's a tiny fraction. Also, considering that there are around 1.5 billion Muslims, even a tiny fraction is too much.
As far as responsibility goes, just because you didn't push a button or pull a trigger, doesn't mean you're innocent if your religion encourages intolerance. Calling for the death of non-believers is still heavily tied to Islam, even if many self-claimed practitioners ignore it.
Stop apologizing for religion.
It's about time that someone gets angry over our children being subjected to low quality porn. Hopefully these new filters will fix that. Won't somebody think of the children!
That settles it, I will never buy this game again.
Google had two types of videos, download-to-rent and download-to-own. Excuse me for being so naive that I took "own" to mean literally when, in reality, they were rentals of different durations. No, clearly that's not misleading at all.
As for the rest of your drivel. What energy? I'm sitting here at my PC, typing to some egotistical person on Slashdot. Maybe that's a full day's load for you but that doesn't equate to much energy on my part. I know you're just trying to exaggerate things and make it look like you have the upper hand but if you don't have anything interesting to say then don't bother with the "you'll get over it" bullshit. I know I'll get over it. I was over it a before we even started. That type of childishness doesn't hurt my feelings. Your desire to belittle me only tells me that I've hurt your own feelings and you're lashing out. I think that's hilarious.
Back on topic. It doesn't matter if I walked into Google headquarters with my pants around my ankles, wallet in one hand and a bottle of lube in the other. If someone does something wrong, it doesn't matter how much the person deserved it or had it coming. It's still wrong. No amount of insults will change that. It's wrong to sell someone something under the pretense of ownership when that's not what it really is. Now feel free to insult me some more but I wish you would stick to something logical that can actually be measured and not just how awesome you are because you totally pwnd that dude on Slashdot.
You didn't read my original comment where I clearly state that I purchased videos from Google that weren't available anywhere else. Kind of hard to take your business someplace else when that someplace else doesn't even exist. That's ok, I wouldn't want you to bother to read what I actually wrote. It's much more insightful to post knee-jerk comments just to show how much smarter you are than me for not buying DRM'd movies.
Also, my previous comment was sarcastic, meant to highlight the absurdity in blaming the victim. Just because people are too weak or dumb to defend themselves doesn't make what others do to them any less wrong. Talking about what I should have or could have done is irrelevant and detracts from the real issue, Google's failed handling of this DRM fiasco. If you think I'm more important than Google, I'm flattered but I would have to disagree with you. They are at issue, not me.
So in other words, I shouldn't have been wearing a skirt if I didn't want to get raped.