They lose exactly zero. They have exactly the same amount of money whether I download a movie or don't buy it at all. I'm not going to go out and buy the latest new film on DVD. I can't afford to most of the time, and I've better things on which to spend what money I do have. But I might borrow a copy a friend has bought, or maybe my parents or my brother bought it. Or maybe I'll download it and watch it myself. Either way, the industry would have gained no money from me whatsoever, so THEY HAVE LOST EXACTLY NOTHING.
I really don't understand your last sentence in the slightest. They will have lost LESS by setting the price of what they're selling lower? It will still have cost them exactly the same to make whatever price they sell it - for pirated copies, it costs them zero incremental cost.
Not all people who download things are moral-free. With music, for example, many people download music to try it out and then buy it if they think the artist deserves the money - and not buy it if it's not worth the money.
As said above by several people, I think what he intended to say was that there was research done into these areas for one purpose (probably military uses), but later turned out that this research was vital in the design of the iPod.
Funny how much difference leaving out one minor clause of a sentence makes.
I think that if you shove the word "but" in after your bolding, you'll get what he intended to say.
"The government funded research in these areas. They did so for one reason (probably military uses), but it turned out that these technologies were vital in the creation of the iPod and similar players."
As some people have said already: if you don't like the names, use the version number. Breezy, for instance, was 5.10, whilst Hoary was 5.04. Dapper will be 6.06, or possibly 6.05 (I can't remember which month the release is aimed for...)
See, I understood it perfectly... but I sometimes have trouble understanding perfectly normal sentences, so whether I understand it or not means nothing!
I think that in this case, driving and sleeping was probably the SOLE cause of the accident. If you're asleep, the distraction of a phone or any effects of the drugs on reaction time aren't going to make a difference.
In that case, if it's that easy to do, you should be able to write me a step-by-step guide to get audio working perfectly on, say, a thinkpad 390. Go on. I'm waiting.
That's just a guitar plugged into a wireless transmitter. The guitar itself isn't any more wireless than any other. In this article's case, the guitar/controller itself contains the wireless gubbins.
I have an ancient thinkpad 390. The hard drive has been replaced, and the battery is completely dead, but otherwise it works fine.
It literally is a brick. It's rock-solid and has been dropped a couple of times with no damage. It's been sat on, too, by accident. I know several people who've killed their modern laptops by sitting on them, and yet this thing is still fine.
If you want a flimsy pretty laptop, then a thinkpad isn't what you want. If you want something that will take anything you throw at it (or anything you throw it at) then, as the parent said, a Thinkpad is probably the best choice.
How much this has changed with Lenovo making them is another matter entirely...
Slashdot Mirror
They lose exactly zero. They have exactly the same amount of money whether I download a movie or don't buy it at all. I'm not going to go out and buy the latest new film on DVD. I can't afford to most of the time, and I've better things on which to spend what money I do have. But I might borrow a copy a friend has bought, or maybe my parents or my brother bought it. Or maybe I'll download it and watch it myself. Either way, the industry would have gained no money from me whatsoever, so THEY HAVE LOST EXACTLY NOTHING.
I really don't understand your last sentence in the slightest. They will have lost LESS by setting the price of what they're selling lower? It will still have cost them exactly the same to make whatever price they sell it - for pirated copies, it costs them zero incremental cost.
Not all people who download things are moral-free. With music, for example, many people download music to try it out and then buy it if they think the artist deserves the money - and not buy it if it's not worth the money.
You contributed the money; you didn't perform the research. Sorry, no royalties for you!
As said above by several people, I think what he intended to say was that there was research done into these areas for one purpose (probably military uses), but later turned out that this research was vital in the design of the iPod.
Funny how much difference leaving out one minor clause of a sentence makes.
I think that if you shove the word "but" in after your bolding, you'll get what he intended to say.
"The government funded research in these areas. They did so for one reason (probably military uses), but it turned out that these technologies were vital in the creation of the iPod and similar players."
How's that sound?
In standard Bush style, that's what he meant to say but it isn't quite what he said.
I did not say that patents used for what they were designed - allowing the inventor of something new to make a profit from his invention - were bad.
I said that patents for the purpose of protecting yourself from other patent holders are bad.
I may have misunderstood your previous post, but I read your second reason as being the second case I've stated.
And the latter is as bad a reason as the former.
You think everybody everywhere would have downloaded a copy from somewhere, then, if there was no product activation?
Can you explain your reasoning here?
As some people have said already: if you don't like the names, use the version number. Breezy, for instance, was 5.10, whilst Hoary was 5.04. Dapper will be 6.06, or possibly 6.05 (I can't remember which month the release is aimed for...)
See, I understood it perfectly... but I sometimes have trouble understanding perfectly normal sentences, so whether I understand it or not means nothing!
Having the freedom to break the law is an interesting concept.
It's a concept I like, partly.
People kill each other. It's a fact. We could try to discourage them from doing so, but there's no point; let them do it anyway.
Yes, it's not a great analogy, but just because something is the way it is doesn't mean we shouldn't improve it.
And we wouldn't have this amazing source of just-out-of-date hardware for free, either.
I think he meant what he said. "Make it run better on ours WITHOUT making it run worse on theirs."
In other words, differentiating your product make making yours better, rather than making the comptetion's seems worse. Playing fair. More or less.
Possibly. It could simply be tiredness, however; falling sleep from just being tired is quite a large cause of accidents.
I suppose it could even be the result of a very very boring phone call.
Without more information, it's hard to say.
I think that in this case, driving and sleeping was probably the SOLE cause of the accident. If you're asleep, the distraction of a phone or any effects of the drugs on reaction time aren't going to make a difference.
I can't quite see how blaming open source communities for rootkits is a marketing ploy against microsoft...
What makes you think I haven't tried, on and off, for the past... what, twelve or so months?
You seemed to think it was so easy; surely if it was that easy it would have taken as long to write that response.
In that case, if it's that easy to do, you should be able to write me a step-by-step guide to get audio working perfectly on, say, a thinkpad 390. Go on. I'm waiting.
That's just a guitar plugged into a wireless transmitter. The guitar itself isn't any more wireless than any other. In this article's case, the guitar/controller itself contains the wireless gubbins.
Thankfully, we in the UK have a relatively sensible system of second level domains. .net.uk, for example, is ISPs only.
In the UK, amongst all sorts of other sensible restrictions on what can go in the various second level domains, we have .me.uk for individual people.
I have an ancient thinkpad 390. The hard drive has been replaced, and the battery is completely dead, but otherwise it works fine.
It literally is a brick. It's rock-solid and has been dropped a couple of times with no damage. It's been sat on, too, by accident. I know several people who've killed their modern laptops by sitting on them, and yet this thing is still fine.
If you want a flimsy pretty laptop, then a thinkpad isn't what you want. If you want something that will take anything you throw at it (or anything you throw it at) then, as the parent said, a Thinkpad is probably the best choice.
How much this has changed with Lenovo making them is another matter entirely...
Maybe it should just be "Don't do the crime"?
Solves all these problems.