No kidding. I remember the installation CD for Marathon 2 on PowerPC had a text file called DO NOT EVER READ THIS NO MATTER WHAT ANYONE TELLS YOU. You know what? I read it.;)
Yes, it is very good to expound the virtues of budgeting, especially (I think) to young Americans. However, you must understand that the concept of budgeting is innately obscured when the ownership of an item not well defined. I'm sure you believe that the artist or the record company holds exclusive ownership of a CD, as that's what it says on the paper documents those parties've hard arranged. The problem is, digital content is infinitely duplicable!
If you purchase a car, and it's sitting in your driveway, I would have a very hard time convincing myself that it is also mine. If, however, you zap that car with a ray gun, making an exact copy of it, and offer it to me, it becomes more difficult for me to resist believing I can own it, too, as it is an item separate from yours (though identical in likeness). The fact that you bought it means it's yours, and the fact that you then offered me something derived of it implies that I may take it without informing the builder of the car, because you own the car--you aren't just "leasing" it; you gave money and need never give the car back.
Another example, addressing your budgeting argument: Johnny likes to cook, but he also likes to decorate his house with flowers. If he spends all his money on food to practice his cooking, then he won't have any left to buy flowers from the florist. Perhaps, though, just out his window, in his neighbor's lawn, is a garden full of gorgeous flowers. His neighbor bought the seeds from the florist and tended them until they grew into many pretty specimens. Perhaps Johnny could lean out the window and dig up just one flower, to plant in his own yard, waiting for it to be properly pollinated and then reproduce into his own lush garden. The likelihood of this "perpetration" (as I suspect you'd call it) increases proportionally with the neighbor's acquiescence to Johnny's plundering.
This means that in order for this to stop, one shouldn't be scolding Johnny, but the neighbor, for not respecting the florist's hegemony in dispensing the ability to culture plants.
Music is a cultural force, and the people, not the corporations, own culture. I am not defending ripping off artists, but I am suggesting that you examine your notion of "ownership" of intellectual property. There was a time when it was a magnificent compliment to have one's ideas reproduced in another's work (think classical Greece), and don't act like monetary gain was the motive. Perhaps the difficulty we're having now is that the bands making music today are doing it for entertainment rather than for artistic purposes. The internet is here, and social networking hasn't been, perhaps never can be, documented in its fullest extent; the record companies are no longer necessary. I want to experience music in the social environment of the internet, then electronically send money directly to those who created it. This means that I could download Britney Spears if I wanted, but you know what? I wouldn't pay for it. That awesome obscure metal band, though, that I think understands all I love about heavy metal? I could PayPal them $50, a hell of a lot more than they'd get from a regular CD purchase. Money should be used only to support what one wants to see more of, at least when it comes to art. Record companies fear the transition to such an economic model, but they know that people wouldn't shell out the big bucks for cookie cutter bands and trashy entertainment. Integrity would rule, and the record companies can't capitalize on that, because they work on exploiting the current economic system, that demands money before experiencing the art.
Also, if you don't believe people would spend money like this, zero dollars for some things, and fifty for others, then you haven't found an artist you truly love, and that's sad.
What I haven't seen anyone yet mention is the possibility that these tourniquets could be scanned for. Surely they give off quite a bit of energy, and even if only very short range, a decent scanner with a scalable depth setting could conceivably locate it.
Imagine: Enemy combatants walking through town with a handheld device, till they see a huge cluster behind the wall of a building, just like Hudson's motion tracker in Aliens. This tourniquet could make the wounded into quite noticeable targets.
What are the possibilities of adapting jamming devices already employed to cover up the ultrasonic frequencies? How soon till there're few serviceable airwaves? Especially if this is done short range, it'd only hinder the U.S., as it's creating more frequencies that must be covered up, while the enemy can communicate freely farther away.
Advocates of OSS need to realize that many people will never switch their operating system to Linux or even OS X, and so trying to push Linux will meet much more resistance than saying "here, just install this application that's free and doesn't require you to change everything about how you use your computer."
Have you personally had much luck doing this? In my experience, Joe Sixpack finds the process of installing OpenOffice just about as unattractive as reformatting his hard drive: entirely so. It doesn't matter that you or I think a software change is less of a hassle; it's a subjective matter, and more digital than analog: "yes" or "no," nothing in between.
I definitely think the best way to turn people onto new software is just to show them. Take the mouse for a moment, grab it, install it. I've done this with numerous acquaintances, and it's largely stuck with them, compared to the casual or even enthusiastic advice I've given, which has mostly been ignored.
About the Grandma Test: Audacity fails it. Have you ever used a Cakewalk product? GarageBand? C'mon, Audacity's got nothing on them. It frustratingly offers "Export to MP3" in the File menu, then prompts the user to chase down a.dll to activate the feature. That's awful usability.
I personally got started with Ubuntu, after having used OSS on Windows for years and having been turned off of Linux due to intimidating technical obstacles and overall hideousness. Ubuntu is doing it, getting attention from the marketplace, which rightly expects pretty things. I stare at my monitor almost half the time that I'm awake, if you count my job; you're damn right I want something that looks good!
No, they're not "just like films or books," and that's why we're having this conversation. Games are inherently different from the art forms you mentioned in that games involve at least some degree of active participation on the part of the "user." Sure, some games are almost entirely linear, but failure is still possible, which means the notion of self exists separate from the narrative.
It's a world of difference whether I tacitly witness a character's misstep and resultant hardship or I myself err, causing hardship for the character I represent. It's a degree of separation similar to that which sets second and third person narration styles apart from one another.
This is changeable in a single generation--and keep in mind, the kids on our heels are nerdier than we are, and they may flat out demand a digital standard. As for the economic liberation of a direct-pay system, that necessitates some (re)education, but that, too, is within our grasp. The physical infrastructure for delivery of intellectual works is gone (okay, still watching the net neutrality stuff!): no more retail stores, warehouses, shipping, or--best of all--suits. Just the artist and the consumer, together at last, tied to one another by some zooming electrons.
Also, keep in mind that the artist would be getting about 97% of the payments made directly; depending on the pay scheme with the major labels, an artist could make but a fraction of the old sales figures and still receive the same amount of pay. Now that's a revolution.
When you are small fry you have the choice of signing what the record company offer, or nothing. Sure you can go somewhere else, but that other label is just has harsh.
How can you say "or nothing"? I'm pretty sure that I can record a CD, burn it, and sell it, all without involving any major corporation. Hell, why even burn it? Why not just post it on my own webspace? I'm not sure about Apple distribution agreements, but perhaps you could get it posted on the iTunes Music Store, at minimal cost to you (we've all heard Apple makes about a penny or two profit per song, and most of the rest goes to the label, which in this case would be you).
Or maybe it's time for a whole new economic model. Let's be honest: why do artists want to get signed? They want to do it because it feels like a finish line. Get signed, get money, done. Of course the labels are ruthless, because their job is to tantamount to panhandling: they are trying to take the consumer's money by selling something on good faith. Who knows whether the CD you're about to buy in Tower sucks? You sure as hell can't download it for free to decide for yourself--you must do the honorable thing and take the plunge, because that's what keeps our culturemachine rolling, right?
Let's just consider a different way of doing things. What if I were to post my self-recorded, self-produced CD online, and charge nothing for it? I have a dayjob--I'm not throwing my life out the window or putting myself in financial jeopardy, doing what I love in my free time and sharing it. I could put a PayPal link on my site, and people who really enjoyed my work would pay me. Honestly, I've heard songs that I would pay never to hear again (an insurance policy of some kind). I also own CDs for which I'd've paid the artist upwards of $100, if I had had a way to do it directly.
In our ardently capitalistic market, money is no longer used to promote future growth. Money is a throwaway commodity, and we buy things that are designed not to last. Record companies want their artists to be forgettable--no one's looking to sign the next Beatles, because such a phenomenon has become unthinkable to our market, meaning the bar is low. So how about a system where the consumer and the artist are actively considering the allocation of money toward the future. "I want more of this. Yes. I'll pour money into this, because this guy understands." The artist has to earn my money, rather than the label.
We aren't liberal enough with our money in this culture. Why is it impolite, nay, taboo, to pay someone a quarter for a really funny joke? A dollar? Twenty? We aren't paying for satisfaction any longer, we're paying out of guilt because we don't feel like understanding. We'd rather pay than think.
Maybe I should start putting a PayPal link in my sig. =D
Why would you expect any different, not just from microsoft but from ANY company out to make money? Why make it easier to use your competitors' products?
A compelling reason to do so would be to stress the superiority of one's own product, rather than to rely on ignorance and residual marketshare for profits. Once a market is dominated, torpidity is viable in the shortrun, but not in the long: the hegemony will be destroyed. Take as example AMD's usurpation of Intel's playground. Now, it's too early to say how Apple will handle its dominance in the portable music player market, but if they manage to keep nailing the sweet spot on consumers' demands, they'll hold out against whatever Microsoft and Creative can throw their way.
Comparing Microsoft OS and Linux and saying who's is... [e]ssentially pointless because they live in different universes.
I don't know about you, but I live in the same universe as both Microsoft and Linux: the marketplace. Have you ever heard of Apple's Boot Camp? =)
First, you kick off your enlightening rumination on the detriment of narcissism with "I may be alone in this...." No, you are not alone in that sentiment here, and you know that. You expected a small army of geeks to rally beside you and say, "I agree! You're not alone!" It was intentional self-effacement to garner support for your argument. It was feigned humility. It was freaking narcissistic.
Second, and this is the more important, the increased ease of publication is not a bad thing. Yes, cyberspace is being flooded with a lot of dreck, but so what? As the quality of what's being posted declines (I agree that it is declining), the quality of search improves at a rate at least sufficient to stem the turning of the internet into, well, one big MySpace.
The creation of the internet was indeed a revolution, but it has improved our species's intellectual interfacing. The printing press did this. Just because the monks weren't the only ones pressing books didn't mean all books became crap--in fact, there were more books that weren't Bibles, go figure. Blogging is ultimately just as beneficial to us, if not more so, provided that we (with the help of wonderfully greedy and ambitious search engine corporations) continue to distill the cesspool of the internet.
In Frank Herbert's Dune series, there was a device called the dictatel, which ennabled a person to write merely by thinking. Let's imagine that every person on Earth has one of these devices, the products of which are recorded in a single massive database, searchable by all. What is important to understand is that all the MySpace rants, or their future equivalents, will not pollute the database for your allegedly less narcissistic and less inane purposes: the dreck will sink to the bottom, and a comprehensive search utility will enable instant retrieval of queries as pompously erudite as "principles of thermodynamics in general systems theory" or "notions of pathology in the 20th century."
Let me put this simply: There are still those who do not read Shakespeare. What you need to understand is that, thanks to the internet, more people are reading him.
Why shouldn't I say that? I live in downtown Philadelphia and I buy more than half my tech purchases (which consume the majority of my "disposable income," believe you me) online, most often from Amazon, though certain eBay sellers have been known to treat me well, too. The point is, in an rich urban environment that is absolutely teeming with retail locations, the best deals, selection, and service are available online--in my opinion, of course.
It seems to me that shopping online is the best way to fight your big bad Wal-Mart. Further, Amazon Marketplace and eBay neatly excise Goliath from the picture; I routinely deal with modest entrepreneurs who sell their way to a decent living, independent save for the online infrastructure they use. Alternatives exist, my friend, and damn compelling ones, at that. To paraphase drsquare below (as well as many others), if you don't like it, do not pay for it. Why is that so hard to understand?
I find it disturbing that you can justify the morality an action by citing prior instances of it. By that logic, insider trading and price collusion are okay, DRM is okay, and the oppression of minorities is just great. You also believe that there are humans who need to be killed. Sorry, I won't join you in that "headspace."
Should the documents from the Third Reich, former Communist governments, and other dictators also be ignored?
First, thank you for supporting Godwin's Law. I find it grievously underattested on these boards, so that you've come to the rescue there is much appreciated. My previous post in no way states that Iraqi documents are not important and should be ignored. It does, however, question whether the information presented to the public by the US Military really accomplishes anything other than the encouragement of blind patriotism. Judging just by your post, it doesn't. This "war on terror" is certainly a PR stunt, and to see it as anything else would probably mean one is afraid of the truth, as you put it.
Isn't more information better?
Absolutely. So why aren't you asking why the all documents on that goverment portal are dated 2003, save one in 2004? I, too, would like some more information.
to remind all of us that absolute power corrupts absolutly
Not at all, my friend. I'll leave you with a quote from George Bernard Shaw: Power does not corrupt men; fools, however, if they get into a position of power, corrupt power.
This is blatant PR on behalf of the military. FTFA:
The US Government has made no determination regarding the authenticity of the documents, validity or factual accuracy of the information contained therein, or the quality of any translations, when available.
Wiki-style scholarship has been criticized sufficiently on/., so I needn't address the flaw in methodology. But the problem is that this is no genuine attempt at intelligence, it's merely a showcase for unflattering (and, as the disclaimer attests, possibly plain false) documents and is meant to promote American nationalism. The very first document on the page is about how the bad-man Qusai Hussein ordered prisoners to be used as human shields during the US invasion. The document is more than two years old! Do you really believe this is an example of the cutting edge of our military's translation endeavor? (Okay, I walked right into the incompetence joke on that one.) Perhaps TFA sums it up best:
Jonathan Singer, weekend editor of the liberal site MyDD.com, was equally dismissive. ''The Hussein documents are not of great interest to me," said Singer, ''for the simple reason that they simply reinforce the notion that the Bush administration cherry picks intelligence to suit their needs."
It's an interesting thought, certainly. Check this out: http://www.songbirdnest.com/ It has a much better chance of eclipsing the stereotypical desktop experience with its multimedia capabilities than iTunes does.
It is, by definition, impossible for anything to lose more than 100% of it's value.
That little bit of ineptitude is nowhere in the article; so the blame passes to the poster.
It is an ridiculous [sic] statement made by an English illiterate. It is impossible for something to lose more than 100% of it is value, because that just doesn't make sense.
Since these systems have no advantage whatsoever over non-anonymous systems like Bittorrent except when being used to distribute material illegally, it will be easy to get such a change to the law made.
That's like saying only criminals have things to hide, therefore good citizens will not mind a compulsory search and seizure. "You want a warrant? What are you, a terrorist?" We have a right not to show the government everything we do. That doesn't make it illegal.
Hey, at least we got buttsex back from the Republicans.
Answers.com did not pay the Wikimedia Foundation to get the tool placed on Wikipedia.
The Foundation will receive a unspecified percentage of all profits Answers.com gain from advertising using the tool.
I wonder if many people would be fooled by that. "Oh no, officer, I didn't pay him for drugs, I only told him that if he gave me drugs, I'd pay him."
Re:Which way is it turning
on
Deep in the Core
·
· Score: 2, Informative
But basically, for every object that can be orbited you can figure out a minimum sustainable orbit versus one that is catastrophic.
Definitely, good post. I believe you refer to escape velocity, which is represented by the equation: escape velocity = sqrt(2GM/r) where G is the gravitational constant, M is the mass of the the object which the potentially escaping object orbits, and r is the distance between the center of mass in the body being orbited and the point at which escape velocity is calculated (at different points in the orbit, the necessary velocity would fluctuate). Orbits in which the object's velocity is less than escape velocity are said to be bound, and those in which it exceedes it are said to be unbound. At that point, the path of the escaping body is no longer elliptical, but rather hyperbolic.
The "plot" in a Tarentino movie is a lot of people trying to kill each other. The "dialogue" is these people making lame witicisms between fight scenes. Compare away!
Right! I'd suppose Google's take on quality is rather similar to one used by a certain Destroyer; perhaps they wish to make the GooglePlex into a Galt's Gulch of sorts?
Excuse the brazenly elitest reference, but this is Slashdot. =)
If smaller types could accomplish the mission of bigger ones, the big ones wouldn't be up there
Yes, inasmuch as my pocket calculator can't crunch numbers as well as (or better than) a 1950s leviathan computer. If we'd built a space station back then, and thrown such a contraption on board (try not to think of HAL), would you also find it ridiculous that astronauts take laptops, or other portable electronic devices, as there's already a bigger device on board, and bigger equals better?
I do hope I haven't started a "does size matter?" debate. =)
Not only that, but "virii" doesn't work, either. I believe the GP meant to say "viri," subscribing to the common misconception that all words ending in -us are pluralized with an "I" (like "octopi" and "cacti"). But the rule is hardly so general; wouldn't "bus" turn to "bi" and not "buses"? The proper plural of "virus" is "viruses," as the method for pluralization is determinded by declension of the Latin root. "Virus" should not be treated as "radius" (from whose pluralization I believe the GP rifled the extraneous "I")--I believe it's the gender of the word (in Latin) that distinguishes them from one another.
Slashdot Mirror
No kidding. I remember the installation CD for Marathon 2 on PowerPC had a text file called DO NOT EVER READ THIS NO MATTER WHAT ANYONE TELLS YOU. You know what? I read it. ;)
Yes, it is very good to expound the virtues of budgeting, especially (I think) to young Americans. However, you must understand that the concept of budgeting is innately obscured when the ownership of an item not well defined. I'm sure you believe that the artist or the record company holds exclusive ownership of a CD, as that's what it says on the paper documents those parties've hard arranged. The problem is, digital content is infinitely duplicable!
If you purchase a car, and it's sitting in your driveway, I would have a very hard time convincing myself that it is also mine. If, however, you zap that car with a ray gun, making an exact copy of it, and offer it to me, it becomes more difficult for me to resist believing I can own it, too, as it is an item separate from yours (though identical in likeness). The fact that you bought it means it's yours, and the fact that you then offered me something derived of it implies that I may take it without informing the builder of the car, because you own the car--you aren't just "leasing" it; you gave money and need never give the car back.
Another example, addressing your budgeting argument: Johnny likes to cook, but he also likes to decorate his house with flowers. If he spends all his money on food to practice his cooking, then he won't have any left to buy flowers from the florist. Perhaps, though, just out his window, in his neighbor's lawn, is a garden full of gorgeous flowers. His neighbor bought the seeds from the florist and tended them until they grew into many pretty specimens. Perhaps Johnny could lean out the window and dig up just one flower, to plant in his own yard, waiting for it to be properly pollinated and then reproduce into his own lush garden. The likelihood of this "perpetration" (as I suspect you'd call it) increases proportionally with the neighbor's acquiescence to Johnny's plundering.
This means that in order for this to stop, one shouldn't be scolding Johnny, but the neighbor, for not respecting the florist's hegemony in dispensing the ability to culture plants.
Music is a cultural force, and the people, not the corporations, own culture. I am not defending ripping off artists, but I am suggesting that you examine your notion of "ownership" of intellectual property. There was a time when it was a magnificent compliment to have one's ideas reproduced in another's work (think classical Greece), and don't act like monetary gain was the motive. Perhaps the difficulty we're having now is that the bands making music today are doing it for entertainment rather than for artistic purposes. The internet is here, and social networking hasn't been, perhaps never can be, documented in its fullest extent; the record companies are no longer necessary. I want to experience music in the social environment of the internet, then electronically send money directly to those who created it. This means that I could download Britney Spears if I wanted, but you know what? I wouldn't pay for it. That awesome obscure metal band, though, that I think understands all I love about heavy metal? I could PayPal them $50, a hell of a lot more than they'd get from a regular CD purchase. Money should be used only to support what one wants to see more of, at least when it comes to art. Record companies fear the transition to such an economic model, but they know that people wouldn't shell out the big bucks for cookie cutter bands and trashy entertainment. Integrity would rule, and the record companies can't capitalize on that, because they work on exploiting the current economic system, that demands money before experiencing the art.
Also, if you don't believe people would spend money like this, zero dollars for some things, and fifty for others, then you haven't found an artist you truly love, and that's sad.
Just so you know, I was able to GUESS your sig without even scrolling down.
What I haven't seen anyone yet mention is the possibility that these tourniquets could be scanned for. Surely they give off quite a bit of energy, and even if only very short range, a decent scanner with a scalable depth setting could conceivably locate it.
Imagine: Enemy combatants walking through town with a handheld device, till they see a huge cluster behind the wall of a building, just like Hudson's motion tracker in Aliens. This tourniquet could make the wounded into quite noticeable targets.
What are the possibilities of adapting jamming devices already employed to cover up the ultrasonic frequencies? How soon till there're few serviceable airwaves? Especially if this is done short range, it'd only hinder the U.S., as it's creating more frequencies that must be covered up, while the enemy can communicate freely farther away.
Advocates of OSS need to realize that many people will never switch their operating system to Linux or even OS X, and so trying to push Linux will meet much more resistance than saying "here, just install this application that's free and doesn't require you to change everything about how you use your computer."
.dll to activate the feature. That's awful usability.
Have you personally had much luck doing this? In my experience, Joe Sixpack finds the process of installing OpenOffice just about as unattractive as reformatting his hard drive: entirely so. It doesn't matter that you or I think a software change is less of a hassle; it's a subjective matter, and more digital than analog: "yes" or "no," nothing in between.
I definitely think the best way to turn people onto new software is just to show them. Take the mouse for a moment, grab it, install it. I've done this with numerous acquaintances, and it's largely stuck with them, compared to the casual or even enthusiastic advice I've given, which has mostly been ignored.
About the Grandma Test: Audacity fails it. Have you ever used a Cakewalk product? GarageBand? C'mon, Audacity's got nothing on them. It frustratingly offers "Export to MP3" in the File menu, then prompts the user to chase down a
I personally got started with Ubuntu, after having used OSS on Windows for years and having been turned off of Linux due to intimidating technical obstacles and overall hideousness. Ubuntu is doing it, getting attention from the marketplace, which rightly expects pretty things. I stare at my monitor almost half the time that I'm awake, if you count my job; you're damn right I want something that looks good!
Games are an art form just like films or books.
No, they're not "just like films or books," and that's why we're having this conversation. Games are inherently different from the art forms you mentioned in that games involve at least some degree of active participation on the part of the "user." Sure, some games are almost entirely linear, but failure is still possible, which means the notion of self exists separate from the narrative.
It's a world of difference whether I tacitly witness a character's misstep and resultant hardship or I myself err, causing hardship for the character I represent. It's a degree of separation similar to that which sets second and third person narration styles apart from one another.
This is changeable in a single generation--and keep in mind, the kids on our heels are nerdier than we are, and they may flat out demand a digital standard. As for the economic liberation of a direct-pay system, that necessitates some (re)education, but that, too, is within our grasp. The physical infrastructure for delivery of intellectual works is gone (okay, still watching the net neutrality stuff!): no more retail stores, warehouses, shipping, or--best of all--suits. Just the artist and the consumer, together at last, tied to one another by some zooming electrons.
Also, keep in mind that the artist would be getting about 97% of the payments made directly; depending on the pay scheme with the major labels, an artist could make but a fraction of the old sales figures and still receive the same amount of pay. Now that's a revolution.
When you are small fry you have the choice of signing what the record company offer, or nothing. Sure you can go somewhere else, but that other label is just has harsh.
How can you say "or nothing"? I'm pretty sure that I can record a CD, burn it, and sell it, all without involving any major corporation. Hell, why even burn it? Why not just post it on my own webspace? I'm not sure about Apple distribution agreements, but perhaps you could get it posted on the iTunes Music Store, at minimal cost to you (we've all heard Apple makes about a penny or two profit per song, and most of the rest goes to the label, which in this case would be you).
Or maybe it's time for a whole new economic model. Let's be honest: why do artists want to get signed? They want to do it because it feels like a finish line. Get signed, get money, done. Of course the labels are ruthless, because their job is to tantamount to panhandling: they are trying to take the consumer's money by selling something on good faith. Who knows whether the CD you're about to buy in Tower sucks? You sure as hell can't download it for free to decide for yourself--you must do the honorable thing and take the plunge, because that's what keeps our culturemachine rolling, right?
Let's just consider a different way of doing things. What if I were to post my self-recorded, self-produced CD online, and charge nothing for it? I have a dayjob--I'm not throwing my life out the window or putting myself in financial jeopardy, doing what I love in my free time and sharing it. I could put a PayPal link on my site, and people who really enjoyed my work would pay me. Honestly, I've heard songs that I would pay never to hear again (an insurance policy of some kind). I also own CDs for which I'd've paid the artist upwards of $100, if I had had a way to do it directly.
In our ardently capitalistic market, money is no longer used to promote future growth. Money is a throwaway commodity, and we buy things that are designed not to last. Record companies want their artists to be forgettable--no one's looking to sign the next Beatles, because such a phenomenon has become unthinkable to our market, meaning the bar is low. So how about a system where the consumer and the artist are actively considering the allocation of money toward the future. "I want more of this. Yes. I'll pour money into this, because this guy understands." The artist has to earn my money, rather than the label.
We aren't liberal enough with our money in this culture. Why is it impolite, nay, taboo, to pay someone a quarter for a really funny joke? A dollar? Twenty? We aren't paying for satisfaction any longer, we're paying out of guilt because we don't feel like understanding. We'd rather pay than think.
Maybe I should start putting a PayPal link in my sig. =D
Why would you expect any different, not just from microsoft but from ANY company out to make money? Why make it easier to use your competitors' products?
... [e]ssentially pointless because they live in different universes.
A compelling reason to do so would be to stress the superiority of one's own product, rather than to rely on ignorance and residual marketshare for profits. Once a market is dominated, torpidity is viable in the shortrun, but not in the long: the hegemony will be destroyed. Take as example AMD's usurpation of Intel's playground. Now, it's too early to say how Apple will handle its dominance in the portable music player market, but if they manage to keep nailing the sweet spot on consumers' demands, they'll hold out against whatever Microsoft and Creative can throw their way.
Comparing Microsoft OS and Linux and saying who's is
I don't know about you, but I live in the same universe as both Microsoft and Linux: the marketplace. Have you ever heard of Apple's Boot Camp? =)
I have (only!) two problems with your post.
First, you kick off your enlightening rumination on the detriment of narcissism with "I may be alone in this...." No, you are not alone in that sentiment here, and you know that. You expected a small army of geeks to rally beside you and say, "I agree! You're not alone!" It was intentional self-effacement to garner support for your argument. It was feigned humility. It was freaking narcissistic.
Second, and this is the more important, the increased ease of publication is not a bad thing. Yes, cyberspace is being flooded with a lot of dreck, but so what? As the quality of what's being posted declines (I agree that it is declining), the quality of search improves at a rate at least sufficient to stem the turning of the internet into, well, one big MySpace.
The creation of the internet was indeed a revolution, but it has improved our species's intellectual interfacing. The printing press did this. Just because the monks weren't the only ones pressing books didn't mean all books became crap--in fact, there were more books that weren't Bibles, go figure. Blogging is ultimately just as beneficial to us, if not more so, provided that we (with the help of wonderfully greedy and ambitious search engine corporations) continue to distill the cesspool of the internet.
In Frank Herbert's Dune series, there was a device called the dictatel, which ennabled a person to write merely by thinking. Let's imagine that every person on Earth has one of these devices, the products of which are recorded in a single massive database, searchable by all. What is important to understand is that all the MySpace rants, or their future equivalents, will not pollute the database for your allegedly less narcissistic and less inane purposes: the dreck will sink to the bottom, and a comprehensive search utility will enable instant retrieval of queries as pompously erudite as "principles of thermodynamics in general systems theory" or "notions of pathology in the 20th century."
Let me put this simply: There are still those who do not read Shakespeare. What you need to understand is that, thanks to the internet, more people are reading him.
And don't say "Buy everything online".
Why shouldn't I say that? I live in downtown Philadelphia and I buy more than half my tech purchases (which consume the majority of my "disposable income," believe you me) online, most often from Amazon, though certain eBay sellers have been known to treat me well, too. The point is, in an rich urban environment that is absolutely teeming with retail locations, the best deals, selection, and service are available online--in my opinion, of course.
It seems to me that shopping online is the best way to fight your big bad Wal-Mart. Further, Amazon Marketplace and eBay neatly excise Goliath from the picture; I routinely deal with modest entrepreneurs who sell their way to a decent living, independent save for the online infrastructure they use. Alternatives exist, my friend, and damn compelling ones, at that. To paraphase drsquare below (as well as many others), if you don't like it, do not pay for it. Why is that so hard to understand?
I find it disturbing that you can justify the morality an action by citing prior instances of it. By that logic, insider trading and price collusion are okay, DRM is okay, and the oppression of minorities is just great. You also believe that there are humans who need to be killed. Sorry, I won't join you in that "headspace."
Should the documents from the Third Reich, former Communist governments, and other dictators also be ignored?
First, thank you for supporting Godwin's Law. I find it grievously underattested on these boards, so that you've come to the rescue there is much appreciated. My previous post in no way states that Iraqi documents are not important and should be ignored. It does, however, question whether the information presented to the public by the US Military really accomplishes anything other than the encouragement of blind patriotism. Judging just by your post, it doesn't. This "war on terror" is certainly a PR stunt, and to see it as anything else would probably mean one is afraid of the truth, as you put it.
Isn't more information better?
Absolutely. So why aren't you asking why the all documents on that goverment portal are dated 2003, save one in 2004? I, too, would like some more information.
to remind all of us that absolute power corrupts absolutly
Not at all, my friend. I'll leave you with a quote from George Bernard Shaw: Power does not corrupt men; fools, however, if they get into a position of power, corrupt power.
This is blatant PR on behalf of the military. FTFA:
/., so I needn't address the flaw in methodology. But the problem is that this is no genuine attempt at intelligence, it's merely a showcase for unflattering (and, as the disclaimer attests, possibly plain false) documents and is meant to promote American nationalism. The very first document on the page is about how the bad-man Qusai Hussein ordered prisoners to be used as human shields during the US invasion. The document is more than two years old! Do you really believe this is an example of the cutting edge of our military's translation endeavor? (Okay, I walked right into the incompetence joke on that one.) Perhaps TFA sums it up best:
The US Government has made no determination regarding the authenticity of the documents, validity or factual accuracy of the information contained therein, or the quality of any translations, when available.
Wiki-style scholarship has been criticized sufficiently on
Jonathan Singer, weekend editor of the liberal site MyDD.com, was equally dismissive. ''The Hussein documents are not of great interest to me," said Singer, ''for the simple reason that they simply reinforce the notion that the Bush administration cherry picks intelligence to suit their needs."
It's an interesting thought, certainly. Check this out: http://www.songbirdnest.com/ It has a much better chance of eclipsing the stereotypical desktop experience with its multimedia capabilities than iTunes does.
It is, by definition, impossible for anything to lose more than 100% of it's value.
That little bit of ineptitude is nowhere in the article; so the blame passes to the poster.
It is an ridiculous [sic] statement made by an English illiterate. It is impossible for something to lose more than 100% of it is value, because that just doesn't make sense.
If you're going to be a dick, watch your ass.
I don't think just ex-google employees will be the ones telling their kids/grandkids that. Just think about all the porn stars.
Sure, provided they don't all have their reproductive systems rotted out from disease. =)
Since these systems have no advantage whatsoever over non-anonymous systems like Bittorrent except when being used to distribute material illegally, it will be easy to get such a change to the law made.
That's like saying only criminals have things to hide, therefore good citizens will not mind a compulsory search and seizure. "You want a warrant? What are you, a terrorist?" We have a right not to show the government everything we do. That doesn't make it illegal.
Hey, at least we got buttsex back from the Republicans.
I wonder if many people would be fooled by that. "Oh no, officer, I didn't pay him for drugs, I only told him that if he gave me drugs, I'd pay him."
But basically, for every object that can be orbited you can figure out a minimum sustainable orbit versus one that is catastrophic.
Definitely, good post. I believe you refer to escape velocity, which is represented by the equation: escape velocity = sqrt(2GM/r) where G is the gravitational constant, M is the mass of the the object which the potentially escaping object orbits, and r is the distance between the center of mass in the body being orbited and the point at which escape velocity is calculated (at different points in the orbit, the necessary velocity would fluctuate). Orbits in which the object's velocity is less than escape velocity are said to be bound, and those in which it exceedes it are said to be unbound. At that point, the path of the escaping body is no longer elliptical, but rather hyperbolic.
More information at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escape_velocity
To name rocks, I mean? Ones that are smaller than, say, a city block? Are people just bored or what?
Yeah, kinda like how those scientists name insects and stuff. Or particles smallers than the atom, smaller than the nucleus, even. What's with that?
It's called science. Piece by piece, scientists have figured out everything we know about the natural world.
The "plot" in a Tarentino movie is a lot of people trying to kill each other. The "dialogue" is these people making lame witicisms between fight scenes. Compare away!
;)
So... he's like Shakespeare?
Right! I'd suppose Google's take on quality is rather similar to one used by a certain Destroyer; perhaps they wish to make the GooglePlex into a Galt's Gulch of sorts?
Excuse the brazenly elitest reference, but this is Slashdot. =)
If smaller types could accomplish the mission of bigger ones, the big ones wouldn't be up there
Yes, inasmuch as my pocket calculator can't crunch numbers as well as (or better than) a 1950s leviathan computer. If we'd built a space station back then, and thrown such a contraption on board (try not to think of HAL), would you also find it ridiculous that astronauts take laptops, or other portable electronic devices, as there's already a bigger device on board, and bigger equals better?
I do hope I haven't started a "does size matter?" debate. =)
Not only that, but "virii" doesn't work, either. I believe the GP meant to say "viri," subscribing to the common misconception that all words ending in -us are pluralized with an "I" (like "octopi" and "cacti"). But the rule is hardly so general; wouldn't "bus" turn to "bi" and not "buses"? The proper plural of "virus" is "viruses," as the method for pluralization is determinded by declension of the Latin root. "Virus" should not be treated as "radius" (from whose pluralization I believe the GP rifled the extraneous "I")--I believe it's the gender of the word (in Latin) that distinguishes them from one another.