Apart from the store and the marketing, this device could do it all (haven't seen it, but it COULD). Allright, these two are the most important. Even more important is the name. I haven't heard of 'Neuros' (or whatever, sounds neurotic) before, but almost everyone in the target area have heard of Apple before.
This isn't going to make it. But hell, it's a nice geek toy.
It is perfectly feasible to "believe" in evolution AND "believe" in -a- God at the same time. Evolution does not rule out the existence of a higher being (who, for example, initiated and steered evolution; think about error-correction and speeding things up against the laws of chaos (entropy)) not do most religious books / phrases rule out evolution.
I really, REALLY think any discussion about Evolution vs. Intelligent Design vs (biblical) Creationism (the latter two being two distinguishable theories) should be on a pure scientific basis, based on facts. In my personal "believe" I put ID and evolution on the same level, with biblical creationism far below. But I REALLY hate it when the scientific debate turns into a religious flamewar.
What interests me (sociologically) is that in this thread any form of mentioning ID or creationism results in replies which indicate that a LOT of people have an almost religious believe in evolution. Some of them are almost as if the writer is scared for loosing his / her groundpillar for his / her worldview. What bothers me more is the hint of total disrespect towards religious persons who dare to have another worldview.
again: both are theories, both are not provable (since we do not know the variables). Both have a different outcome. Period.
The evo-zealots who try to scrutinize ID are as much "religional" as their ID-counterparts.
I like to believe neither of them, and support both. Science has nothing to do with backing a theory as "the Truth (TM)". ID may not be the truth, Evolution may not be the truth. You seem to have to "believe" one of them these days, but I refuse to do that.
You might see me backing Evolution against an ID-zealot or the other way around.
but IMHO, that's still a/. problem. I don't really care about my karma (probably since I've noticed nothing important about it) but if it's that important, why should funny posts not be rewarded?
This indeed was funny, worthy of at least 5 point. but insightful?!? Who, dear God, are those people that consider the Maya and the Internet closely enough related to mod this up insightful...
IBM was the big bad guy for a long time. It took ten to fiveteen years, but they are (after Apple and Google) the most Slashdot-cuddled sweet fluffy company in existence. At least, according to/. and its followers (pun slightly intended).
if (I repeat with scepticism: IF) Microsoft is going to change it's ways (for example, because Google does to them as they did to IBM), the crowd will eventually love them. After ten to fiveteen years.
AFAIK (IANAL) a Copyright license (which is what we're talking about here) is not a sales contract. A copyrighted program may only be used, distributed and modified if the copyright holder agrees so. EULA's or other licenses take care of this.
The real point with these licenses is that they often contains additional terms which falls outside of the scope of copyright licenses. Those terms should have been in the sales contract and as such, are not enforcable. Terms like "you may use one single copy of this product" are binding and not to be overruled.
The whole "I didn't agree before I bought it" thing which appears on/. from time to time is BS. I didn't agree to the copyright license of the book I'm ready, yet I am bound by its existance.
Whoah there, FreeDOS is NOT a curiosity for people like me who try to get some new live in other peoples Win98-boxen. Having said that, when 100% compatibility with NT 4.0 is reached, the step to NT 5.0 isn't that hard anymore. At least not when another project (wine) is looking at the recent API. Sure, it'll take time.
No, but there have been reports of the beginnings of a NetBSD ports...
Seriously though, when wine is 100% compatible with Windows, it should be able to run coLinux AFAICS... (then use X-Cygwin as X11-server, and compile QT and KDE for coLinux... w00t!)
Apple didn't have to give anything back to *BSD (the nature of the license). They did. Maybe they had to give something back to KHTML / Konqueror. They did and did more.
Saving the world - Impossible, waste of time Curing cancer - I do not have any significant knowledge to do that feeding the poor - I'm poor, and feeding myself
Looks like there's more than enough time to destroy SCO!
True enough, but there are a BUNCH of companies who came into existance only to file patents, and get royalties. SCO is just an example of a company that shifted focus.
Instead of whining about MySQL AB having something to do with SCO (in which SCO actually seems to look to product-based bussiness again) we should really look at how the crap around Software Patents is evolving.
Microsoft even has a focus on filing as many patents as it can. What was it again, 300 a day?
your posts parent was referring to webbased blogs. In those circumstances, sqlite performs VERY good. I fail to see why GRANT and REVOKE are necessary for those lightweight web-applications
I recently build a webshop. I used MySQL for the main article databases and sqlite for the shopping carts and ordering information. This works very well and very fast, even on our slightly underpowered webserver.
There is, actually. It's called "off-line browsing" and it has been a feature in Internet Explorer since ages.
Seriously though, I fail to see why certain typed data into a web-form would be lost when the connection goes down. On the other hand, if Google or some other innovative company is releasing a web-based interface to Office applications, it will be server-client selfhosted for the enterprise. There are far too many companies that just refuse to have their critical documents stored on the other side of the world. Google is already offering custom, localhosted, search-servers.
They scare me a heck of a lot more, because they are the very CAUSE of suicide bombers IMHO.
Seen the attitude on Arabs (burqa jokes, stoning women, etcetcetc) in this topic? Pretty damn easy from your safe seat behind the screen, right guys? (last comment not directed to parent)
Slashdot Mirror
Apart from the store and the marketing, this device could do it all (haven't seen it, but it COULD). Allright, these two are the most important. Even more important is the name. I haven't heard of 'Neuros' (or whatever, sounds neurotic) before, but almost everyone in the target area have heard of Apple before.
This isn't going to make it. But hell, it's a nice geek toy.
It is perfectly feasible to "believe" in evolution AND "believe" in -a- God at the same time. Evolution does not rule out the existence of a higher being (who, for example, initiated and steered evolution; think about error-correction and speeding things up against the laws of chaos (entropy)) not do most religious books / phrases rule out evolution.
I really, REALLY think any discussion about Evolution vs. Intelligent Design vs (biblical) Creationism (the latter two being two distinguishable theories) should be on a pure scientific basis, based on facts. In my personal "believe" I put ID and evolution on the same level, with biblical creationism far below. But I REALLY hate it when the scientific debate turns into a religious flamewar.
What interests me (sociologically) is that in this thread any form of mentioning ID or creationism results in replies which indicate that a LOT of people have an almost religious believe in evolution. Some of them are almost as if the writer is scared for loosing his / her groundpillar for his / her worldview. What bothers me more is the hint of total disrespect towards religious persons who dare to have another worldview.
and so is evolution, oftentimes.
again: both are theories, both are not provable (since we do not know the variables). Both have a different outcome. Period.
The evo-zealots who try to scrutinize ID are as much "religional" as their ID-counterparts.
I like to believe neither of them, and support both. Science has nothing to do with backing a theory as "the Truth (TM)". ID may not be the truth, Evolution may not be the truth. You seem to have to "believe" one of them these days, but I refuse to do that.
You might see me backing Evolution against an ID-zealot or the other way around.
name-calling. nice.
both are theories, both have zealots. Everyone will claim this. No-one will ever know.
riiight, that clears up a lot!
;)
very well then, I won't mess with the Powers that Be, and will look into my karma. I don't think I'll change what I post though
allright, didn't know that :)
/. problem. I don't really care about my karma (probably since I've noticed nothing important about it) but if it's that important, why should funny posts not be rewarded?
but IMHO, that's still a
oh well, flamebait for sure...
40% funny, 60% insightful
/.
This can only happen on
This indeed was funny, worthy of at least 5 point. but insightful?!? Who, dear God, are those people that consider the Maya and the Internet closely enough related to mod this up insightful...
quite a lot actually...
almost looks like it's /.-ted too... and I'm not behind a firewall.
nope... it's /.-ted...
IBM was the big bad guy for a long time. It took ten to fiveteen years, but they are (after Apple and Google) the most Slashdot-cuddled sweet fluffy company in existence. At least, according to /. and its followers (pun slightly intended).
if (I repeat with scepticism: IF) Microsoft is going to change it's ways (for example, because Google does to them as they did to IBM), the crowd will eventually love them. After ten to fiveteen years.
Real news from NASA!
AFAIK (IANAL) a Copyright license (which is what we're talking about here) is not a sales contract. A copyrighted program may only be used, distributed and modified if the copyright holder agrees so. EULA's or other licenses take care of this.
/. from time to time is BS. I didn't agree to the copyright license of the book I'm ready, yet I am bound by its existance.
The real point with these licenses is that they often contains additional terms which falls outside of the scope of copyright licenses. Those terms should have been in the sales contract and as such, are not enforcable. Terms like "you may use one single copy of this product" are binding and not to be overruled.
The whole "I didn't agree before I bought it" thing which appears on
I have a wife and read /. on a daily basis! (allright, that's because work is so boring, but hey).
Whoah there, FreeDOS is NOT a curiosity for people like me who try to get some new live in other peoples Win98-boxen. Having said that, when 100% compatibility with NT 4.0 is reached, the step to NT 5.0 isn't that hard anymore. At least not when another project (wine) is looking at the recent API. Sure, it'll take time.
yeah, it struck me that they did reach 100% compatibility with the feel of the OS long before there were talks about beta-releases...
No, but there have been reports of the beginnings of a NetBSD ports...
Seriously though, when wine is 100% compatible with Windows, it should be able to run coLinux AFAICS... (then use X-Cygwin as X11-server, and compile QT and KDE for coLinux... w00t!)
both only gave back what they legallly had to
Apple didn't have to give anything back to *BSD (the nature of the license). They did. Maybe they had to give something back to KHTML / Konqueror. They did and did more.
I certainly do not hope that the OSI's requirement for a license is 100% compatibility with the GPL?!?
Saving the world - Impossible, waste of time
Curing cancer - I do not have any significant knowledge to do that
feeding the poor - I'm poor, and feeding myself
Looks like there's more than enough time to destroy SCO!
True enough, but there are a BUNCH of companies who came into existance only to file patents, and get royalties. SCO is just an example of a company that shifted focus.
Instead of whining about MySQL AB having something to do with SCO (in which SCO actually seems to look to product-based bussiness again) we should really look at how the crap around Software Patents is evolving.
Microsoft even has a focus on filing as many patents as it can. What was it again, 300 a day?
your posts parent was referring to webbased blogs. In those circumstances, sqlite performs VERY good. I fail to see why GRANT and REVOKE are necessary for those lightweight web-applications
I recently build a webshop. I used MySQL for the main article databases and sqlite for the shopping carts and ordering information. This works very well and very fast, even on our slightly underpowered webserver.
there is no such analog for Internet power
There is, actually. It's called "off-line browsing" and it has been a feature in Internet Explorer since ages.
Seriously though, I fail to see why certain typed data into a web-form would be lost when the connection goes down. On the other hand, if Google or some other innovative company is releasing a web-based interface to Office applications, it will be server-client selfhosted for the enterprise. There are far too many companies that just refuse to have their critical documents stored on the other side of the world. Google is already offering custom, localhosted, search-servers.
OR I am not American (troll me down!)
They scare me a heck of a lot more, because they are the very CAUSE of suicide bombers IMHO.
Seen the attitude on Arabs (burqa jokes, stoning women, etcetcetc) in this topic? Pretty damn easy from your safe seat behind the screen, right guys? (last comment not directed to parent)