I can count 4 copies of the album in our office (about 30 people), and not one person bought it. So, no matter what people say (I just dl'd the songs to see if I'd like it, I always buy the albums I like..really). I'm going to side with Moby on this one.
I think part of the reason that small towns in North Dakota can get DSL (my parents live 2 miles outside of a town of 800 people, and they could get DSL) is that Senator Byron Dorgan is now a pretty powerful figure on the hill and one of his biggest pushes is to bring broadband access to everyone across the state. In a speech I heard him give he actually compared the importance of rural broadband access to getting telephone access to rural areas at the beginning of the century.
I think we get a lot of help technically and financially to make it possible.
Heh. Trust and good faith? I take it you just have your network wide open to everyone on the internet then? I would imagine you leave your door unlocked when you're not home? I too remember Trust and good faith. Unfortunately, I got to big for a crib
Arg, for *years* I hear slashdotters whine about QuickTIme. (I can't see the Starwars trailer without quicktime, I can't believe it. I hate apple) And now all the sudden linux is to good for Quicktime?
This is happening already, someone found out that if you hold the submit button on the center of the unit for a few seconds, a game of breakout appears that you can play with scoll wheel.
Can you just post something about America being to blame for terrorist acts against ourselves and automatically get a +1 insightful?
Anyway in an attempt to steer this thread back onto track: If you extend this logic far enough, couldn't you make a case for the record industry?
Let me take a shot, since terrorism is so subjective.
Lessee, mp3's allow you to take music without paying for it. If enough people do it, some people in the recording industry could lose their jobs, they fall into deep depression and end up commiting suicide rather than try to rebuild. An innocent life lost. Guess mp3's are terrorism after all.;> Guess they did have a right to tack on that ammendment in an effort to stop this terrorism.;)
(the following is inserted to get +1 insightful)
Well, you know we are imposing sanctions in Iraq, and we are kinda friendly with Isreal, and we're killing innocents in our attack on Afganistan, so really we probably kinda did some of this to ourselves. and uhhh. We should learn the error of our ways, and uh even though I've heard this argument on every post since sept. 11 and I'm beginning to wonder if there isn't just one big communal slashdot brain. I'm going to say it again, cause I'll get +1 insightful.
I've read quite a few comments on how easy it is to right click on a file and use the "Open With" dialog. Hold onto your think geek T-shirts, cause here's a revelation. Two button mice are difficult for novice users to understand!
You wouldn't believe how many people don't ever notice that second button, and moreover, some people don't know what to do with the menus that pop up when they accidently hit the second mouse button.
As much as everyone on Slashdot loves to make fun of it, this was the primary reason that Apple refuses to go beyond the one button mouse. They feel that the resulting confusion isn't worth the extra features that could be incorporated.
So, in my mind this is definately a monopoly act. I'm sure Microsoft spends millions of dollars on usability testing on their OS (don't laugh). They know that novice users will never find that Open with dialog, and probably wouldn't do anything with it even if they did find it, but are they going to change it to make it easier to use? Of course not.
How many times have you seen a novice user stick with just email, a word processor and solitair?
This is hilarious. You really think that even a novice user would/never/ try to do anything more? You think that they would/never/ start exploring their system? You're absolutely right that someone could probably pick up linux instantly if all they ever wanted to do was use mozilla. They could probably figure out to double click the little icon, but 99% of people eventually start to do more with their computer (do their taxes, import digital pics, rip mp3s or god forbid that they have to upgrade a browser or other program.) People always grow beyond what they know. My 55 year old parents even started exploring the contents of their system folder on their Mac after getting familiar with it, adding some new fonts, changing some preferences etc. Linux makes this incredibly hard to do and quite easy to screw up.
As for this story, the computers probably work out pretty well, I'm sure they had someone come in and show them how to use what they needed to get their job done and told them not to screw with anything else. This doesn't prove that linux is easy to use. Any system would be easy to use once you've been shown how to complete your tasks step-by-step. The question is, would they be able to start with what they know now and expand their familiarity over the system without much trouble? That's what makes an operating system easy to use.
If linux really/was/ so easy to use, why would companies base their business models on giving away the operating system and charging solely for tech support ?;>
I'd just like to point out that people that have os 10.0.1 can update to 10.0.3 and just skip the.0.2 update. So really you wouldn't be missing anything if you had waited 6 weeks to push that software update button. You'd be up to date, just like the people that pushed it twice every 3 to 4 weeks.
On the other hand, this probably made the 10.0.3 a longer download than it needed to be, because it included all the.0.2 stuff as well.
So we should stop making word processors because someone might write something that is a copy of something copyrighted?
You're using a bad analogy. It's more along the lines of, "So should a teacher flunk a students term paper because he ripped two chapters out of the illiad and called it his own. This is completely different than how you're viewing it.
This battle has been fought out in court by others and it has been decided its legal to reverse engineer software. It doesn't matter if some group of Nazi's has authorized you.
Apple specifically says you can't do it in it's software liscense when you buy the product. That is what makes it illegal.
Obviously there is a whole lot of history that you are completely blind to.
I'm sure there is. Just like I'm sure alot of people are ignoring and twisting the facts in this to conform to their simplified politics.
I love how the slashdot community completely forgets about anything good that a company does once it does something that's not opensource. Get over it. Apple is in its right to sue, they may not win, but they can try. Is it really that suprising that a company who thinks of their gui as the crown jewel of their company would do anything to protect it?
So, they love their gui, they still open sourced the foundation their operating system was based on, but slashdotters don't care about that right? I mean, there's some big bad company that's trying to stifle all innovation, and we must hate it.
Perhaps if some people would read the article you would realize that part of the problem is that this fighting-for-all-that-is-just-open-source-company reversed engineered apple code, apple specifically says this is a no-no, but they shouldn't have to follow those rules right? They're an open source company! They can do no wrong! Bah.
For your information their is a company called kalidescope that allows you to change the gui on the macintosh. Apple hasn't shut them down. Why? Because they probably didn't do anything that was expressly forbidden by apple like said open-source company.
Gee, a company that is trying to protect their software license. How dare they. Since, it's obvious that the troves of open-source freedom fighters don't actually go read the story, let me point out the things that made apple angry.
The editor enables third parties to "improperly copy Apple's copyrighted software code and graphic files.
Infringing of the Lanham Act that governs trademark law in the U.S.
unauthorized reverse-engineering of its software.
I'm sorry if this comes off as a troll, but sometimes I really can't stand blind faith.
Slashdot Mirror
I can count 4 copies of the album in our office (about 30 people), and not one person bought it. So, no matter what people say (I just dl'd the songs to see if I'd like it, I always buy the albums I like..really). I'm going to side with Moby on this one.
I think we get a lot of help technically and financially to make it possible.
> Definitely worth a look for us truly lazy folks.
or folks who get wrist fatigue/carpal from mice
You should try to port it to newton messagepad. 161.9 mhz processor. ;)
Yeah, that's a great idea. That will really show them it's a good idea to let a minor contribute next time.
Heh. Trust and good faith? I take it you just have your network wide open to everyone on the internet then? I would imagine you leave your door unlocked when you're not home? I too remember Trust and good faith. Unfortunately, I got to big for a crib
Arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrggggggggggggggggg.
(Beats head repeatedly against desk)
The high end is 3k, the low end starts at 1,600. But that's without a superdrive or the GeForce4
1) Hire an editor/writer who has perfected the art of trolling, and set him loose to write articles covering current events.
2) Put banner ads at the top of the page of his story.
3) Watch money roll in as thousands of people post to the troll and make impressions on the banner ad.
> but would we need it?
Arg, for *years* I hear slashdotters whine about QuickTIme. (I can't see the Starwars trailer without quicktime, I can't believe it. I hate apple) And now all the sudden linux is to good for Quicktime?
Yah. and could you imagine a beowolf cluster of these?
This is happening already, someone found out that if you hold the submit button on the center of the unit for a few seconds, a game of breakout appears that you can play with scoll wheel.
Heh. You need to live in Fargo, North Dakota. I'd like to see you say get a bicycle when it's -80 f with the wind chill.
Can you just post something about America being to blame for terrorist acts against ourselves and automatically get a +1 insightful?
Anyway in an attempt to steer this thread back onto track: If you extend this logic far enough, couldn't you make a case for the record industry?
Let me take a shot, since terrorism is so subjective.
Lessee, mp3's allow you to take music without paying for it. If enough people do it, some people in the recording industry could lose their jobs, they fall into deep depression and end up commiting suicide rather than try to rebuild. An innocent life lost. Guess mp3's are terrorism after all.
(the following is inserted to get +1 insightful)
Well, you know we are imposing sanctions in Iraq, and we are kinda friendly with Isreal, and we're killing innocents in our attack on Afganistan, so really we probably kinda did some of this to ourselves. and uhhh. We should learn the error of our ways, and uh even though I've heard this argument on every post since sept. 11 and I'm beginning to wonder if there isn't just one big communal slashdot brain. I'm going to say it again, cause I'll get +1 insightful.
You wouldn't believe how many people don't ever notice that second button, and moreover, some people don't know what to do with the menus that pop up when they accidently hit the second mouse button.
As much as everyone on Slashdot loves to make fun of it, this was the primary reason that Apple refuses to go beyond the one button mouse. They feel that the resulting confusion isn't worth the extra features that could be incorporated.
So, in my mind this is definately a monopoly act. I'm sure Microsoft spends millions of dollars on usability testing on their OS (don't laugh). They know that novice users will never find that Open with dialog, and probably wouldn't do anything with it even if they did find it, but are they going to change it to make it easier to use? Of course not.
Long live the one button mouse.
._-// a l 3 r n 0 n /
This is hilarious. You really think that even a novice user would /never/ try to do anything more? You think that they would /never/ start exploring their system? You're absolutely right that someone could probably pick up linux instantly if all they ever wanted to do was use mozilla. They could probably figure out to double click the little icon, but 99% of people eventually start to do more with their computer (do their taxes, import digital pics, rip mp3s or god forbid that they have to upgrade a browser or other program.) People always grow beyond what they know. My 55 year old parents even started exploring the contents of their system folder on their Mac after getting familiar with it, adding some new fonts, changing some preferences etc. Linux makes this incredibly hard to do and quite easy to screw up.
As for this story, the computers probably work out pretty well, I'm sure they had someone come in and show them how to use what they needed to get their job done and told them not to screw with anything else. This doesn't prove that linux is easy to use. Any system would be easy to use once you've been shown how to complete your tasks step-by-step. The question is, would they be able to start with what they know now and expand their familiarity over the system without much trouble? That's what makes an operating system easy to use.
If linux really /was/ so easy to use, why would companies base their business models on giving away the operating system and charging solely for tech support ? ;>
On the other hand, this probably made the 10.0.3 a longer download than it needed to be, because it included all the .0.2 stuff as well.
You're using a bad analogy. It's more along the lines of, "So should a teacher flunk a students term paper because he ripped two chapters out of the illiad and called it his own. This is completely different than how you're viewing it.
This battle has been fought out in court by others and it has been decided its legal to reverse engineer software. It doesn't matter if some group of Nazi's has authorized you.
Apple specifically says you can't do it in it's software liscense when you buy the product. That is what makes it illegal.
Obviously there is a whole lot of history that you are completely blind to.
I'm sure there is. Just like I'm sure alot of people are ignoring and twisting the facts in this to conform to their simplified politics.
corporations bad. Open source good.
I don't buy it.
Perhaps if some people would read the article you would realize that part of the problem is that this fighting-for-all-that-is-just-open-source-company reversed engineered apple code, apple specifically says this is a no-no, but they shouldn't have to follow those rules right? They're an open source company! They can do no wrong! Bah.
For your information their is a company called kalidescope that allows you to change the gui on the macintosh. Apple hasn't shut them down. Why? Because they probably didn't do anything that was expressly forbidden by apple like said open-source company.
Gee, a company that is trying to protect their software license. How dare they. Since, it's obvious that the troves of open-source freedom fighters don't actually go read the story, let me point out the things that made apple angry.
I'm sorry if this comes off as a troll, but sometimes I really can't stand blind faith.
a l 3 r n 0 n