I don't understand this logic. Why would more people buy a Macintosh just because it has a different CPU in it? I understand that there exists the possibility to dual-boot Windows once someone figures out how, but what does this mean to the average consumer?
Whether it has an intel in it or not, it's still a Macintosh running MacOS, so why would the average user want it more?
I'd agree with you on the account of my personal collection, but the RIAA will not permit me to make a statement without incurring huge financial penalties....Should've AC'd this one.
I've had ringtones that I purchased and didn't come through and that's only $3 (but I was still rightfully irritated I still got charged). Won't it be great when you buy your 80 dollar ticket to see the band of the week and it gets lost in technoland?
If every game was good clean christian fun, the majority of the base for these games would simply move onto another form of entertainment or make their own games.
Just as people sometimes like the bad guy in movies, they like to do the bad thing in an environment where the reprocussions aren't as awful. However, for most people this only lasts a few minutes before they realize that even in the game they can't run around slaughtering people because the game has reprocussions, and doing these things just for the fun of "seeing what happens" grows tiring quickly. Especially when you are being shot by cops every two seconds.
As far as Thompson goes, the guy is clearly a lunatic. The Sims does its best to be good clean family fun, forgoing alcohol and actual sex in its games pretty much altogether, but he even attacked that anyway. The guy has clearly just stuck to an issue where he seems to get an audience here.
Consenting adults should be able to avoid any type of entertainment they want in the privacy of their own home. If you want to ID kids that are buying these games, fine, but let's not get off the issue of free speech here and become ridiculous and encourage censorship.
This reminds me of the first years of "gangster rap." People who simply do not understand a type of entertainment get all irritated by people who understand and get enjoyment and meaning out of such entertainment. They seem to be even more irritated when the entertainment contains "potty mouth words" or god forbid sex and violence. Vote with your dollar folks.
With so much code being recycled between versions and with so many backwards compatibility issues for your customer base and the maintenance problems alone involved with these things, do you think it's ever possible for a Microsoft OS based off past models to be as secure as the alternatives? If so, how?
but are they really? I think living through tramatic events is a do or die situation. I know that it was rough for many Vietnam veterans experiencing shell shock, but shouldn't that make us look harder at the treatment veterans receive or the way we treat people enrolled in our armed forces?
Instead of actually fixing problems, it's always easy to reduce the effect of the symptoms. I know that rape victims may not want to deal with all the pain, but there is some reality in it. When your siblings or children or parents die, I believe you should feel that pain. That pain is what makes you who you are.
Pills can't cure everything, and they aren't a way to address serious social ills. By saying pop a pill to make it better, you are in a way embracing the fact that we can never even come close to solving these problems.
Imagine if the Megan's mother of the Megan law had only popped a pill. Without her pain, her feeling of the need to get something accomplished in her daughter's name probably wouldn't have occurred. The same goes for anything that victims of violent crime have done to help legislation.
I know that for some people the pain of a traumatic event can lead to mental instability and possibly even suicide later in life, but to cover up these things with a pill is simply to cure a symptom. The disease still exists. I think people should be pushed towards dealing with traumatic events instead of repressing them. We already do enough of this without the pills.
It's a two-way street. You could say that content-providers leech from search engines by way of hits. If it weren't for such excellent indexing, web sites would be as disconnected now as they were in the early 90s.
Sure for simple information people might not view the site at all, but let's be honest, most times when you do a google search you are clicking the link to the site.
I mean, maybe things such as the google set generator and the calculator and such rely on underlying web results to calculate their answers, but how is this such a bad thing for content providers?
Do you really want people that only wanted a single image of the NYC skyline or an answer to how many weeks are in a year visiting your website anyway?
I suppose if your business is advertising that these numbers may add up in potential ad revenue, but for a regular business these customers visiting for simple information would represent little to no value for the business.
You are then working on the off chance that the same person that found your site through "number of weeks in the year" site also would then be interested in your calculator product or some such thing, which I highly doubt is true.
a normal PC keyboard was infected by more bacteria than a normal toilet seat.
Why are people surprised by findings such as this one?
Obviously the toilet seat has less germs. Everyone associates "grossness" with germs in their head. Going to the bathroom is gross, and fecal matter is gross, therefore it must be full of germs and bacteria. Not the case, in fact, quite the opposite.
There are more bacteria on your face, more bacteria on your hands and more bacteria in your mouth than your buttocks in most cases.
Just put in the context of contact with the germ filled world you can see by common sense why this would be true:
Your rear end gets washed and then has very little exposure to germs. Your hands and face are out there all day making contact with all types of bacteria.
So I guess my point is that you can't say keyboards are dirty just because they are more bacteria filled than a toilet seat, because I don't even think a door knob holds up to that standard.
Now common sense would also side with keyboards being rather bacteria filled, but I hardly would consider that comparison to be an indicator.
Makes me sleep better too, definitely. I just love the fact that people are able to bring in and use potentially harmful software on military computers. What a comforting idea! Now all we need is the Taliban to distribute a Britney Spears CD and we are all screwed.
What do you wish your users knew? What kind of questions are you so sick of answering because you hear them every week? What does the general public think they understand, but really don't?
To be quite honest, there are quite a few things. I think one of the most important of which is the idea of a filesystem in general. The most computer illiterate of people don't understand how a filesystem works and are completely baffled when a shortcut even gets misplaced.
'Major League Baseball has claimed that intellectual property law makes it illegal for fantasy league operators to commercially exploit the identities and statistical profiles of big league players.'
What I find ironic about this, however, is that MLB is kicking itself pursuing this line of action to begin with. I understand that MLB wants kickbacks from the various fantasy leagues, but the real fact of the matter is that fantasy leagues have allowed for a renewed interest in the sport. You are seeing some of that revenue in increased viewers and such. A person who plays fantasy baseball more than likely watches a lot of baseball, and more than likely goes to games. Baseball doesn't have half the viewership of the NFL, why harm its image further and ostracize those who are trying to enjoy the game in a new way? I'm sure there are people on the top of the piles making money off fantasy baseball, but is there really a lot of harm in that?
And I don't see how any court could decide that a text edited using a particular program is then a derivitave work of that program; please correct me if I am wrong.
Me neither, because that would be akin to saying that everything you write with a particular pen and paper is actually owned by Bic and 3M or something.
It would be a surprise if Microsoft didn't take on all of Firefox's features a year later, that's always their gameplan. Someone else innovates, then they put the technology into their POS products.
How come everyone automatically leaps at the pirating side of Bittorrent? Bittorrent is quite an idea, using distributed bunches of bandwidth to serve a file instead of a server needing a lot of bandwidth.
There are a lot of legitimate uses for this technology, such as, Linux distribution. I've noticed it used a lot in this vein, and it takes a lot of pressure off web servers, especially in the OSS market where profits are slim-to-none for the server itself.
I understand that Bittorrent is usually used for piracy, but that doesn't mean that's all the protocol does or is good for. Besides that point, Firefox can't be sued for simply allowing extensions to be written for it. Technically it's open source so anybody can write any extension they want, but that is the responsibility of the developer, not the responsibility of Mozilla. What you are saying is roughly equivalent to suing Microsoft for allowing the development of P2P apps on their platform.
Release groups will continue to flood the Internet with their easily ripped, unburdoned versions of movies and stuff that you can copy all day everyday. It makes the pirated version from usenet look more and more appealing to the average consumer, as being a paying customer actually causes them headaches.
This is a case where we see just how much big business has bought our government. As late ago as 20 years, government struck down Hollywood propagated anti-technology crap with the VCR, but they didn't have the governmental pull to get it approved I suppose. Now they do.
Absolutely. My comment would be that not only does one size not fit all. In Dell's case, their one size doesn't fit anyone. I wish PC manufacturers would quit making every pointless app they can throw at a system run on startup. I find myself having to fix problems with computers because of this reason all the time. What is the point of good hardware if you are going to fill your entire ram bank with pointless, self-promoting garbageware?
There is, however, a good reason for that stigma. I bought a N64 because Nintendo up until that point had been on the cutting edge, or at least around the cutting edge on consoles before that. Shortly after I realized that Nintendo had basically not grown up with their audience and were still making games aimed at the 8-10 crowd when I was 15 or above.
Nintendo took off early because it was the best of its time. Kind of like Apple, and now like Apple, they are basing their marketing strategy and their consoles on design rather than function. While the "wand" idea might be fun for a few minutes, any serious gamer is bound to get seriously sick of that in a short period of time. Just look at those stupid drums they made.
I felt betrayed by Nintendo because I bought an N64 that only had maybe 5 really great games and a slew of garbage. Obviously I wasn't the only one that was disappointed because at the time almost all of Nintendo's best developers pulled out from under its feet.
Not only that but wikipedia is good in areas no other encyclopedia covers, such as everything from TV series, to entire musical artists careers and bios. Old style encyclopedias just aren't changeable enough to contain all the info wikipedia does.
I, for one, believe it should be somewhat of a right. While it's not anywhere to be found in the bill of rights, that is the exact reason people like Jefferson didn't want the bill of rights to be in the constitution, because people might start to think that those rights are the only ones they have. I believe there should be some right to privacy. I don't even think paparazzi should be able to take pictures of you sunbathing topless in your backyard.
I don't think the government should be able to have access to every insidious detail of anything you've done: from where you get your pr0n to what you read and who you talk to. Terrorism and the drug war are nice excuses, but they wanna have an all seeing eye. I honestly don't think the government should be able to setup servaillance without a warrant (even if it's a secret one, these government voyeurs should be accountable to someone).
I think it's ridiculous to sit back and say "well they probably won't do anything too wrong with the info." It's garbage that they have the info to begin with.
I'm a purist, I say if you want to catch criminals, catch them with real evidence. I don't think things like those cameras that give you traffic tickets should even exist. You can't catch me in the act with a squadcar? Too bad, you don't get your hundred dollar reward.
No right to privacy means that if you say anything about the government they could potentially dig up every single skeleton in your closet to use it against you. And let's face it, we all have some.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't understand this logic. Why would more people buy a Macintosh just because it has a different CPU in it? I understand that there exists the possibility to dual-boot Windows once someone figures out how, but what does this mean to the average consumer?
Whether it has an intel in it or not, it's still a Macintosh running MacOS, so why would the average user want it more?
Whatever happened to government organizations conducting their own studies with their own data?
If they truly mean to do no harm, why do they need the public's search inquiries?
Google is open for research for christ's sake gentlemen, just type google.com...
I give myself 10 seconds
Puts on tinfoil hat...
Because I need to run both Windows XP and Mac OS X while I'm waiting for my plane...
I've had ringtones that I purchased and didn't come through and that's only $3 (but I was still rightfully irritated I still got charged). Won't it be great when you buy your 80 dollar ticket to see the band of the week and it gets lost in technoland?
If every game was good clean christian fun, the majority of the base for these games would simply move onto another form of entertainment or make their own games.
Just as people sometimes like the bad guy in movies, they like to do the bad thing in an environment where the reprocussions aren't as awful. However, for most people this only lasts a few minutes before they realize that even in the game they can't run around slaughtering people because the game has reprocussions, and doing these things just for the fun of "seeing what happens" grows tiring quickly. Especially when you are being shot by cops every two seconds.
As far as Thompson goes, the guy is clearly a lunatic. The Sims does its best to be good clean family fun, forgoing alcohol and actual sex in its games pretty much altogether, but he even attacked that anyway. The guy has clearly just stuck to an issue where he seems to get an audience here.
Consenting adults should be able to avoid any type of entertainment they want in the privacy of their own home. If you want to ID kids that are buying these games, fine, but let's not get off the issue of free speech here and become ridiculous and encourage censorship.
This reminds me of the first years of "gangster rap." People who simply do not understand a type of entertainment get all irritated by people who understand and get enjoyment and meaning out of such entertainment. They seem to be even more irritated when the entertainment contains "potty mouth words" or god forbid sex and violence. Vote with your dollar folks.
With so much code being recycled between versions and with so many backwards compatibility issues for your customer base and the maintenance problems alone involved with these things, do you think it's ever possible for a Microsoft OS based off past models to be as secure as the alternatives? If so, how?
Instead of actually fixing problems, it's always easy to reduce the effect of the symptoms. I know that rape victims may not want to deal with all the pain, but there is some reality in it. When your siblings or children or parents die, I believe you should feel that pain. That pain is what makes you who you are.
Pills can't cure everything, and they aren't a way to address serious social ills. By saying pop a pill to make it better, you are in a way embracing the fact that we can never even come close to solving these problems.
Imagine if the Megan's mother of the Megan law had only popped a pill. Without her pain, her feeling of the need to get something accomplished in her daughter's name probably wouldn't have occurred. The same goes for anything that victims of violent crime have done to help legislation.
I know that for some people the pain of a traumatic event can lead to mental instability and possibly even suicide later in life, but to cover up these things with a pill is simply to cure a symptom. The disease still exists. I think people should be pushed towards dealing with traumatic events instead of repressing them. We already do enough of this without the pills.
It's a two-way street. You could say that content-providers leech from search engines by way of hits. If it weren't for such excellent indexing, web sites would be as disconnected now as they were in the early 90s.
Sure for simple information people might not view the site at all, but let's be honest, most times when you do a google search you are clicking the link to the site.
I mean, maybe things such as the google set generator and the calculator and such rely on underlying web results to calculate their answers, but how is this such a bad thing for content providers?
Do you really want people that only wanted a single image of the NYC skyline or an answer to how many weeks are in a year visiting your website anyway?
I suppose if your business is advertising that these numbers may add up in potential ad revenue, but for a regular business these customers visiting for simple information would represent little to no value for the business.
You are then working on the off chance that the same person that found your site through "number of weeks in the year" site also would then be interested in your calculator product or some such thing, which I highly doubt is true.
Why are people surprised by findings such as this one?
Obviously the toilet seat has less germs. Everyone associates "grossness" with germs in their head. Going to the bathroom is gross, and fecal matter is gross, therefore it must be full of germs and bacteria. Not the case, in fact, quite the opposite.
There are more bacteria on your face, more bacteria on your hands and more bacteria in your mouth than your buttocks in most cases.
Just put in the context of contact with the germ filled world you can see by common sense why this would be true:
Your rear end gets washed and then has very little exposure to germs. Your hands and face are out there all day making contact with all types of bacteria.
So I guess my point is that you can't say keyboards are dirty just because they are more bacteria filled than a toilet seat, because I don't even think a door knob holds up to that standard.
Now common sense would also side with keyboards being rather bacteria filled, but I hardly would consider that comparison to be an indicator.
Makes me sleep better too, definitely. I just love the fact that people are able to bring in and use potentially harmful software on military computers. What a comforting idea! Now all we need is the Taliban to distribute a Britney Spears CD and we are all screwed.
To be quite honest, there are quite a few things. I think one of the most important of which is the idea of a filesystem in general. The most computer illiterate of people don't understand how a filesystem works and are completely baffled when a shortcut even gets misplaced.
The sky is falling, the sky is falling!!!!
Will someone tell chicken little to shut up...
Thnx, bye
You can run Windows XP on a cheap x86 box and spare yourself the hassle and cost! (Who would've thought!?!)
What I find ironic about this, however, is that MLB is kicking itself pursuing this line of action to begin with. I understand that MLB wants kickbacks from the various fantasy leagues, but the real fact of the matter is that fantasy leagues have allowed for a renewed interest in the sport. You are seeing some of that revenue in increased viewers and such. A person who plays fantasy baseball more than likely watches a lot of baseball, and more than likely goes to games. Baseball doesn't have half the viewership of the NFL, why harm its image further and ostracize those who are trying to enjoy the game in a new way? I'm sure there are people on the top of the piles making money off fantasy baseball, but is there really a lot of harm in that?
Me neither, because that would be akin to saying that everything you write with a particular pen and paper is actually owned by Bic and 3M or something.
It would be a surprise if Microsoft didn't take on all of Firefox's features a year later, that's always their gameplan. Someone else innovates, then they put the technology into their POS products.
How come everyone automatically leaps at the pirating side of Bittorrent? Bittorrent is quite an idea, using distributed bunches of bandwidth to serve a file instead of a server needing a lot of bandwidth.
There are a lot of legitimate uses for this technology, such as, Linux distribution. I've noticed it used a lot in this vein, and it takes a lot of pressure off web servers, especially in the OSS market where profits are slim-to-none for the server itself.
I understand that Bittorrent is usually used for piracy, but that doesn't mean that's all the protocol does or is good for. Besides that point, Firefox can't be sued for simply allowing extensions to be written for it. Technically it's open source so anybody can write any extension they want, but that is the responsibility of the developer, not the responsibility of Mozilla. What you are saying is roughly equivalent to suing Microsoft for allowing the development of P2P apps on their platform.
Release groups will continue to flood the Internet with their easily ripped, unburdoned versions of movies and stuff that you can copy all day everyday. It makes the pirated version from usenet look more and more appealing to the average consumer, as being a paying customer actually causes them headaches. This is a case where we see just how much big business has bought our government. As late ago as 20 years, government struck down Hollywood propagated anti-technology crap with the VCR, but they didn't have the governmental pull to get it approved I suppose. Now they do.
Absolutely. My comment would be that not only does one size not fit all. In Dell's case, their one size doesn't fit anyone. I wish PC manufacturers would quit making every pointless app they can throw at a system run on startup. I find myself having to fix problems with computers because of this reason all the time. What is the point of good hardware if you are going to fill your entire ram bank with pointless, self-promoting garbageware?
There is, however, a good reason for that stigma. I bought a N64 because Nintendo up until that point had been on the cutting edge, or at least around the cutting edge on consoles before that. Shortly after I realized that Nintendo had basically not grown up with their audience and were still making games aimed at the 8-10 crowd when I was 15 or above.
Nintendo took off early because it was the best of its time. Kind of like Apple, and now like Apple, they are basing their marketing strategy and their consoles on design rather than function. While the "wand" idea might be fun for a few minutes, any serious gamer is bound to get seriously sick of that in a short period of time. Just look at those stupid drums they made.
I felt betrayed by Nintendo because I bought an N64 that only had maybe 5 really great games and a slew of garbage. Obviously I wasn't the only one that was disappointed because at the time almost all of Nintendo's best developers pulled out from under its feet.
Shame those textbooks contain unintelligent blather like "intelligent design."
I, for one, believe it should be somewhat of a right. While it's not anywhere to be found in the bill of rights, that is the exact reason people like Jefferson didn't want the bill of rights to be in the constitution, because people might start to think that those rights are the only ones they have. I believe there should be some right to privacy. I don't even think paparazzi should be able to take pictures of you sunbathing topless in your backyard.
I don't think the government should be able to have access to every insidious detail of anything you've done: from where you get your pr0n to what you read and who you talk to. Terrorism and the drug war are nice excuses, but they wanna have an all seeing eye. I honestly don't think the government should be able to setup servaillance without a warrant (even if it's a secret one, these government voyeurs should be accountable to someone).
I think it's ridiculous to sit back and say "well they probably won't do anything too wrong with the info." It's garbage that they have the info to begin with.
I'm a purist, I say if you want to catch criminals, catch them with real evidence. I don't think things like those cameras that give you traffic tickets should even exist. You can't catch me in the act with a squadcar? Too bad, you don't get your hundred dollar reward.
No right to privacy means that if you say anything about the government they could potentially dig up every single skeleton in your closet to use it against you. And let's face it, we all have some.