I'm not sure how you justify that a monitor with lower rez than the Apple bests it Apple?
The Viewsonic bests the old Apple 22" in size and resolution, which was the point I was making. The new Apple is probably slightly smaller but higher-res, so which is better depends on your needs and perhaps your eyesight. (Your equipment too, but if you're in a position to buy a $3500 monitor, you can probably afford an equipment upgrade.)
Me, I wish I was in a position that it would be worth asking: can you run these in portrait mode so you can put two side-by-side?
I was waiting for someone to outdo the 22" Cinema Display, funny it was Apple that ended up doing it themselves.
ViewSonic has had a 23" 1600x1200 LCD out for a few months now for ~$3500, so Apple was bested slightly already. (Even now, the Viewsonic has a larger screen -- 23" widescreen isn't as big as 23" 4:3 -- but the Apple is higher-res.)
In the US, you have fair use rights; it's the technology needed to exercise them that's prevented. Is there any protection against a similar thing happening in this case?
I hope this isn't going to happen with wine/linux. Its quite obvious that windows programs will never quite work perfect in wine, and I hope developers dont use wine as an excuse to not bother developing linux applications.
If developers are going to develop for Linux, it'll be because it's cost-effective to do so. A version that doesn't work loses customers and costs more in tech support, so they'll make sure it works if they're going to sell it.
If you're talking open-source, Windows-only open source stuff seems pretty darned rare.
There are quite a number of retail outlets (Sears, Home Depot, etc.) that are now using the little electronic gadgets that collect your signature as a graphic and keep it in case they need it.
...which is only trivially easier than scanning your signature from the receipt.
You can check in a list of changed files as one atomic operation and it either succeeds or doesn't. So you can't get a partial check in which breaks the build.
Sure you can, Perforce doesn't actually test that the changes build, it just requires you to reconcile any differences between when you check out and when you check in. Now, if you combine Perforce with an autobuild system that tags changelists regarding whether a compile succeeds, that's kick-ass. Combine that with automated regression tests that tag whether a particular changelist passes the regression test, and you're nearing a li'l piece of heaven...
I don't think Microsoft has any offerings in the serious source control space. They do have a toy called "Visual SourceSafe (?)" but I don't think even they take it seriously.
We used it for a while, but gave up on it due to it corrupting files. I have also heard that Microsoft doesn't use it, and if you don't "eat your own dogfood", no one else should either.
Well, I'd agree with you for your purchased software. Problem is, bnetd makes for an easy way to use pirated versions of the software.
And we all know, while pirates might send around the multimegabyte WC III beta, they won't attach bnetd to the archive and send that out. That would be dishonest!
A lot of open source software is developed/enhanced because the software is useful for the actual business of a company, not because the company is making money directly off of open source. Think IBM, for example; it's not the software, it's the services based on that software. Likewise, Red Hat is really a services company disguised as a software developer.
Then again, I trust the spooks to keep whatever they know about me private; that is, I trust them a hell of a lot more than I trust AOL/TW's marketing department.
You shouldn't.
Ok, on the whole they probably are more trustworthy. But they have the ability to make your life far more of a living hell than AOL/TW ever could.
Actually, there's a report out now which discusses in detail the amount of information bin Laden had concerning the architectural structure of the WTC.
From http://www.designbuildmag.com/dec2001/wtc1201.asp:
Even Osama bin Laden, himself, was shocked by the towers' total collapse, according to the chilling video released Dec. 13 by the Pentagon. Citing his own industry pedigree as the estranged heir to Saudi Arabia's largest family-owned contractor, a pleased bin Laden can be heard telling fawning colleagues, "Due to my experience in this field, I was thinking that the fire from the gas in the plane would melt the iron structure of the building and collapse the area where the plane hit and all the floors above it only. This was all that we hoped for."
Isn't the iPod overpriced when compared to other mp3 players/pdas of a similar or better feature set?
No, because nothing really matches its feature set. None have firewire I/O (a big plus for speed), and all the ones with the same or higher capacity use a substantially larger hard drive. Toshiba was selling the iPod's hard drive at the time the iPod was released for exactly the same price as the iPod.
Re:Why did it take so many posts?
on
Abusing the GPL?
·
· Score: 1
On a side note, what makes people thing GPL is any more binding than an EULA? I'm asking this in all seriousness.
The GPL allows you to do things with the code that you are not legally entitled to do. If you do not accept the GPL, then you have all normal legal rights to the code (which do not including modifying and redistributing it.)
EULAs, on the other hand, generally try to prevent you from doing things that, sans EULA, you are legally entitled to do. They do not give you an "ignore the EULA and continue as usual" option.
One is a gift with conditions (that you don't have to take), one is a post-purchase restriction. Very different beasts.
PS: If a P-II 400 really can process a frame in one day as they say, then either the Mac client is badly coded or my iBook is a total wuss.:-)
The app I work on runs under OS 9 and OS X, and some purely cross-platform, no-user interface code runs almost three times as slowly under OS X. I don't know what they did to hobble the processor so, but they sure did something awful.
Presumably the folding computations require 64-bit accuracy, and thus can't take advantage of Altivec.
how many chances to hear a whole CD do you have before either you, or one of your friends, buys the thing?
I hate to break up a good rant, but you can listen to real audio of all(?) of the songs on (recent Grammy winner) Alicia Keys' new album at http://www.aliciakeys.com. I doubt she's the only one with such a website.
If you look at the start of the thread, you said "there would be no music piracy if people could not rip the music first." People (for example, Metallica members in their younger years) were copying albums to tape and giving those away long before this newfangled internet thingie appeared. "Rip-mix-burn" contains two steps which are irrelevant to internet piracy, and are exactly analogous to "old-style" copying. So why does this suddenly push people towards internet piracy? Tain't like Apple's including a Napster or Morpheus client built-in to the OS.
You'd be surprised, actually. Most Mac users (and PC users too--I only fingered Mac users because Apple was the company in question) that I've encountered have no interest in running a cable between their soundcard and a tape recorder
Amazing as it may seem, many people actually have equipment to play music that (gasp!) does not involve a computer!
He generally gets permission, but there's no legal requirement for him to do so - it's fair use.
I believe Weird Al's parodying is done under what they call "mechanical royalties." Go to the Harry Fox Agency website and you can look up the royalties you have to pay for doing a cover of someone else's song. You do not need to get permission. I believe the money, less HFA's cut, goes to the songwriter.
In 1982, Jack Valenti told the House Judiciary Committee regards VCRs that "the growing and dangerous intrusion of this new technology is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston Strangler is to the woman alone".
It's not cassette players, but it's perhaps the most credibility-destroying statement ever made. (Ok, perhaps it's second to "peace in our time.")
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not sure how you justify that a monitor with lower rez than the Apple bests it Apple?
The Viewsonic bests the old Apple 22" in size and resolution, which was the point I was making. The new Apple is probably slightly smaller but higher-res, so which is better depends on your needs and perhaps your eyesight. (Your equipment too, but if you're in a position to buy a $3500 monitor, you can probably afford an equipment upgrade.)
Me, I wish I was in a position that it would be worth asking: can you run these in portrait mode so you can put two side-by-side?
I was waiting for someone to outdo the 22" Cinema Display, funny it was Apple that ended up doing it themselves.
ViewSonic has had a 23" 1600x1200 LCD out for a few months now for ~$3500, so Apple was bested slightly already. (Even now, the Viewsonic has a larger screen -- 23" widescreen isn't as big as 23" 4:3 -- but the Apple is higher-res.)
In the US, you have fair use rights; it's the technology needed to exercise them that's prevented. Is there any protection against a similar thing happening in this case?
I hope this isn't going to happen with wine/linux. Its quite obvious that windows programs will never quite work perfect in wine, and I hope developers dont use wine as an excuse to not bother developing linux applications.
If developers are going to develop for Linux, it'll be because it's cost-effective to do so. A version that doesn't work loses customers and costs more in tech support, so they'll make sure it works if they're going to sell it.
If you're talking open-source, Windows-only open source stuff seems pretty darned rare.
Exactly how many songs are you planning on listening to at once?
I only listen to one song at a time, myself...
There are quite a number of retail outlets (Sears, Home Depot, etc.) that are now using the little electronic gadgets that collect your signature as a graphic and keep it in case they need it.
...which is only trivially easier than scanning your signature from the receipt.
You can check in a list of changed files as one atomic operation and it either succeeds or doesn't. So you can't get a partial check in which breaks the build.
Sure you can, Perforce doesn't actually test that the changes build, it just requires you to reconcile any differences between when you check out and when you check in. Now, if you combine Perforce with an autobuild system that tags changelists regarding whether a compile succeeds, that's kick-ass. Combine that with automated regression tests that tag whether a particular changelist passes the regression test, and you're nearing a li'l piece of heaven...
I don't think Microsoft has any offerings in the serious source control space. They do have a toy called "Visual SourceSafe (?)" but I don't think even they take it seriously.
We used it for a while, but gave up on it due to it corrupting files. I have also heard that Microsoft doesn't use it, and if you don't "eat your own dogfood", no one else should either.
So no matter how obfuscated and buggy your code is, I become responsible for it now because choose to use it?
Yup! Yo Einstein, that's the way it is now for open source.
Well, I'd agree with you for your purchased software. Problem is, bnetd makes for an easy way to use pirated versions of the software.
And we all know, while pirates might send around the multimegabyte WC III beta, they won't attach bnetd to the archive and send that out. That would be dishonest!
Or how about a single disk image of my Win2K C: drive? Hangs head in shame...
You don't need to copy an encrypted DVD to do that, which was crux of the issue.
Which open source firm is even profitable?
A lot of open source software is developed/enhanced because the software is useful for the actual business of a company, not because the company is making money directly off of open source. Think IBM, for example; it's not the software, it's the services based on that software. Likewise, Red Hat is really a services company disguised as a software developer.
So no guilt feelings needed.
Then again, I trust the spooks to keep whatever they know about me private; that is, I trust them a hell of a lot more than I trust AOL/TW's marketing department.
You shouldn't.
Ok, on the whole they probably are more trustworthy. But they have the ability to make your life far more of a living hell than AOL/TW ever could.
Actually, there's a report out now which discusses in detail the amount of information bin Laden had concerning the architectural structure of the WTC.
:
From http://www.designbuildmag.com/dec2001/wtc1201.asp
Even Osama bin Laden, himself, was shocked by the towers' total collapse, according to the chilling video released Dec. 13 by the Pentagon. Citing his own industry pedigree as the estranged heir to Saudi Arabia's largest family-owned contractor, a pleased bin Laden can be heard telling fawning colleagues, "Due to my experience in this field, I was thinking that the fire from the gas in the plane would melt the iron structure of the building and collapse the area where the plane hit and all the floors above it only. This was all that we hoped for."
So that report is (reasonably provably) false.
Isn't the iPod overpriced when compared to other mp3 players/pdas of a similar or better feature set?
No, because nothing really matches its feature set. None have firewire I/O (a big plus for speed), and all the ones with the same or higher capacity use a substantially larger hard drive. Toshiba was selling the iPod's hard drive at the time the iPod was released for exactly the same price as the iPod.
On a side note, what makes people thing GPL is any more binding than an EULA? I'm asking this in all seriousness.
The GPL allows you to do things with the code that you are not legally entitled to do. If you do not accept the GPL, then you have all normal legal rights to the code (which do not including modifying and redistributing it.)
EULAs, on the other hand, generally try to prevent you from doing things that, sans EULA, you are legally entitled to do. They do not give you an "ignore the EULA and continue as usual" option.
One is a gift with conditions (that you don't have to take), one is a post-purchase restriction. Very different beasts.
PS: If a P-II 400 really can process a frame in one day as they say, then either the Mac client is badly coded or my iBook is a total wuss. :-)
The app I work on runs under OS 9 and OS X, and some purely cross-platform, no-user interface code runs almost three times as slowly under OS X. I don't know what they did to hobble the processor so, but they sure did something awful.
Presumably the folding computations require 64-bit accuracy, and thus can't take advantage of Altivec.
how many chances to hear a whole CD do you have before either you, or one of your friends, buys the thing?
I hate to break up a good rant, but you can listen to real audio of all(?) of the songs on (recent Grammy winner) Alicia Keys' new album at http://www.aliciakeys.com. I doubt she's the only one with such a website.
Do you know a song that contains the word Alpha?
No, but Asia put out an album by that name. The first song? "Don't Cry"...
If you look at the start of the thread, you said "there would be no music piracy if people could not rip the music first." People (for example, Metallica members in their younger years) were copying albums to tape and giving those away long before this newfangled internet thingie appeared. "Rip-mix-burn" contains two steps which are irrelevant to internet piracy, and are exactly analogous to "old-style" copying. So why does this suddenly push people towards internet piracy? Tain't like Apple's including a Napster or Morpheus client built-in to the OS.
Given that the upshot of the SSSCA is the outlawing of Free operating systems, why isn't there someone from RedHat testifying at these hearings?
Because these things are invitation only. The committee gets to decide who to invite.
You'd be surprised, actually. Most Mac users (and PC users too--I only fingered Mac users because Apple was the company in question) that I've encountered have no interest in running a cable between their soundcard and a tape recorder
Amazing as it may seem, many people actually have equipment to play music that (gasp!) does not involve a computer!
He generally gets permission, but there's no legal requirement for him to do so - it's fair use.
I believe Weird Al's parodying is done under what they call "mechanical royalties." Go to the Harry Fox Agency website and you can look up the royalties you have to pay for doing a cover of someone else's song. You do not need to get permission. I believe the money, less HFA's cut, goes to the songwriter.
But the average Mac user isn't the average Slashdotter; he or she has neither the will nor the knowledge to capture the analog signal
I know a lot of people slam Mac users, but do you really think they don't know how to use a tape recorder?
In 1982, Jack Valenti told the House Judiciary Committee regards VCRs that "the growing and dangerous intrusion of this new technology is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston Strangler is to the woman alone".
It's not cassette players, but it's perhaps the most credibility-destroying statement ever made. (Ok, perhaps it's second to "peace in our time.")