That's actually not true, the stupid OpenBSD users haven't yet figured out that if they place the CD in the cup holder that they get all this crazy white type on the black screen.
It's a bit of a change since most of the time the screen is completely black anyways.
Actually, that would be MS's fault. Whenever you flatten the learning curve you make it more accessible with less effort. That sounds nice in premise, but the problem is that because people don't have to put in the effort to learn how to do things they lack the skills to keep up. Leaving a huge number of people that don't even know if they have anti-virus software installed and running. Moreover they don't appreciate the technical skills either.
You saw what happened in Jurassic park. Same deal except fewer scientists and more calls for ass and shaved pussy.
How many people do you run into that use a *NIX CLI and are that kind of incompetent? I'm guessing a number in the range of 0 to 1.
Good point, rather than fixing or replacing the net, we should just ban everybody from entering it. And following the *IAA's model where we charge everybody a monthly fee for protecting them from the internet.
It is indeed correct, which by the way putting quotes around correct is not, that rights are not valuable if they go away when it becomes difficult to maintain them.
And that there is indeed a very important qualifier that was put in, that word being "essential" meaning it's not the unimportant liberties, but the essential ones.
Of course we don't have to blindly live by it, but we are sufficiently well off that we can.
Which is precisely why ISPs would want it. Right now most bandwidth is lost to spammers, crackers and scammers. Being able to provide more bandwidth for the same money and be able to provide a degree of safety, has a value.
The bigger issue is what the cost of doing the work versus the rewards later on.
That's not actually true, code itself is still protected under first amendment grounds, and the companies would be nuts to try and enforce it on foreign nationals or people that are downloading it. Well, providing that you're within the provisions set forth in section 1201 of the DMCA, that is, which shouldn't be that hard to demonstrate.
In pretty much any case where you'd want to remove the DRM for personal use you'd likely be covered.
I don't like that it was restricted to just Linux FSes, comparing it against ones available for other OSes, would have given it at least some context. Based upon the article, it sounds like Linux is being trounced. But, one doesn't really know because there isn't a comparison to other OSes to have any clue whatsoever.
Citation necessary. Copies necessary for use of a digital medium are given an explicit exemption from copyright protection. And there is a requirement that the copy be stored for longer than the period necessary to view it. Which means that you're definitely off the hook for RAM or even HDD buffers necessary for streamed video. Providing you're authorized to view the stream in the first place.
Have you actually read the portion of the DMCA which bans cracking? Because there is a relevant legal standard that the copyright owner would have to meet in order for it to be a violation.
Actually OTA HD has been the way to go for quite a while, mainly because most of the Cable providers were compressing the signal down to somewhat lesser quality than OTA. The only problem is a lack of selection, last I checked there was only one genuine HD channel available here.
Honestly, unless you're aim is geekery, the Roku is a better option if that's what you want. They haven't released the update yet, but they've already stated that there will be an update to add both Hulu and Amazon to the device's options.
I've got one myself and the quality and convenience are hard to beat. It's definitely a bargain at $100. Or if you've already gotten an XBox 360, they'll probably add support at some point, they already did with Netflix.
Because we operate under the premise that things like movies wouldn't be made in any meaningful quantity if people weren't going to pay. True some people do create low budget films for free, but the number is pretty small and the production quality isn't usually as good. Plus some types of movies are just too expensive to do right, even if you're being budget consious.
The only reason we had protections for Copyright, Trademark and Patent in the legal code originally was to ensure that there was an incentive to produce. Even if you're wanting to give away your code, photos, books, what have you, the protection does ensure that you have legal redress should somebody use it for purposes you don't approve of.
Were we to have that level of deregulation in the IP market, you'd have only the choice of produce or not produce, with no option to control it at all.
Monitors don't have depth of field, if you want it you have to add it. And there are reasons both stylistic and game mechanical as to why to do so. If you've played FO3 for example, they did a lot with screwing with the perspective. Blurry vision at times, weird color shifts, whited out concussions and shifts between complete blur and focus when you've got a head injury.
On a side note, it's nice that somebody got the concussions more or less right, you don't see black with a concussion, disruptions to the pathway leading from the eye results in seeing white, not black.
But really, the music and the sounds make a huge difference in terms of the atmosphere, more so than the graphics.
It won't any time soon. Most of the Win CE devices don't run on an x86 architecture, nor should they. x86 just isn't a reasonable architecture for handheld devices.
Take the Open Pandora It specifically uses an ARM processor to allow it to get battery life that ought to be round about 10 hours per charge, they'd be able to manage only a fraction of that with an x86 processor.
There are ways of dealing with that. For instance control and maintainence of the infrastructure should be separated from those providing service. And the contract to do that should be put up for a bid from time to time with cost and quality put into account.
Perhaps even allow service providers to make repairs and bill them back to the infrastructure provider if they're not making the necessary investments. As well as a daylighting of the work that they're actually doing.
I'm sure that there are other ways, but those pop to mind.
There's a reason for that, and that reason is that the right-wingers aren't interested in admitting what a resounding failure free market economics is when practiced without sufficient regulations.
I mean obviously Adam Smith was a commie, pinko bastard, because who else would acknowledge that deregulation is anything other than necessary. The hypothesis of deregulation as a means of generating wealth has at this point been pretty thoroughly debunked. It just doesn't work, capitalist societies with a complete free market will always move to a full and complete monopoly over absolutely everything.
Deregulation can help certain things depending upon what the regulations were. More often than not when deregulation is the answer it's because the regulations were grossly ill conceived in the first place.
Really regulations which unlevel the playing field or artificially restrict competition between rivals are the ones that need to be thought out. And those are typically the regulations that the right-wingers have been resistant to clean up.
Perhaps, but it takes quite a bit longer to compile OO.org, and Koffice uses a lot of components that I need for other programs. Saves a huge amount of time and energy when compiling. It might end up the same size, but having to install and compile all those extra components in OO.org is kind or ridiculous. Granted they all use the same core bits, but it's still wasteful.
And yes some of us do compile all of our programs for optimization and efficiency.
I wish people wouldn't use that word. I spent a huge amount of time in college studying science and we _never_ used that word. It's confusing, misleading and if you're not privy to it makes scientists look like lazy, corrupt bastards.
It ought to be "How to disprove X" mainly because that's something which everybody reads more or less the same way.
Windows used to do something like that, as far as I can tell if you want to do so now you have to make a custom winnt.sif to exclude the crap you don't want.
Win 95, 98, Me all allowed you to choose what you installed. There were somethings that were mandatory, but most of the other things you could opt not to install. If I recall correctly, you could even set things up with a floppy to remember what you really wanted, but unlike XP you didn't have to.
*BSD install for the most part in a minimal fashion requiring the user to add programs to the base system. Linux really depends which distro, but by necessity you're going to be installing a huge number of programs since Linux is kernel only.
As for OO.org, why bother? Unless you need more than just the spreadsheet and word processor it's ridiculously bloated. Personally I use Koffice and Gnumeric, both those compile in a small fraction of the time that OO.org requires.
That's patently not true, they're pushing their software as a method of selling their hardware. Yes, they do make money on things like the ITMS and their software, but the ITMS makes them far, far less money than they iPods do. And the software never made them as much profit as their computers.
Why, exactly, do you think that OSX sells for so much less than Windows? I'll give you a hint, it's not because Steve Jobs is Santa Claus.
But that's more historical, they've been diversifying for years into non-hardware, point is they've been mainly a hardware company for most of their life.
It was more than that, the poor quality and official status they had damaged the Mac brand. A unaffiliated line isn't necessarily going to cause that amount of trouble. But they'd definitely see a slide in sales, which is the point, they'd have to actually compete.
He's not generalizing. Generalizing involves bundling of people together in a way that doesn't ensure that the entire class is related. What he said was really tantamount to saying that Christians believe in God. By definition one really should believe in God if one is to be Christian and hence not a generalization.
Slashdot Mirror
That's actually not true, the stupid OpenBSD users haven't yet figured out that if they place the CD in the cup holder that they get all this crazy white type on the black screen.
It's a bit of a change since most of the time the screen is completely black anyways.
Actually, that would be MS's fault. Whenever you flatten the learning curve you make it more accessible with less effort. That sounds nice in premise, but the problem is that because people don't have to put in the effort to learn how to do things they lack the skills to keep up. Leaving a huge number of people that don't even know if they have anti-virus software installed and running. Moreover they don't appreciate the technical skills either.
You saw what happened in Jurassic park. Same deal except fewer scientists and more calls for ass and shaved pussy.
How many people do you run into that use a *NIX CLI and are that kind of incompetent? I'm guessing a number in the range of 0 to 1.
Good point, rather than fixing or replacing the net, we should just ban everybody from entering it. And following the *IAA's model where we charge everybody a monthly fee for protecting them from the internet.
It is indeed correct, which by the way putting quotes around correct is not, that rights are not valuable if they go away when it becomes difficult to maintain them.
And that there is indeed a very important qualifier that was put in, that word being "essential" meaning it's not the unimportant liberties, but the essential ones.
Of course we don't have to blindly live by it, but we are sufficiently well off that we can.
Which is precisely why ISPs would want it. Right now most bandwidth is lost to spammers, crackers and scammers. Being able to provide more bandwidth for the same money and be able to provide a degree of safety, has a value.
The bigger issue is what the cost of doing the work versus the rewards later on.
That's not actually true, code itself is still protected under first amendment grounds, and the companies would be nuts to try and enforce it on foreign nationals or people that are downloading it. Well, providing that you're within the provisions set forth in section 1201 of the DMCA, that is, which shouldn't be that hard to demonstrate.
In pretty much any case where you'd want to remove the DRM for personal use you'd likely be covered.
I don't like that it was restricted to just Linux FSes, comparing it against ones available for other OSes, would have given it at least some context. Based upon the article, it sounds like Linux is being trounced. But, one doesn't really know because there isn't a comparison to other OSes to have any clue whatsoever.
Citation necessary. Copies necessary for use of a digital medium are given an explicit exemption from copyright protection. And there is a requirement that the copy be stored for longer than the period necessary to view it. Which means that you're definitely off the hook for RAM or even HDD buffers necessary for streamed video. Providing you're authorized to view the stream in the first place.
New media Law has more specific information.
Have you actually read the portion of the DMCA which bans cracking? Because there is a relevant legal standard that the copyright owner would have to meet in order for it to be a violation.
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/usc_sec_17_00001201----000-.html
Actually OTA HD has been the way to go for quite a while, mainly because most of the Cable providers were compressing the signal down to somewhat lesser quality than OTA. The only problem is a lack of selection, last I checked there was only one genuine HD channel available here.
Honestly, unless you're aim is geekery, the Roku is a better option if that's what you want. They haven't released the update yet, but they've already stated that there will be an update to add both Hulu and Amazon to the device's options.
I've got one myself and the quality and convenience are hard to beat. It's definitely a bargain at $100. Or if you've already gotten an XBox 360, they'll probably add support at some point, they already did with Netflix.
Because we operate under the premise that things like movies wouldn't be made in any meaningful quantity if people weren't going to pay. True some people do create low budget films for free, but the number is pretty small and the production quality isn't usually as good. Plus some types of movies are just too expensive to do right, even if you're being budget consious.
The only reason we had protections for Copyright, Trademark and Patent in the legal code originally was to ensure that there was an incentive to produce. Even if you're wanting to give away your code, photos, books, what have you, the protection does ensure that you have legal redress should somebody use it for purposes you don't approve of.
Were we to have that level of deregulation in the IP market, you'd have only the choice of produce or not produce, with no option to control it at all.
Monitors don't have depth of field, if you want it you have to add it. And there are reasons both stylistic and game mechanical as to why to do so. If you've played FO3 for example, they did a lot with screwing with the perspective. Blurry vision at times, weird color shifts, whited out concussions and shifts between complete blur and focus when you've got a head injury.
On a side note, it's nice that somebody got the concussions more or less right, you don't see black with a concussion, disruptions to the pathway leading from the eye results in seeing white, not black.
But really, the music and the sounds make a huge difference in terms of the atmosphere, more so than the graphics.
I'd have modded that terrifying were than an option. Is the USAF really having that kind of trouble recruiting people who've taken algebra?
And what's more we allow a lot of those same recruits to operate multi-million dollar machinery.
Screwed up the URL, it's Openpandora
It won't any time soon. Most of the Win CE devices don't run on an x86 architecture, nor should they. x86 just isn't a reasonable architecture for handheld devices.
Take the Open Pandora It specifically uses an ARM processor to allow it to get battery life that ought to be round about 10 hours per charge, they'd be able to manage only a fraction of that with an x86 processor.
There are ways of dealing with that. For instance control and maintainence of the infrastructure should be separated from those providing service. And the contract to do that should be put up for a bid from time to time with cost and quality put into account.
Perhaps even allow service providers to make repairs and bill them back to the infrastructure provider if they're not making the necessary investments. As well as a daylighting of the work that they're actually doing.
I'm sure that there are other ways, but those pop to mind.
There's a reason for that, and that reason is that the right-wingers aren't interested in admitting what a resounding failure free market economics is when practiced without sufficient regulations.
I mean obviously Adam Smith was a commie, pinko bastard, because who else would acknowledge that deregulation is anything other than necessary. The hypothesis of deregulation as a means of generating wealth has at this point been pretty thoroughly debunked. It just doesn't work, capitalist societies with a complete free market will always move to a full and complete monopoly over absolutely everything.
Deregulation can help certain things depending upon what the regulations were. More often than not when deregulation is the answer it's because the regulations were grossly ill conceived in the first place.
Really regulations which unlevel the playing field or artificially restrict competition between rivals are the ones that need to be thought out. And those are typically the regulations that the right-wingers have been resistant to clean up.
Perhaps, but it takes quite a bit longer to compile OO.org, and Koffice uses a lot of components that I need for other programs. Saves a huge amount of time and energy when compiling. It might end up the same size, but having to install and compile all those extra components in OO.org is kind or ridiculous. Granted they all use the same core bits, but it's still wasteful.
And yes some of us do compile all of our programs for optimization and efficiency.
So in other words you don't believe in the existence of Ligers?
I wish people wouldn't use that word. I spent a huge amount of time in college studying science and we _never_ used that word. It's confusing, misleading and if you're not privy to it makes scientists look like lazy, corrupt bastards.
It ought to be "How to disprove X" mainly because that's something which everybody reads more or less the same way.
Windows used to do something like that, as far as I can tell if you want to do so now you have to make a custom winnt.sif to exclude the crap you don't want.
Win 95, 98, Me all allowed you to choose what you installed. There were somethings that were mandatory, but most of the other things you could opt not to install. If I recall correctly, you could even set things up with a floppy to remember what you really wanted, but unlike XP you didn't have to.
*BSD install for the most part in a minimal fashion requiring the user to add programs to the base system. Linux really depends which distro, but by necessity you're going to be installing a huge number of programs since Linux is kernel only.
As for OO.org, why bother? Unless you need more than just the spreadsheet and word processor it's ridiculously bloated. Personally I use Koffice and Gnumeric, both those compile in a small fraction of the time that OO.org requires.
That's patently not true, they're pushing their software as a method of selling their hardware. Yes, they do make money on things like the ITMS and their software, but the ITMS makes them far, far less money than they iPods do. And the software never made them as much profit as their computers.
Why, exactly, do you think that OSX sells for so much less than Windows? I'll give you a hint, it's not because Steve Jobs is Santa Claus.
But that's more historical, they've been diversifying for years into non-hardware, point is they've been mainly a hardware company for most of their life.
It was more than that, the poor quality and official status they had damaged the Mac brand. A unaffiliated line isn't necessarily going to cause that amount of trouble. But they'd definitely see a slide in sales, which is the point, they'd have to actually compete.
He's not generalizing. Generalizing involves bundling of people together in a way that doesn't ensure that the entire class is related. What he said was really tantamount to saying that Christians believe in God. By definition one really should believe in God if one is to be Christian and hence not a generalization.