Remember, Apple makes money as a hardware vendor. If you're running OSX, you've already bought Apple hardware to run it on, so they really have no real reason to care that much if you have a "legal" copy. Purchased upgrades of the OS is probably a very insignificant portion of their income.
The very reason many people are turned off to Macintosh (proprietary hardware) is probably the only reason they -don't- have some sort of activation scheme. Why do you think Apple is so vehemently resisting osx86?
Not that you can't write your own software for a PocketPC. In fact, the only reason I'd ever want one is because I can write my own software for it. As far as this linux phone goes, I'm curious as to how easily one can port software over to it. For some reason, I don't think it's going to be easy. Even if it is, most programs will probably need have the interface redesigned anyway to be useful at 176x220.
Having access to a command line on your phone is neat (Yes, I've always wanted bash on my phone!), but again, of limited use considering there's no keyboard. I guess you could use the number keys, but you'd have to be something of a masochist.
Maybe a mobile Windows Media Center edition for PocketPCs would do the trick. Give the ease of use and the power all at once.
I'm holding out on all these portable devices until I get one that does it all. Phone + Computer + Music Player. Right now the PocketPC phones do all that, but they don't have nearly enough storage space for it to be useful unless you want to spend the price of the phone again on some sort of flash memory.
Reconsider what you just said with respect to the fact that a very large amount of purchased software is delivered by electronic download since the advent of broadband internet. Are you telling me I'm not infringing on copyright law if I electronically redistribute copies of software, movies, games, etc.? Surely you must inform the RIAA immediately.
While U.S. copyright law might define a "copy" as a physical medium, it's not really relevant, as the copyrights Microsoft calls into question are for the DATA, not the medium. I'm sure they have additional copyrights protecting their packaging and manafacturing process, but those are really tangential. "Windows Geniune Advange" has never tried to check my physical media.
There's really not that many places to be on the political spectrum. Give me an example of what a third, or forth, or fifth party might have as a platform that isn't more than a minor rewrite of what one current parties' platform. That aside, what you're asking for is a huge deal. It's downright revolutionary. There's nothing individuals or even small groups of individuals can do to affect the goal of replace the two party system.
Call me crazy, but I think in a two party system, something should have to have a majority in each party in order to pass. That way they'd always have to come to some sort of comprimise.
I agree. Maybe companies should send their ads directly to YouTube. Some of them are entertaining enough to go watch just because. I know I've watched the Geico commercials more than once, and shown them too all my friends. I've typed in "King of the Hill" just to hear a bunch of kids play the theme music. If that's not advertising, I don't know what is.
Though I'm not sure why a company would PAY YouTube to put their stuff up when they could just post it up there for free.
A couple idea would be to allow a premium service, with new features, such as higher quality clips, or the ability to download clips in the original format. (flv is cute, but not very useful if you want to take a funny clip to a party, for example. It's a pain to convert.) They could also tap into the (probably mostly) unused bandwidth of it's own users by putting in a sort of torrent technology where viewers seed the video to other viewers while they are watching it. That might take some of the load off youtube. Enable it by default, but make it easy to disable for users with a clue.
They could also have a "Featured Ad" on the front page, where a company pays them put up a funny ad. I'm sure users would watch it. Make it change every time the page is refreshed, with the likelihood of a particular ad coming be being based on how much they paid youtube for the listing.
All that's off the top of my head. There should be plenty of ways for them to profit without forcing viewers to watch an ad clip before they see their video.
I think a good solution is to give an individual a randomly-generated ID when they vote. A list of the IDs and their cast ballot would be available to the public. So you could, for example, hop online, put in your ID, and see if you really voted for who you punched on the ballot.
This would also allow independent review of the results, by simply getting all the data for district and tallying the electronic record of the votes.
As far as selling votes goes... U.S. politics is little more than a sell-out game for the most part anyway, so big deal if someone sells their vote. The person the voted for probably sold-out to lobbyists, so big deal. And with the amount of money spent on advertising these days, and the observed relationship between votes:advertising dollars, it's already money for votes.
The "selling votes" idea is pretty antiquated, anyway. It wouldn't be economically feasible to buy out enough people to win for the most part. The population of the U.S. is many, many times what it was when the system was developed. In a municipality of a few hundred, selling votes might have been a big deal. But in a municipality of a few hundred thousand, it's a pretty laughable strategy.
I think Vista is supposed to be faster than XP, in much the same way that XP was faster than ME. Applications should run better -- not worse -- on comprable hardware. While some systems are being sold with 256BM of RAM, those systems already perform poorly with XP. I doubt they're perform any more poorly with Vista, and again, some applications may even run better because of under-the-hood improvements.
The real kicker for Vista is going to be Aero Glass, which requires a moderately powerful video card. The single biggest problem I see is Intel's integrated graphics not being up to par. At all. They suck, we all know they suck, and maybe Aero Glass will put pressure on companies to find a better budget solution, which would be a good thing.
It's also important to note that there's also an Aero theme, which doesn't have all the visual effects, and looks pretty much like XP. I imagine it's going to take about the same amount of resources. (Technically more resources than Aero Glass, because the video card isn't taking the pressure off the rest of the PC.)
I live in Nashville, and I'm not too surprised. The same legislature is also considering a ban on dildos. So much for freedom. I don't even know why we're paying these people, to be honest. All they're doing is taking away our rights. Things like this really make me want to use my second amendment rights to protect my first amendment rights. If it keeps going the way it's going, such a scenario might just play out. I don't think the People are going to sit by and twiddle their thumbs while the government screws them over again and again and again.
The only way to make what you are worth is to go into business for yourself. If you cannot hack it, then you were never worth that much in the first place.
Just put everyone's name and who they voted for on a big website. Anyone can see and compile the data, and also be sure their own vote wasn't switched. The anonymous voting system serves no purpose whatsoever. It's an open invitation for fraud.
You might claim it would allow people to buy votes, but you're totally blind if you can't see how that's already happening. After all, how our legislators vote is in the public domain -- we would cry the system was corrupt if we couldn't see how our lawmakers voteed. Why should we, as citizens, expect some shroud of secrecy around our own votes?
I think everyone's vote should be posted on a big website, using a special identification number. That way, anyone can check if their ballots were correct, anyone can access the raw data, and there's still anonymity.
I don't mean to troll or anything, but if you look as Apple's business model, which -does- cater to home users, I think we see most of the "problems" (features?) presented by Window's need to be really flexible in a corporate environment vanish. Does this make Apple unprofitable? No. Do they offer solutions catered to businesses that are largely seperate from their home offerings? Yes.
And while macs aren't widely used in corporate environments, they do have decent adoption in the education sector, which has very similar needs a corporate environment in terms of functionality and support.
And you can't say it's an issue of user competence. It requires next to no competence to use a mac. (This is not an insult. It's just really easy.)
I don't use macs, though, because everytime I listen to Steve Jobs go on about something, I just want to shoot myself.
Slashdot Mirror
Remember, Apple makes money as a hardware vendor. If you're running OSX, you've already bought Apple hardware to run it on, so they really have no real reason to care that much if you have a "legal" copy. Purchased upgrades of the OS is probably a very insignificant portion of their income.
The very reason many people are turned off to Macintosh (proprietary hardware) is probably the only reason they -don't- have some sort of activation scheme. Why do you think Apple is so vehemently resisting osx86?
Not that you can't write your own software for a PocketPC. In fact, the only reason I'd ever want one is because I can write my own software for it. As far as this linux phone goes, I'm curious as to how easily one can port software over to it. For some reason, I don't think it's going to be easy. Even if it is, most programs will probably need have the interface redesigned anyway to be useful at 176x220.
Having access to a command line on your phone is neat (Yes, I've always wanted bash on my phone!), but again, of limited use considering there's no keyboard. I guess you could use the number keys, but you'd have to be something of a masochist.
Because gay/lesbian issues are the only things in Hollywood that deviate from "traditional values".
Maybe a mobile Windows Media Center edition for PocketPCs would do the trick. Give the ease of use and the power all at once.
I'm holding out on all these portable devices until I get one that does it all. Phone + Computer + Music Player. Right now the PocketPC phones do all that, but they don't have nearly enough storage space for it to be useful unless you want to spend the price of the phone again on some sort of flash memory.
Makes the whole concept of ownership break down, doesn't it?
Reconsider what you just said with respect to the fact that a very large amount of purchased software is delivered by electronic download since the advent of broadband internet. Are you telling me I'm not infringing on copyright law if I electronically redistribute copies of software, movies, games, etc.? Surely you must inform the RIAA immediately. While U.S. copyright law might define a "copy" as a physical medium, it's not really relevant, as the copyrights Microsoft calls into question are for the DATA, not the medium. I'm sure they have additional copyrights protecting their packaging and manafacturing process, but those are really tangential. "Windows Geniune Advange" has never tried to check my physical media.
There's really not that many places to be on the political spectrum. Give me an example of what a third, or forth, or fifth party might have as a platform that isn't more than a minor rewrite of what one current parties' platform. That aside, what you're asking for is a huge deal. It's downright revolutionary. There's nothing individuals or even small groups of individuals can do to affect the goal of replace the two party system.
Call me crazy, but I think in a two party system, something should have to have a majority in each party in order to pass. That way they'd always have to come to some sort of comprimise.
The majority DOES always win. If 55% votes again 45%, the 55% wins.
I agree. Maybe companies should send their ads directly to YouTube. Some of them are entertaining enough to go watch just because. I know I've watched the Geico commercials more than once, and shown them too all my friends. I've typed in "King of the Hill" just to hear a bunch of kids play the theme music. If that's not advertising, I don't know what is.
Though I'm not sure why a company would PAY YouTube to put their stuff up when they could just post it up there for free.
A couple idea would be to allow a premium service, with new features, such as higher quality clips, or the ability to download clips in the original format. (flv is cute, but not very useful if you want to take a funny clip to a party, for example. It's a pain to convert.) They could also tap into the (probably mostly) unused bandwidth of it's own users by putting in a sort of torrent technology where viewers seed the video to other viewers while they are watching it. That might take some of the load off youtube. Enable it by default, but make it easy to disable for users with a clue.
They could also have a "Featured Ad" on the front page, where a company pays them put up a funny ad. I'm sure users would watch it. Make it change every time the page is refreshed, with the likelihood of a particular ad coming be being based on how much they paid youtube for the listing.
All that's off the top of my head. There should be plenty of ways for them to profit without forcing viewers to watch an ad clip before they see their video.
I think a good solution is to give an individual a randomly-generated ID when they vote. A list of the IDs and their cast ballot would be available to the public. So you could, for example, hop online, put in your ID, and see if you really voted for who you punched on the ballot. This would also allow independent review of the results, by simply getting all the data for district and tallying the electronic record of the votes. As far as selling votes goes... U.S. politics is little more than a sell-out game for the most part anyway, so big deal if someone sells their vote. The person the voted for probably sold-out to lobbyists, so big deal. And with the amount of money spent on advertising these days, and the observed relationship between votes:advertising dollars, it's already money for votes. The "selling votes" idea is pretty antiquated, anyway. It wouldn't be economically feasible to buy out enough people to win for the most part. The population of the U.S. is many, many times what it was when the system was developed. In a municipality of a few hundred, selling votes might have been a big deal. But in a municipality of a few hundred thousand, it's a pretty laughable strategy.
I think Vista is supposed to be faster than XP, in much the same way that XP was faster than ME. Applications should run better -- not worse -- on comprable hardware. While some systems are being sold with 256BM of RAM, those systems already perform poorly with XP. I doubt they're perform any more poorly with Vista, and again, some applications may even run better because of under-the-hood improvements. The real kicker for Vista is going to be Aero Glass, which requires a moderately powerful video card. The single biggest problem I see is Intel's integrated graphics not being up to par. At all. They suck, we all know they suck, and maybe Aero Glass will put pressure on companies to find a better budget solution, which would be a good thing. It's also important to note that there's also an Aero theme, which doesn't have all the visual effects, and looks pretty much like XP. I imagine it's going to take about the same amount of resources. (Technically more resources than Aero Glass, because the video card isn't taking the pressure off the rest of the PC.)
His denunciations spoke for many, who question how something built by the wisdom of crowds can become anything other than mob rule.
Like... democratic governments? o.O
I live in Nashville, and I'm not too surprised. The same legislature is also considering a ban on dildos. So much for freedom. I don't even know why we're paying these people, to be honest. All they're doing is taking away our rights. Things like this really make me want to use my second amendment rights to protect my first amendment rights. If it keeps going the way it's going, such a scenario might just play out. I don't think the People are going to sit by and twiddle their thumbs while the government screws them over again and again and again.
The only way to make what you are worth is to go into business for yourself. If you cannot hack it, then you were never worth that much in the first place.
Yes, in Capitalism. That's why it's evil.
Just put everyone's name and who they voted for on a big website. Anyone can see and compile the data, and also be sure their own vote wasn't switched. The anonymous voting system serves no purpose whatsoever. It's an open invitation for fraud. You might claim it would allow people to buy votes, but you're totally blind if you can't see how that's already happening. After all, how our legislators vote is in the public domain -- we would cry the system was corrupt if we couldn't see how our lawmakers voteed. Why should we, as citizens, expect some shroud of secrecy around our own votes?
I think everyone's vote should be posted on a big website, using a special identification number. That way, anyone can check if their ballots were correct, anyone can access the raw data, and there's still anonymity.
Let me add my name to the list of "omg no apple is not teh biggest cust. lawl ps3 n xbx60 are haha" posters, so I can be cool, too.
And while macs aren't widely used in corporate environments, they do have decent adoption in the education sector, which has very similar needs a corporate environment in terms of functionality and support.
And you can't say it's an issue of user competence. It requires next to no competence to use a mac. (This is not an insult. It's just really easy.)
I don't use macs, though, because everytime I listen to Steve Jobs go on about something, I just want to shoot myself.