Because the money was offered only if criticism was provided, therefore it's a payment made to a person in a position of trust to corrupt his judgment - a bribe by dictionary standards. This doesn't even touch on the fact that the bribes were offered through a funded organisation rather than from the company themselves, which is inherently dishonest.
If the money had been offered to do scientific research regardless of outcome, that's when it stops being bribery and becomes funding. However, ExxonMobil only wants one outcome, so why would they pay out for something that's useless to them?
Honestly, living without care of the risk of troll mods:-
What in the living fuck are you talking about? Slashdot is a haven for Apple and Linux users raging against the MS machine. I'm more likely to get flamed for using Vista than for buying, well, anything else.
Huzzah, you posted my list! You are an easily irritated little bunny, aren't you? Shall we link that again? Superb. Now we've established that it means shit to this conversation, we'll move on.
Given the way you insult people in your defense of a company and it's products
"YOU'RE A LIAR! Also, you insult people." Awesome bit of irony there, classic.
probable way to explain why your experience is different from the other 9999 of 10,000 user experiences I've seen or read about
*sigh* And you call me a liar. Can you provide me with a nice little list of those 9,999 user experiences that sucked? Then I'll provide you with another 20 satisfied Windows users, and I'll wait patiently for the next 199,980 who had to 'reboot daily'. In other words, inexpertly used hyperbole makes you look like an idiot.
I'm well aware of those silly "power tools"
Awesome, then we'll both agree you were telling porkies about XP and virtual desktop management, how that it's impossible to hide Windows tasks, and how everyone has to reboot XP every day.
My the 45 virtual desktops on my laptop are laughing at your pathetic taskbar and the supercomputer needed to run your five or six dinky programs, botnet and adware load.
Fine by me, I'll stick to laughing at your pathetic use of rhetoric, FUD and out-of-date OS knowledge in a sorry attempt to try and justify lying to people on the internet.
Keep trying, Twit, there is no end to my amusement. Why don't you try reading 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF's post for a couple of hints on how to argue a point?
I couldn't find anything in there that I properly disagree with, other than the rebooting Windows thing - I don't normally have trouble recovering XP from any kind of memory leak, but I've never used InDesign.
Also, regarding shutting down things while playing games, the only two programs I've ever had to shut down because they were hampering gameplay were (ironically enough, I suppose) iTunes and Firefox. That's a large part of the reason why I use Winamp and Opera now.
Otherwise, I think you and I are on the same page here. My main point was that Windows isn't as bad as some people seem to think.
However, despite both our sets of evidence being anecdotal, mine is perfectly sufficient to deny that all Windows users have to reboot every day (which is what was said), whereas yours is only sufficient to prove that at least one person has to reboot Windows every day.
If all Windows users have to boot their PC daily, can you please explain my Windows box being up for well over a month so far without needing a reboot? While continuously running BOINC, microtorrent, Steam, Hamachi, and about 5-6 other programs in the background?
And of course, Windows has absolutely no way of hiding all those tasks, or the taskbar, or anything else. Of course, there are also no programs or add-ons straight from MS or anyoneelse that give you more than one virtual desktop for WinXP, and have been since 2002. I could go on but you get the picture - you, as usual, have no idea what you're talking about. Desktops are only as cluttered as the people who use them.
I'm pretty sure the people at MS have better things than to harrass one guy on a message board. You've proven over and over that you have a very tenuous grip on reality, prone to snap if anyone says "MS" without creatively replacing that S with a dollar sign. I've said it before, but the line between you being a good troll and a terrible person is very fine indeed - seeing your responses to people like Keith Russell push you into the "total turd" zone.
I'm rather hurt that you didn't include me in your list of MS-employed harrassers. I wish I did get paid to do something I love so much, like painting or gaming, but unfortunately this is still just another hobby for me.
Catch you later, Twit! I hope you enjoy your paranoia-induced hallucinations! I'll be keeping an eye out for your wankery, as always.
Wow, maybe I'm one of his sockpuppets too? That would be interesting, I've never been someone's sockpuppet before. There's a "hand jammed up ass" joke here somewhere...
And I swear I hadn't seen your puppy-kicking post when I made my puppy-kicking post. Poor puppies, they're getting a very raw deal today.
You mean the ones that ended 6 years ago, with a judgement that was due to expire this year but has been extended till 2009 voluntarily by Microsoft themselves? And if they were requested to comply until 2012 they would do so without objection?
By the way, good job picking out the one statement you thought you could argue with, by putting words in my mouth and citing something I did not say, and then ignoring the rest of what I said. Please note, as you have aptly demonstrated by not using an MS product for 5 years by your own admission, you have no obligation to touch anything created by them now or ever again.
And are you still trotting out that tired old post where you tried to make me look like an idiot? The one that was modded troll? The one you posted twice with only minor changes? Where you copy-pasted the text of the previous entry you wrote and forgot to take out the/. URL tags, so you looked like even more of a total git than you normally do? I could go on!
You're kind of pathetic. Disproving your points is like kicking a crippled puppy - easy.
So, free software is geeky, useless, childish and no one cares? What an ignorant flame disguised as a thoughtful and informed reflection.
Your response is not exactly the epitome of reasoned debate. Where did you get childish and useless from? He never said either of those things. He merely said that the general public does not care about Linux, which is true. He also said that people who are mature about this, rather than spouting ridiculous OS zealotry without taking note of the actual point (true of EVERY OS, not just Linux, though you are a prime example), realise that people will gravitate to using what they find most useful, regardless of how 'free' it is. No-one is asking you to choose between what is 'free' and what is useful. They are asking you to choose whatever you find does what you want to do properly.
That isn't always Linux, and you know that - which is why you're having a hissy fit. If you were trying to prove that Linux users aren't childish, a point that was never made or even hinted at, you defeated yourself rather rapidly. I find it of some small amusement that you inadvertantly proved a point that no-one made.
How about this - true freedom is being free to choose the OS and software I want to use, when I like. Oh, and Firefox leaks like a sieve and crashes too, even on Linux, to the point where someone had to release a leak monitoring plug-in. Sorry to burst your bubble, but it's not a Windows-only issue. Anyway, some people want some performance out of their browser rather than the "anything but IE" choice, which is why I use Opera. The Opera browsing experience is far superior, in my extensive experience, to both IE and Firefox and is (shock) closed source.
Proprietary, closed source solutions are sometimes better than open source solutions and vice versa.
Good work at posting the same comment 4 times on this story - I thought I was experiencing some deja vu, but no, it was just you whoring karma.
Didn't work though, did it? And why is that? Maybe it's because the mods realised where you didn't that things that sell better can be sold for less to make a similar profit. So yes, people had better buy them, or the price will go up and not down.
Stop trying to blame something as simple as everyday pricing structure on the 'M$ tax'.
First, I didn't relize that in the EU and Norway people put a gun to your haed and forced you to use an iPod. That's wierd.
Try reading my comment, because I don't think you actually did. I said if you buy iTunes music then you have to buy an iPod to be able take it with you. That is fact, stop trying to spin it.
Second, There are many expensive things that allow you to manipulte much cheaper things. A blender comes to mind. The price of the iPod doesn't matter in this conversation.
But there isn't branded veg, sold as normal veg, that can only be blended in a particular type of blender that costs you $200. The price matters because Apple are essentially charging you a $200 levy to make music that you should be free to use portable. If you don't buy an iPod, your music stays put. EU court says "This isn't on - sort it out."
this issue and the MS monopoly issue are completly different and as irrelevant as comparing a car to chocolate.
Can you give me a reason why they're incomparable? I gave a good reason why they are, care to properly rebut that?
If they want to make there own music format, then fine.
It's not a new format. It's an MP4 or an MP3, I forget which at this time. However, I have a right to expect that anything labelled as an MP4/MP3 is playable on any device marked as being able to play MP4 or MP3, like say my Sony Ericsson phone. I can't, because of iTunes DRM.
here is no hypocrisy here, only yuour inability to see the difference between an operating system by a cmompany that abused it's monopoly, and a hardware company that makes a music device.
Rephrase that as 'a hardware company that has as much of a monopoly on the MP3/MP4 player market as Microsoft does on the OS market, which is leveraging that monopoly to sell music as a software company' and you're closer to the truth.
I think I'll go out and create a new device witrh my own private music format, and then force apple to make the product they sell suport it.
You don't make close to 90% of the MP3 players out there. Monopolies are treated differently because if they weren't, the market they monopolise would stagnate. Sorry, doesn't work that way.
I don't like DRM but this argument makes no sense what so ever.
I would blame a limited understanding of the issues at hand on your part, rather than mine.
circumventtransitive verb 1 a : to hem in b : to make a circuit around 2 : to manage to get around especially by ingenuity or stratagem
Just because Apple haven't asked you to stop, doesn't mean it's not illegal. It's also not illegal because of state/federal/European law regarding personal copies - you agreed to terms and conditions when you bought the music and if you fail to follow them youYou have circumvented copy protection - if you perform the actions you outline, you end up with a close to exact copy of what you had before yet without any copy protection. That seems pretty textbook to me.
Let's just say for a brief moment that you might be right: if the circumvention is that 'trivial', and it's not illegal, and Apple don't have a problem with it, then why are they taking every measure possible to avoid providing information about their DRM to their rivals? Surely if circumvention is trivial and Apple don't care, where is the issue with providing documentation to rivals for their DRM?
Doing what you describe is, however you want to play it, illegal, as you are violating a contract you made with Apple when you bought their music:
9. Purchase of Apple Content
b. Use of Products. You acknowledge that Products contain security technology that limits your usage of Products to the following Usage Rules, and you agree to use Products in compliance with such Usage Rules.
Usage Rules
You agree that you will not attempt to, or encourage or assist any other person to, circumvent or modify any security technology or software that is part of the Service or used to administer the Usage Rules.
That is clearly a 'no getting around the DRM' clause. Are you suggesting that all users of the iTunes store should commit an illegal act to relieve Apple of the burden of illegally abusing their iPod monopoly?
The point is - music you buy from iTunes is only playable on either your computer (a limited number, to boot) or an iPod (admittedly unlimited). The European courts look unfavourably on any kind of lock-in, and they want iTunes music to be playable on any device, legally, because you bought it, and Apple are denying you the right as a consumer to use it how you like.
There is no way you should be forced to spend upwards of 200 dollars to use something you spent 99 cents on.
It's amazing really - the bulk of these comments are "Why should Apple let you play iTunes music on any other player", when almost exactly the same people have been saying "Microsoft have to give their full Windows API to EVERYONE otherwise it's monopoly abuse". Why shouldn't Apple have to a) give out how they code their DRM to allow others to make DRM music that is compatible, and b) give out their DRM specs so manufacturers can code their MP3 firmware to be able to play iTunes music?
I really disagree with your first basic assumption - that cameras allow people to exert control over others, to the point of your implication of being able to take over neighbourhoods. We have cameras in this country, and I haven't seen that happen. I remember someone said they've had them in another EU country for many years (Denmark, I think?) and I don't think that's devolved into totalitarianism yet. I haven't seen any restriction in what I do because cameras are there.
Having said that, it makes most of the rest of what you said pretty irrelevant to the argument if we don't agree on that one basic premise, though I will add something in regards to your "What happens if it works" scenario.
The camera grid is not a digital on/off system - if you find it works and there's less crime to observe, you have less people observing. That's pretty simple, to me. If then you find crime starts to go up again, you put more people back on, until you have a nice happy medium where crime is minimal and your system is working at top efficiency.
Though I will agree that it is slightly contrary to the beliefs that the US was founded on. Americans as a people put a lot of stock in freedom which is (probably) why the idea of this seems to go against what a lot of Americans stood for, and I appreciate and respect any resistance to it on the whole.
And thank you for going through an entire, well thought-out post without once mentioning '1984'! What a refreshing change from the norm;)
It may well be to assign a perceived discount on Leopard. If Boot Camp is $29, and Leopard w/Boot Camp is $129 dollars, then Leopard is actually only a $100 dollars!
Except that's not true at all, they're just selling something to people that:
a) They already have for nothing, or b) Is free with an upgraded version of their software.
They've assigned an arbitrary price to a piece of free software in order to make paying to upgrade every 18 months a less bitter pill to swallow.
I agree with you to the extent that I posted the same question in a different article.
Get ready for a mass of people directing you to go read '1984' like it's some kind of prophecy of an inevitable future, and maybe a smattering of half-decent points relating to police/camera coverage and possible abuses of the system.
As far as I'm concerned though, just because it's possible to abuse something, doesn't mean it's going to be abused. I think a comment I made to friend was "You can't stop giving gardeners a spade just because they might beat someone to death with it".
After upgrading Ubuntu from Dapper to Edgy I lost SMP. Get SMP going, lose nvidia driver. I finally had to install the driver manually, which is not a big deal to me but might be to someone else and frankly it pissed me off, too.
This has kind of categorised the two experiences I had trying to use Ubuntu.
First time I couldn't even install it - it kept reading the first HD as having bad sectors and not letting me get past a certain point. I went back and installed Windows over it and it installed fine, no bad sectors detected. That was a good while ago though, I don't really remember the specifics. It frustrated me though and I ended up giving up for a while.
I tried again recently, when I got a Live CD via BitTorrent. Booted the OS from it and it was almost unusable. It didn't detect my PS/2 keyboard which I found incredibly odd. There were graphical glitches and such all over the place which I put down to having an ATI card (I've heard they're not particularly Linux-friendly). Sound obviously wasn't working and it took me a while to work out where everything was. I couldn't even access my hard-drives or any of the data on them, despite one of them (a partition of my 240Gb storage drive) being FAT32 which I thought was compatible. I'll give them credit for having my network card working 'out of the box' so to speak, but the rest of it was, from my perspective, shambolic. Call me lazy but the whole thing just put me off, especially after all the good press from Slashdot and other places Ubuntu receives for being user friendly. I went in expecting that and just didn't get it.
I'm sure I could have fixed it with time if I'd put my mind to it, and I'm sure it's not a big deal to most of the lads here but then, they always say that you should use what works for you, and Windows just works for me. I'm currently on my 25th day of uptime with no problems, and I've been gaming, torrenting and browsing every single one of those days. I'm not going to switch easily.
Linux, for me, has a long way to come before it meets my needs.
Slashdot Mirror
Let me be the first to say - WHOOSH!
Because the money was offered only if criticism was provided, therefore it's a payment made to a person in a position of trust to corrupt his judgment - a bribe by dictionary standards. This doesn't even touch on the fact that the bribes were offered through a funded organisation rather than from the company themselves, which is inherently dishonest.
If the money had been offered to do scientific research regardless of outcome, that's when it stops being bribery and becomes funding. However, ExxonMobil only wants one outcome, so why would they pay out for something that's useless to them?
Honestly, living without care of the risk of troll mods:-
What in the living fuck are you talking about? Slashdot is a haven for Apple and Linux users raging against the MS machine. I'm more likely to get flamed for using Vista than for buying, well, anything else.
Huzzah, you posted my list! You are an easily irritated little bunny, aren't you? Shall we link that again? Superb. Now we've established that it means shit to this conversation, we'll move on.
Given the way you insult people in your defense of a company and it's products
"YOU'RE A LIAR! Also, you insult people." Awesome bit of irony there, classic.
probable way to explain why your experience is different from the other 9999 of 10,000 user experiences I've seen or read about
*sigh* And you call me a liar. Can you provide me with a nice little list of those 9,999 user experiences that sucked? Then I'll provide you with another 20 satisfied Windows users, and I'll wait patiently for the next 199,980 who had to 'reboot daily'. In other words, inexpertly used hyperbole makes you look like an idiot.
I'm well aware of those silly "power tools"
Awesome, then we'll both agree you were telling porkies about XP and virtual desktop management, how that it's impossible to hide Windows tasks, and how everyone has to reboot XP every day.
My the 45 virtual desktops on my laptop are laughing at your pathetic taskbar and the supercomputer needed to run your five or six dinky programs, botnet and adware load.
Fine by me, I'll stick to laughing at your pathetic use of rhetoric, FUD and out-of-date OS knowledge in a sorry attempt to try and justify lying to people on the internet.
Keep trying, Twit, there is no end to my amusement. Why don't you try reading 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF's post for a couple of hints on how to argue a point?
I couldn't find anything in there that I properly disagree with, other than the rebooting Windows thing - I don't normally have trouble recovering XP from any kind of memory leak, but I've never used InDesign.
Also, regarding shutting down things while playing games, the only two programs I've ever had to shut down because they were hampering gameplay were (ironically enough, I suppose) iTunes and Firefox. That's a large part of the reason why I use Winamp and Opera now.
Otherwise, I think you and I are on the same page here. My main point was that Windows isn't as bad as some people seem to think.
I can't comment on that, as I have neither.
However, despite both our sets of evidence being anecdotal, mine is perfectly sufficient to deny that all Windows users have to reboot every day (which is what was said), whereas yours is only sufficient to prove that at least one person has to reboot Windows every day.
If all Windows users have to boot their PC daily, can you please explain my Windows box being up for well over a month so far without needing a reboot? While continuously running BOINC, microtorrent, Steam, Hamachi, and about 5-6 other programs in the background?
And of course, Windows has absolutely no way of hiding all those tasks, or the taskbar, or anything else. Of course, there are also no programs or add-ons straight from MS or anyone else that give you more than one virtual desktop for WinXP, and have been since 2002. I could go on but you get the picture - you, as usual, have no idea what you're talking about. Desktops are only as cluttered as the people who use them.
AHHAHHAHAHHAHAHA!
AHHAHAHAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!
*breathes*
HHAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHA!
*collapses*
I'm pretty sure the people at MS have better things than to harrass one guy on a message board. You've proven over and over that you have a very tenuous grip on reality, prone to snap if anyone says "MS" without creatively replacing that S with a dollar sign. I've said it before, but the line between you being a good troll and a terrible person is very fine indeed - seeing your responses to people like Keith Russell push you into the "total turd" zone.
I'm rather hurt that you didn't include me in your list of MS-employed harrassers. I wish I did get paid to do something I love so much, like painting or gaming, but unfortunately this is still just another hobby for me.
Catch you later, Twit! I hope you enjoy your paranoia-induced hallucinations! I'll be keeping an eye out for your wankery, as always.
Wow, maybe I'm one of his sockpuppets too? That would be interesting, I've never been someone's sockpuppet before. There's a "hand jammed up ass" joke here somewhere...
And I swear I hadn't seen your puppy-kicking post when I made my puppy-kicking post. Poor puppies, they're getting a very raw deal today.
You mean the ones that ended 6 years ago, with a judgement that was due to expire this year but has been extended till 2009 voluntarily by Microsoft themselves? And if they were requested to comply until 2012 they would do so without objection?
/. URL tags, so you looked like even more of a total git than you normally do? I could go on!
By the way, good job picking out the one statement you thought you could argue with, by putting words in my mouth and citing something I did not say, and then ignoring the rest of what I said. Please note, as you have aptly demonstrated by not using an MS product for 5 years by your own admission, you have no obligation to touch anything created by them now or ever again.
And are you still trotting out that tired old post where you tried to make me look like an idiot? The one that was modded troll? The one you posted twice with only minor changes? Where you copy-pasted the text of the previous entry you wrote and forgot to take out the
You're kind of pathetic. Disproving your points is like kicking a crippled puppy - easy.
So, free software is geeky, useless, childish and no one cares? What an ignorant flame disguised as a thoughtful and informed reflection.
Your response is not exactly the epitome of reasoned debate. Where did you get childish and useless from? He never said either of those things. He merely said that the general public does not care about Linux, which is true. He also said that people who are mature about this, rather than spouting ridiculous OS zealotry without taking note of the actual point (true of EVERY OS, not just Linux, though you are a prime example), realise that people will gravitate to using what they find most useful, regardless of how 'free' it is. No-one is asking you to choose between what is 'free' and what is useful. They are asking you to choose whatever you find does what you want to do properly.
That isn't always Linux, and you know that - which is why you're having a hissy fit. If you were trying to prove that Linux users aren't childish, a point that was never made or even hinted at, you defeated yourself rather rapidly. I find it of some small amusement that you inadvertantly proved a point that no-one made.
How about this - true freedom is being free to choose the OS and software I want to use, when I like. Oh, and Firefox leaks like a sieve and crashes too, even on Linux, to the point where someone had to release a leak monitoring plug-in. Sorry to burst your bubble, but it's not a Windows-only issue. Anyway, some people want some performance out of their browser rather than the "anything but IE" choice, which is why I use Opera. The Opera browsing experience is far superior, in my extensive experience, to both IE and Firefox and is (shock) closed source.
Proprietary, closed source solutions are sometimes better than open source solutions and vice versa.
Turns out he can't add up anyway.
Good work at posting the same comment 4 times on this story - I thought I was experiencing some deja vu, but no, it was just you whoring karma.
Didn't work though, did it? And why is that? Maybe it's because the mods realised where you didn't that things that sell better can be sold for less to make a similar profit. So yes, people had better buy them, or the price will go up and not down.
Stop trying to blame something as simple as everyday pricing structure on the 'M$ tax'.
First, I didn't relize that in the EU and Norway people put a gun to your haed and forced you to use an iPod. That's wierd.
Try reading my comment, because I don't think you actually did. I said if you buy iTunes music then you have to buy an iPod to be able take it with you. That is fact, stop trying to spin it.
Second, There are many expensive things that allow you to manipulte much cheaper things. A blender comes to mind. The price of the iPod doesn't matter in this conversation.
But there isn't branded veg, sold as normal veg, that can only be blended in a particular type of blender that costs you $200. The price matters because Apple are essentially charging you a $200 levy to make music that you should be free to use portable. If you don't buy an iPod, your music stays put. EU court says "This isn't on - sort it out."
this issue and the MS monopoly issue are completly different and as irrelevant as comparing a car to chocolate.
Can you give me a reason why they're incomparable? I gave a good reason why they are, care to properly rebut that?
If they want to make there own music format, then fine.
It's not a new format. It's an MP4 or an MP3, I forget which at this time. However, I have a right to expect that anything labelled as an MP4/MP3 is playable on any device marked as being able to play MP4 or MP3, like say my Sony Ericsson phone. I can't, because of iTunes DRM.
here is no hypocrisy here, only yuour inability to see the difference between an operating system by a cmompany that abused it's monopoly, and a hardware company that makes a music device.
Rephrase that as 'a hardware company that has as much of a monopoly on the MP3/MP4 player market as Microsoft does on the OS market, which is leveraging that monopoly to sell music as a software company' and you're closer to the truth.
I think I'll go out and create a new device witrh my own private music format, and then force apple to make the product they sell suport it.
You don't make close to 90% of the MP3 players out there. Monopolies are treated differently because if they weren't, the market they monopolise would stagnate. Sorry, doesn't work that way.
I don't like DRM but this argument makes no sense what so ever.
I would blame a limited understanding of the issues at hand on your part, rather than mine.
circumvent transitive verb
1 a : to hem in b : to make a circuit around
2 : to manage to get around especially by ingenuity or stratagem
Just because Apple haven't asked you to stop, doesn't mean it's not illegal. It's also not illegal because of state/federal/European law regarding personal copies - you agreed to terms and conditions when you bought the music and if you fail to follow them youYou have circumvented copy protection - if you perform the actions you outline, you end up with a close to exact copy of what you had before yet without any copy protection. That seems pretty textbook to me.
Let's just say for a brief moment that you might be right: if the circumvention is that 'trivial', and it's not illegal, and Apple don't have a problem with it, then why are they taking every measure possible to avoid providing information about their DRM to their rivals? Surely if circumvention is trivial and Apple don't care, where is the issue with providing documentation to rivals for their DRM?
Doing what you describe is, however you want to play it, illegal, as you are violating a contract you made with Apple when you bought their music:
9. Purchase of Apple Content
b. Use of Products. You acknowledge that Products contain security technology that limits your usage of Products to the following Usage Rules, and you agree to use Products in compliance with such Usage Rules.
Usage Rules
You agree that you will not attempt to, or encourage or assist any other person to, circumvent or modify any security technology or software that is part of the Service or used to administer the Usage Rules.
That is clearly a 'no getting around the DRM' clause. Are you suggesting that all users of the iTunes store should commit an illegal act to relieve Apple of the burden of illegally abusing their iPod monopoly?
The point is - music you buy from iTunes is only playable on either your computer (a limited number, to boot) or an iPod (admittedly unlimited). The European courts look unfavourably on any kind of lock-in, and they want iTunes music to be playable on any device, legally, because you bought it, and Apple are denying you the right as a consumer to use it how you like.
There is no way you should be forced to spend upwards of 200 dollars to use something you spent 99 cents on.
It's amazing really - the bulk of these comments are "Why should Apple let you play iTunes music on any other player", when almost exactly the same people have been saying "Microsoft have to give their full Windows API to EVERYONE otherwise it's monopoly abuse". Why shouldn't Apple have to a) give out how they code their DRM to allow others to make DRM music that is compatible, and b) give out their DRM specs so manufacturers can code their MP3 firmware to be able to play iTunes music?
I love a good bout of hypocrisy.
The link is broken! I clicked it, like, a hundred times and nothing happened...
Do I get my PS3 now?
To be fair, he might have the English skills of a squashed beetle but he does have a point...
I really disagree with your first basic assumption - that cameras allow people to exert control over others, to the point of your implication of being able to take over neighbourhoods. We have cameras in this country, and I haven't seen that happen. I remember someone said they've had them in another EU country for many years (Denmark, I think?) and I don't think that's devolved into totalitarianism yet. I haven't seen any restriction in what I do because cameras are there.
;)
Having said that, it makes most of the rest of what you said pretty irrelevant to the argument if we don't agree on that one basic premise, though I will add something in regards to your "What happens if it works" scenario.
The camera grid is not a digital on/off system - if you find it works and there's less crime to observe, you have less people observing. That's pretty simple, to me. If then you find crime starts to go up again, you put more people back on, until you have a nice happy medium where crime is minimal and your system is working at top efficiency.
Though I will agree that it is slightly contrary to the beliefs that the US was founded on. Americans as a people put a lot of stock in freedom which is (probably) why the idea of this seems to go against what a lot of Americans stood for, and I appreciate and respect any resistance to it on the whole.
And thank you for going through an entire, well thought-out post without once mentioning '1984'! What a refreshing change from the norm
It may well be to assign a perceived discount on Leopard. If Boot Camp is $29, and Leopard w/Boot Camp is $129 dollars, then Leopard is actually only a $100 dollars!
Except that's not true at all, they're just selling something to people that:
a) They already have for nothing, or
b) Is free with an upgraded version of their software.
They've assigned an arbitrary price to a piece of free software in order to make paying to upgrade every 18 months a less bitter pill to swallow.
I agree with you to the extent that I posted the same question in a different article.
Get ready for a mass of people directing you to go read '1984' like it's some kind of prophecy of an inevitable future, and maybe a smattering of half-decent points relating to police/camera coverage and possible abuses of the system.
As far as I'm concerned though, just because it's possible to abuse something, doesn't mean it's going to be abused. I think a comment I made to friend was "You can't stop giving gardeners a spade just because they might beat someone to death with it".
line n. a mark or stroke long in proportion to its breadth, made with a pen, pencil, tool, etc., on a surface: a line down the middle of the page.
So, no, it's not. That definition is also backed up by the Chambers English dictionary.
</pedantry>
It's pretty hard for anyone, valid point or not, to reply in the middle of you typing a post.
After upgrading Ubuntu from Dapper to Edgy I lost SMP. Get SMP going, lose nvidia driver. I finally had to install the driver manually, which is not a big deal to me but might be to someone else and frankly it pissed me off, too.
This has kind of categorised the two experiences I had trying to use Ubuntu.
First time I couldn't even install it - it kept reading the first HD as having bad sectors and not letting me get past a certain point. I went back and installed Windows over it and it installed fine, no bad sectors detected. That was a good while ago though, I don't really remember the specifics. It frustrated me though and I ended up giving up for a while.
I tried again recently, when I got a Live CD via BitTorrent. Booted the OS from it and it was almost unusable. It didn't detect my PS/2 keyboard which I found incredibly odd. There were graphical glitches and such all over the place which I put down to having an ATI card (I've heard they're not particularly Linux-friendly). Sound obviously wasn't working and it took me a while to work out where everything was. I couldn't even access my hard-drives or any of the data on them, despite one of them (a partition of my 240Gb storage drive) being FAT32 which I thought was compatible. I'll give them credit for having my network card working 'out of the box' so to speak, but the rest of it was, from my perspective, shambolic. Call me lazy but the whole thing just put me off, especially after all the good press from Slashdot and other places Ubuntu receives for being user friendly. I went in expecting that and just didn't get it.
I'm sure I could have fixed it with time if I'd put my mind to it, and I'm sure it's not a big deal to most of the lads here but then, they always say that you should use what works for you, and Windows just works for me. I'm currently on my 25th day of uptime with no problems, and I've been gaming, torrenting and browsing every single one of those days. I'm not going to switch easily.
Linux, for me, has a long way to come before it meets my needs.
Genius.