They would need to build up name recognition again. IT guys would have to explain to the people who write the checks, i.e. management, why it is they're suddenly switching to a new, unknown vendor.
So if Macrovision patents the ability to forbid people to file share over P2P, that means that if anybody else tries to do the same, then they get sued by Macrovision?
This is great. This means that if the RIAA or MPAA attempt to do the same thing independently, then they'll be infringing against Macrovision's patents.
Plus it's confusing to start from 1.. I mean if there is no activity.. you'd want to rate it as zero (null) not 1 (which sort of implies there's some activity.
By that logic, you can safely ignore the first item on any prepared by overly clever programmers who think it looks cool to start numbering with zero.
Letting thousands of perfect strangers download it over the internet is not fair use; it's mass distribution, which is a definite no-no. It could be argued that a) the show is already paid for (it made it to broadcast, after all), and b) there are scads of people who would otherwise never get to see the show (I live in Japan, so I know your pain.) However, the producers of the show have every right to choose where to distribute the show and where not to.
Of course, the digital age is going to force them to find a way to start legal digital distribution, so in a certain respect I don't feel sorry for them at all. If it wasn't for piracy like this, they'd take forever and a day to get around to it.
1. It's only bundled with entry-level PCs. When the low-end changes, the Starter Edition version changes. The vendors and Microsoft will work that out together, sans user input.
2. Entry-level PC users typically don't upgrade their own computers. If you want to upgrade it, buy a new one (after all, they're cheap enough.) If you're the kind of person who upgrades, then you're not entry-level, are you?
3. If you want a scalable operating system, then pay the price for XP Home or Professional. That's why it's called Starter. You get what you pay for.
(Disclaimer: no, I don't like Microsoft's business practices or pricing structure, either. However, nobody's forcing you to buy their OS, either.)
I find that it's a better stance than saying that they continue to refuse to change their browser, which is not true. Until recently I was afraid of the same thing, but if they say they're fixing things, then more power to them. It only makes my life easier.
As for making it fully W3C compliant, that'd be nice, but a half a loaf is better than none. Yes, Microsoft is an easy target, and I hate the fact that I have to write a browser sniffer and a completely separate style sheet to deal with the steaming pile that is IE 6, but I won't hate monger against Microsoft when their own IE programmers are posting regular, detailed information on how they're fixing the situation.
Heck, I don't like how I can write code that Safari can handle but Firefox can't. So much for everybody writing standards-compliant browsers. We're getting there, though.
I'm glad Mozilla.org is keeping the pressure on the Redmond-based behemoth. The fact that IE7 will continue to ignore established web standard makes me sick at the very thought of it.
Um, no. The most recent news from Microsoft itself says that they intend to update their web standards to include better CSS support and transparent PNGs (finally!) It's important to keep up with this stuff, lest we be guilty of spreading FUD ourselves. I've since bookmarked the site just so I can keep tabs on what I can hope for in future web development.
I have a visual peculiarity known as double strabismus, and which the doctor told me could have been corrected if I'd been born five years later. He said that, since it is a phenomenon that involves the brain, there is no way to correct it. (I immediately decided to ignore the last part, since deciding something is impossible never gets anything done.)
One of the disadvantages of the whole situation is that one of my retinas is slightly underdeveloped, and that much I believe is not correctable through training or stimulus, at least not with our current level of technology.
Okay, just because you have human brain cells does not automatically make the brain capable of human intelligence. First of all, human brain cells taken as individual neurons are by no means superior to any other animals. Second of all, this is definitely a case of "it's the size that counts." Not only does the brain's structure play a role in how the brain works, but its size matters, too. A brain that is too small is going to simply lack the critical mass to develop past a certain level of intelligence. Finally, it's like pouring water into a container: the water takes on the form of whatever it's in. So whereas there's a remote possibility that the sheep might be smarter than average (and that's assuming a lot), the sensory inputs to teach the brain are completely wrong; it will be a human brain that thinks it's a sheep.
Let's put it this way: how do you know you're not a sheep's brain trapped in a human body?
No, I don't think people should be spending their time sending personal emails on company time. However, if they were to do so during their lunch break or any other approved break, that's not a big deal. I also don't think that people should be allowed to take smoking breaks, either (especially when non-smokers don't get to), or anything else "on company time."
I appreciate that nobody is entitled to abuse corporate resources, especially the expensive ones. On the other hand, beyond preventing abuse of the system, I think that management should cut employees a little slack in order to foster some good will and a friendly work environment. More often than not the worst abuses come not from the peons on the front lines with work to do, but from the management types with a lot of time on their hands. If people are wasting a lot of company time on emails about how much the company sucks, instead of just mindlessly squashing it, why not review it and see if they actually have a point?
The unverifiable ramblings of random strangers on Slashdot is justification for wasting corporate resources? Interesting. So what if we told you we're just making it all up?
The cable length would be to accomodate those people connecting this to computers other than a Mac mini. That, and it saves on higher production costs that would end up severely limiting their potential market.
Just to feed the troll, no, it's not. Apple invented its own Desktop widgets with the original Macintosh. Remember Stickies, Calculator, Scrapbook? Konfabulator isn't a terribly original idea, although pretty and good for the wow factor. At least with Dashboard, you get something that's built-in, and therefore less of a processor- and memory-hog. Also, it actually has an accessible API that uses industry-standard programming and scripting languages.
Finally, one of the biggest disadvantages for would-be Konfabulator developers is the fact that they can't sell a module until the user buys Konfabulator. Daring Fireball had a great article on this; I suggest you check it out.
Spoken like a true fan. Having a robot, giant or otherwise, is hardly an original plot device, so it's unfair to over-generalize and insult every other anime out there that has ever used a robot. Not only that, just because you use a giant robot doesn't mean your story's any good.
Mazinger Z was released in America under the name of Tranzor Z, so I'm sure quite a few people here know of it.
As for the Japanese, they like robots and therefore feature it in their anime, not the other way around. It's an interesting difference in culture; in the west, we're terrified of robots and create movies such as Terminator; in Japan, they view robots as potential helpers of humanity and then personify them (of course, the Japanese personify everything; it's a very animistic culture.)
Apple does not prevent competitor's music from playing on the iPod, nor does it prevent its iTunes store music from playing elsewhere (albiet the limitation is that it has to be burned to a CD before it can be ripped back to an MP3.) Since the DRM is put there to protect the RIAA's interests, Apple has a legitimate argument for protecting the encryption. For example, they could argue that opening such DRM endangered their business agreement with the music industry and pass the buck to them. Then it's Napster vs. the music industry, and we all know how that turns out.
Those two ladies look to be in their thirties or forties and are probably housewives making some extra cash.
I've been living in Japan for three years now, so I'm used to it. If you think the ladies pictured are cute, then seeing twenty-year-olds would probably kill you.:)
The link to Nutch shows a site that hasn't been updated in two years and doesn't have a public demo, either. So if that's the "Linux-like" answer to Google, I don't think it's presenting the image you were hoping for.
Maybe it's a podcast if the person who posts it on their web page chooses to call it such. I differentiate the two by the fact that a podcast doesn't leave me tied to the computer the whole time, but rather lets me take it with me for later viewing. Do you refer to recorded shows on Tivo as broadcasts, even though they're recordings?
Podcasts offer programming in specific formats, i.e. people create podcasts based on their own personal interests. There are podcasts for every possible type of interest out there, plus a few that radio would never even consider investing in.
You aren't willing to go out and find digital files and set them up for play? So you've never downloaded music off of the internet, ever?
Podcasts are also usually quite long. One podcast can last anywhere between 15 and 45 minutes. There is plenty of free podcasting aggregators available that will allow you to subscribe to a feed, check the feed regularly, and then automatically download new podcasts and load them into your favorite MP3 player. You might want to start here (http://www.ipodder.org/) and see what you can find.
I suspect the recent trend over the years to stay attached to point-point-point releases, especially for those projects that take forever and a day to hit 1.0, isn't so much an honesty thing as a sub-conscious desire to avoid responsibility for mistakes. I'm not referring to legal liability so much as professional pride. "Of course it has bugs, it's still not 1.0!" I'm sorry, but that's not realistic. People don't get paid to be perfectionists; that's a conceit to be enjoyed on your own time.
You do your best, you release it as 1.0, and then you start all over again to fix bugs and work towards the next full release. Making the numbers smaller doesn't change the quality of your software, it just helps a programmer live with the perceived embarrassment of not writing the perfect piece of code. In the final analysis, the numbers are all arbitrary; any sense of pride in your work or shame about your mistakes is a personal issue. Take Apple as an example. You could strip the 10 off of 10.3.8 and say that they are on version 3.8 of OS X. That means that version 4.0 is just around the corner, and that makes their turn-around cycle sound that much more impressive. To those who protest that a full point release demands unbelievable innovation and "drastic code re-writes," I have to ask, "Where is that written?" In the final analysis, versioning is all in your head.:)
Slashdot Mirror
They would need to build up name recognition again. IT guys would have to explain to the people who write the checks, i.e. management, why it is they're suddenly switching to a new, unknown vendor.
So if Macrovision patents the ability to forbid people to file share over P2P, that means that if anybody else tries to do the same, then they get sued by Macrovision?
This is great. This means that if the RIAA or MPAA attempt to do the same thing independently, then they'll be infringing against Macrovision's patents.
Wow. I guess two wrongs do make a right.
Plus it's confusing to start from 1 .. I mean if there is no activity .. you'd want to rate it as zero (null) not 1 (which sort of implies there's some activity.
By that logic, you can safely ignore the first item on any prepared by overly clever programmers who think it looks cool to start numbering with zero.
I prefer to keep it, as it is an important part of my body's ability to keep itself balanced and upright.
Letting thousands of perfect strangers download it over the internet is not fair use; it's mass distribution, which is a definite no-no. It could be argued that a) the show is already paid for (it made it to broadcast, after all), and b) there are scads of people who would otherwise never get to see the show (I live in Japan, so I know your pain.) However, the producers of the show have every right to choose where to distribute the show and where not to.
Of course, the digital age is going to force them to find a way to start legal digital distribution, so in a certain respect I don't feel sorry for them at all. If it wasn't for piracy like this, they'd take forever and a day to get around to it.
Won't happen. Here's Microsoft's logic:
1. It's only bundled with entry-level PCs. When the low-end changes, the Starter Edition version changes. The vendors and Microsoft will work that out together, sans user input.
2. Entry-level PC users typically don't upgrade their own computers. If you want to upgrade it, buy a new one (after all, they're cheap enough.) If you're the kind of person who upgrades, then you're not entry-level, are you?
3. If you want a scalable operating system, then pay the price for XP Home or Professional. That's why it's called Starter. You get what you pay for.
(Disclaimer: no, I don't like Microsoft's business practices or pricing structure, either. However, nobody's forcing you to buy their OS, either.)
Except in the context of buying someone an iPod. For that price, they'd better be sleeping with me. ;)
I find that it's a better stance than saying that they continue to refuse to change their browser, which is not true. Until recently I was afraid of the same thing, but if they say they're fixing things, then more power to them. It only makes my life easier.
As for making it fully W3C compliant, that'd be nice, but a half a loaf is better than none. Yes, Microsoft is an easy target, and I hate the fact that I have to write a browser sniffer and a completely separate style sheet to deal with the steaming pile that is IE 6, but I won't hate monger against Microsoft when their own IE programmers are posting regular, detailed information on how they're fixing the situation.
Heck, I don't like how I can write code that Safari can handle but Firefox can't. So much for everybody writing standards-compliant browsers. We're getting there, though.
I'm glad Mozilla.org is keeping the pressure on the Redmond-based behemoth. The fact that IE7 will continue to ignore established web standard makes me sick at the very thought of it.
Um, no. The most recent news from Microsoft itself says that they intend to update their web standards to include better CSS support and transparent PNGs (finally!) It's important to keep up with this stuff, lest we be guilty of spreading FUD ourselves. I've since bookmarked the site just so I can keep tabs on what I can hope for in future web development.
I have a visual peculiarity known as double strabismus, and which the doctor told me could have been corrected if I'd been born five years later. He said that, since it is a phenomenon that involves the brain, there is no way to correct it. (I immediately decided to ignore the last part, since deciding something is impossible never gets anything done.)
One of the disadvantages of the whole situation is that one of my retinas is slightly underdeveloped, and that much I believe is not correctable through training or stimulus, at least not with our current level of technology.
Okay, just because you have human brain cells does not automatically make the brain capable of human intelligence. First of all, human brain cells taken as individual neurons are by no means superior to any other animals. Second of all, this is definitely a case of "it's the size that counts." Not only does the brain's structure play a role in how the brain works, but its size matters, too. A brain that is too small is going to simply lack the critical mass to develop past a certain level of intelligence. Finally, it's like pouring water into a container: the water takes on the form of whatever it's in. So whereas there's a remote possibility that the sheep might be smarter than average (and that's assuming a lot), the sensory inputs to teach the brain are completely wrong; it will be a human brain that thinks it's a sheep.
Let's put it this way: how do you know you're not a sheep's brain trapped in a human body?
No, I don't think people should be spending their time sending personal emails on company time. However, if they were to do so during their lunch break or any other approved break, that's not a big deal. I also don't think that people should be allowed to take smoking breaks, either (especially when non-smokers don't get to), or anything else "on company time."
I appreciate that nobody is entitled to abuse corporate resources, especially the expensive ones. On the other hand, beyond preventing abuse of the system, I think that management should cut employees a little slack in order to foster some good will and a friendly work environment. More often than not the worst abuses come not from the peons on the front lines with work to do, but from the management types with a lot of time on their hands. If people are wasting a lot of company time on emails about how much the company sucks, instead of just mindlessly squashing it, why not review it and see if they actually have a point?
The unverifiable ramblings of random strangers on Slashdot is justification for wasting corporate resources? Interesting. So what if we told you we're just making it all up?
The cable length would be to accomodate those people connecting this to computers other than a Mac mini. That, and it saves on higher production costs that would end up severely limiting their potential market.
Just to feed the troll, no, it's not. Apple invented its own Desktop widgets with the original Macintosh. Remember Stickies, Calculator, Scrapbook? Konfabulator isn't a terribly original idea, although pretty and good for the wow factor. At least with Dashboard, you get something that's built-in, and therefore less of a processor- and memory-hog. Also, it actually has an accessible API that uses industry-standard programming and scripting languages.
Finally, one of the biggest disadvantages for would-be Konfabulator developers is the fact that they can't sell a module until the user buys Konfabulator. Daring Fireball had a great article on this; I suggest you check it out.
And while you're tipping him to take care of other people, how much extra is it to ignore your own illegal activities?
Spoken like a true fan. Having a robot, giant or otherwise, is hardly an original plot device, so it's unfair to over-generalize and insult every other anime out there that has ever used a robot. Not only that, just because you use a giant robot doesn't mean your story's any good.
Mazinger Z was released in America under the name of Tranzor Z, so I'm sure quite a few people here know of it.
As for the Japanese, they like robots and therefore feature it in their anime, not the other way around. It's an interesting difference in culture; in the west, we're terrified of robots and create movies such as Terminator; in Japan, they view robots as potential helpers of humanity and then personify them (of course, the Japanese personify everything; it's a very animistic culture.)
Apple does not prevent competitor's music from playing on the iPod, nor does it prevent its iTunes store music from playing elsewhere (albiet the limitation is that it has to be burned to a CD before it can be ripped back to an MP3.) Since the DRM is put there to protect the RIAA's interests, Apple has a legitimate argument for protecting the encryption. For example, they could argue that opening such DRM endangered their business agreement with the music industry and pass the buck to them. Then it's Napster vs. the music industry, and we all know how that turns out.
Those two ladies look to be in their thirties or forties and are probably housewives making some extra cash.
:)
I've been living in Japan for three years now, so I'm used to it. If you think the ladies pictured are cute, then seeing twenty-year-olds would probably kill you.
The link to Nutch shows a site that hasn't been updated in two years and doesn't have a public demo, either. So if that's the "Linux-like" answer to Google, I don't think it's presenting the image you were hoping for.
Still, this, too, is old news. Good to let people know about it, but I remember reading about this exact thing many years ago.
Maybe it's a podcast if the person who posts it on their web page chooses to call it such. I differentiate the two by the fact that a podcast doesn't leave me tied to the computer the whole time, but rather lets me take it with me for later viewing. Do you refer to recorded shows on Tivo as broadcasts, even though they're recordings?
Podcasts offer programming in specific formats, i.e. people create podcasts based on their own personal interests. There are podcasts for every possible type of interest out there, plus a few that radio would never even consider investing in.
You aren't willing to go out and find digital files and set them up for play? So you've never downloaded music off of the internet, ever?
Podcasts are also usually quite long. One podcast can last anywhere between 15 and 45 minutes. There is plenty of free podcasting aggregators available that will allow you to subscribe to a feed, check the feed regularly, and then automatically download new podcasts and load them into your favorite MP3 player. You might want to start here (http://www.ipodder.org/) and see what you can find.
I suspect the recent trend over the years to stay attached to point-point-point releases, especially for those projects that take forever and a day to hit 1.0, isn't so much an honesty thing as a sub-conscious desire to avoid responsibility for mistakes. I'm not referring to legal liability so much as professional pride. "Of course it has bugs, it's still not 1.0!" I'm sorry, but that's not realistic. People don't get paid to be perfectionists; that's a conceit to be enjoyed on your own time.
:)
You do your best, you release it as 1.0, and then you start all over again to fix bugs and work towards the next full release. Making the numbers smaller doesn't change the quality of your software, it just helps a programmer live with the perceived embarrassment of not writing the perfect piece of code. In the final analysis, the numbers are all arbitrary; any sense of pride in your work or shame about your mistakes is a personal issue. Take Apple as an example. You could strip the 10 off of 10.3.8 and say that they are on version 3.8 of OS X. That means that version 4.0 is just around the corner, and that makes their turn-around cycle sound that much more impressive. To those who protest that a full point release demands unbelievable innovation and "drastic code re-writes," I have to ask, "Where is that written?" In the final analysis, versioning is all in your head.
No need to recall anything OR make it available for download. Just tell people that they can pay for it, just like they would any other version.