Slashdot Mirror

Here is a link to remember http://liberty.hypermart.net/voices/2003/Actual_Cost_Of_Making_These_Popular_Prescription_Drugs.htm. So while some Europeans are paying more for software they a paying a damn sight less for prescription drugs and for example in Australia no prescription cost me more than twenty odd dollars (and the Australia government gets major discounts via negotiations prior to any drug being list.) so the final price in Australia is because of the government 'er' screwing corporations in favour of citizens, hmm, taxes well paid ;).

You can get this kind of info elsewhere

bitch

So much for the dog shows.

hypermart

Hypermart? Google's first result is a simple web hosting service. Is that really so dangerous.

freedom

Let [] ring from sea to shining sea.

unixbox

Better not let anyone find those shell accounts. Use a "safe" OS like Windows Crippled Edition!

bignews

Small results.

boxun

Slashdotters beware!

You need to look up the difference between "life peers" (knights, squires, etc.) and "birth peers" (barons, dukes, etc.). Both are titles of nobility and both were prohibited by the US Constitution.

If you ever told a life peer that his title wasn't earned, you would be treated with a degree of contempt no less than you would receive from a Harvard PhD.

Lemmie guess, never graduated college, and are bitter that it's a needed thing for corporate advancement?

Let me guess, you are bitter you got saddled with a $100k debt and nothing to show for it but a tendency to "correct" people by making statements like "Nobility is an inheritable title".

IANAL, but this just sounds like the DA is pushing for a charge that he know won't necessarily stick so as to make the case more visible publically. More than likely, this will get plead out or will be dropped to the more (IMHO) appropriate charge of vehicular manslaughter.

From a random websearch for homicide:
Murder (1,2,3): Murder with EXPRESS or IMPLIED MALICE or intent to kill or do harm
Manslaughter(1,2): Manslaughter without express or implied malice or intent to kill or do harm

It seems to me that the driver falls into the manslaughter category, which includes vehicular manslaughter. If he were to be convicted of murder, it would mean that all drunk driving fatalaties could now be classified as murders as well.

Here you go; stainless steel mesh gloves!

How many of you have helped out at a Homeless shelter or soup kitchen? Donated clothes/etc to the Salvation Army? Helped the Big Brothers or Big Sisters? Helped out Habitat for Humanity? Or thousands of other things one can do to help their fellow humans? I have, and the look on peoples faces when I help them with no selfish intentions is worth 1,000's to me. I just recently helped a co-worker setup a new computer. I saved her a lot of money by building a new computer and using some of her old parts. I gave her a spare 20GB HDD and a video card. I refused payment. Why? Because I wanted to help. Not because I wanted money. She still thanked me and gave me 4 boxes of Girl Scout cookies. That meant more to me then her handing me an impersonal check.

I have a 2 1/2 year old girl, should I start to charge her for my time, since "time is money"? Of course not, I would not trade my time with my little angel for any amount of money.

Now, I can think of thousands of ways to make money in a world where the majority of software is free. I think a balance can be met between free software and pay software. What I do not want to accept is proprietary software. I am a developer for a fortune 500 that does a few billion a year in sales and non of it comes from selling software. This company and hundreds of thousands of other companies in the world need software developed in-house. That requires hiring programmers to build custom applications. Most purchased software are too generic for companies and those companies want to tweak those apps, build extensions or develop complimenting applications. Most companies do not want to fit their business to sofware and instead want software to fit their business. So there will always be a strong need for sofware developers. The only issue that could hurt software developers is not Open Source, but out sourcing.

One other point, why do closed minded people like Clemens Vasters still think that you cannot sell Open Source software? MySQL, JBoss, Red Hat, SuSE, Ximian and others are doing it. What is required for a company to make money with Open Source is a for that company to trully add value. In a world where most of the software is Open Source, companies will once again have to innovate and create value. And that scares a lot of people.

Six Screenshots of KDE's Eye "K"andy for your eyeballs to delish

Screenshot 1
Screenshot 2
Screenshot 3
Screenshot 4

Screenshot 6

As long as I can remember I got addresses from Hypermart like:

• testpharm.hypermart.net (I got it in 1998-1999)
• dthomas9.hypermart.net

Also as far as I can remember Yahoo had addresses that I could use to go directly to the relevant page rather than going via the home page - like

• finance.yahoo.com
• my.yahoo.com
• news.yahoo.com
• etc

• yro.slashdot.org
• ask.slashdot.org
• developers.slashdot.org

These are some of the applications I remember offhand, and I am sure there has to be stuff like this that was there before this patent was filed.

As it is, it is pretty stupid to give a patent for something that is quite functional - but is it innovative ? And worse, should you be able to prevent others from using it without paying extortion money ?

As long as I can remember I got addresses from Hypermart like:

• testpharm.hypermart.net (I got it in 1998-1999)
• dthomas9.hypermart.net

Also as far as I can remember Yahoo had addresses that I could use to go directly to the relevant page rather than going via the home page - like

• finance.yahoo.com
• my.yahoo.com
• news.yahoo.com
• etc

• yro.slashdot.org
• ask.slashdot.org
• developers.slashdot.org

These are some of the applications I remember offhand, and I am sure there has to be stuff like this that was there before this patent was filed.

As it is, it is pretty stupid to give a patent for something that is quite functional - but is it innovative ? And worse, should you be able to prevent others from using it without paying extortion money ?

As long as I can remember I got addresses from Hypermart like:

• testpharm.hypermart.net (I got it in 1998-1999)
• dthomas9.hypermart.net

Also as far as I can remember Yahoo had addresses that I could use to go directly to the relevant page rather than going via the home page - like

• finance.yahoo.com
• my.yahoo.com
• news.yahoo.com
• etc

• yro.slashdot.org
• ask.slashdot.org
• developers.slashdot.org

These are some of the applications I remember offhand, and I am sure there has to be stuff like this that was there before this patent was filed.

As it is, it is pretty stupid to give a patent for something that is quite functional - but is it innovative ? And worse, should you be able to prevent others from using it without paying extortion money ?

It is a well conducted experiment by academic standards, but I believe its conclusions cannot be extrapolated to real life just yet.

The subjects were paid a nominal fee ($25) for their attendance plus auction earnings.

The first problem here is of anchoring with the $25 figure. An example is generally given in literature that first you ask a person when did Genghis Khan live. Say someone says 1275 AD. Next if you ask them how many movie theatres are there in Russia - you will find their answer strongly affected by the number 1275. This is called "anchoring." Anchoring may have reflected why people asked between $4 and $19. They were looking at a 20% to 80 percent increase in that session's earnings and so looks "big" to the $25 anchor.

The experiment was fully explained to the subjects and a consent form was signed. Subjects were free to leave or not participate.

This is even more problematic. Once you have committed to coming would you just walk out of the whole situation ? Has the time that you spent thinking about this before you came played a role in whether you stay or leave?

In all auctions prices were limited to a range of $0 - $100 as well as "infinity" to indicate that $100 would not be enough for the individual to reveal information to others.

The problem here is of "framing." You have made it clear that till $ 100 is the maximum "reasonable" price for private info, other wise you get nothing. This framing of the issue is problematic because it definitely had an influence on what people thought was a fair price for the info. Some people chose "infinity" but that is less than 3 %. If this is extrapolated then there is only 3 % of the popluation that wants to avoid Big Brother and Animal Farm - and that is scary.

Recent debates on privacy issues ranging from financial information [23] to genetic and medical data[24,25] to surveillance[26] require a careful consideration of how individuals choose to reveal their private information

.

I can pick up medical data, and point out to the fact that there are many healthy people who enroll themselves in clinical trials for $500-1500. In exchange they are monitored for days and weeks, blood samples drawn upteen times - why ? Because at that time that $1000 is a lot of money in their life. Some friends of mine went thru this procedure and I don't think their decision to give "all medical data" was based on any of the hypotheses of the current study. (As an aside, based on those clinical trial stories I later developed the concept for a comic strip Test Pharm - Cultivating a treatment for everyone)

This distance from a perceived ideal is far more important than privacy attitudes, how well one knows the group, or actual deviance from an objective mean.

The problem is that real life is not uni-dimensional. Cause and Effect is not singular. There can be single cause - multiple effects, multiple causes - single effect, multiple causes - multiple effects.

I can't just say that disclosure of salary is connected to a group average. There are a host of other issues related to the salary information. The salary information has multiple repercussions. In some of these "repercussions" I am average, in others deviant. In some groups I am average in others I am deviant.

This deviance concept is generally used in the Police State defense. "It shouldn't bother you because you got nothing to hide - right ?" I think it is misplaced as it does not consider the various shades of deviances in multiple dimensions - and exaggerates a singular cause rather than a bundle of causes. For example, if tomorrow carrying an almanac becomes a crime by some interpretation of the Patriot Act, then I would be against random roadblocks to "fish" out

There is a large WISP in MI called Speednet

I know they cover most of Saginaw->Mackinac area but I am not sure how far south they go. There is a *really* sucky webpage available here that shows WISPs in MI.

I have a few family members that use Speednet and they are really happy with them.

SP

But Windows rests on a 20 year old operating system.

Muh? Granted the parent poster is a troll, but there's no need to lie in response.

Windows NT 3.1 - a 32-bit operating system built from the ground-up was released in July 1993 (there was no NT version 1.0 or 2.0, they skipped ahead to keep up with the Windows 3.1 version number). As anyone who tried to run DOS games on Windows NT / 2000 / XP can tell you - it is definitely *NOT* based on DOS.

Taking release dates, Windows NT is two years younger than Linux - which was released in August 1991

If you're going to lie, at least do it convincingly. (The original poster was refering to Windows NT 4, not Windows 95 and 98, which admittedly sit on top of DOS).

I conceive of cyberspace in a fashion where there are at least 3 independent time frames, and there is constant interaction between the physical and abstract. A schematic showing the conception is here

From here we can now see different levels in which economic activity can be generated.

1. a) person to person
2. b) person to document
3. c) person observing person-to-person, i.e. person observing a)
4. d) person observing person-to-document, i.e. person observing b)
5. e) person oberving c) or d), and so on.
6. f) person observing advertisers, and advertisers observing persons

The business model that will encourage the movement of data and information across the physical and above mentioned levels, about the physical and above mentioned levels, and allow the data and information being generated to be easily created and managed, will be soundly based. In addition if the business model allows the data and information to be transformed into knowledge and action, it will have a sustainable competitive advantage.

I have more about the cyberspace model here . It is an old article but lays down the visualization.

More about the data & info & knowldege & action relationship is described over here. Sorry but it is in MS word format (about 35 KB). Don't have the tools to convert it with me right now ...

I conceive of cyberspace in a fashion where there are at least 3 independent time frames, and there is constant interaction between the physical and abstract. A schematic showing the conception is here

From here we can now see different levels in which economic activity can be generated.

1. a) person to person
2. b) person to document
3. c) person observing person-to-person, i.e. person observing a)
4. d) person observing person-to-document, i.e. person observing b)
5. e) person oberving c) or d), and so on.
6. f) person observing advertisers, and advertisers observing persons

The business model that will encourage the movement of data and information across the physical and above mentioned levels, about the physical and above mentioned levels, and allow the data and information being generated to be easily created and managed, will be soundly based. In addition if the business model allows the data and information to be transformed into knowledge and action, it will have a sustainable competitive advantage.

I have more about the cyberspace model here . It is an old article but lays down the visualization.

More about the data & info & knowldege & action relationship is described over here. Sorry but it is in MS word format (about 35 KB). Don't have the tools to convert it with me right now ...

The method of forecasting by asking a few people what they think is going to happen is called the Delphi Method It is, in my opinion one of the overall weakest methods by far, and especially if the views are collected the way Forbes has done. In normal practice the initial and raw opinions are improved by feedback to the group for more refinement, which obviously has not happened in the Forbes article - hence, the almost idiotic "predictions."

And as you rightly said, these people don't have the faintest clue as to what is happening. Their job is to get paychecks by telling their clients what they want to hear ... and they will keep on telling it ... Henry Blodgett anyone ?

There are tons of other methods to do Technological Forecasting, (an article that I wrote many years ago) and I wish some more work that has more solid basis is presented for Tech Forecasting at /. We deserve better "predictions" than this ....

The method of forecasting by asking a few people what they think is going to happen is called the Delphi Method It is, in my opinion one of the overall weakest methods by far, and especially if the views are collected the way Forbes has done. In normal practice the initial and raw opinions are improved by feedback to the group for more refinement, which obviously has not happened in the Forbes article - hence, the almost idiotic "predictions."

And as you rightly said, these people don't have the faintest clue as to what is happening. Their job is to get paychecks by telling their clients what they want to hear ... and they will keep on telling it ... Henry Blodgett anyone ?

There are tons of other methods to do Technological Forecasting, (an article that I wrote many years ago) and I wish some more work that has more solid basis is presented for Tech Forecasting at /. We deserve better "predictions" than this ....

Linus has no creditability, he is a man that practices the sick and disgusting practice of infant sex. Here is a picture depicting this pervert getting "prep'd for takeoff." What's worse is his wife Tove stands there and let's him get it on with his daughter. A man like this is nothing but a dishonest son of a bitch. You should not trust any word his says. Please us an American Operating System like Microsoft Windows or Sun Microsystems's Solaris. This OS's aren't based on stolen code from hardworking Americans.

One of the guys I work with does game design as a hobby. (Joe Huber, first published game Scream Machine by Jolly Roger Games) He buys poker decks in bulk from BJs and prints out stickers that cover the face of the cards. If the game uses a board, he usually just hand draws one on card stock. He's also purchased parts from the local science museum or used parts from widely available board games, i.e. money/markers from Monopoly, etc.

It should be noted that these are prototypes and he's usually not making more than one copy of these games.

In breaking news today, it has been found out that Linux Torvalds, practices the disgusting habit of having sex with his daughter. Here is a picture of him about to whip out his cock, and press right into his daughters backside. Now why would you want to support this man's job is beyond me.

Wrong fuckwit.

Linux: A clone of Minix, itself a clone of UNIX.

UNIX: A rough implementation of Multics, written expressly so that Ken Thompson and Dennis Ritchie could port a game called Space Travel to old, cheap hardware.

Who's got new ideas now?

>>Where is Pankin's complaint generator?

Uhh, right here? =)

Well, they need to consider renting batteries or chargers as well. New Sony PDAs, even underclocked using PXA Clocker won't work for 2 hours with active wireless.

"It seems that, according to scientific philosophy today (and I say this as an observer, not a scientist), you still can't really believe this is _the_ truth about something. You have to keep thinking, "it might _not_ be true"."

I think basically that's right, it's just a matter of what theories we decide to keep testing to the limit to try to find any inconsistencies. For instance, when a new method of atomic mass spectroscopy is invented no one says 'hey I bet we could use this to test Dalton's theory of atoms down to the fraction of an AMU!', even though it could very well be used to do that. The reason we don't is because no one expects to find anything that would invalidate the atomic theory of elements. We know, however, that there must be something "beyond" Einstein's relativity in the same way that the orbit of mercury reveals a breakdown of Newtonian Physics. This experiment with Cassini was in a way looking for Einstein's 'Mercury problem'. The fact that it has not found any inconsistency with GR (along with countless other experiments done in the past century) is a testament to, not only our lack of tools to measure with extreme enough precision the physical phenomena effected by GR but also to the greatness of the theory of General Relativity itself. We will continue to test Einstein though, in December Gravity Probe B will be launched, using ultrahigh precision quartz sphere gyroscopes, it will be able to measure certain effects of GR to the parts per million range. Science is a search for ever greater truth.

OK, I am confused. This chart seems to indicate that there is a direct link from Unix to Xenix to Minix to Linux. Now, based on Linus Torvalds own writing, the original codebase had no Minix in it. The only relation to Unix was in its look and feel. He wrote Linux because he thought Minix sucked. I am trying to figure out how they rationalized this one out! BTW, a history of Linux can be found here.

• "VMS support for Itanium (or IA-64) has been announced"
• People are still writing QBASIC programs.
• Yeah, CP/M seems to be dead now, but it lasted longer than you might think. It eventually "CP/M-86 became DR-DOS"

Hi-
In a sleep-deprived state early this morning, I recorded the song.
http://comclubint.hypermart.net/music/DMCA.ogg
--Quentin

For those that don't know, on linux you can use the loopback device to encrypt everything under a mount point. The files all reside within an signle encrypted file which "loopback" mount to through the decryption software. You can have your computer boot normally and then mount/unmount as you need access. You have the option of several well known open encryption systems. If you or anyone else cuts the power to your machine, there won't be access when it boots (unless you put the decrypt/mount commands and password in your startup, which would really defeat the point). Here's the read me.

The trobber, while being one of the worst-named browser features, is the thing up in the upper right hand corner of your browser that "throbs" when the page is loading. In IE, it's the windows logo.

It's off by default in Mozilla Firebird 0.6 (although on in the newest nightlies) because the stop button is mutualy exclusive with the throbber. (i.e. when the stop button is enabled the throbber is throbbbing, and when the stop button is disabled the throbber is stopped). You can view it in Mozilla Firebird by going to View -> Toolbars -> Customize...

you might want to have a look at AntiCrack which is a huge collection of tutorials cracking , reverse engineering, and programming. They also have a copy of the Old Fravia'Site, the new one being about searching).

There's a few games/challenges out there about reverse engineering, cracking, logic and programming. Give them a try if you wish (Arcanum is really nice):
AngularVision, Apotheosis, Arcanum, Aspect, Aspect2, C&CDisIncorporated, CyberArmy, Disavowed, Electrica, Escape, HackME, HackersGames, HackersLab, HackQuest, Hybrid, ICEFortress, Lamebulun, Mod-X, NetSplit, NGSEC'sSecurityGame, ProblemSetArchive, ReverserCourse, SlyFX, TheGame, and Try2hack.

have fun ;-)

Get Visual basic for dos and run it through dosemu :)

IE Skin Throbber and IE 5.x skin

Beautiful :)

Why use IE 5.x skin u ask? Because it's modest and doesn't have such a in-your-face graphics like most other skins have. IE 6.0 visual appearance though make my head hurt ;P

Here's the article text, modified for formatting and removing some tables and images (the images are good, showing the frequency response curves for Bose equipment, but unfortunately Slashdot won't show them, and I don't feel right direct-linking to the guy's site for them).

INTRO:

As a part of a small sect of audio enthusiests who loathe the company Bose Corp. for its marketing deception, shortcutting in manufacturing, and shameless consumer trickery, I was recently passed on a website(broken link) written by a "Bose-o-phile", who was defending the company. Upon reading his site, I vowed to represent our side: the TRUTH. However, knowing very little about the products themselves other than the fact that they sound bad for the price, I took it upon myself to audition the Bose AM-15 and perform a little "surgery" on them while I was at it. The review on this page is directed towards the Acoustimass-15, one of Bose's most popular systems, and holds truths to the entire Acoustimass and Lifestyle series products as well. After all, the Lifestyle system is merely Acoustimass speakers packaged with a Bose integrated preamp. The AM-15 is priced at US$1299.99 MSRP. When you are done reading, check out my Bose alternatives page here(link removed).

THE CUBES:

The $1300 Bose Acoustimass system implements five dual-cubed, 2.5-inch, paper-cone satellite speakers. Incidentally, you can buy these exact same drivers for $35 a pair here. The material that is used to build these speakers may seem adequate to the unassuming novice; However, upon closer inspection, it is clear that they are built with little regard for performance. To start off, the cubed satellites are made of what Bose claims is a "revolutionary new space-aged paper", when in fact my own observations lead me to believe that they are nothing more than dyed Manila hemp. Paper grade is besides the point here, as any type of paper has poor resonant properties with upper octave frequencies (2 KHz to over 20 KHz). Research has shown that the best materials to use as tweeter domes are alloy metals and fabric materials, depending on what tone you want your highs to have, as they are both strong and light weight materials. There are other less popular tweeter materials such as soft poly, hard poly, and ceramic domes, but we'll focus on the main ones here. Typically metals such as titanium and aluminum have a much sharper, more detailed, distinction with superior transience. Fabrics like Mylar and silk have a more mild, smooth signature, and fewer issues with resonance than alloys. Of course other factors such as the crossover and driver design can magnify or nullify these characteristics. Because of its wider dispersion angle and lower distortion levels, dome tweeters will sound much more open and airy with an expanded soundstage; However, Bose disregards this fact because making paper cone tweeters is a much cheaper manufacturing process. You won't see this design used by any other reputable speaker company, but you'll find it abundant in $200 boom boxes and mini-systems.

There is also something to be said about the diameter of the drivers. The 2.5-inch paper cone Bose uses falls into the range where conventional tweeter and midrange drivers perform weakest. This incongruous selection of dual 2.5-inch drivers is plagued with substantial shortcomings in the high and mid-frequency range. Remember that sound is merely the rapid movement of air so there are very specific driver sizes that correspond to acoustic properties which allow for the magnet-coil structure to drive the speaker at its targeted frequency band with greater ease. In home applications, high-pass tweeters should be between 0.5 to 1 inch in diameter, and never more than 2 inches. Larger tweeters are especially poor performers when powered by tiny magnets such as those used in the Bose cubes (increased phase distortion). The unusual

Unix started as UNICS in 1969

MVS(OS/390) started as OS/360 in 196X

VM/CMS started as CP/67 in 1967 (approx)

As far as I know, there never was a Linux kernel 0.7

You are correct.

I'm afraid not. I checked Google for "blank bumper stickers," but this was the closest I came before getting bored. If you have more success than I did (especially in turning up blank ones), let me know.

The efficiency differences will be debated forever... the common wisdom is that FTP is more efficient, but there is also evidence to the contrary. That isn't the point.

To me, this is a problem of authentication. If you want EVERYONE to have these files, why not just use the HTTP server? If you're targeting a select few people, then why not use the built-in authentication mechanisms of FTP?

Yes I know there are authentication mechanisms for HTTP, but they're arguably harder to implement than setting up an FTP server.

Are your clients only using web browsers to retrieve these files? I'll get flamed for this, but web browsers were not designed for FTP, and thus are klunky at it. HTTP wins there again.

Don't worry about it. Just use HTTP and let the FTP bigots flame away.

How do I automatically ASCIIize a picture? I have a jpg here that I'd very much like to see on my vt100 terminal - how can I do this??

Thanks!

My dad's a DP fan, but I think you'll probably find more Slippery Jim DiGriz fans here ;)

Simple tip for Windows users:

If you're worried about using Mozilla because of some sites not working, don't worry: you can still use Internet Explorer as normal when you come across a site which is unviewable on mozilla.

These sites are rare enough now that you shouldn't need to open IE much; it's mostly shopping sites, cinema sites, and things like that.

As an added bonus, you can install Mozilla without any flash, java, or shockwave plugins, which will give you an internet experience completely free from flashing adverts (you can disable animated images in Mozilla).

When you come across a site which requires flash or java, simply open IE to view that site. The added advantage is that if the microsoft JavaVM crashes your browser, you won't lose any of the other web pages you're viewing in mozilla.

And don't worry about the load-time of internet explorer -- it's already been loaded while you were waiting for the computer to boot up, so it should open almost instantly.

If you prefer the look and feel of Internet Explorer, you can emulate this perfectly using the IE skin for Mozilla, which keeps your familiar buttons and icons.

And this statement is true as long as we ignore the fact that whoever you paid the 5k to now has $4500 to spend. Which is taxable.

So let's continue. The person with this $4500 spends it, so it's now income to someone else, and is taxed at 10%, or another $450 for the government, leaving this new person with $4050 to spend. The question becomes "how long does it take for the money going into the government to equal the $5000 it would have had if not for the tax cut?"

The answer: It *never* will. Carry it out, you'll see that as the number of taxable transactions involving this money approaches infinity, the total tax revenue on the money approaches the original $5000 the government would have had if they had not lowered taxes in the first place.

This even makes some assumptions such as "people will *always* spend the money they gain in tax cuts", and "the government will not spend the money it takes in". Fact is, some of that tax money the government gets is spent employing people, building roads, etc.

This doesn't mean tax cuts are always bad, or that the government is always the best place for money, both of which are obviously false. It just shows that if you want to cut taxes, you need to accept the fact that the government will have to either cut spending (thus making life more expensive for citizens. i.e., less money spent on medicare means more money out of someone's pocket for health care) or raise deficits (which of course acts as a drag on the economy. The historical facts clearly show that tax cuts do *not* increase tax revenue, something that should be obvious.

Sorry you misunderstood. This was a general "you" not directed at you as a person. In the sense of, "You can run around and shoot people in the game and it's fantastic" when talking to someone that doesn't own said video game.

Thanks for the clarification.

Everybody knows that commercials are what pay for the TV shows to be produced. There is no debate about this. By consisting skipping the commercials, you [in the everybody who does it, not you as a person] are causing financial loss to the network. No matter how you look at it, that's what happens.

Fine, that is consumers doing what consumers do...making choices. Again, the point was there is no implied commitment by the consumer. I believe you've said elsewhere that you've studied economics so I don't mean to patronize you by telling you this. Yes, if people choose not to do what the advertisers want them to do then there will be consequences. It's always that way. But that is by choice, not by commitment. Commitment implies duty; that's a fundimental principle of law. But is no duty to watch commercials, just as there is no duty to provide free entertainment.

Just about the cigarettes, I'm assuming you are talking about the Camel ads that made smoking look cool. There has never been an ad that said that they improved health.

Never? I think not. See this link for a TV ad from Phillip Morris that that made just that claim. You'll also see an ad where Flintstones cartoon characters were used to sell the butts. And how about that young, terrific looking Ronald Reagan selling Chesterfields? Ah, those were the good old days....

I did not imply everybody had an obligation to watch. I said that you have an obligation to not use technology to strip out every commercial on every show you watch. This is where you seem to be confused.

I'm not confused when I point out that, if you don't have an obligation to watch, then you don't have ANY obligation to watch, regardless of how you choose to avoid watching...by going to the bathroom, taking a nap, having your wife or child mute the volume, or employing a servant to do the same. Is your argument some crypto-elitist rant against cheap and popular ways *of doing things that huge numbers of people do, manually, all the time*? You seem to be hung up on the methods rather than the core principles. And you seem married to the idea that people are obligated to stick with the status quo, entrenched interests, and old methodologies. Well, they aren't. And that's a *good thing*. If they were we wouldn't have any new technology. Don't you believe in the marketplace? If commercials go away how do you know something better won't take their place? HBO charges money and does fine without commercials...and they seem to be going strong. The Market has spoken, end of story. Like you have spoken when you say you don't watch TV. Again, *no obligation*. That little box seems to have crossed a personal boundary for you. Well, some people like change and embrace it, others dislike change and fight it. But like it or not, change comes.

They don't take any of my rights. I don't watch TV.

Just because you don't choose to exercise your rights doesn't mean they aren't being taken away from you...it just means that you won't miss them. Big difference. You might not care, but others certainly do. People ought to be less cavalier about giving up their rights...it can be a real bitch to get them back. We've really become too complacent about protecting our rights...regardless of whether we give them up to government or business or whatnot.

I decide to get riled up about music, the PVR folks are wrong.

You are entitled to your feelings and beliefs. God bless America.

So are people who trade music without paying a dime.

This isn't germane...you may share similar feelings on both matters, but they aren't the same issue. Your PVR concerns seem to revolve around a personal sense of obligation to support a pre-existing marketing model, while the pirating of copyrighted music is a clear violation of the law. There is a big difference. Using a PVR to skip commercials isn't illegal...the uses you object to are protected as "fair use" by federal law going back over two decades.

I didn't realize that people had a right to strip adverts out of a show though. I didn't admit to changing the definition, I merely commented that to the rest of the world depriving someone of something, even if it's tertiary financial damage, but taking a non-tangible digital copy of something, is theft.

Yes, you have rights you didn't realize. You have the right to "time shift" TV programs on VCRs (or PVRs) to view later (Supreme Court, 1984) *even though the industry fought it*. You have the right to make copies *for your personal use*. In fact, a 1992 law allows you to make limited digital copies of music...believe it or not every time you buy a blank tape or blank audio CD *you are paying music royalties; they included in the price of blank tape or disc. Did you know that?

Most people say, "Copying mp3s over the internet without buying the CD is theft." Definitions are what the masses say they are, not what you think to satisfy your agenda or your opinions on what is and is not ethical.

You just won't drop your use of this legally inapplicable argument. Let me make it painfully clear: Skipping over ads isn't giving away someone else's intellectual property. Skipping over something you recorded for your own personal use is not copyright infringement. IT IS NOT THEFT. Period. End of discussion. I know you may feel this isn't right, you may feel powerfully that it SHOULD be theft, but that doesn't make it so.

Beliefs create laws, in case you missed that.

No, I didn't miss that either. But beliefs aren't laws until they're codified. Laws help resolve conflicting beliefs.

As I said before, soon you will have to enter a special code in, or pay per show, and everyone will complain because they were too fucking stupid to just get up and take a piss instead of cutting out all the commercials.

Well, presumably *you* won't complain because you don't watch anyway. Most people didn't complain...they "spoke with their feet" and took their business elsewhere, first to cable, then to satellite. Some of the most highly acclaimed programming now comes from premium channels like HBO and Cinemax. Broadcast television has been lame for a very long time, well before Newton Minnow called it "a vast wasteland" in 1961.

It's legal now, but soon it probably won't be. At least not civilly. Wait for agreements before you watch a show, or at the bottom of every show.

Man, I thought you'd NEVER concede this simple point...yes, it IS legal now. And let me say, unequivocally, that I understand your legitimate concerns. Your feelings on the matter are completely reasonable. You feel people are taking advantage of freely given entertainment without paying anything, even their eyeballs, in return. Perhaps you feel this is selfish and shortsighted. If so you're probably right. But being selfish and shortsighted isn't illegal, per se, although we frequently wish it were. When we feel strongly enough about it sometimes we pass a law. If you are so inclined you can send a message to Senators Hollings, Hatch, and Biden...I'm sure they'd love to hear from you.

Egad, this woman does like this book. No fewer than 13 reviews: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 (repeated here and here), 14?.

My first thought was the Denise M. Clark was a shill, but if she is, she's incompetant. By using the same name over and over, it becomes easy to track her down. My next thought was that she was a UFO nut trying to spread the word. Possible, but she has reviewed many other books.

My new theory is that she's desperately trying for fame through the unlikely technique of publishing reviews on as many sites as possible. (Check out her web page, "The on-line home of author/reviewer Denise M. Clark". Either that, or she's a space alien here to prepare us for use as slaves and food for her hideous grey masters. If it's the former, she's wasting our time. If it's the latter, I suppose that would could as news for nerds.

Mirror 1: No movies

Mirror 2

Mirror 3

Please site your references for this "fact" (actually, I suppose that you're not far off but I'm not interested in what you or I "feel", I need real references).

This has some truth, but the bottom line is it's MY software, not yours to decide what's best for society.

Oh, and go ask any civil engineering company for even some details on the physics modeling software used for the last major bridge that they built.

Back in the end of XIX century, Gustavo Eiffel built a record arch bridge in my home city, the D. Maria Pia bridge. Back then, naturally, the design method was a secret, and Eiffel was known for rigid safekeeping of those secrets.

How long did it take for the record to be beaten, with the same construction type, the same construction methods, and a different engineer? Eight years. The time to build the D. Luís bridge. Did Eiffel lose a lot with the spreading of his construction methods? No! In fact, on the contrary. He was at his time regarded as an innovator, and spawned an era of iron and steel constructions of epic proportions.

Please site your references for this "fact" (actually, I suppose that you're not far off but I'm not interested in what you or I "feel", I need real references).

This has some truth, but the bottom line is it's MY software, not yours to decide what's best for society.

Oh, and go ask any civil engineering company for even some details on the physics modeling software used for the last major bridge that they built.

Back in the end of XIX century, Gustavo Eiffel built a record arch bridge in my home city, the D. Maria Pia bridge. Back then, naturally, the design method was a secret, and Eiffel was known for rigid safekeeping of those secrets.

How long did it take for the record to be beaten, with the same construction type, the same construction methods, and a different engineer? Eight years. The time to build the D. Luís bridge. Did Eiffel lose a lot with the spreading of his construction methods? No! In fact, on the contrary. He was at his time regarded as an innovator, and spawned an era of iron and steel constructions of epic proportions.

I'm using mozilla with the internet explorer skin. It works great, though there's a little hack you have to do to get the home button back into the main toolbar.

Mozilla is a better browser than i.e. in a lot of ways (tabs, standards compliance, etc.), but the big one for me is that i.e. is essentially an ad delivery systerm. So there's not much we can do to selectively block cookies, or graphics from specific servers, or pop-ups, etc. And I don't like the prospect of being at the mercy of unscrupulous companies who wish to make changes without my knowledge or consent. (Actually, what I'd really like is a way to get rid of i.e. entirely on w2k/xp.)

That explains mozilla, but why the i.e. skin? Well, the default mozilla skins are not exactly beautiful. And my wife is highly resistant to change of any kind when it comes to her computer, and with the i.e. skin I was able to switch her w2k machine to mozilla without even a word of protest. Of course, at this point she's so used to tabbed browsing and the pop-up blocker that she wouldn't switch back anyway. And me, I don't have to worry about some exploit using i.e. to take her computer down.

Actually, I even use the i.e. skin on my linux box. Just for the perverse fun of it, I guess. I also have a nice wallpaper from w2k of a diver against a blue sky. It's very spiffy, though naturally I GIMPed out the little windows logo first :-).