That's not QUITE accurate.. "Way" is "for" and "Sa Ma" is "what"
And you said "Woh Duh" is "mine" but in this context, it's "my", but you do later use it that way later.. though you also add a "for" later when you didn't have a "for" in your word-for-word translation..
Anyway, it is, literally, "My monitor for what blue?"
The problem with filtering spam is that any filtering scheme you can come up with can be defeated, since people are smarter than filters. You'd then have to be in a constant arms race with spammers to update your filtering scheme as they find new ways to circumvent it.
After all, once a spammer notices that they're being filtered, then can just look at the filtering software themselves and design a way around it.
Effective filtering email for spam will simply not be possible in the forseeable future.. at least maybe until we have some sort of really adaptable AI doing the filtering. (And even then, we'd still be in an arms race as spammers find ways around the latest AI..)
I don't have any solution for eliminating spam; I think spam is here to stay. I think, though, that you can MINIMIZE spam by keeping your real primary email address from sitting out on the internet in too many places.
As for filtering, I know I'd rather risk the few spams I get than risk have my filtering software accidentally filter something I actually want.
Wrong. The purpose of guns is to fire a small projectile in a single direction. It's no more designed for killing people than a knife is.
I completely disagree. The purpose of a gun is to hurt people. The method by which the gun accomplishes this purpose is through firing a projectile.
Is the purpose of a toaster to produce two heated cavities for a limited amounts of time? No. The purpose of a toaster is to toast bread. You can NOT say toasting bread just happens to be a side effect. Likewise, you can't say killing people is just a side effect.
Handguns are SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED to injure people. (Btw, I mentioned in another post that I meant to say "handguns", not guns in general.) THAT is their purpose, not "firing projectiles". Firing projectiles is a MEANS, not an END.
Sorry. I should've been more clear.. I meant to say handguns.
And yes, I know people buy them for self-defense, but a) they are still in that case for seriously injuring, if not killing, and b) it's irrelevant because my point was precisely that even if there are other uses for a product (such as the reasonable purpose of self-defense or playing DVDs on Linux), as long as there's some way it can be used for breaking the law (be it murder or violating copy-protection), it's illegal under this law to make it.
If you release something that COULD be used for copyright infringement, you're guilty of copyright infringement?
That's like saying if you sell a kitchen knife, knowing it COULD be used for killing someone, you're guilty of murder!
Granted, there are cases where that is murky territory, as in lawsuits against gun companies, but at least in the case of guns, the sole purpose of the gun is to kill people.
As long as copyright infringement is not the sole purpose of his program, I think it's absolutely absurd to say he's guilty of copyright infringement just because his program COULD be used for it.
Too bad that law's on the books. It's a really disgusting law.
For those who don't know, that link is accessible through the post number following the date in the post header, i.e. the "(#222)" in the post I'm replying to.
Since one of the purposes of cable is to eliminate poor reception, that reminds me.. how bad does bad reception look with digital TV, such as the proposed HDTV systems?
I mean, slighlty fuzzy analog signals are quite watchable, but how watchable are slightly poor digital signals?
My point was that he was talking about bringing something that would be a pathetic attempt to douse the flame, so a bucket would be an attempt to douse the flame, whereas why would anyone want to bring a can of starter fluid in the first place?
Lets face it. Corporations care about one thing only: money. This is the botom line. They don't care about you, your family, or the planet. Unless you tell them otherwise. I don't like our government much, either. But I'd rather be led by them than a faceless corporation.
Corporations and our government have never done a thing for our country. They only do things symbolically when the people demand it. We have to fight for our rights, we have to stand up for our freedom, because god damn, the corporations only want your money and your soul.
I agree with that first paragraph, but not the second.. I think there are fundamental differences between corporations and the government:
If the government does things that are not in the public interests, then that's a FAILURE of the government, due to incompetence or corruption. However, the purpose of government is to serve the people, whether or not it succeeds.
However, the sole purpose of a corporation is to make money. They care nothing for the people unless it helps the bottom line. This is not a value judgment; it's a fact. Corporations must increase stockholder value.
Thus, the government does at least occassionally care about the people, but corporations by definition do not.
Now that's just silly. Of COURSE they disagree.. The court decided the facts were against them!
Everyone on the losing side of a court case (yes, I know it's not over yet.. but MS is certainly losing, just not lost) is going to disagree with the court.
No, that's not true. A monopoly is allowed if it's not abusing its powers. (IANAL) There are, of course, obviously also government-sanctioned monopolies, like electric companies and such.
Well, people do emotion control already, through drugs... One of the main problems with drugs is the fact that they have side-effects, including dependence on them due to the depression that sets in when the drugs wear off.
I see a similar problem with computer-induced artificial happiness.
Though, yeah, I see the clincal use of getting people off of extreme emotions.
Also people should be allowed to make a cost-benefit analysis. If it would cost $10,000 to build a ramp so 5 disabled persons can get into a store, the store owner should have the right to choose not to build that ramp. ... Yet the ADA forces businesses to make more expensive accomidations to avoid having disabled people feel bad.
Untrue! The ADA only calls for "reasonable" accomodations. If it would cost a small business $10,000 to install a ramp, the store could argue (and would probably succeed in arguing) that it would NOT be a reasonable accomodation, and thus the business would NOT be forced to do it.
2] DVD-II -screw everything and start with a new Encoding Standard, make everyone get new DVD Players. Then its Class Action Lawsuit Oh-Rama!
Let's not forget that this new standard could be cracked too. What are we going to have, complete backward incompatibility every couple of years? DVD players aren't computers!:P
Well, first off, why do people feel the need to sue for every little thing ?? It's truly sad. I'm sure everyone has bought something that didn't make it.
But I paid $300 for my player, and if within a couple of years there will no longer be any titles released for my player DUE TO THEIR INCOMPETENCE, why should I suffer for it?
Even DIVX buyers (who arguably should have known better) got back the $100 difference between their player and the typical market price for a normal DVD player.
Slashdot Mirror
That's not QUITE accurate..
"Way" is "for" and "Sa Ma" is "what"
And you said "Woh Duh" is "mine" but in this context, it's "my", but you do later use it that way later.. though you also add a "for" later when you didn't have a "for" in your word-for-word translation..
Anyway, it is, literally, "My monitor for what blue?"
However if you don't bother to read contracts thoroughly before signing them, then you deserve whatever you get.
Really.. I think it's completely reasonable that most people do not want to read every last paragraph in every one of the agreements we see every day.
Just as you've said.. it'd be horrible if weakly encrypted signatures are allowed, giving ample opportunity for forging.
:P
But then, do I really expect the government to require strong encryption on something?
The problem with filtering spam is that any filtering scheme you can come up with can be defeated, since people are smarter than filters. You'd then have to be in a constant arms race with spammers to update your filtering scheme as they find new ways to circumvent it.
After all, once a spammer notices that they're being filtered, then can just look at the filtering software themselves and design a way around it.
Effective filtering email for spam will simply not be possible in the forseeable future.. at least maybe until we have some sort of really adaptable AI doing the filtering. (And even then, we'd still be in an arms race as spammers find ways around the latest AI..)
I don't have any solution for eliminating spam; I think spam is here to stay. I think, though, that you can MINIMIZE spam by keeping your real primary email address from sitting out on the internet in too many places.
As for filtering, I know I'd rather risk the few spams I get than risk have my filtering software accidentally filter something I actually want.
Yes! I'm so glad to know there's someone besides me who puts people who scream "Beowulf it!" on every article in the same category as first posters! :)
The truth is, very few pistols are made for hunting, and very few of the rifles made for the military have ever been used for hunting purposes...
;)
That depends on your definition of "hunting", of course.
Wrong. The purpose of guns is to fire a small projectile in a single direction. It's no more designed for killing people than a knife is.
I completely disagree. The purpose of a gun is to hurt people. The method by which the gun accomplishes this purpose is through firing a projectile.
Is the purpose of a toaster to produce two heated cavities for a limited amounts of time? No. The purpose of a toaster is to toast bread. You can NOT say toasting bread just happens to be a side effect.
Likewise, you can't say killing people is just a side effect.
Handguns are SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED to injure people. (Btw, I mentioned in another post that I meant to say "handguns", not guns in general.) THAT is their purpose, not "firing projectiles". Firing projectiles is a MEANS, not an END.
Sorry. I should've been more clear.. I meant to say handguns.
And yes, I know people buy them for self-defense, but a) they are still in that case for seriously injuring, if not killing, and b) it's irrelevant because my point was precisely that even if there are other uses for a product (such as the reasonable purpose of self-defense or playing DVDs on Linux), as long as there's some way it can be used for breaking the law (be it murder or violating copy-protection), it's illegal under this law to make it.
If you release something that COULD be used for copyright infringement, you're guilty of copyright infringement?
That's like saying if you sell a kitchen knife, knowing it COULD be used for killing someone, you're guilty of murder!
Granted, there are cases where that is murky territory, as in lawsuits against gun companies, but at least in the case of guns, the sole purpose of the gun is to kill people.
As long as copyright infringement is not the sole purpose of his program, I think it's absolutely absurd to say he's guilty of copyright infringement just because his program COULD be used for it.
Too bad that law's on the books. It's a really disgusting law.
Let's not forget that individual posts can be cited as well. Yours, for instance, is:
http://slashdot.org/co mments.pl?sid=99/11/08/1226255&cid=222
For those who don't know, that link is accessible through the post number following the date in the post header, i.e. the "(#222)" in the post I'm replying to.
Since one of the purposes of cable is to eliminate poor reception, that reminds me.. how bad does bad reception look with digital TV, such as the proposed HDTV systems?
I mean, slighlty fuzzy analog signals are quite watchable, but how watchable are slightly poor digital signals?
My point was that he was talking about bringing something that would be a pathetic attempt to douse the flame, so a bucket would be an attempt to douse the flame, whereas why would anyone want to bring a can of starter fluid in the first place?
Lets face it. Corporations care about one thing only: money. This is the botom line. They don't care about you, your family, or the planet. Unless you tell them otherwise. I don't like our government much, either. But I'd rather be led by them than a faceless corporation.
Corporations and our government have never done a thing for our country. They only do things symbolically when the people demand it. We have to fight for our rights, we have to stand up for our freedom, because god damn, the corporations only want your money and your soul.
I agree with that first paragraph, but not the second.. I think there are fundamental differences between corporations and the government:
If the government does things that are not in the public interests, then that's a FAILURE of the government, due to incompetence or corruption. However, the purpose of government is to serve the people, whether or not it succeeds.
However, the sole purpose of a corporation is to make money. They care nothing for the people unless it helps the bottom line. This is not a value judgment; it's a fact. Corporations must increase stockholder value.
Thus, the government does at least occassionally care about the people, but corporations by definition do not.
I looked at the page and even did a web search for it, but didn't find an actual definition.
Can someone tell me what "journaling file system" means and entails?
Thanks.
Microsoft can disagree all they want, but that is worth about as much as a can of barbeque starter in Hell.
Wouldn't "but that is worth about as much as a bucket of water in Hell" be a more appropriate analogy?
Now that's just silly.
Of COURSE they disagree.. The court decided the facts were against them!
Everyone on the losing side of a court case (yes, I know it's not over yet.. but MS is certainly losing, just not lost) is going to disagree with the court.
It's such a pointless statement.
No, that's not true. A monopoly is allowed if it's not abusing its powers. (IANAL) There are, of course, obviously also government-sanctioned monopolies, like electric companies and such.
RIGHT! Sorry.. I forgot.. yeah.. it's the decoder that MUST, by the terms of the license, encode output with Macrovision.
Actually, technically, it's neither "Legos" nor "Lego".. it's "LEGO".
Well, people do emotion control already, through drugs...
One of the main problems with drugs is the fact that they have side-effects, including dependence on them due to the depression that sets in when the drugs wear off.
I see a similar problem with computer-induced artificial happiness.
Though, yeah, I see the clincal use of getting people off of extreme emotions.
Also people should be allowed to make a cost-benefit analysis. If it would cost $10,000 to build a ramp so 5 disabled persons can get into a store, the store owner should have the right to choose not to build that ramp.
...
Yet the ADA forces businesses to make more expensive accomidations to avoid having disabled people feel bad.
Untrue! The ADA only calls for "reasonable" accomodations. If it would cost a small business $10,000 to install a ramp, the store could argue (and would probably succeed in arguing) that it would NOT be a reasonable accomodation, and thus the business would NOT be forced to do it.
If you'll notice, that post was not moderated up to 2; the author had a default score of 2.
Actually, a lot of public libraries have been carrying a limited selection of VHS movies for years, as well as some music.
2] DVD-II -screw everything and start with a new Encoding Standard, make everyone get new DVD Players. Then its Class Action Lawsuit Oh-Rama!
:P
Let's not forget that this new standard could be cracked too. What are we going to have, complete backward incompatibility every couple of years?
DVD players aren't computers!
Well, first off, why do people feel the need to sue for every little thing ?? It's truly sad. I'm sure everyone has bought something that didn't make it.
But I paid $300 for my player, and if within a couple of years there will no longer be any titles released for my player DUE TO THEIR INCOMPETENCE, why should I suffer for it?
Even DIVX buyers (who arguably should have known better) got back the $100 difference between their player and the typical market price for a normal DVD player.