q[Didn't some japanese airlines give its customers DSs as entertainment on long flights a couple of years ago?]q Not sure about that, but I just had a stopover in Tokyo a couple days ago and it seemed like half the Japanese people in line for the plane were playing with a DS. It wasn't a JAL flight, but I figure their passengers are probably about the same. I think there's gonna be some real grumbling about this regulation, if not outright protest.
That downloaders=freeloaders were cutting into their potential financial gain since "why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free"? Especially when the cow probably wants to install a rootkit on your computer!:)
Most people have no idea that right exists. I certainly didn't. Here's a DIY. Whenever YouTube takes someone's content down, they should let them know that they can file a counter-claim if they believe they are not infringing. They should give them a link like you did. Problem solved.
Now if you're referring to stuff like MechAssault, then yeah, that wasn't very good, but I don't consider them part of the MechWarrior series in any way, except that they happen to include mechs. Yeah, I was basically talking about the fact that they seemed to have quit developing MechWarrior games in favor of the button-mashing MechAssault games. If there was ever a textbook example of dumbing-down a game for consoles, MechAssault would be it.
You know, if the company goes out of business that doesn't mean the game isn't playable... No, but it really wasn't worth playing to begin with. It had fuck all to do with Shadowrun and simply ensured that we won't get a real Shadowrun game anytime soon. It's like they chose to slap that name on just to fuck over the SR fans. There really isn't any other reason for it when they could have shipped the same game with any other name and it would have made no difference.
Microsoft and FASA have destroyed both the Mechwarrior and Shadowrun franchises now. Glad to see FASA go before they could strike again. Now if only there was some way to get those licenses away from Microsoft and give them to someone who would actual create a good game rather than the button-masher of the week.
The point of my blathering is that there's a real lesson here if we can extract it. The decision-making process can be quickly co-opted by groupthink if we only listen to people with the same ideology as ourselves. This applies to people with any political inclination, from the offices of power to the lowly message boards online. I agree that groupthink can be a very dangerous thing, which happens to be something that gets brought up in another recent article as well. They certainly did seem to be shutting out opposing viewpoints, and perhaps the President's advisers managed to largely cut him off from dissenting views. So you could well be right about that being a significant factor. I'll certainly concede that they may have let their optimism run wild, I still find it too hard to believe that they could have failed so utterly to prepare for anything but the best-case scenario. I'm not sure what to call it, but the words "criminal negligence" come to mind.
They used 9/11 as one of the reasons for the invasion in the first place, but we've already lost a lot more soldiers and civilians than we lost on 9/11, and that doesn't even begin to touch the numbers of Iraqi civilians who've been killed by us and by the sectarian groups that have been running rampant since order broke down in the country. It's looking more and more like Cheney was right about Iraq flying apart. The three main factions will likely end up carving out their own pieces of the country with the support of other countries in the region, and the area will remain very volatile for a long time to come as they fight over land, religious sites and resources.
Your basic claim (lifted straight from Jon Stewart, I might add;), is that they chose to go into Iraq, knowing it would go like it has. One could instead side with Hanlon and conclude they were sincere, just stupid. I'm not sure which is the better alternative, but there you have it. I'm not sure that stupid even covers it. We're talking about a war. You don't go to war without a plan B (not to mention a plan c, d, e, f, etc.). They may have wanted to believe that everything would go wonderfully and that the Iraqi people would throw flowers at the feet of our soldiers, but they knew that the chaos was a distinct possibility, and they didn't have anywhere even close to the kind of support they needed waiting to go in if necessary. Thus, chaos ensued and continues to this day. Rumsfeld's quick, easy war has turned into a nightmare that has cost us thousands of American lives and hundreds of billions of dollars (although since much of that went to defense contractors, I guess that most of the administration doesn't really consider it lost), and still there is no end in sight. We can't pull out because Iran and others would take over, and we can't really stay because our very presence is causing a lot of the conflict. Damned if we do and damned if we don't. That's what they got us into.
That's the whole point. It is against the law to enter the USA without following certain procedures, and therefor, those that do not follow those procedures, are breaking the law, and are criminals. It's pretty cut and dry. And when U.S. corporations quit exploiting that crime to make higher profits, then the problem will largely go away.
Our leaders were blinded by their own optimism, now many of our finest are paying the ultimate price for that failure. They weren't blinded at all. I watched part of an interview with Cheney from 1994 where he was asked why we didn't invade and get rid of Saddam after he attacked Kuwait. He said (and I'll paraphrase here because I don't have the exact quote):
If we remove that government, what do we put in its place? Iraq would fly to pieces. It would be a quagmire. We have to ask ourselves, how many American lives is it worth to remove him. We believe not very many. So, they knew what the problems were likely to be. I'm not sure how Rumsfeld was able to stand there with a straight face and claim that this war would be quick and cheap. I'm not sure how they were able to claim that we'd be greeted as liberators when they knew that chaos was likely to ensue after the invasion. I'm not sure how they justified sending such a small force to do the job when they knew that there were likely to be huge problems once they created that power vacuum.
We always get the "things changed after 9/11" argument, which I can understand to a point. That may have made it more appealing to them to remove Saddam, faulty intelligence or not. However, it certainly didn't change the problems that Cheney talked about before. It didn't change the likely outcomes of an invasion one bit. So, I don't know how we could possibly have been so unprepared, but it certainly wasn't because they were blinded by optimism.
Socialism: noun Political philosophy where charismatic leaders convince masses who barely know they're alive of the wisdom of why that particular charismatic leader should have massive power over everybody's life.
Or do I exaggerate? Before modding me down, please explain where the above is wrong. So you're saying that the U.S. is a socialist country, right?
We need an actual, viable third party that represents all the people who feel there is no alternative. If enough people felt this way and formed a third party there would be enough people for it's own primary. That line of thinking is part of the problem. By attempting to play within the current system's rules, third parties can't gain traction since the system is designed to prevent them from being able to do so. Only a massive application of brute force (i.e. money) can possibly offset the handicaps that the system places on third parties. That's why people like Ross Perot, that can contribute huge amounts of money to their own campaigns are the only ones that have any chance of getting a decent number of votes. But the election system is geared to two parties. That's why we have the problem of people being afraid of "throwing away their vote". That shouldn't be an issue, and if we used any of the half-dozen or more voting methods that make a lot more sense than the one we have now, it wouldn't be an issue. Until we start reforming our election systems and the rest of the laws and practices that surround them, we'll forever be a two-party country, which might as well be a one-party country for all the choice that gives us.
The Saudis are funding the Carter Center as a reward for his parroting of their anti-Israeli propaganda. Huh? That's quite a stretch there. By that logic, every politician everywhere has sold out because people who agree with them give them money. The Israelis give money to people who parrot their line as well. I don't think you're really making any point here.
just like the Liberals paint all 'conservatives' as 'right-wing nut-jobs'. Conservatives painted themselves as right-wing nut-jobs by supporting the administration through all of its bungling of the war. They couldn't have done a worse job really, yet the conservatives would stand behind them insisting that water was not wet if that was the position of the administration. So much for being able to think for themselves.
The problem I had with Kerry's "flip-flops" is, his changes of mind were little more than sticking his finger in the air to see which way public opinion was blowing. I wonder if there's any support for that idea. Maybe the wind was blowing a certain way because people have come to some understandings about past mistakes, and Kerry came to those same understandings? Slamming him for agreeing with most people about something and deliberately choosing another candidate just because he doesn't agree with that position seems... well, dumb. It's more than just having a position and sticking to it, it's making sure that that position makes sense.
Re:If the journalist was stupid enough to sign it.
on
AMD NDA Scandal
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Did you even read the fscking story? The NDA said any materials used in marketing had to be cleared first. There is absolutly NOTHING in there about attempting to censor news stories, opinion pieces, or anything else. Are you illiterate or what? This is a quote from the story (emphasis mine):
First off, the non-disclosure agreement covered everything confidential said or written over the next two years on the product, and had a duration of five years, during which anything publishedor used in marketing would have to receive written approval from AMD before it could be used. Worse, at the end of the five years, all copies of the information made would have to be returned to the chipmaker. Notice the difference between that and what you said? So the journalist would have to get approval from AMD before he publishes any story about anything that AMD considers confidential. What that covers is unclear, but could easily be construed to mean anything at all about the factory tour, and AMD is the one that makes the determination.
True, and perhaps with a smaller military, Saddam Hussein would've kept his tanks rolling into Saudi Arabia in 1991 because there would've been no one in a position to oppose him. We never needed a large military to stop Saddam. The problem was never in defeating his military, we knew we could do that with ease any time we wanted to.
Iraq was already a teapot about to boil over. Says who? We could have left things the way they were and been fine for at least several more years. Maybe that would have been enough time to get some people with half a brain involved in the "planning" that was done before the invasion. From what I remember, the planning consisted of telling everyone that it would be quick and cheap and that we would be greeted as liberators. Then they didn't seem to have gone as far as actually considering what could possibly happen, and ignored or removed anyone who tried to tell them.
I'm sure that if someone released a Napster-style P2P app that defaults to sharing the entire contents of your hard drive, many people would praise it for having so many files available. Right, and that would be a problem with the default settings of the application, and something that the app creator should address. A problem similar to the default password situation that Microsoft used to have with SQL Server, or that Linksys has with their home wireless routers. However, if the person decides to change the default to share their entire drive, that's not a problem with P2P software, it's a problem with the user and should be presented as such. This article doesn't even attempt to address the real problem. It just includes hysterical, uninformed quotes like, "If you are running file-sharing software, you are giving criminals the keys to your computer".
Nobody can prevent stupid people from doing stupid things, but you can at least make the attempt to inform the uninformed so that they might not make the mistakes that would put them at risk. Making blanket, patently false statements like the attorney did doesn't help anyone.
I believe that it is a human right to take a CD that I paid for and rip it into mp3s. I believe I have the right to watch DVDs on my Linux box. I believe that I have the right to watch a Major League Baseball game the day after everybody else. The truth is that you have no rights whatsoever, except those that you are able to successfully create and defend. The copyright industry has been a hell of a lot more successful in creating and defending its rights than the citizenry has been in defending their own rights in this arena.
Consumer right? No. But it is a human right. It is a requirement so that we can maintain freedom from content producers. And it is a legal right, for now. The fact that this slob refers to human beings as consumers says it all in regards to what he thinks of them. Actually, the slob is right in this case. Fair use isn't a right (consumer, human, or otherwise). It is an affirmative defense. That's the state of things currently. We may not like it, but only the government can change it, so that's where the complaints should be directed.
So yes, fair use is indeed "on the books," and more than just case law. Yes, it's on the books, but it basically just says that there are exceptions to the exclusive rights of the copyright holder and goes on to explain the factors that determine whether something can be considered fair use or not. The decision will still be made by a court in the case of a dispute though, so it's not like the statute really makes things much better.
Well a technical solution to making a mistake about something you don't even understand (inexperienced/ignorant users) is essentially impossible and may be why Win has the problems it has. Articles like this one don't do anything to improve the situation though. Instead of telling people that they shouldn't share their entire hard drive with their P2P app, and explaining how to prevent that from happening, it just goes off and rants about how P2P apps are so dangerous and they're stealing your data and letting anyone get all your files! Makes me wonder who's behind this story...
"Precisely. Preventing personal data from leaking onto P2P networks is simply a matter of proper configuration of the client." The same can be said for Windows. Now why doesn't slashdot give it as fair a shake as it does P2P? There's a difference between configuration problems and actual security vulnerabilities like buffer overflows and such. This article is making is sound like there are actual vulnerabilities in the P2P app, rather than people just being dumb and configuring it to share their entire C drive or something. That can be fixed by a little user education. An actual vulnerability would require a patch to fix.
This sort of security system has little to do with deterring assassination and lots to do with keeping protesters off of the news. And isolating leaders from the dissenting views out there.
Slashdot Mirror
q[Didn't some japanese airlines give its customers DSs as entertainment on long flights a couple of years ago?]q
Not sure about that, but I just had a stopover in Tokyo a couple days ago and it seemed like half the Japanese people in line for the plane were playing with a DS. It wasn't a JAL flight, but I figure their passengers are probably about the same. I think there's gonna be some real grumbling about this regulation, if not outright protest.
Microsoft and FASA have destroyed both the Mechwarrior and Shadowrun franchises now. Glad to see FASA go before they could strike again. Now if only there was some way to get those licenses away from Microsoft and give them to someone who would actual create a good game rather than the button-masher of the week.
They used 9/11 as one of the reasons for the invasion in the first place, but we've already lost a lot more soldiers and civilians than we lost on 9/11, and that doesn't even begin to touch the numbers of Iraqi civilians who've been killed by us and by the sectarian groups that have been running rampant since order broke down in the country. It's looking more and more like Cheney was right about Iraq flying apart. The three main factions will likely end up carving out their own pieces of the country with the support of other countries in the region, and the area will remain very volatile for a long time to come as they fight over land, religious sites and resources.
We always get the "things changed after 9/11" argument, which I can understand to a point. That may have made it more appealing to them to remove Saddam, faulty intelligence or not. However, it certainly didn't change the problems that Cheney talked about before. It didn't change the likely outcomes of an invasion one bit. So, I don't know how we could possibly have been so unprepared, but it certainly wasn't because they were blinded by optimism.
Or do I exaggerate? Before modding me down, please explain where the above is wrong. So you're saying that the U.S. is a socialist country, right?
Nobody can prevent stupid people from doing stupid things, but you can at least make the attempt to inform the uninformed so that they might not make the mistakes that would put them at risk. Making blanket, patently false statements like the attorney did doesn't help anyone.