That doesn't seem like too big a concern. It would only give out the information through the USB port when the fingerprint matched, so you wouldn't be able to just plug it in and get the info. You'd have to open it up and disect the circuits, and I'm sure they could make it very, very difficult to get the data out. Assuming they could, though, you're right; they'd have your data. But how much worse would that be than having your credit cards stolen?
I read Slashdot because I enjoy the informed opinions of intelligent people who know something I don't or have a unique insight about the subject they're discussing. I think a lot of other people read Slashdot for the same reason. I don't read Slashdot for the stupid trolling, even if it does take some "effort and creativity".
As for censorship, trolls are free to post whatever they like on Slashdot, and you're free to read it. You said yourself that you browse with a threshhold of -1; there's nothing stopping you. But at the same time, I'm free to read just the cream of the crop, the posts that have been singled out for their humor, insight, or information.
The moderation system may not be perfect, but it works darn well considering the number of trolls it helps screen out. If you want to read about hot grits and Natalie Portman, you go ahead, but don't try to ruin my Slashdot experience with it.
Well, since they have no right or claim to your source code, it would be pretty ludicrous for them to try and tell you how you can and can't distribute it. Given a choice between the two possibilities, I think I'll go with the vastly more likely one.
Sounds more like they're guaranteeing your right to distribute programs as executables only (no source) rather than infringing on your right to distribute programs with source included.
It's your kind of elitist "I got there first so anybody who came afterward is a loser" kind of attitude that drives people away from even trying to use Linux and insures that it will never be a mainstream operating system.
Maybe the increased competition for people's attention will generate higher quality media, which will draw viewers who don't filter out banner ads as well as viewers who do. Have you considered this possibility?
So what you're saying is that "higher quality media" is media that appeals to people too dumb to filter out banner ads?
I guess I can't back this up with anything but conjecture, but look at it this way: Slashdot has a banner ad. There's probably a reason. If nobody was viewing the banner ad, they probably wouldn't be getting revenue from the banner ad. Maybe they don't need revenue; I don't know.
Of COURSE they take that into account. You missed the whole point.
The more people actually watch the commercials, the more valuable the advertising space will be, so the more money the advertisers pay to the guys creating the content. Higher budgets result in the potential for higher quality content. So watching advertising contributes to better television.
I'm not going to get into arguing what is "quality" television and what isn't. Suffice to say that advertising supported television is just like HBO except that one you pay for with your checkbook, the other you pay for with your time.
If you value your time at US$45 / hour, that's 1.25 cents/second. 30K takes 6 seconds, so that's 7.5 cents.
I don't think anyone dumb enough to just sit idle waiting for a banner ad (instead of, say, reading the rest of the site) is going to be making $45 an hour.
If you see it on your screen, you've already waited for it to download, and it's already stolen your bandwidth.
Like I said, no one forces you to read them. If you don't want to read banner advertisements, don't go to sites that charge you by making you read them. Slashdot, for instance. They don't steal your bandwidth, they charge you for the service they provide.
I would disagree. Some content on the internet is free. Some you have to pay for. Those that you pay for you pay with your credit card before they send you a login. Others you pay for by giving them an email address they can send ads to.
The newspaper is a comparable scenario. Mail is not. The advertisements in your mailbox don't help pay for your mail delivery. When you get a letter from your friend, it isn't "brought to you by..."
The newspaper is a similar scenario, though. You dump those things in the trash, but if you happen to catch a glimpse of something interesting as you dump it, I'll bet you take a closer look.
Newspaper advertisers know that a lot of people dump their ads in the trash, and that is factored into the cost of advertising. Since internet ad blocking technology is not completely mainstream yet (ie. built into every browser) advertisers do not factor it into the cost of advertising. By building ad blocking into every browser, you're devaluing one of the biggest sources of revenue for useful internet sites. You're stealing from the internet.
If advertising fails to generate revenue, companies will pay less for advertising. Less money will be available for generating media, and lower quality media will result. You're only stealing from yourself.
When you switch channels or change radio stations to avoid commercials, the advertisers aren't getting their money's worth. This doesn't mean it's wrong for you to do it; you don't have a contract to watch or listen to advertisements. But the more people listen to the advertisements, the more change in revenue the advertisers will see, and so the more valuable the advertising space will become. More valuable advertising space means bigger budgets for programming, meaning higher quality media. You're stealing... from yourself.
How can you possibly regard advertisements as stealing your bandwidth? No one forces you to read them... It's a tradeoff. You get "free" services like Slashdot, but in exchange you have to view advertisements. Without revenue from advertising, most of the practical and useful websites would cease to exist. I'll bet you think the government is robbing you by making you pay taxes, too.
Slashdot Mirror
That doesn't seem like too big a concern. It would only give out the information through the USB port when the fingerprint matched, so you wouldn't be able to just plug it in and get the info. You'd have to open it up and disect the circuits, and I'm sure they could make it very, very difficult to get the data out. Assuming they could, though, you're right; they'd have your data. But how much worse would that be than having your credit cards stolen?
I read Slashdot because I enjoy the informed opinions of intelligent people who know something I don't or have a unique insight about the subject they're discussing. I think a lot of other people read Slashdot for the same reason. I don't read Slashdot for the stupid trolling, even if it does take some "effort and creativity".
As for censorship, trolls are free to post whatever they like on Slashdot, and you're free to read it. You said yourself that you browse with a threshhold of -1; there's nothing stopping you. But at the same time, I'm free to read just the cream of the crop, the posts that have been singled out for their humor, insight, or information.
The moderation system may not be perfect, but it works darn well considering the number of trolls it helps screen out. If you want to read about hot grits and Natalie Portman, you go ahead, but don't try to ruin my Slashdot experience with it.
Um... That's the same link they printed in the article.
I thought it was really funny. You must have a lousy sense of humor.
The metaphor does not directly relate to the object in question here (the window).
If it did, you wouldn't call it a metaphor.
Why don't I have permission to access the screenshots?
If any of that was true, would you really be bragging about it on Slashdot? By the way, what the heck is MAJPR?
Heck, why not sell .com, .net, and .org too!
It'd take more work to actually make the game that way than to fake it.
Um... Wouldn't that be a motivation for faking it rather than making it "that way"? Less work and all?
For those of us who couldn't care less about Linux, any insight into other facets of the E3 show?
Well, since they have no right or claim to your source code, it would be pretty ludicrous for them to try and tell you how you can and can't distribute it. Given a choice between the two possibilities, I think I'll go with the vastly more likely one.
Sounds more like they're guaranteeing your right to distribute programs as executables only (no source) rather than infringing on your right to distribute programs with source included.
Duh.
That's not AI, you idiot; that's called Mad-Libs.
It's your kind of elitist "I got there first so anybody who came afterward is a loser" kind of attitude that drives people away from even trying to use Linux and insures that it will never be a mainstream operating system.
Maybe the increased competition for people's attention will generate higher quality media, which will draw viewers who don't filter out banner ads as well as viewers who do. Have you considered this possibility?
So what you're saying is that "higher quality media" is media that appeals to people too dumb to filter out banner ads?
I guess I can't back this up with anything but conjecture, but look at it this way: Slashdot has a banner ad. There's probably a reason. If nobody was viewing the banner ad, they probably wouldn't be getting revenue from the banner ad. Maybe they don't need revenue; I don't know.
Of COURSE they take that into account. You missed the whole point.
The more people actually watch the commercials, the more valuable the advertising space will be, so the more money the advertisers pay to the guys creating the content. Higher budgets result in the potential for higher quality content. So watching advertising contributes to better television.
I'm not going to get into arguing what is "quality" television and what isn't. Suffice to say that advertising supported television is just like HBO except that one you pay for with your checkbook, the other you pay for with your time.
You ARE being paid to watch a commercial. You're being paid with the quality television programming that the advertiser is giving you.
If you value your time at US$45 / hour, that's 1.25 cents/second. 30K takes 6 seconds, so that's 7.5 cents.
I don't think anyone dumb enough to just sit idle waiting for a banner ad (instead of, say, reading the rest of the site) is going to be making $45 an hour.
If you see it on your screen, you've already waited for it to download, and it's already stolen your bandwidth.
Like I said, no one forces you to read them. If you don't want to read banner advertisements, don't go to sites that charge you by making you read them. Slashdot, for instance. They don't steal your bandwidth, they charge you for the service they provide.
I would disagree. Some content on the internet is free. Some you have to pay for. Those that you pay for you pay with your credit card before they send you a login. Others you pay for by giving them an email address they can send ads to.
How do you think Slashdot makes money?
The newspaper is a comparable scenario. Mail is not. The advertisements in your mailbox don't help pay for your mail delivery. When you get a letter from your friend, it isn't "brought to you by..."
The newspaper is a similar scenario, though. You dump those things in the trash, but if you happen to catch a glimpse of something interesting as you dump it, I'll bet you take a closer look.
Newspaper advertisers know that a lot of people dump their ads in the trash, and that is factored into the cost of advertising. Since internet ad blocking technology is not completely mainstream yet (ie. built into every browser) advertisers do not factor it into the cost of advertising. By building ad blocking into every browser, you're devaluing one of the biggest sources of revenue for useful internet sites. You're stealing from the internet.
Prosecute you for stealing? Man, you're nuts.
If advertising fails to generate revenue, companies will pay less for advertising. Less money will be available for generating media, and lower quality media will result. You're only stealing from yourself.
I never said it was immoral.
When you switch channels or change radio stations to avoid commercials, the advertisers aren't getting their money's worth. This doesn't mean it's wrong for you to do it; you don't have a contract to watch or listen to advertisements. But the more people listen to the advertisements, the more change in revenue the advertisers will see, and so the more valuable the advertising space will become. More valuable advertising space means bigger budgets for programming, meaning higher quality media. You're stealing... from yourself.
How can you possibly regard advertisements as stealing your bandwidth? No one forces you to read them... It's a tradeoff. You get "free" services like Slashdot, but in exchange you have to view advertisements. Without revenue from advertising, most of the practical and useful websites would cease to exist. I'll bet you think the government is robbing you by making you pay taxes, too.