The only legit reason I can see to block networks is if they're getting a DDOS attack from many different hosts on those networks. Maybe they're blocking some networks to ensure access for others...
If it's not a DDOS, they you can probably chalk it up to incompetent management. Wouldn't be the first time for Government webites...
Hey, I just asked for specific examples of Fox News lying. You're either unable, or unwilling to provide them. Considering that you're so belligerent on the issue, I'll assume the first. If you keep repeating your dogma, I'll keep asking for proof. If you continue to not give proof, I'll assume you're lying, just as you did in your initial post about the article.
Okay, so you lie about the article in your post, then when I call you on it, you repeat that the article is a lie, using your own derogatory name for Fox News.
If I didn't believe you the first time, what makes you think I'll believe you the second? Repeating things doesn't make them true, nor is it a very good way to carry on a discussion. If you can point out something specific in the article which is a lie, that'd be much more helpful than just repeating your own apparently dogmatic belief.
Maybe you should read the article before you dismiss it. The article doesn't claim proof of anything, but shows enough evidence to claim the possibility of a link. From the bottom of the page:
According to U.S. officials and the United Nations itself, MIGA is less an "empty box" than a container of Al Qaeda-related mysteries. One of those mysteries appears to be Abdul Rahman Hayel Saeed, with his charter MIGA membership and his prominent part in a Yemen conglomerate doing hundreds of millions worth of business with Saddam.
Proof positive? Certainly not. But the article didn't claim proof. It claimed a possibility.
democratically appointed? What the hell is that supposed to mean? An official is either elected, or appointed. And I sure as hell don't remember voting for (or against) Kofi.
not invading countries without the support of the UN Before we invaded, France said that they would veto *any* resolution authorizing *any* use of force against Iraq. At that point, the UN became useless for accomplishing anything in regards to rogue nations (Iraq, NK, Iran, etc) in the UN, as there was no threat of force. The ball was then in our court, and we decided that 12 years of violating the treaty that ended the first Gulf War was long enough. It was our fighters that had been enforcing the no fly zones, and being shot at nearly every day. It was our decision to go to war. We tried to go through the UN. The UN is now a failure. Major reforms are needed before it will ever be very useful again.
abandoning important treaties like Kyoto Oh, you mean the "US has to conform to very strict environmental regulations but no one else as to do jack shit" treaty? I honestly don't think anyone should have to wonder why we opposed that one.
A budget surplus, the first in modern times, converted instantly to massive deficit.
Yeah, that's Bush's fault. It's not because the dot.com bubble burst. It's also not because we massively increased spending when we had that surplus. Of course, can you really call it a surplus if we proceeded to spend it all when we found out about it?
Yeah, 'cause, you know, NK will immediately disarm if the US gets rid of our nuclear weapons.
NK is not dangerous because they "feel threatened." They're dangerous because they *want* to *be threatening*. Disarming won't protect the USA. Disarming won't protect South Korea. Disarming makes absolutely no sense, unless you have a lot of faith in the leaders of NK "doing the right thing." I don't. In the words of General Tommy Franks, "Hope is not a strategy."
Labelling a group of countries "evil" and then invading one of them is not the way to reassure N.Korea that they have no need to fear attack. Sure. Lets tell NK that we won't attack them. Then they'll know it's safe to develop nukes. And since we'll have disarmed ourselves, they can use them without fearing MAD. Good job. Your suggested strategy just resulted in an attack that made 9/11 and WWII look like pacifism. Thanks for playing.
The US trades extensively with China, yet imposes sanctions on Cuba. I agree this makes no sense. Unfortunately, due to the importance of the votes of Cuban immigrants in Florida, this is not going to change. My view on Cuba? We need a strategy to make their post-Castro (hey, he's gotta retire sometime) government a little more US friendly. One good way to do this would be opening up trade.
imo tbh you can't be GPL compliant, use and compile 3rd party GPL code, and charge people money for it without the expressed consent of the contributing authors.
You may want to take a closer look at the GPL. It does not forbid charging money for the program. You're just not allowed to charge more than a modest "copy fee" for the source. Since the source is still available for free, I fail to see how Zed is in violation.
i personally think this is the stupidest thing that valve could ever do - how long will it be before their 'encryption' is hacked and hl2 becomes a pirate version (potentially) long before retail.
I haven't looked at what encryption they're using, but if they know anything about encryption, then the only way people will decrypt it before valve wants them to is if the key is leaked. It will probably only be a few days before the game is released, so it will more or less impossible to crack the key before it is released. Real encryption is not as easy to crack as DRM.
Zero Mission is a new game. It is not a port. I want to make this clear, since many people seem to use the words remake and port interchangeably, when their meanings are quite different. Zero Mission is a retelling of the original Metroid story, but it is a new game.
The two new metroid games have been more than enough justification for my GBA SP purchase. But then, I'm a huge metroid fan.
The trailer was really a disservice to Asimov. The movie having an "element of mystery" is not enough of a reassurance for me. I've since read a few more reviews. I'm not going to see the movie.
I agree. As someone who really liked I, Robot (the collection of short stories), the trailer really put me off to the movie. What I'd really like to know is whether the trailer was an accurate representation of the movie. The trailer made it seem like the movie was a Humans vs Machines action movie which wanted to capitalize on Asimov's name. If this isn't true, I may actually be interested in seeing the movie, but the reviewer didn't really touch on this. Has anyone else seen it yet?
You can find tons of pirate anime on ebay and half.com. They refuse to crack down on it. But the MPAA and the RIAA want ebay to crack down on something that isn't even illegal, and *BAM*, freenet's account get shuts down. The whole situation is really quite ridiculous. As a consumer, I don't want to buy pirate stuff, so I'm basically forced to avoid the online used market because 98% of it is pirate. There's now way to tell when you buy something whether it will be pirate or not. And if it turns out to be pirate, ebay won't crack down on the seller, and won't refund the buyer's money. This happened to a friend of mine. He bought some anime VCDs on ebay. They turned out to just be CDRs (which are specifically banned in ebay's terms of service). Ebay refused to do anything about it.
I just mentioned moral rights because I like to talk about them. It's actually irrelevant to this discussion.
I know what a natural monopoly is, and I understand what you're saying. I just don't think that a monopoly is natural if it depends on an artificial monopoly to maintain itself. I do not believe that Microsoft would be able to maintain their monopoly without copyright, therefore, microsoft's monopoly is not natural, but artificial. As for the operating systems market being one where natural monopolies form, I disagree. Look no further than the vast number of unix-like operating systems on the market, and how relatively easy it is to write code that will run on many of these systems. Without copyright, I have no doubt that there would be many flavors of Windows available from many different vendors. There would be no monopoly.
An operating system like Windows is a natural monopoly that uses market inertia, the artificial monopolies created by IP law, and deliberate and often successful attempts to break compatible interfaces... to maintain itself.
While I agree that Windows uses all those things to maintain a monopoly, it is still not a natural monopoly. It relies on the artificial monopoly of copyright law to maintain its monopoly position. Without copyright law, others could modify and distribute their own versions of Windows. Microsoft would have a *very* difficult time maintaining their monopoly. I conjecture that without copyright, Microsoft would not be able to maintain their monopoly. It would be far too easy for many other parties to create their own compatible versions of Windows.
All that being said, I support copyright (just not in its current state). I just do not want anyone to think of copyright as a natural monopoly nor a moral right. It is neither.
yeah, no kidding. I just removed a bunch of crap from my sister's computer over the weekend. She had an "anti-spyware" program on her computer called Spy Hunter. Seeing as how it certainly wasn't very effective in removing stuff, and I had never heard of it before, I theorize that the program was actually spyware itself. I'm curious if anyone who's heard of Spy Hunter can verify this.
The only two programs I (personally) vouch for in this area are AdAware, and SpyBot S&D.
I definitely agree. The problem with most people who complain about cheese is that they find one tactic they can't immediately find a counter for, rush to the assumption that the game is unbalanced, and then demand everyone quit using that strategy. The problem is that most of the time the game *isn't* unbalanced (at least not in the way they think), and that good players can counter these "cheese" tactics with their eyes closed. I play a tabletop game called Mechwarrior:Dark Age. There are many in the online fan community who complain loudly about a "cheese" tactic called "artillery turtle." Problem is, artillery turtles are very easy for good players to beat. Occasionally people will show up at local tournaments with armies built around these tactics, assuming that since people on the net say it's unbeatable, it must be good. Myself and a few other players just smash them without much thought, then explain to them why those tactics don't work. We've tried explaining this to people online, but the response we usually get is that whoever we were talking with just repeats their complaints more loudly, rather than trying to debunk what we're saying. At this point, we find it much easier to just defeat these people at tournaments, and try to ignore their whining as much as possible.
Slashdot Mirror
hopefully we can get a decent space program by then. And fend off any asteroid collisions...
Aw, who am i kidding. I'm sure we'll still be preoccupied with bush's national guard service and kerry's vietnam medals by then...
I guess if something like that hits us, we're pretty much screwed...
Kind of a sobering thought. I don't see that we could do anything about it though.
I guess USPTO patent examiners have never played the N64 with a rumble pack...
The only legit reason I can see to block networks is if they're getting a DDOS attack from many different hosts on those networks. Maybe they're blocking some networks to ensure access for others...
If it's not a DDOS, they you can probably chalk it up to incompetent management. Wouldn't be the first time for Government webites...
Hey, I just asked for specific examples of Fox News lying. You're either unable, or unwilling to provide them. Considering that you're so belligerent on the issue, I'll assume the first. If you keep repeating your dogma, I'll keep asking for proof. If you continue to not give proof, I'll assume you're lying, just as you did in your initial post about the article.
I still don't know wtf you're talking about. Maybe you're confusing Fox News with some other news network.
Okay, so you lie about the article in your post, then when I call you on it, you repeat that the article is a lie, using your own derogatory name for Fox News.
If I didn't believe you the first time, what makes you think I'll believe you the second? Repeating things doesn't make them true, nor is it a very good way to carry on a discussion. If you can point out something specific in the article which is a lie, that'd be much more helpful than just repeating your own apparently dogmatic belief.
Maybe you should read the article before you dismiss it. The article doesn't claim proof of anything, but shows enough evidence to claim the possibility of a link. From the bottom of the page:
According to U.S. officials and the United Nations itself, MIGA is less an "empty box" than a container of Al Qaeda-related mysteries. One of those mysteries appears to be Abdul Rahman Hayel Saeed, with his charter MIGA membership and his prominent part in a Yemen conglomerate doing hundreds of millions worth of business with Saddam.
Proof positive? Certainly not. But the article didn't claim proof. It claimed a possibility.
democratically appointed Kofi Annan
democratically appointed? What the hell is that supposed to mean? An official is either elected, or appointed. And I sure as hell don't remember voting for (or against) Kofi.
not invading countries without the support of the UN
Before we invaded, France said that they would veto *any* resolution authorizing *any* use of force against Iraq. At that point, the UN became useless for accomplishing anything in regards to rogue nations (Iraq, NK, Iran, etc) in the UN, as there was no threat of force. The ball was then in our court, and we decided that 12 years of violating the treaty that ended the first Gulf War was long enough. It was our fighters that had been enforcing the no fly zones, and being shot at nearly every day. It was our decision to go to war. We tried to go through the UN. The UN is now a failure. Major reforms are needed before it will ever be very useful again.
abandoning important treaties like Kyoto
Oh, you mean the "US has to conform to very strict environmental regulations but no one else as to do jack shit" treaty? I honestly don't think anyone should have to wonder why we opposed that one.
A budget surplus, the first in modern times, converted instantly to massive deficit.
Yeah, that's Bush's fault. It's not because the dot.com bubble burst. It's also not because we massively increased spending when we had that surplus. Of course, can you really call it a surplus if we proceeded to spend it all when we found out about it?
Yeah, 'cause, you know, NK will immediately disarm if the US gets rid of our nuclear weapons.
NK is not dangerous because they "feel threatened." They're dangerous because they *want* to *be threatening*. Disarming won't protect the USA. Disarming won't protect South Korea. Disarming makes absolutely no sense, unless you have a lot of faith in the leaders of NK "doing the right thing." I don't. In the words of General Tommy Franks, "Hope is not a strategy."
Labelling a group of countries "evil" and then invading one of them is not the way to reassure N.Korea that they have no need to fear attack.
Sure. Lets tell NK that we won't attack them. Then they'll know it's safe to develop nukes. And since we'll have disarmed ourselves, they can use them without fearing MAD. Good job. Your suggested strategy just resulted in an attack that made 9/11 and WWII look like pacifism. Thanks for playing.
The US trades extensively with China, yet imposes sanctions on Cuba.
I agree this makes no sense. Unfortunately, due to the importance of the votes of Cuban immigrants in Florida, this is not going to change. My view on Cuba? We need a strategy to make their post-Castro (hey, he's gotta retire sometime) government a little more US friendly. One good way to do this would be opening up trade.
Yeah, that's a pretty clear-cut violation then.
You may want to take a closer look at the GPL. It does not forbid charging money for the program. You're just not allowed to charge more than a modest "copy fee" for the source. Since the source is still available for free, I fail to see how Zed is in violation.
i personally think this is the stupidest thing that valve could ever do - how long will it be before their 'encryption' is hacked and hl2 becomes a pirate version (potentially) long before retail.
I haven't looked at what encryption they're using, but if they know anything about encryption, then the only way people will decrypt it before valve wants them to is if the key is leaked. It will probably only be a few days before the game is released, so it will more or less impossible to crack the key before it is released. Real encryption is not as easy to crack as DRM.
Zero Mission is a new game. It is not a port. I want to make this clear, since many people seem to use the words remake and port interchangeably, when their meanings are quite different. Zero Mission is a retelling of the original Metroid story, but it is a new game.
The two new metroid games have been more than enough justification for my GBA SP purchase. But then, I'm a huge metroid fan.
Don't forget Wario Ware, a very original game.
The trailer was really a disservice to Asimov. The movie having an "element of mystery" is not enough of a reassurance for me. I've since read a few more reviews. I'm not going to see the movie.
I agree. As someone who really liked I, Robot (the collection of short stories), the trailer really put me off to the movie. What I'd really like to know is whether the trailer was an accurate representation of the movie. The trailer made it seem like the movie was a Humans vs Machines action movie which wanted to capitalize on Asimov's name. If this isn't true, I may actually be interested in seeing the movie, but the reviewer didn't really touch on this. Has anyone else seen it yet?
You can find tons of pirate anime on ebay and half.com. They refuse to crack down on it. But the MPAA and the RIAA want ebay to crack down on something that isn't even illegal, and *BAM*, freenet's account get shuts down. The whole situation is really quite ridiculous. As a consumer, I don't want to buy pirate stuff, so I'm basically forced to avoid the online used market because 98% of it is pirate. There's now way to tell when you buy something whether it will be pirate or not. And if it turns out to be pirate, ebay won't crack down on the seller, and won't refund the buyer's money. This happened to a friend of mine. He bought some anime VCDs on ebay. They turned out to just be CDRs (which are specifically banned in ebay's terms of service). Ebay refused to do anything about it.
I know what a natural monopoly is, and I understand what you're saying. I just don't think that a monopoly is natural if it depends on an artificial monopoly to maintain itself. I do not believe that Microsoft would be able to maintain their monopoly without copyright, therefore, microsoft's monopoly is not natural, but artificial. As for the operating systems market being one where natural monopolies form, I disagree. Look no further than the vast number of unix-like operating systems on the market, and how relatively easy it is to write code that will run on many of these systems. Without copyright, I have no doubt that there would be many flavors of Windows available from many different vendors. There would be no monopoly.
While I agree that Windows uses all those things to maintain a monopoly, it is still not a natural monopoly. It relies on the artificial monopoly of copyright law to maintain its monopoly position. Without copyright law, others could modify and distribute their own versions of Windows. Microsoft would have a *very* difficult time maintaining their monopoly. I conjecture that without copyright, Microsoft would not be able to maintain their monopoly. It would be far too easy for many other parties to create their own compatible versions of Windows.
All that being said, I support copyright (just not in its current state). I just do not want anyone to think of copyright as a natural monopoly nor a moral right. It is neither.
But it turns out that certain kinds of software... any software with a complex and closed interface like Windows... is a natural monopoly
It's not a natural monopoly. It's an artificial monopoly imposed by copyright law. Get it right, or pay the price.
yeah, no kidding. I just removed a bunch of crap from my sister's computer over the weekend. She had an "anti-spyware" program on her computer called Spy Hunter. Seeing as how it certainly wasn't very effective in removing stuff, and I had never heard of it before, I theorize that the program was actually spyware itself. I'm curious if anyone who's heard of Spy Hunter can verify this.
The only two programs I (personally) vouch for in this area are AdAware, and SpyBot S&D.
I definitely agree. The problem with most people who complain about cheese is that they find one tactic they can't immediately find a counter for, rush to the assumption that the game is unbalanced, and then demand everyone quit using that strategy. The problem is that most of the time the game *isn't* unbalanced (at least not in the way they think), and that good players can counter these "cheese" tactics with their eyes closed. I play a tabletop game called Mechwarrior:Dark Age. There are many in the online fan community who complain loudly about a "cheese" tactic called "artillery turtle." Problem is, artillery turtles are very easy for good players to beat. Occasionally people will show up at local tournaments with armies built around these tactics, assuming that since people on the net say it's unbeatable, it must be good. Myself and a few other players just smash them without much thought, then explain to them why those tactics don't work. We've tried explaining this to people online, but the response we usually get is that whoever we were talking with just repeats their complaints more loudly, rather than trying to debunk what we're saying. At this point, we find it much easier to just defeat these people at tournaments, and try to ignore their whining as much as possible.