Hmm. The google cache says that it was pulled from the website on 2/20, so if you really did see it a week or more ago that would mean the disclaimer was pulled off and then put back on. I'm not saying it was fraud or anything, but I can see how people who donated might feel misled by the whole thing.
If I decide not to run, any remaining funds will be contributed to the Change Congress movement to help promote these principles.
However, I pulled up the google cache of that same page and there is no mention of what will happen to the funds if he decides not to run. That seems somewhat shady, and I personally think he should have decided whether or not to run before starting to take donations.
That seems like a lame reason to not allow that functionality. I mean, if you allow a limited account to visit websites, they could just keep clicking reload over and over again on the router configuration page. There's another possible DoS attack.
You're missing my point. This car stores energy in two forms, so it is misleading to say that it gets 100mpg. Why not just toss a gallon of gas in the backseat of an all electric car and say that you get infinite miles per gallon? Although this will reduce the amount of gas consumed, people will still have to purchase compressed air for this car as well. The car can't go 100 miles on a gallon of gas alone, and that's what makes it misleading. However, maybe it is much cheaper to compress and store air to propel cars. I'm not arguing for or against that. My point is just that you're not going to go 100 miles for $3.30 (or whatever a gallon of gas is where you live).
I have to agree that they've pulled a lot of this out of their asses. From the article:
"I want to stress that these are estimates, and that we'll know soon more precisely from our engineers," ZPM spokesman Kevin Haydon told PM, "but a vehicle with one tank of air and, say, 8 gal. of either conventional petrol, ethanol or biofuel could hit between 800 and 1000 miles."
So who knows what numbers they'll come up with eventually. Also, saying it gets 100mpg is very misleading since that doesn't account for the energy that must go into compressing the air. Sure the car can go up to 1000 miles on 8 gallons of gas (if they are even close in their estimates), but that gas isn't providing all the energy necessary to propel the car.
I wonder how many yahoo engineers have non-compete clauses in their contracts. If microsoft started cherry picking a bunch of yahoo engineers it seems very likely that yahoo would take legal action against those engineers. As far as the rest of your comment goes... It's an interesting idea, but microsoft seems to be less concerned about money and more about time. It takes time to develop those great ideas and get a bunch of customers on board. Yahoo already has the product developed and customers using it. This would allow microsoft to catch up now as opposed to 10 years down the road.
Wow... I'm sure you meant well, but as a VT grad that post comes off as very condescending. To myself and tens of thousands of other hokies, Virginia Tech is not just another descriptor for massacre. There are tons of great things about Virginia Tech that we would much rather be associated with than the tragic shooting. I understand that it will always be a part of our history and it's not something that should be forgotten, but it's not necessary to bring it up every time we make the news (which happens often because there's tons of cool research going on in Blacksburg, VA).
I was particularly interested in this comcast comment from the article:
Importantly, in managing its network, Comcast does not block any content, application, or service; discriminate among providers; or otherwise violate any aspect of the principles set forth in the [FCC's] Internet Policy Statement.
So, they don't block any content? That doesn't seem consistent with their terms of service (interesting parts bolded by me):
Comcast reserves the right to refuse to transmit or post, and to remove or block, any information or materials, in whole or in part, that it, in its sole discretion, deems to be in violation of the "Content and information restrictions" section above in this Policy, harmful to its network or customers using the Service, negatively affecting its network or customers using the Service, or otherwise inappropriate, regardless of whether this material or its dissemination is unlawful. Neither Comcast nor any of its affiliates, suppliers, or agents have any obligation to monitor transmissions or postings (including, but not limited to, e-mail, file transfer, newsgroup, and instant message transmissions as well as materials available on the Personal Web Pages and Online Storage features) made on the Service. However, Comcast and its affiliates, suppliers, and agents have the right to monitor these transmissions and postings from time to time for violations of this Policy and to disclose, block, or remove them in accordance with this Policy and the Subscriber Agreement.
So what is it comcast? Do you block content or don't you? Either they are lying to the government or they are lying to their customers. And don't get me started on the internet policy statement (pdf warning)... I'm sure comcast is all about this one:
To encourage broadband deployment and preserve and promote the open and interconnected nature of the public Internet, consumers are entitled to competition among network providers,application and service providers, and content providers.
The change only seems to be on stories in idle.slashdot.org. Maybe taco is testing it out before letting it loose on the rest of the site... I hope not though, because I'm not a fan of the new theme.
The junkmail thing is definitely a pet peeve of mine, and it bothers me more than the telemarketing as well. At the last place I lived, we got junkmail from comcast about their internet service and comcast didn't even service our apartment complex. WTF? Where I live now I can't even remember the last day I went to the mailbox and there wasn't junk there. We recycle what we can, but I can't imagine how many trees die to bring us pizza coupons. And those trees would come in handy to offset the carbon emissions created when carting around that extra mail in the back of a mail truck... From wikipedia:
* Each year, 100 million trees are used to produce junk mail.
* 250,000 homes could be heated with one day's supply of junk mail.
* Americans receive almost 4 million tons of junk mail every year. [3]
* The yearly production and disposal of junk mail consumes more energy than 2.8 million cars.
But it's big business for the postal service, which is why it stays. Again from wikipedia:
In the United States, the United States Postal Service maintains that direct marketers pay the majority of the costs of mail. Bulk mail thereby subsidizes low cost stamps for letter, magazine, and book mailing.
So the difference is that telemarketers aren't as lucrative for phone companies as spammers are for the postal service. Which is why it's much harder to stop the junkmail.
I think that calling it "anti-science propaganda" is a stretch. While I'm all for scientific advances and think that this is a pretty cool one, it's prudent to keep in mind that there are potential consequences (intended or unintended) to possessing certain technologies. It would be just as shortsighted to blindly exploit a new technology without regarding the consequences as it would be to ignore a potentially great technology out of fear. Be mad at the people who would actually try to stop this research, not those offering up a word of caution. It's the difference between someone asking you to drive safely as you get into your car and someone putting up a roadblock. The parent to your post was simply asking that these scientists drive safe.
The video was ridiculous, and I thought the same thing about the stab at sound quality of pirated music. It shouldn't be too hard to find pirated music of higher quality than the standard lossy itunes offerings.
But the real reason I'm replying to your post is to point out that this whole corporate propaganda disguised as news thing is not new. Video news releases are done by other corporations and aired across the country on local channels. It's possible the RIAA didn't pay a dime, because it's cheaper for local news to air crap that's already been produced than produce their own crap.
If intelligent life out there was listening and could decode our tv signals, they'd probably say the same about us with the ad driven broadcasts that we're sending out into space. V1@gra ads are on tv too.
And of course it's already been modded up (at least only as funny). To clarify why the GP is wrong, from the wikipedia entry on Windows server 2008:
Windows Server 2008 introduces most of the new features from Windows Vista to Windows Server. This is a similar relationship to that between Windows Server 2003 and Windows XP.
Gotta give credit to MS for eating their own dog food...
Allow incoming connection on port 80? Confirm/deny
Pff. When you installed windows you agreed not to hold them liable.
17. EXCLUSION OF INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL AND CERTAIN OTHER DAMAGES. TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, IN NO EVENT SHALL MICROSOFT OR ITS SUPPLIERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, PUNITIVE, INDIRECT, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES WHATSOEVER (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS OR CONFIDENTIAL OR OTHER INFORMATION, FOR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION, FOR PERSONAL INJURY, FOR LOSS OF PRIVACY, FOR FAILURE TO MEET ANY DUTY INCLUDING OF GOOD FAITH OR OF REASONABLE CARE, FOR NEGLIGENCE, AND FOR ANY OTHER PECUNIARY OR OTHER LOSS WHATSOEVER) ARISING OUT OF OR IN ANY WAY RELATED TO THE USE OF OR INABILITY TO USE THE SOFTWARE, THE PROVISION OF OR FAILURE TO PROVIDE SUPPORT OR OTHER SERVICES, INFORMATON, SOFTWARE, AND RELATED CONTENT THROUGH THE SOFTWARE OR OTHERWISE ARISING OUT OF THE USE OF THE SOFTWARE, OR OTHERWISE UNDER OR IN CONNECTION WITH ANY PROVISION OF THIS EULA, EVEN IN THE EVENT OF THE FAULT, TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE), MISREPRESENTATION, STRICT LIABILITY, BREACH OF CONTRACT OR BREACH OF WARRANTY OF MICROSOFT OR ANY SUPPLIER, AND EVEN IF MICROSOFT OR ANY SUPPLIER HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES.
Oh, you didn't know about those terms when you bought the product? And you want to return software that's been opened? It was in all caps, surely you could have read that through the box.
So, the slashdot lameness filter doesn't like the the clip of the microsoft eula I posted because it has too many caps. Well I'm not retyping all of that in lower case, so I guess I'll post another part of the eula that doesn't abuse the caps lock key...
18. LIMITATION OF LIABILITY AND REMEDIES. Notwithstanding any damages that you might incur for any reason whatsoever (including, without limitation, all damages referenced herein and all direct or general damages in contract or anything else), the entire liability of Microsoft and any of its suppliers under any provision of this EULA and your exclusive remedy hereunder (except for any remedy of repair or replacement elected by Microsoft with respect to any breach of the Limited Warranty) shall be limited to the greater of the actual damages you incur in reasonable reliance on the Software up to the amount actually paid by you for the Software or US$5.00. The foregoing limitations, exclusions and disclaimers (including Sections 15, 16 and 17) shall apply to the maximum extent permitted by applicable law, even if any remedy fails its essential purpose.
I have to disagree with that. Politicians love to get their hands on more of your money and still be able to say they didn't raise taxes. Take for instance the abusive driving fees in Virginia. From wikipedia:
In 2007, the need to fund $1 billion per year for pressing transportation projects, resulted in another impass between the House of Delegates and Senate. Rather than approve additional tax increases, the final Republican plan, which was enacted into law, resulted in new abusive driving fees of up to $3,000 which are assessed against Virginia residents in addition to the historic fines assessed on out-of-state drivers convicted of the same driving law violations.
So now those politicians can gloat about how they fixed the transportation budget but didn't raise taxes.
The average user/consumer has no deep knowledge of the esoterica behind copyrights, etc.
And this is great for corporations who can afford to have a legal department. Having too many laws and laws that are overly complicated really stacks the deck against the average person. Corporations and government love it though, because they can force us to play in a game where they know and interpret the rules while we don't. We definitely need organizations like this to level the playing field.
People change telephone numbers from time to time, so I think it would be unwise to permanently keep a number on any kind of list. I don't know why someone wouldn't want to be on the DNC list (unless they're just so lonely they enjoy having someone to talk to even if it's about long distance service). Since I won't keep my phone number forever, I think it's reasonable to spend a few seconds registering once every five years as long as I have the number. If the next guy wants to hear about the latest deals on timeshares, more power to him.
Why, for example, is it necessary to use javascript to cause the browser to follow a link? Or to refresh a page?
I find it incredibly annoying when links are done in javascript. When I follow a link, I usually middle click on it so it opens in a new tab. With javascript, if I try to open the link in a new tab all I get is a blank page. More bloat and less convenience... *insert offtopic slashdot snipe about how this could also describe windows vista*
Wasn't there recently a woman who shared a bunch of tunes on P2P and was fined in some dozen thousand dollars? This company should pay in the SAME proportion. That would be, what, enough to bankrupt the company?
This is beyond P2P sharing. This is commercial copyright infringement, which is a criminal offence. For those too lazy to click, in the "Criminal offences" section it says (emphasis added by me):
For the most part, the criminal law is only used for commercial copyright infringement with one exception, and an offence is committed when, knowing or reasonably suspecting that the files are illegal copies, and without the permission of the copyright owner, a person:
* makes unauthorised copies e.g. burning music files or films on to CD-Rs or DVD-Rs;
* distributes, sells or hires out unauthorised copies of CDs, VCDs and DVDs;
* on a larger scale, distributes unauthorised copies as a commercial enterprise on the internet;
According to the article, EMI was informed that they were distributing the music without authorization, yet they continued. At that point they were knowingly disributing unauthorized copies on the internet for a profit. Let's not waste time in civil court, this should be tried as the criminal offence that it is.
Slashdot Mirror
Hmm. The google cache says that it was pulled from the website on 2/20, so if you really did see it a week or more ago that would mean the disclaimer was pulled off and then put back on. I'm not saying it was fraud or anything, but I can see how people who donated might feel misled by the whole thing.
That seems like a lame reason to not allow that functionality. I mean, if you allow a limited account to visit websites, they could just keep clicking reload over and over again on the router configuration page. There's another possible DoS attack.
You're missing my point. This car stores energy in two forms, so it is misleading to say that it gets 100mpg. Why not just toss a gallon of gas in the backseat of an all electric car and say that you get infinite miles per gallon? Although this will reduce the amount of gas consumed, people will still have to purchase compressed air for this car as well. The car can't go 100 miles on a gallon of gas alone, and that's what makes it misleading. However, maybe it is much cheaper to compress and store air to propel cars. I'm not arguing for or against that. My point is just that you're not going to go 100 miles for $3.30 (or whatever a gallon of gas is where you live).
So who knows what numbers they'll come up with eventually. Also, saying it gets 100mpg is very misleading since that doesn't account for the energy that must go into compressing the air. Sure the car can go up to 1000 miles on 8 gallons of gas (if they are even close in their estimates), but that gas isn't providing all the energy necessary to propel the car.
I wonder how many yahoo engineers have non-compete clauses in their contracts. If microsoft started cherry picking a bunch of yahoo engineers it seems very likely that yahoo would take legal action against those engineers. As far as the rest of your comment goes... It's an interesting idea, but microsoft seems to be less concerned about money and more about time. It takes time to develop those great ideas and get a bunch of customers on board. Yahoo already has the product developed and customers using it. This would allow microsoft to catch up now as opposed to 10 years down the road.
Wow... I'm sure you meant well, but as a VT grad that post comes off as very condescending. To myself and tens of thousands of other hokies, Virginia Tech is not just another descriptor for massacre. There are tons of great things about Virginia Tech that we would much rather be associated with than the tragic shooting. I understand that it will always be a part of our history and it's not something that should be forgotten, but it's not necessary to bring it up every time we make the news (which happens often because there's tons of cool research going on in Blacksburg, VA).
So, they don't block any content? That doesn't seem consistent with their terms of service (interesting parts bolded by me):
So what is it comcast? Do you block content or don't you? Either they are lying to the government or they are lying to their customers. And don't get me started on the internet policy statement (pdf warning)... I'm sure comcast is all about this one:
The change only seems to be on stories in idle.slashdot.org. Maybe taco is testing it out before letting it loose on the rest of the site... I hope not though, because I'm not a fan of the new theme.
But it's big business for the postal service, which is why it stays. Again from wikipedia:
So the difference is that telemarketers aren't as lucrative for phone companies as spammers are for the postal service. Which is why it's much harder to stop the junkmail.
And our porn. Did the government contract electronic surveillance at the border to the geek squad?
William Shatner, is that you??? KublaiKhhhhhhhhhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaannnnnnnnnnnnnn
And the date at the bottom of the article is "12 May 2006". The same article has been linked from slashdot before too. We really haven't argued about this for a while...
I think that calling it "anti-science propaganda" is a stretch. While I'm all for scientific advances and think that this is a pretty cool one, it's prudent to keep in mind that there are potential consequences (intended or unintended) to possessing certain technologies. It would be just as shortsighted to blindly exploit a new technology without regarding the consequences as it would be to ignore a potentially great technology out of fear. Be mad at the people who would actually try to stop this research, not those offering up a word of caution. It's the difference between someone asking you to drive safely as you get into your car and someone putting up a roadblock. The parent to your post was simply asking that these scientists drive safe.
But the real reason I'm replying to your post is to point out that this whole corporate propaganda disguised as news thing is not new. Video news releases are done by other corporations and aired across the country on local channels. It's possible the RIAA didn't pay a dime, because it's cheaper for local news to air crap that's already been produced than produce their own crap.
If intelligent life out there was listening and could decode our tv signals, they'd probably say the same about us with the ad driven broadcasts that we're sending out into space. V1@gra ads are on tv too.
Gotta give credit to MS for eating their own dog food...
Allow incoming connection on port 80? Confirm/deny
I'm guessing you're being sarcastic/funny, but if not that's a great example of the broken window fallacy.
So, the slashdot lameness filter doesn't like the the clip of the microsoft eula I posted because it has too many caps. Well I'm not retyping all of that in lower case, so I guess I'll post another part of the eula that doesn't abuse the caps lock key...
I have to disagree with that. Politicians love to get their hands on more of your money and still be able to say they didn't raise taxes. Take for instance the abusive driving fees in Virginia. From wikipedia:
So now those politicians can gloat about how they fixed the transportation budget but didn't raise taxes.
Or you could get the Port-O-Rotary.
And this is great for corporations who can afford to have a legal department. Having too many laws and laws that are overly complicated really stacks the deck against the average person. Corporations and government love it though, because they can force us to play in a game where they know and interpret the rules while we don't. We definitely need organizations like this to level the playing field.
People change telephone numbers from time to time, so I think it would be unwise to permanently keep a number on any kind of list. I don't know why someone wouldn't want to be on the DNC list (unless they're just so lonely they enjoy having someone to talk to even if it's about long distance service). Since I won't keep my phone number forever, I think it's reasonable to spend a few seconds registering once every five years as long as I have the number. If the next guy wants to hear about the latest deals on timeshares, more power to him.
I find it incredibly annoying when links are done in javascript. When I follow a link, I usually middle click on it so it opens in a new tab. With javascript, if I try to open the link in a new tab all I get is a blank page. More bloat and less convenience... *insert offtopic slashdot snipe about how this could also describe windows vista*
This is beyond P2P sharing. This is commercial copyright infringement, which is a criminal offence. For those too lazy to click, in the "Criminal offences" section it says (emphasis added by me):
According to the article, EMI was informed that they were distributing the music without authorization, yet they continued. At that point they were knowingly disributing unauthorized copies on the internet for a profit. Let's not waste time in civil court, this should be tried as the criminal offence that it is.