See, being subjected to IDEs has lowered your ability of detecting faulty code. You're basically saying A > A since this "anyone" includes "you" too.;)
So now CMS stands for "centralized monitoring system"... but Indians are doing an amateur job here, because anything centralized is doomed to become the single point of failure.
Strawman point at best. Fair use is not the problem at hand.
Also I wasn't saying the search results were free speech. I was saying that the *absence* of search results were. I really hate repeating myself because some AC failed reading comprehension.
No one forces you to use Google. If you don't like Google's exercising of free speech (of choosing what *not* do display) you may as well refrain from using its product.
As we know, sex is dirty enough, but homosexuals and transsexuals are all disease-ridden, AIDS-infested, sex-crazed, godless, hedonistic, er..., I'm sure there are a few more words I could use along those lines but I haven't had my tea^H^H^Hcoffee yet (of course I'm a real man! tea is for girls!).
Lennart Poettering, the pulseaudio lead, is an Red Hat employee. Jaroslav Kysela and Takashi Iwai, the only two persons in the world who get paid for their work in ALSA, are hired by Red Hat and Novell respectively.
So where is Mark (and his money) when we need him?
The PDF file itself was generated using Adobe Distiller for Mac. Not sure what is used to generate the original. Since they were using Adobe, it's not likely that they were using LaTeX.
Slashdot americanism knee-jerk on anything about China is just amazing.
/trollish mode off
This is not news. It was on local TV news several days ago. Basically, the Author's Society (a "guild"-like organization) said to Google something like this: "We know the benefits of scanned-and-indexed books and we want digital libraries, but why you're not paying for the copyrighted content?" So far the parties are negotiating a plan that is supposed to achieve mutual benefit.
BTW, I think Google was doing a right thing simply putting those books on-line and negotiate later. In the words of Admiral Grace Hopper, "it's easier to ask for forgiveness than permission." The books acquired without negotiating copyright serves as a good corpus of OCR calibration or "training" material. While the legal dept are doing the talking, the techies can take the time sharpen the tech.
It's recursive, but not well optimized. MS should have known better and used tail recursion instead. Something like "Totally Wasted Ansty Twat" -- the TWAT search engine!
If MS doesn't sue, there's no case, because copyright infringement cases are, well, civil, and the State won't file the lawsuit for you. It is MS that turns a blind eye on the illegal windows copies for whatever reason. (MS did sue some Chinese companies that used pirated Windows/Office suite internally. However, those petty pirates selling CDs on the streets are simply not a viable target for MS.)
On the other hand, our government did crackdown on pirated books, because many of the victims are public-funded press houses and they're hurt by the pirates.
It's much easier and cheaper to let a trusted team of computer experts do a thorough audit on the software than to get a large team of scrutineers to watch every little detail where a paper ballot can be defrauded.
/academic mode on
Actually this point could be pushed a step further.
The verification of the correctness of a computer can even be made automatic. At least in theory. We won't even need a team of human experts. Furthermore, once a particular model of machine pass the verification, it could be expected to work very reliably (so you have a very high chance of it still working properly as intended in the next three runs), not like humans who are unstable by nature.
/academic mode off
In real world, power corrupts. Election corruption has happened and will happen again. Instead of limiting the use of technology, why not limit the power instead? Electronic voting in its current form may be abused to better hide the criminals, which is sad. It is possible to be abused because too many things are being made secret. We need to remove this artificial secrecy.
D'oh, my last sentence was malformed. I wasn't really paying attention to what I was typing. I meant to say "Technology is neutral; its outcome depends on who is using it and how it is used." FTFM.
1. How do you know that "A paper ballot vote is completely observable and does not require trust"?
2. "Electronic voting is unnecessary and undemocratic." -- There are democratic political systems and undemocratic ones. There are no such thing as "democratic" or "undemocratic" technology. Technology is neutral; it depends on who is using it and how it is used.
Slashdot Mirror
I hate Microsoft more than anyone
See, being subjected to IDEs has lowered your ability of detecting faulty code. You're basically saying A > A since this "anyone" includes "you" too. ;)
...because they "[don't] give nearly as much control because it tries to spoonfeed you.
#include "Python.h"
The Lottery in Babylon... why not? As long as it's blessed by Steve^W God and The Company ;)
So now CMS stands for "centralized monitoring system"... but Indians are doing an amateur job here, because anything centralized is doomed to become the single point of failure.
Real (social-)Engineers knows better: don't put all your eggs in one basket. E.g. Decentralized, distributed, p2p web of surveillance in the clouds. (Grep for "Web Of Distrust" to see the relevant part.)
Strawman point at best. Fair use is not the problem at hand.
Also I wasn't saying the search results were free speech. I was saying that the *absence* of search results were. I really hate repeating myself because some AC failed reading comprehension.
The freedom of not displaying certain images is also a part of freedom of speech.
And as long as Google is making as much money as possible for its shareholders there's no "fail" on their part.
Google is now being held accountable to what is available on the internet
By whom?
No one forces you to use Google. If you don't like Google's exercising of free speech (of choosing what *not* do display) you may as well refrain from using its product.
Use it or lose it. Duh.
As we know, sex is dirty enough, but homosexuals and transsexuals are all disease-ridden, AIDS-infested, sex-crazed, godless, hedonistic, er..., I'm sure there are a few more words I could use along those lines but I haven't had my tea^H^H^Hcoffee yet (of course I'm a real man! tea is for girls!).
Terrorist? ;)
Lennart Poettering, the pulseaudio lead, is an Red Hat employee. Jaroslav Kysela and Takashi Iwai, the only two persons in the world who get paid for their work in ALSA, are hired by Red Hat and Novell respectively.
So where is Mark (and his money) when we need him?
And Ubuntu is known to have done a great deal of damage to PulseAudio's reputation by royally fsck up Poettering's work.
The PDF file itself was generated using Adobe Distiller for Mac. Not sure what is used to generate the original. Since they were using Adobe, it's not likely that they were using LaTeX.
Newsflash: It's not the elusive and mystified http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1196619&cid=27553143SlashDotFS. Those gibberish spam posts here are actually designed to crash and pwn Windoze suxx0rs...
"On slashdot, nobody knows you two are the same dog."
oh, wait...
;)
/trollish mode on
Slashdot americanism knee-jerk on anything about China is just amazing.
/trollish mode off
This is not news. It was on local TV news several days ago. Basically, the Author's Society (a "guild"-like organization) said to Google something like this: "We know the benefits of scanned-and-indexed books and we want digital libraries, but why you're not paying for the copyrighted content?" So far the parties are negotiating a plan that is supposed to achieve mutual benefit.
BTW, I think Google was doing a right thing simply putting those books on-line and negotiate later. In the words of Admiral Grace Hopper, "it's easier to ask for forgiveness than permission." The books acquired without negotiating copyright serves as a good corpus of OCR calibration or "training" material. While the legal dept are doing the talking, the techies can take the time sharpen the tech.
It's recursive, but not well optimized. MS should have known better and used tail recursion instead. Something like "Totally Wasted Ansty Twat" -- the TWAT search engine!
If MS doesn't sue, there's no case, because copyright infringement cases are, well, civil, and the State won't file the lawsuit for you. It is MS that turns a blind eye on the illegal windows copies for whatever reason. (MS did sue some Chinese companies that used pirated Windows/Office suite internally. However, those petty pirates selling CDs on the streets are simply not a viable target for MS.)
On the other hand, our government did crackdown on pirated books, because many of the victims are public-funded press houses and they're hurt by the pirates.
That explains the Soviet collapse. free()ing a non-malloc()ed address. Stupid stupid stupid.
/academic mode on
Actually this point could be pushed a step further.
The verification of the correctness of a computer can even be made automatic. At least in theory. We won't even need a team of human experts. Furthermore, once a particular model of machine pass the verification, it could be expected to work very reliably (so you have a very high chance of it still working properly as intended in the next three runs), not like humans who are unstable by nature.
/academic mode off
In real world, power corrupts. Election corruption has happened and will happen again. Instead of limiting the use of technology, why not limit the power instead? Electronic voting in its current form may be abused to better hide the criminals, which is sad. It is possible to be abused because too many things are being made secret. We need to remove this artificial secrecy.
D'oh, my last sentence was malformed. I wasn't really paying attention to what I was typing. I meant to say "Technology is neutral; its outcome depends on who is using it and how it is used." FTFM.
1. How do you know that "A paper ballot vote is completely observable and does not require trust"?
2. "Electronic voting is unnecessary and undemocratic." -- There are democratic political systems and undemocratic ones. There are no such thing as "democratic" or "undemocratic" technology. Technology is neutral; it depends on who is using it and how it is used.
I'd use it as a check bit ;)
Bad thieves and scammers steal and scam, and get squashed.
Meh thieves and scammers steal and scam, and brag about it.
Great thieves and scammers steal and scam, and get public funding as well as election votes.
Why getting mad at this guy, while great scammers run the world?
Still, it failed to pass the Voigt-Kampff test.