After a short while, typing in your password becomes as much of an unconscious acticity as pressing "OK" on a dialog box. I think we need blinking lights, horns, mandatory timers, and permission from your sysadmin before you can do anything stupid.
This is why I still use su instead of sudo. There's just something about typing in the root password and handing over the keys to my box that makes my sphincter pucker.
We already have tons of pornography sites, we might as well separate them from other content. We could require any pr0nographic content be posted to a.xxx domain and that would make it super easy for parents to set filters on web-browsers. Just prohibit viewing of anything ending in.xxx.
I just don't get this whole.xxx thing. I mean just who decides what sites would have to go there? Some people think an erect penis is obscene, others think erect nipples are obscene, and some even think a naked face is obscene. It just seems much more logical to me for people who want filters to filter themselves into.safe domain instead of filtering everyone else into.xxx.
The Wikipedia seems to disagree with you. So does FindLaw according to this passage:
The jury has the ultimate power to decide whether a person is guilty of a crime. As the "conscience of the community," jurors can free a defendant even if they think the defendant actually committed the crime charged. The name for this power is "jury nullification." It has always been a part of our judicial system.
When jurors nullify a law by acquitting a defendant who has obviously broken that law, judges and prosecutors can do nothing about it. A jury's not guilty verdict is final. Jury nullification rarely occurs, but when it does, it most often involves cases that have a political component (such as the refusal to convict draft dodgers during the Vietnam War) or that have harsh punishments the jury does not want to impose on that particular defendant.
Great point. How come we never see "nature's" mess-ups. No entropy. If we evolved into this stable state then how come there is NO evidence to support it. I mean we should have half-human looking things, not short people(erm hobbits apparently, children in non-scientific literature). We should have one eyed humans, no eyed humans, humans with a more primitive skeletal system(not something that looks likebad posture). Humans with radically different genetic makeup, I mean 5% difference from an ape, and 2% from different humans?!
You're right that Creative's Windows drivers are bloated, unstable and downright nasty. But the open-source emu10k1 drivers for Linux are actually quite good, and I've found that with a little tinkering, I can get my Audigy2 sounding better in Linux/ALSA than I can in Windows/DirectX. The best part? Zero bloat, and the drivers just work with no extra crazy software required. I just want to hear sound for goodness sake, not run friggin' Creative OS. I wonder if this new card will also have open-source drivers?
I'm with you with Creative cards on Linux...they just work and work pretty well. As far as the poor Windows users go why does Creative feel they have to punish them so? I thought the idea was to sell cards, not piss people off.
Personally I don't have to worry about MS EULAs as I build my own machine but I do find them "interesting". I suppose if Dell made you agree to the license at time of ordering/buying then selling it would be illegal.
District courts in California and Texas have issued decisions applying the doctrine of first sale for bundled computer software in Softman v. Adobe (2001) and Novell, Inc. v. CPU Distrib., Inc. (2000) even if the software contains a EULA prohibiting resale. In the Softman case, after purchasing bundled software (A box containing many programs that are also available individually) from Adobe Systems, Softman unbundled it and then resold the component programs. The California District Court ruled that Softman could resell the bundled software, no matter what the EULA stipulates, because Softman had never assented to the EULA. Specifically, the ruling decreed that software purchases be treated as sales transactions, rather than explicit license agreements. In other words, the court ruling argued that Californian consumers should have the same rights they would enjoy under existing copyright legislation when buying a CD or a book.
If there were a system organized where everybody could upload one bit of a copyrighted TV show or movie and facilitate the file being transferred, then yes, even one bit of information would be contraband as much as the whole.
You do realize that would make the sharing of anything illegal, right? Not just digitalized media but also email and instant messages. Open up any non-zero length file in a hex editor and you will see they all will have bytes in common.
Why would uploading a whole episode be different from uploading a portion of the episode? If it's wrong to upload the whole thing, it's just as wrong to upload half, or a quarter, of the whole.
What about a millionth of the whole thing? You aren't suggesting that uploading any number that can be used with other numbers to reproduce a work is illegal, are you?
Bull fucking shit. This is about people who want everything that can be expressed in 1s and 0s for free.
So which can't we use, the one or the zero? Have you really sat down and thought about the repurcussions of allowing people to copyright numbers? Sure for large multi-megabyte files it may seem benign but there are millions of works of much shorter length easily transcodable into less than a few hundred digits. What with never ending terms and courts allowing infringement claims on as few as six or seven notes if things continue the way they have been going eventually it will be impossible to transmit anything digitally without violating someone else's "property" rights.
I'd much rather let the UN manage the net than even begin to contemplate the above. I'm not saying the UN has properly managed everything they've touched, but there is no other international body capable of managing the internet. And it needs to not be exclusively under Amerikan control.
The problem is the UN is a conglomeration of nations, many of which throw people in jail for spelling their country's name wrong. Believe it or not there are even nations considered free who forbid the display of certain political symbols. The one thing the US government has going for it is that nobody trusts it, not even its own citizens.
Slashdot Mirror
Well if your going to get music online, I see no difference between getting it for free off of bittorrent or paying for it from allofmp3.com.
There's a big difference. It's called a receipt.
After a short while, typing in your password becomes as much of an unconscious acticity as pressing "OK" on a dialog box. I think we need blinking lights, horns, mandatory timers, and permission from your sysadmin before you can do anything stupid.
This is why I still use su instead of sudo. There's just something about typing in the root password and handing over the keys to my box that makes my sphincter pucker.
Did you expect the recrod companies to publish the music in any other way in our changing world.
No, but I also don't expect them to survive in our changing world either.
So you're saying you don't have an nVidia or ATI card in your machine? Bullshit.
ATI cards work fine with the open source drivers with 3D support for up to R200 cards. R300 and above 3D support is currently being tested in CVS.
This is the problem with the open source movement. Putting the code before the user.
If the code wasn't put before me I wouldn't be able to change it.
Firaxis has posted a fix over at Apolyton.
We already have tons of pornography sites, we might as well separate them from other content.
We could require any pr0nographic content be posted to a
I just don't get this whole
What about the innocent artists, most of who are just trying to make enough money to live on by selling their music?
Those who side with their fans will survive, those who don't won't.
The Wikipedia seems to disagree with you. So does FindLaw according to this passage:
The jury has the ultimate power to decide whether a person is guilty of a crime. As the "conscience of the community," jurors can free a defendant even if they think the defendant actually committed the crime charged. The name for this power is "jury nullification." It has always been a part of our judicial system.
When jurors nullify a law by acquitting a defendant who has obviously broken that law, judges and prosecutors can do nothing about it. A jury's not guilty verdict is final. Jury nullification rarely occurs, but when it does, it most often involves cases that have a political component (such as the refusal to convict draft dodgers during the Vietnam War) or that have harsh punishments the jury does not want to impose on that particular defendant.
and America has already started to censor the internet by veto'ing the
Creating a
Great point. How come we never see "nature's" mess-ups. No entropy. If we evolved into this stable state then how come there is NO evidence to support it. I mean we should have half-human looking things, not short people(erm hobbits apparently, children in non-scientific literature). We should have one eyed humans, no eyed humans, humans with a more primitive skeletal system(not something that looks likebad posture). Humans with radically different genetic makeup, I mean 5% difference from an ape, and 2% from different humans?!
Google "congenital abnormalites". Oh heck, I'll do it for you.
Who is pushing against even the possibility of God existing? There is no proof that there is not.
There is also no proof that tree fairies, sky pixies, and moon monkeys do not exist either.
Hmm...back when I was always on windows, I was able to install only the driver by extracting files and tinkering around
Yes, but people like us who care to tinker with drivers end up using Linux B-)
1. Scan a picture, create a new document and write something about the picture.
#scanimage
#vi about_picture.txt
2. Move the pictures of your camera to the place where you save your pictures in the computer.
#mount
cp
3. Engage in a multimedia chat with some friend (micrphone+webcam+text)
Never had a need to do so.
You're right that Creative's Windows drivers are bloated, unstable and downright nasty. But the open-source emu10k1 drivers for Linux are actually quite good, and I've found that with a little tinkering, I can get my Audigy2 sounding better in Linux/ALSA than I can in Windows/DirectX. The best part? Zero bloat, and the drivers just work with no extra crazy software required. I just want to hear sound for goodness sake, not run friggin' Creative OS. I wonder if this new card will also have open-source drivers?
I'm with you with Creative cards on Linux...they just work and work pretty well. As far as the poor Windows users go why does Creative feel they have to punish them so? I thought the idea was to sell cards, not piss people off.
I'm fairly certain China wants to see more moveon.org websites just as many Americans want to see more www.freechina.net
Why don't we tally them up them up then. Anti-US government sites in the US, 22,555,324. Anti-Chinese government sites in China, 0.
Well i'm not in California or Texas, so its not 'baloney'.
Where are you from that they have ruled away your right of first sale?
Why should a software company have to give up its intellectual property on the whim of legislators?
Because copyrights are granted on the whim of legislators.
So does this mean that I can resell the MP3s that I bought legally?
Probably not if you agreed to license that restricted the sale. You'd have to ask someone WIAL (who is a lawyer) that.
Personally I don't have to worry about MS EULAs as I build my own machine but I do find them "interesting". I suppose if Dell made you agree to the license at time of ordering/buying then selling it would be illegal.
Thats illegal, you can't use it on any non-that-brand machine so its worthless.
Baloney!
District courts in California and Texas have issued decisions applying the doctrine of first sale for bundled computer software in Softman v. Adobe (2001) and Novell, Inc. v. CPU Distrib., Inc. (2000) even if the software contains a EULA prohibiting resale. In the Softman case, after purchasing bundled software (A box containing many programs that are also available individually) from Adobe Systems, Softman unbundled it and then resold the component programs. The California District Court ruled that Softman could resell the bundled software, no matter what the EULA stipulates, because Softman had never assented to the EULA. Specifically, the ruling decreed that software purchases be treated as sales transactions, rather than explicit license agreements. In other words, the court ruling argued that Californian consumers should have the same rights they would enjoy under existing copyright legislation when buying a CD or a book.
If there were a system organized where everybody could upload one bit of a copyrighted TV show or movie and facilitate the file being transferred, then yes, even one bit of information would be contraband as much as the whole.
You do realize that would make the sharing of anything illegal, right? Not just digitalized media but also email and instant messages. Open up any non-zero length file in a hex editor and you will see they all will have bytes in common.
Why would uploading a whole episode be different from uploading a portion of the episode? If it's wrong to upload the whole thing, it's just as wrong to upload half, or a quarter, of the whole.
What about a millionth of the whole thing? You aren't suggesting that uploading any number that can be used with other numbers to reproduce a work is illegal, are you?
Bull fucking shit. This is about people who want everything that can be expressed in 1s and 0s for free.
So which can't we use, the one or the zero? Have you really sat down and thought about the repurcussions of allowing people to copyright numbers? Sure for large multi-megabyte files it may seem benign but there are millions of works of much shorter length easily transcodable into less than a few hundred digits. What with never ending terms and courts allowing infringement claims on as few as six or seven notes if things continue the way they have been going eventually it will be impossible to transmit anything digitally without violating someone else's "property" rights.
I'd much rather let the UN manage the net than even begin to contemplate the above. I'm not saying the UN has properly managed everything they've touched, but there is no other international body capable of managing the internet. And it needs to not be exclusively under Amerikan control.
The problem is the UN is a conglomeration of nations, many of which throw people in jail for spelling their country's name wrong. Believe it or not there are even nations considered free who forbid the display of certain political symbols. The one thing the US government has going for it is that nobody trusts it, not even its own citizens.