>If Hitler won, US would eventually be fighting the war on it's own soil.
This is entirely speculative, just as is the assertion that war causes freedom. I'm not a war historian, but from what I remember, Hitler seemed to be more interested in moving east. So, I guess you're saying that Hitler would have invaded the US after he conquered Russia. Seeing how the invasion of Stalinville was going in 1945, Hitler invading the US afterwards seems unlikely.
>Look at the world around you and realize that the reason you enjoy your >freedoms is because of the blood spilt by hundreds of thousands of >Americans who paid the price for you.
I've never believed this sentiment to be anything other than a self-serving lie spoken by bullies. Given that there is no economic model that I'm aware of that posits freedom in terms of price, it's equally probable that we enjoy our freedoms *in spite of* the wars the government has engaged in.
>In any case, why is this news? Microsoft decides not to put THEIR MONEY >(since they purchased it) into their competitors products... duh!
How does selling more copies of THEIR antivirus product fund their competitors? Perhaps this is related to their decision to discontinue MS Office for OSX. Oh, they haven't? Imagine that!
Another guide to these type of sites is how many hoops you have to jump through to actually contact them. Try it, drop by and click through. See how long it takes to contact someone.
Call me cynical, but I'll laugh when we soon witness the kinder gentler PayPal. Sure it only took 5 years, a zillion complaints and...oh yeah...some competition to convince them the time is now! They've listened to their customers, and they're tired of being treated like garbage. PayPal listens!
hey there, way to miss the point. holes can always be poked into generalizations, so a gold star to you on that one. beyond that, two things:
1) where is this plain old "corn" advertisement? are you sure you aren't speaking of some mythical and idealized world where plain words satisfy advertisers' needs? does a sign saying "corn" qualify as advertising in this context?
2) Quorn is a real product that has nothing to do with corn (except for the fact that they're both food). it's also naive to say that ultimatums are a good example of the persuasive force of advertising.
Yeah, because its a real problem that some computer program might know your wants and needs and actually cares to cater to them as opposed to throwing crap up on the screen that you will never want.
But if its something I want, the idiot privacy freaks scream, I might be distracted where is if its nothing I want, I will ignore it. Dammit Why do they have to give me access to anything interesting.
Personally, I've never seen a computer program, much less advertising, be concerned with my "wants and needs." I have never wanted anything in an online ad and I've never clicked on one. Where is the targeting that shows me fewer ads because I'm not receptive to them, is that not a want and need to be responded to? If people are deleting cookies, thus making online advertising less effective, why don't the advertisers ignore the medium?
I can't stand the idiot privacy folks.
Well, who asked you? I don't know how you make the jump from advertising to privacy, but it's not appropriate here. He didn't say anything about privacy, he mentioned targeting.
That's a sample from a marketing recording that Negativland once used that is apt to be pointed out here.
>See, that's the problem with marketers. They like marketing and think >it's a good thing, so they think we like marketing and think it's a >good thing.
In an environment where everything is up to the consumer, everything becomes the fault of the consumer as well. This myopia of never, ever focusing attention on the methods and history of marketing and advertising is a sign of their manipulative and authoritarian nature.
"There is a culture of fear in the marketplace" when it comes to consumer attitudes toward cookies, says Nick Nyhan, president of New York-based Dynamic Logic Inc.[snip]
He takes an attitude of empowerment (for lack of a better term) and turns it into a fault. His statement is just as legitimate when inverted to acknowledge the reasons why people delete cookies:
There is a culture of abuse in the advertising industry.
This is built in to the profession. Advertising doesn't work at all unless you are manipulated. Case in point: calling this a problem of "marketing," which is more "behind the scenes" and perhaps a bit mysterious, and not "advertising," which is what puts the cookies on your computer. Advertising is what everybody knows. Commercials are easy to dislike, and they know it. This was the genius of Bill Hicks' bit: including marketing.
Marketers, meanwhile, counter that cookies serve plenty of useful features consumers may not realize -- such as automatically filling in a username on a site that requires logging in, or helping a weather site remember a ZIP Code so that it can show a local forecast on return visits.
None of which has anything to do with marketing and the cookies that *ads* place on your machine. Personally, Firefox is great for me here. It deletes all of my cookies at the end of a session, and I've whitelisted all of the sites that I use passwords for. Good cookies stay, bad cookies leave. It's that simple, and by looking at my browser's cookie cache it's easy to see which are the good cookies and which are the bad.
Mr. Hughes and others want software makers to draw a big distinction between spyware and cookies.
How about good cookies and bad cookies? No distinction? Tiny distinction? By the previous example of using irrelevant registration sites as a reason to trust advertising cookies, Mr. Hughes already betrays his bias, that he is speaking for and responsible to bad cookies. To acknowledge this distinction would implicate himself, and he knows it because he doesn't mention it. Does he think that nobody would notice?
Interviewer: Why should we keep cookies? Mr. Hughes: Because sites use them for things other than advertising. Interviewer: What about cookies used for advertising? Mr. Hughes: [sound of crickets]
The company has begun marketing a technology known as a persistent identification element, or PIE. The tool uses features in Macromedia Inc.'s popular Flash software, which is used for designing and viewing animated online ads, to secretly make backup copies of a user's cookies before they are deleted. A handful of Web publishers and advertising companies are using the technology to track users, according to Mr. Tenembaum, though he declines to name them.
Call me nutty, but not being willing to name the companies who are tracking users is not a good way to engender trust. What is this article about again?
Fred Brooks tells us that software should be the implementation of the documentation. That is, write the documentation *before* the software and then code to that. There should be no functionality in the software that is not present in the documentation.
you know, i'd like to find the first use of the phrase "increase(d) productivity." it's certainly been one of the most substantially rewarded of pithy marketing phrases.
Well apparently not. They may have backed down as a gambit toward sliding in a rider later on, but what we have here is an opportunity to momentum. This is creating room for people besides the xxAA's to bend the ear of a Congressman and make pertinent points. I can see the anti-bFlag contingent resting on their laurels, but really this is a chance to make sure it never happens. This can work both ways, it's just a question of who wants their side to win more. Vigilance, and stuff.
I'm not a lawyer, but I'd think there's a difference between a defense in response to an accusation, as in Fair Use, and, as is the case with the Fifth Amendment, a right to refuse to participate in the proceedings. Also, one does not have to be accused in order to invoke the Fifth and indeed will many times be invoked to prevent becoming accused. This is not possible with Fair Use to my knowledge. I don't think that generalizations about the properties of rights are much help here since the reality seems a bit more nuanced.
I haven't been able to find any reference to Fair Use as a right, vs. as a defense. Everything I've come up with describes it as a doctrine, which doesn't sound very rights-y. If you know of something I'd be interested to read it.
How any time you actually have an honest choice of software in the consumer software world, it's such a strange and upsetting event we have to describe it by the word "wars".
You're noticing the primacy of the discourse of Capitalism. The apotheosis of US Capitalism is based on a race for domination, if not monopoly, where 2nd place - while not necessarily a poor investment - is indeed considered by critics and the press as first loser.
It's related to the First Amendment *to the extent* that a finding of Fair Use entitles the erstwhile infringer to use the piece in question. If the piece is found to be subject to Fair Use, with the burden of proof being on the defendant, it is *then* subject to the Free Speech provisions of the US Constitution. The First Amendment trumps Copyright only when an infringement has been successfully defended via Fair Use.
Defense of our rights is merely assertion of our rights, not some kind of favor from the government.
This is a false dichotomy, and you're wrong besides. "Fair use" is always invoked in response to an accusation of infringement, and it is up to a judge to weigh the use of the appropriation in light of the rights of the copyright owner balanced against the doctrine of Fair Use. Putting a disclaimer on a page saying that the infringement is based on Fair Use does not prevent a copyright owner from filing a copyright infringement suit against you. Once the suit is filed, you invoke the doctrine of Fair Use in your defense. This is how it works.
If it were a right, like freedom from establishment of religion by the state, you could file suit against the copyright owner if they tried to assert their copyrights against you, say via a cease-and-desist order. You can't sue for Fair Use because it's not a right, you can only defend yourself based on it. It is a privilege, and it *is* a favor from the government. It is not an assertion of our rights, it is a case-by-case delineation of the limits of the copyright holder's rights.
A lot of content on the web today is only free because of ad-revenue and by making ad-blocking mainstream, plenty of these business-models would break.
when the free content is spread paragraph-by-paragraph across ad-filled pages it becomes an issue of greed. personally, i dont have a problem with greedy business models breaking.
When my Dell CPU says I can't backup an object, or copy it for use in a different location of my own, or for criticism, satire, or other fair use, or streaming (which the Library of Congress Copyright Office says is not a "copy"), how do I protect my rights?
Fair Use is not a right, it's a defense.
Re:A disaster for Europeans!
on
Blank Keyboard
·
· Score: 1
it seems humans need a reason to be lazy and force the computer to adapt to them instead of adapting to it
Ha ha, what a ridiculous pastime that would be. NEWSFLASH: There are more flexible operating systems than [whatever piece of crap you're apparently used to using].
I'd go a little further than blaming humanity for the need to put symbols on keycaps by suggesting that maybe someone put LED displays on the keycaps to reflect its current configuration. But then again, maybe that would just be kowtowing to the lazy.
I could understand apple doing this, but I think Microsoft might have difficulty finding people who really love windows.
This is their genius marketing twist, though. They're looking for people, in the face of Apple's dominance in marketing and Linux' dominance in the server room, who *haven't* switched. It's the UnSwitcher campaign, designed to find people, who for whatever reason have stuck with Microsoft. The contest could be otherwise worded, "What reasons could people possibly have for continuing to use Windows?"
This tells me that they can't think of those reasons themselves. And it shows, have you seen the latest Microsoft commercials? They're a jumble of every-color-of-the-rainbow with 8billion different symbols for who knows what, flying around and surrounding people as they go about their daily lives. It says to me, "We're a fog of confusion and distraction that people are unable to escape, yet these people still have smiles on their faces." They don't know why the people in their own commercials are smiling, so they're going out into the field/mall to find them. Go Microsoft!
Slashdot Mirror
>What do you think would have happened if the US lost WWII, or never joined?
How should I know?
>If Hitler won, US would eventually be fighting the war on it's own soil.
This is entirely speculative, just as is the assertion that war causes freedom. I'm not a war historian, but from what I remember, Hitler seemed to be more interested in moving east. So, I guess you're saying that Hitler would have invaded the US after he conquered Russia. Seeing how the invasion of Stalinville was going in 1945, Hitler invading the US afterwards seems unlikely.
>I would love to hear your argument how we enjoy our freedoms *in spite
>of* the US fighting in WWII.
There was never a threat to our "freedoms" in WWII. If you're going to
bring up Pearl Harbor, I simply don't think that counts as an invasion.
>Unless you are blonde.
Huh huh, good one! Way to invoke the specter of the fratboy bully.
>Look at the world around you and realize that the reason you enjoy your
>freedoms is because of the blood spilt by hundreds of thousands of
>Americans who paid the price for you.
I've never believed this sentiment to be anything other than a
self-serving lie spoken by bullies. Given that there is no economic
model that I'm aware of that posits freedom in terms of price, it's
equally probable that we enjoy our freedoms *in spite of* the wars the
government has engaged in.
>In any case, why is this news? Microsoft decides not to put THEIR MONEY
>(since they purchased it) into their competitors products... duh!
How does selling more copies of THEIR antivirus product fund their
competitors? Perhaps this is related to their decision to discontinue
MS Office for OSX. Oh, they haven't? Imagine that!
Another guide to these type of sites is how many hoops you have to jump through to actually contact them. Try it, drop by and click through. See how long it takes to contact someone.
Call me cynical, but I'll laugh when we soon witness the kinder gentler PayPal. Sure it only took 5 years, a zillion complaints and...oh yeah...some competition to convince them the time is now! They've listened to their customers, and they're tired of being treated like garbage. PayPal listens!
hey there, way to miss the point. holes can always be poked into generalizations, so a gold star to you on that one. beyond that, two things:
1) where is this plain old "corn" advertisement? are you sure you aren't speaking of some mythical and idealized world where plain words satisfy advertisers' needs? does a sign saying "corn" qualify as advertising in this context?
2) Quorn is a real product that has nothing to do with corn (except for the fact that they're both food). it's also naive to say that ultimatums are a good example of the persuasive force of advertising.
>But they are both UNIX-like systems right, with everything you could /, etc.)
>expect from such an operating system? (chown, ls,
Solaris is full-blooded SysV, Linux is a hodgepodge of SysV and BSD style Unix.
Yeah, because its a real problem that some computer program might know your wants and needs and actually cares to cater to them as opposed to throwing crap up on the screen that you will never want.
But if its something I want, the idiot privacy freaks scream, I might be distracted where is if its nothing I want, I will ignore it. Dammit Why do they have to give me access to anything interesting.
Personally, I've never seen a computer program, much less advertising, be concerned with my "wants and needs." I have never wanted anything in an online ad and I've never clicked on one. Where is the targeting that shows me fewer ads because I'm not receptive to them, is that not a want and need to be responded to? If people are deleting cookies, thus making online advertising less effective, why don't the advertisers ignore the medium?
I can't stand the idiot privacy folks.
Well, who asked you? I don't know how you make the jump from advertising to privacy, but it's not appropriate here. He didn't say anything about privacy, he mentioned targeting.
That's a sample from a marketing recording that Negativland once used
that is apt to be pointed out here.
>See, that's the problem with marketers. They like marketing and think
>it's a good thing, so they think we like marketing and think it's a
>good thing.
In an environment where everything is up to the consumer, everything
becomes the fault of the consumer as well. This myopia of never, ever
focusing attention on the methods and history of marketing and
advertising is a sign of their manipulative and authoritarian nature.
"There is a culture of fear in the marketplace" when it comes to
consumer attitudes toward cookies, says Nick Nyhan, president of New
York-based Dynamic Logic Inc.[snip]
He takes an attitude of empowerment (for lack of a better term) and
turns it into a fault. His statement is just as legitimate when
inverted to acknowledge the reasons why people delete cookies:
There is a culture of abuse in the advertising industry.
This is built in to the profession. Advertising doesn't work at all
unless you are manipulated. Case in point: calling this a problem of
"marketing," which is more "behind the scenes" and perhaps a bit
mysterious, and not "advertising," which is what puts the cookies on
your computer. Advertising is what everybody knows. Commercials are
easy to dislike, and they know it. This was the genius of Bill Hicks'
bit: including marketing.
Marketers, meanwhile, counter that cookies serve plenty of useful
features consumers may not realize -- such as automatically filling in
a username on a site that requires logging in, or helping a weather
site remember a ZIP Code so that it can show a local forecast on
return visits.
None of which has anything to do with marketing and the cookies that
*ads* place on your machine. Personally, Firefox is great for me here.
It deletes all of my cookies at the end of a session, and I've
whitelisted all of the sites that I use passwords for. Good cookies
stay, bad cookies leave. It's that simple, and by looking at my
browser's cookie cache it's easy to see which are the good cookies and
which are the bad.
Mr. Hughes and others want software makers to draw a big
distinction between spyware and cookies.
How about good cookies and bad cookies? No distinction? Tiny
distinction? By the previous example of using irrelevant registration
sites as a reason to trust advertising cookies, Mr. Hughes already
betrays his bias, that he is speaking for and responsible to bad
cookies. To acknowledge this distinction would implicate himself, and
he knows it because he doesn't mention it. Does he think that nobody
would notice?
Interviewer: Why should we keep cookies?
Mr. Hughes: Because sites use them for things other than advertising.
Interviewer: What about cookies used for advertising?
Mr. Hughes: [sound of crickets]
The company has begun marketing a technology known as a persistent
identification element, or PIE. The tool uses features in Macromedia
Inc.'s popular Flash software, which is used for designing and viewing
animated online ads, to secretly make backup copies of a user's
cookies before they are deleted. A handful of Web publishers and
advertising companies are using the technology to track users,
according to Mr. Tenembaum, though he declines to name them.
Call me nutty, but not being willing to name the companies who are
tracking users is not a good way to engender trust. What is this
article about again?
Fred Brooks tells us that software should be the implementation of the documentation. That is, write the documentation *before* the software and then code to that. There should be no functionality in the software that is not present in the documentation.
I got the same reduction by requiring valid reverse DNS for SMTP clients in postfix.
Because nobody is arguing that Epson parts should work in Canon printers. Or Lexmark.
you know, i'd like to find the first use of the phrase "increase(d) productivity." it's certainly been one of the most substantially rewarded of pithy marketing phrases.
>The RIAA and MPAA basically own Congress.
Well apparently not. They may have backed down as a gambit toward sliding in a rider later on, but what we have here is an opportunity to momentum. This is creating room for people besides the xxAA's to bend the ear of a Congressman and make pertinent points. I can see the anti-bFlag contingent resting on their laurels, but really this is a chance to make sure it never happens. This can work both ways, it's just a question of who wants their side to win more. Vigilance, and stuff.
Okay, so you hve the IP address of a cracked machine ...
...
...
From that, you can find the ISP
From that, you can find the machine
From that, you can put a sniffer on the line and trace the communications to find the person running the botnet.
Yet I'm not hearing any stories about these botnets being broken by the cops. Why not?
"In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women."
This isn't court; you know what I mean.
I'm not a lawyer, but I'd think there's a difference between a defense in response to an accusation, as in Fair Use, and, as is the case with the Fifth Amendment, a right to refuse to participate in the proceedings. Also, one does not have to be accused in order to invoke the Fifth and indeed will many times be invoked to prevent becoming accused. This is not possible with Fair Use to my knowledge. I don't think that generalizations about the properties of rights are much help here since the reality seems a bit more nuanced.
I haven't been able to find any reference to Fair Use as a right, vs. as a defense. Everything I've come up with describes it as a doctrine, which doesn't sound very rights-y. If you know of something I'd be interested to read it.
How any time you actually have an honest choice of software in the consumer software world, it's such a strange and upsetting event we have to describe it by the word "wars".
You're noticing the primacy of the discourse of Capitalism. The apotheosis of US Capitalism is based on a race for domination, if not monopoly, where 2nd place - while not necessarily a poor investment - is indeed considered by critics and the press as first loser.
It's related the first Amendment
It's related to the First Amendment *to the extent* that a finding of Fair Use entitles the erstwhile infringer to use the piece in question. If the piece is found to be subject to Fair Use, with the burden of proof being on the defendant, it is *then* subject to the Free Speech provisions of the US Constitution. The First Amendment trumps Copyright only when an infringement has been successfully defended via Fair Use.
Defense of our rights is merely assertion of our rights, not some kind of favor from the government.
This is a false dichotomy, and you're wrong besides. "Fair use" is always invoked in response to an accusation of infringement, and it is up to a judge to weigh the use of the appropriation in light of the rights of the copyright owner balanced against the doctrine of Fair Use. Putting a disclaimer on a page saying that the infringement is based on Fair Use does not prevent a copyright owner from filing a copyright infringement suit against you. Once the suit is filed, you invoke the doctrine of Fair Use in your defense. This is how it works.
If it were a right, like freedom from establishment of religion by the state, you could file suit against the copyright owner if they tried to assert their copyrights against you, say via a cease-and-desist order. You can't sue for Fair Use because it's not a right, you can only defend yourself based on it. It is a privilege, and it *is* a favor from the government. It is not an assertion of our rights, it is a case-by-case delineation of the limits of the copyright holder's rights.
A lot of content on the web today is only free because of ad-revenue and by making ad-blocking mainstream, plenty of these business-models would break.
when the free content is spread paragraph-by-paragraph across ad-filled pages it becomes an issue of greed. personally, i dont have a problem with greedy business models breaking.
When my Dell CPU says I can't backup an object, or copy it for use in a different location of my own, or for criticism, satire, or other fair use, or streaming (which the Library of Congress Copyright Office says is not a "copy"), how do I protect my rights?
Fair Use is not a right, it's a defense.
it seems humans need a reason to be lazy and force the computer to adapt to them instead of adapting to it
Ha ha, what a ridiculous pastime that would be. NEWSFLASH: There are more flexible operating systems than [whatever piece of crap you're apparently used to using].
I'd go a little further than blaming humanity for the need to put symbols on keycaps by suggesting that maybe someone put LED displays on the keycaps to reflect its current configuration. But then again, maybe that would just be kowtowing to the lazy.
I could understand apple doing this, but I think Microsoft might have difficulty finding people who really love windows.
This is their genius marketing twist, though. They're looking for people, in the face of Apple's dominance in marketing and Linux' dominance in the server room, who *haven't* switched. It's the UnSwitcher campaign, designed to find people, who for whatever reason have stuck with Microsoft. The contest could be otherwise worded, "What reasons could people possibly have for continuing to use Windows?"
This tells me that they can't think of those reasons themselves. And it shows, have you seen the latest Microsoft commercials? They're a jumble of every-color-of-the-rainbow with 8billion different symbols for who knows what, flying around and surrounding people as they go about their daily lives. It says to me, "We're a fog of confusion and distraction that people are unable to escape, yet these people still have smiles on their faces." They don't know why the people in their own commercials are smiling, so they're going out into the field/mall to find them. Go Microsoft!