I am inclined to believe that companies will starting becoming so obscure with these agreements (either requiring you to hire a lawyer in order to understand them), or as you suggest, making them difficult to read due to the manner of presentation. I'd like to see a court eventually rule that a consumers shouldn't have to become legal experts, or be unduly troubled, just to purchase some low-end electronics. Hopefully the result would effectively these kinds of agreements unenforceable (at least with respect to the way they are currently being executed).
I'd say it's easy to steal someone's identity, PERIOD. Why? Because thanks to various government and commercial interests, our personal information is ALL OVER THE DAMN PLACE. I cringe every time I hear someone who wants a copy of sensitive information like a driver's license, a social security card, or a passport - it's just one more access point available to thieves. They just don't seem to get it - their methods might actually contributing to a potential breach of the very security they're trying to enforce.
Go read the ACLU website to see just what the goverment is trying to keep secret, especially with their new tool, the National Security Letter.
Re:We could re-do Myst...better, even!
on
Cyan Worlds Closes
·
· Score: 1
So is your post. Where's YOUR artwork?
Re:We could re-do Myst...better, even!
on
Cyan Worlds Closes
·
· Score: 1
These days, any one of us could crank out Myst classic inside a month on our desktop
I think you completely underestimate the degree of time and talent required to produce something like that. In some ways, modeling 3D is more difficult than 2D work, because you have the added complexity of lighting, texturing, and building the models themselves. Sometimes it takes several days to get just one image tweaked to a state of completion.
When you combine this chasm of missing knowledge, along with the new "tools" being used for homeland "security" (you know, national security letters, information fusion centers, and other tasty stuff), I'd say the results will at least be interesting, if not disasterous.
This is quite a rediculous argument- it borders on the same lunacy that encompasses the 'do it for the children' mentality.
There are two very real facts: First, musicians create music. For the genuine artists, this is something they do not because it makes them money, but because it's in their soul. Second, people enjoy listening to music, some almost to the point of addiction. Nobody seems to realize that these two factions will exist with or without the RIAA.
The question is quite simple then...do you continue to perpetuate this broken system, or do you let it be known that you are perfectly willing to support the artists you like, only on more reasonable terms? I don't have much sympathy for the artists that rely on the RIAA for their sustenance - they know the score as well as anyone.
They're just looking for a way to diffuse culpability. The fact is that someone screwed up big time, and it cost someone else a metric crapload of money. That's how things are done in the U.S.
GIMP isn't as bad as people say it is. However, I will admit that there are some issues that are still annoying- but not exactly show-stuppers. Just the same, I'm glad that the GIMP team have the foresight to try and improve on this further.
As an aside, if the GP REALLY IS SO HOT, then why can't they sell themselves? Maybe he has crap social skills. Honestly, the 'cold-aloof-primadonna-tech-guru's of the world are never half as useful as they perceive themselves.
For one, many tech people don't perceive themselves as actors, nor do they want to participate as actors. That's practically what you have to do in order to convince someone that you should be hired over another candidate. It's a sales game, and not only are some people just not good at it, the ones that are aren't always the most technically competent.
Apple really pulled a big one with the batteries. Just today it was announced that Apple would have to supply iPod owners whose batteries have failed, with replacements. If you ask me, making the battery integral part of the hardware wasn't a very good idea...battery go dead, iPod go dead. The only way to legitimately fix it is to get a new iPod.
I had AOL for a while a few years ago. Back then, the discussion forums were a big deal for me. Unfortuantely, AOL insisted on completely and totally dorking them up with these neophyte moderator wannabes. It just wasn't worth the time and aggravation any more. I finally made a well-reasoned choice to cancel, and move to a "real" ISP.
I don't. I only bought something there twice, and I wasn't impressed with the quality. Quality aside, I object to what it represents. Yes, you save money, but the cost goes far beyond what you pay at the register.
Paper is one of the most important aspects of our civilized culture- it provides a physical record of our literature and knowledge. It seems to me that if you can't verify something physically (which will become increasingly difficult as this trend continues), how do you know what is true or accurate? Eventually, truth and accuracy will be embodied in what anyone says is true or accurate, and this can be carefully crafted, monitored, and even changed by those in control.
If you think this is far-fetched, read this. It's a damning review of the 2004 presidential election. My only reason for pointing this out is to provide an example as to how completely messed up things can become without the ability to revert to some form of physical (i.e. paper) reference.
You can often produce ten times as many ideas than you can possibly work on. Any asshole can secretly write down something in the notebook without doing any further work, then sue someone who came up with the same thing and actualy made it happen.
That's exactly my reason for objecting to first-to-file.
I realize that there probably isn't a magic bullet for this, but I sincerely hope that the new legislation doesn't make things worse. Of course, it could solve a lot of problems if it mandated that copyright protection was sufficient for software (as it has been for so many years), making software patents illegal.
Interesting - you'd think that in situations like this, the BIOS could mediate the startup process such that everything wasn't hammering the PSU all at once. I wondered if this is what was happening on occasion, since my CPU would start up, but the drive would power up a few seconds afterward.
But a good first step is to make patent law more rational, and this bill seems to do that
I still have a difficult time understanding how first-to-file is better. What it allows (at least the way I understand it) is for patent mills to churn and churn and churn. Whatever happens, this ought to be stopped. There's no innovation whatsoever (nor any reason for rewarding this behavior) for any company that patents anything just in case it might be of some value in the future. I think I can say with a fair degree of certainty that this is not what patents were designed to accomplish.
The issue with not buying their crap is that they will not see it as a boycott of their policies.. They'll see it as more evidence of "evil hackers" (tm) stealing their content.
So what? If they want to even further misinterpret what's happening in their own market, let them. Eventually, reality will sink in.
I was just asking myself why the school didn't demand that the offending students return the laptops - now I know why. This makes school adminstration even dumber than I suspected. It sounds to me like the administration needs some serious retraining in the area of common sense.
What if I send an e-mail, and some of the packets are routed through a Canadian server? Does that give them authority to monitor MY email?
I hope we will come up with a memorandum to cabinet that can protect human security in the sense that we will put law enforcement people on the same level playing field as criminals and terrorists in the matter of using technology and accessing that technology
So that law enforcement can become criminals and terrorists themselves?
Slashdot Mirror
Thank you for a well-reasoned response.
I am inclined to believe that companies will starting becoming so obscure with these agreements (either requiring you to hire a lawyer in order to understand them), or as you suggest, making them difficult to read due to the manner of presentation. I'd like to see a court eventually rule that a consumers shouldn't have to become legal experts, or be unduly troubled, just to purchase some low-end electronics. Hopefully the result would effectively these kinds of agreements unenforceable (at least with respect to the way they are currently being executed).
I'd say it's easy to steal someone's identity, PERIOD. Why? Because thanks to various government and commercial interests, our personal information is ALL OVER THE DAMN PLACE. I cringe every time I hear someone who wants a copy of sensitive information like a driver's license, a social security card, or a passport - it's just one more access point available to thieves. They just don't seem to get it - their methods might actually contributing to a potential breach of the very security they're trying to enforce.
I dare say that a) you haven't read anything on the web site, and b) you have no idea what the NSL entails.
That's silly - how can I return something I don't have? What if I sold the printer to someone else who has no knowledge of this 'agreement?'
TO PROTECT NATIONAL INTERESTS.
Go read the ACLU website to see just what the goverment is trying to keep secret, especially with their new tool, the National Security Letter.
So is your post. Where's YOUR artwork?
These days, any one of us could crank out Myst classic inside a month on our desktop
I think you completely underestimate the degree of time and talent required to produce something like that. In some ways, modeling 3D is more difficult than 2D work, because you have the added complexity of lighting, texturing, and building the models themselves. Sometimes it takes several days to get just one image tweaked to a state of completion.
When you combine this chasm of missing knowledge, along with the new "tools" being used for homeland "security" (you know, national security letters, information fusion centers, and other tasty stuff), I'd say the results will at least be interesting, if not disasterous.
This is quite a rediculous argument- it borders on the same lunacy that encompasses the 'do it for the children' mentality.
There are two very real facts: First, musicians create music. For the genuine artists, this is something they do not because it makes them money, but because it's in their soul. Second, people enjoy listening to music, some almost to the point of addiction. Nobody seems to realize that these two factions will exist with or without the RIAA.
The question is quite simple then...do you continue to perpetuate this broken system, or do you let it be known that you are perfectly willing to support the artists you like, only on more reasonable terms? I don't have much sympathy for the artists that rely on the RIAA for their sustenance - they know the score as well as anyone.
They're just looking for a way to diffuse culpability. The fact is that someone screwed up big time, and it cost someone else a metric crapload of money. That's how things are done in the U.S.
GIMP isn't as bad as people say it is. However, I will admit that there are some issues that are still annoying- but not exactly show-stuppers. Just the same, I'm glad that the GIMP team have the foresight to try and improve on this further.
As an aside, if the GP REALLY IS SO HOT, then why can't they sell themselves? Maybe he has crap social skills. Honestly, the 'cold-aloof-primadonna-tech-guru's of the world are never half as useful as they perceive themselves.
For one, many tech people don't perceive themselves as actors, nor do they want to participate as actors. That's practically what you have to do in order to convince someone that you should be hired over another candidate. It's a sales game, and not only are some people just not good at it, the ones that are aren't always the most technically competent.
Apple really pulled a big one with the batteries. Just today it was announced that Apple would have to supply iPod owners whose batteries have failed, with replacements. If you ask me, making the battery integral part of the hardware wasn't a very good idea...battery go dead, iPod go dead. The only way to legitimately fix it is to get a new iPod.
I had AOL for a while a few years ago. Back then, the discussion forums were a big deal for me. Unfortuantely, AOL insisted on completely and totally dorking them up with these neophyte moderator wannabes. It just wasn't worth the time and aggravation any more. I finally made a well-reasoned choice to cancel, and move to a "real" ISP.
I don't. I only bought something there twice, and I wasn't impressed with the quality. Quality aside, I object to what it represents. Yes, you save money, but the cost goes far beyond what you pay at the register.
Paper is one of the most important aspects of our civilized culture- it provides a physical record of our literature and knowledge. It seems to me that if you can't verify something physically (which will become increasingly difficult as this trend continues), how do you know what is true or accurate? Eventually, truth and accuracy will be embodied in what anyone says is true or accurate, and this can be carefully crafted, monitored, and even changed by those in control.
If you think this is far-fetched, read this. It's a damning review of the 2004 presidential election. My only reason for pointing this out is to provide an example as to how completely messed up things can become without the ability to revert to some form of physical (i.e. paper) reference.
Google had some rather meager beginnings. What you see now is the result.
You can often produce ten times as many ideas than you can possibly work on. Any asshole can secretly write down something in the notebook without doing any further work, then sue someone who came up with the same thing and actualy made it happen.
That's exactly my reason for objecting to first-to-file.
I realize that there probably isn't a magic bullet for this, but I sincerely hope that the new legislation doesn't make things worse. Of course, it could solve a lot of problems if it mandated that copyright protection was sufficient for software (as it has been for so many years), making software patents illegal.
Interesting - you'd think that in situations like this, the BIOS could mediate the startup process such that everything wasn't hammering the PSU all at once. I wondered if this is what was happening on occasion, since my CPU would start up, but the drive would power up a few seconds afterward.
But a good first step is to make patent law more rational, and this bill seems to do that
I still have a difficult time understanding how first-to-file is better. What it allows (at least the way I understand it) is for patent mills to churn and churn and churn. Whatever happens, this ought to be stopped. There's no innovation whatsoever (nor any reason for rewarding this behavior) for any company that patents anything just in case it might be of some value in the future. I think I can say with a fair degree of certainty that this is not what patents were designed to accomplish.
The issue with not buying their crap is that they will not see it as a boycott of their policies.. They'll see it as more evidence of "evil hackers" (tm) stealing their content.
So what? If they want to even further misinterpret what's happening in their own market, let them. Eventually, reality will sink in.
,,, even if it's a couple of twats that encompass everything wrong with podcasting. ...not to mention MCSEs
Touche : )
I was just asking myself why the school didn't demand that the offending students return the laptops - now I know why. This makes school adminstration even dumber than I suspected. It sounds to me like the administration needs some serious retraining in the area of common sense.
What if I send an e-mail, and some of the packets are routed through a Canadian server? Does that give them authority to monitor MY email?
I hope we will come up with a memorandum to cabinet that can protect human security in the sense that we will put law enforcement people on the same level playing field as criminals and terrorists in the matter of using technology and accessing that technology
So that law enforcement can become criminals and terrorists themselves?