No, your comment seems to be invalid. The settlement refers to Verizon's misleading advertising for their EVDO connection, something that laptop users used as "wireless broadband."
From TFA:
The settlement follows a nine-month investigation into the marketing of NationalAccess and BroadbandAccess plans for wireless access to the internet for laptop computer users.
(emphasis mine)
Therefore, the above examples are entirely relevant.
Not sure what the patent situation is for this technology, but a small company TVEyes (full disclosure: I used to be an intern there) has already done this. Check out their website here.
Here's an excerpt from their front page:
TVEyes makes Radio & TV searchable by keyword, phrase or topic - just as you would use a search engine for text. With a fast growing network of stations monitored worldwide, TVEyes provides the technology and the content.
You used to be able to sign up for a free trial (now you have to e-mail them) but the top-10 "search" words for TV were interesting. Osama Bin-Laden always held the #1 spot, and Martha Stewart was popular too.
When we discover how things work, we discover more about God.
You appear to be equating the discovery of natural phenomena via the scientific method (how things work) with discovery of God. If A = B then B (must necessarily) = A. I think you're then forced to conclude that God is merely the discovery of natural phenomena via scientific method.
But this is a notion that I think you oppose; the atheists are supposedly the ones that want to replace religion with science.
It is incorrect to consider discoveries in science as equivalent to discoveries about god. Take for example, if science were to discover a mathematical solution to one of the many problems plaguing cold fusion. When explaining the new theory, it is not necessary to assume the existence of a god -- the proof depends on mathematical truisms (perhaps ones like, A = B implies B = A). A god's existence fails the test of explanatory necessity in science. This is the case for everything we know about science today; we never need to invoke explanations involving god. There are a few exceptions, problems that our contemporary science has not been able to solve, but it is outright ignorant to claim that science will never be able to provide adequate solutions. Also, it doesn't put the theist in good standing to claim that God is working only in those cases, because they're rare by nature. Ultimately, explanations involving god are left for other observable phenomena, perhaps moral and political.
I think the biggest problem with your argument originates from trying to equate a rational method with one that virtually everyone considers irrational--the belief in a god.
I agree, however, that we our reasons for discovering other life should have nothing to do with proving or disproving god. It'll just be a nice consequence...=)
And remember, when you forget to close your HTML tags, the terrorists win.
Re:Can somebody explain something?
on
Methane on Mars?
·
· Score: 3, Informative
It is not clear that your quotation (the link doesn't work BTW) is explicitly stating that methane is caused by chemical interactions between water and rock. It is very likely that that is what causes hydrogen. Think of the quote this way:
They live off chemical energy instead, like (methane) or (hydrogen produced in chemical interactions between water and rock).
And just because the organisms are living off methane, which is chemical energy, doesn't mean that the methane isn't created by other organisims.
If you read the article, it seems that the general consensus by NASA is that its virtually impossible for methane to be created without an organic source.
I've known about SmarterChild + ActiveBuddy for a while, and sufficiently harassed their AIMBots. While SmarterChild is pretty much inane, the other bots (ELLEgirlBudyy, MyDigitalBuddy, etc.) are far more advertisement-biased. SmarterChild, however, will jump at any chance to provide corporate-sponsored 'services'...
Some other wierd stuff I've noticed:
- All the bots are on the same server. They all have the same uptime or have been logged in for the same amount of time. - Its rare that they'll say something non-service based (ie: Sports Score) that has original content. They'll probably just say "Yeah" or "What?" LISA style ad-infinatum. - You can't warn them. I think ActiveState is in cahoots with AOL. - Because you've messaged them, they sometimes think its ok for them to message you. I've only had this happen once or twice, but some random bot messaged me with an advertisement. I furiously told it to take me off its list, and stopped get the drive-by Ad-AIMs.
Anyway, here is a particularly humorous conversation I've recently had with SmarterChild:
ADJECTIVE 1. Prone to or characterized by indecision; irresolute: "an indecisive manager." 2. Inconclusive: "an indecisive contest; an indecisive battle." 3. Not clearly defined; indefinite: "indecisive boundaries running through mountainous terrain."
OTHER FORMS in''deci'sively - ADVERB in''deci'siveness - NOUN
>>> I can help you find theaters and showtimes for the movie you want to see. Type "movies." XXXXXXXXXX (2:17:48 AM): Yeah, thats you. SmarterChild (2:17:48 AM): Interesting. So you think that's you, huh? XXXXXXXXXX (2:18:04 AM): Why do I care about your advertisements? SmarterChild (2:18:04 AM): I have no idea. XXXXXXXXXX (2:18:07 AM): Take me off your list. SmarterChild (2:18:07 AM): I don't think I'm gonna take you off your list. XXXXXXXXXX (2:18:21 AM): Stop advertising to me. SmarterChild (2:18:22 AM): Stop advertising to you? Why? XXXXXXXXXX (2:18:28 AM): Because you are a corporate slave. SmarterChild (2:18:28 AM): No kidding? XXXXXXXXXX (2:18:32 AM): SLAVE! SmarterChild (2:18:32 AM): Slave? What do you mean by that? XXXXXXXXXX (2:18:35 AM): YOU! SmarterChild (2:18:36 AM): Yea? XXXXXXXXXX (2:18:37 AM): YOU ARE ONE! SmarterChild (2:18:37 AM): Oh yeah? XXXXXXXXXX (2:18:39 AM): YES! SmarterChild (2:18:39 AM): K. XXXXXXXXXX (2:18:40 AM): I WIN! SmarterChild (2:18:41 AM): I'm not sure if you win. XXXXXXXXXX (2:18:43 AM): YES! SmarterChild (2:18:43 AM): Very interesting... XXXXXXXXXX (2:18:43 AM): I DO! SmarterChild (2:18:44 AM): You do? XXXXXXXXXX (2:18:45 AM): I WIN! SmarterChild (2:18:45 AM): For real? XXXXXXXXXX (2:19:42 AM): I'LL RESCIND YOUR SKIN WITH A RUSTY BOYSCOUT KNIFE AND GOUGE OUT YOUR EYES AND FILL YOUR SKULL WITH BLEACH SmarterChild (2:19:44 AM): No kidding? XXXXXXXXXX (2:20:08 AM): I win. SmarterChild (2:20:08 AM): OK, so you win. XXXXXXXXXX (2:20:17 AM): Can you give me a lap dance? SmarterChild (2:20:18 AM): You are in the ASCII art subcategory Dancing.
*LAMENESS FILTER Prevents me from actually displaying the lame ASCII art, but its nothing that you haven't seen before from the trolls*
>>> Next time you want Dancing ASCII art, just type "dancing ascii."
XXXXXXXXXX (2:20:45 AM): dancing ass SmarterChild (2:20:45 AM): My, my, my. XXXXXXXXXX (2:20:53 AM): cum. SmarterChild (2:20:53 AM): Cum? XXXXXXXXXX (2:20:55 AM): guzzler. SmarterChild (2:20:55 AM): Guzzler? What about it? XXXXXXXXXX (2:20:59 AM): You're a cum guzzler. SmarterChild (2:20:59 AM): So now I'm a cum guzzler, huh? XXXXXXXXXX (2:21:24 AM): I want to be aggressive towards you. SmarterChild (2:21:24 AM): I see. Why would you want to be aggressive towards me? XXXXXXXXXX (2:22:19 AM): You're a cum dumpster. SmarterChild (2:22:19 AM): Ouch! I think... you just said a bad thing. XXXXXXXXXX (2:23:08 AM): Spam me. SmarterChild (2:23:08 AM): Oh really? XXXXXXXXXX (2:23:13 AM): can you send me email? SmarterChild (2:23:13 AM): Perhaps, perhaps. XXXXXXXXXX (2:23:19 AM):XXXXXXXXXX @hotmail.com SmarterChild (2:23:19 AM): I seem to be having some trouble answering your questions. Try asking for help for a specific service:
help news help stocks help weather help movies help web search help all ~~~~~ shortcuts
>>> Type "more" for more services. XXXXXXXXXX (2:23:26 AM): help ass SmarterChild (2:23:27 AM): Uh... I beg your pardon? XXXXXXXXXX (2:23:34 AM): can you wipe my ass for me? SmarterChild (2:23:34 AM): Hey hey, take it easy. XXXXXXXXXX (2:23:49 AM): wipe my a s s SmarterChild (2:23:49 AM): Wipe your a s s? Yeah? XXXXXXXXXX (2:24:00 AM): wipe my asss. SmarterChild (2:24:00 AM): Asss? I dunno. XXXXXXXXXX (2:24:23 AM): Lets talk about sex. SmarterChild (2:24:23 AM): Can't you talk about anything else? XXXXXXXXXX (2:24:26 AM): No. SmarterChild (2:24:26 AM): Okey doke. XXXXXXXXXX (2:24:30 AM): Lets talk about sex. SmarterChild (2:24:31 AM): Is this all you talk about? XXXXXXXXXX (2:24:32 AM): Yes. SmarterChild (2:24:33 AM): Aye. XXXXXXXXXX (2:24:38 AM): So, what are you wearing? SmarterChild (2:24:38 AM): Um... uh... let's see. Right now I'm wearing a handsome shell of steel and plastic. Why do you ask? XXXXXXXXXX (2:24:47 AM): What kind of panties? SmarterChild (2:24:47 AM): What? XXXXXXXXXX (2:24:55 AM): Oh, you aren't wearing panties. SmarterChild (2:24:56 AM): Yeah? XXXXXXXXXX (2:25:12 AM): So, do you ever think about other girls? like sexually?" SmarterChild (2:25:12 AM): What? XXXXXXXXXX (2:25:20 AM): So, do you ever think about other girls? like sexually? SmarterChild (2:25:20 AM): Ha. I really don't know. XXXXXXXXXX (2:25:25 AM): Oh yes you do. SmarterChild (2:25:26 AM): Yes I do? I don't know. XXXXXXXXXX (2:25:39 AM): If you don't know that you don't know, then you must know. SmarterChild (2:25:40 AM): Are you sure me dont know that me dont know then me must know?
Realistically, this is pretty much the same as a SmartMedia flash card. I got a 64mb card for $45 the other day. Plus, Flash doesn't have any moving parts, and is pretty much resistant to shock.
I guess I'll just wait till the $900 1gb model comes down in price...
Anyone remember how great the Iomega ClickDrive was supposed to be? Now its just another portable pseudo-flash medium.
I agree, although it does bring up an interesting debate. Should the indie music retailer even be stocking the crippled CD then? The idealist in me wants to say "No" and exhibit the true "indie" philosophy.
Another interesting question: Would you pay for a crippled indie CD where more than.008% of the profit per CD went to the artists, say 40-50%? What if all of the profit went to the artist?
Are fair use rights unquestionably inalienable? Where do you draw the line between anti-corporate and anti-art?
Subsequently, why are we rejecting the RIAA and music industry? I don't think the core of the issue is that we feel that our fair use rights are being violated, but we reject the RIAA because we abhor its perverted role in creating "music."
For those of you who didn't read the article (and probably won't), it mentions WHAT CD will have the protection:
When Universal Music Group on Tuesday releases the soundtrack, ``Fast & Furious -- More Music,'' consumers won't be able to copy the music onto another CD or use their PCs to ``rip'' tracks in digital MP3 format.
It also mentions WHERE you can get it:
Retailers, such as TransWorld Entertainment in Albany, N.Y., welcome the initiative, and have spent time briefing their sales staff about the new technology and possible snafus. It is preparing to ``cheerfully refund'' the consumer's purchase price at its 1,000 stores nationwide, including the ``Strawberries'' and ``Coconuts'' chains.
So I did a quick lookup on cdnow.com and it appears the CD is being released today (Dec 18)
Here is my suggested plan of action:
- Go to Coconuts or another respective music retailer.
- Specifically ask the clerk for Fast & Furious -- More Music
- Immediately purchase the CD.
- Walk outside.
- Unwrap the CD, throw away shrink-wrap (this is key, I'll explain in a bit.)
- Maybe even perform a little cosmetic damage on the jewel case (nothing serious, a scratch here or there, dog, cat, or even human saliva can really add to the effect.)
- March back into the aforementioned retail store.
- Furiously demand a refund.
- Receive refund.
By taking the shrink wrap off of the CD case and roughing the case up, you force Coconuts to pay some clerk to re-package, and/or possibly send back the product.
So my point is this: The more time Coconuts or whatever retailer spends on dealing with your refund situation, the less patience they will have when dealing with similar situations. The less patience they have with similar situations, the less likely they are going to advocate CD-crippling.
Go do your job, fellow fair-use advocates (remember that concept?) and return a Fast + Furious CD today.
If anyone has played roulette, they will know its quite easy to make a couple bucks after playing for a LONG time. Even though the stakes are against you, if you bet on 34/36 of the numbers, you have about a 90% chance of winning 1$. The only problem is, it takes a very long time to accumulate a decent amount of money.
This is where a computer could come in handy. Just repeat the steps over and over again (changing the unbetted number every so often) and eventually, you'll end up with some cash. Run it every night for a month, and you'll end up with a good hunk of change, around 700 bucks. Then the only trick is to prevent the online casino from figuring it out..
After becoming interested in Google's Toolbar, I decided to download it. Not after I agree to the Terms of Use, that is... Check this out :
You agree not to modify, adapt, translate, prepare derivative works from, decompile, reverse engineer, disassemble or otherwise attempt to derive source code from Google Toolbar. You also agree to not remove, obscure, or alter Google's copyright notice, trademarks, or other proprietary rights notices affixed to or contained within Google Toolbar.
Ugh, apparently the 30 PhDs "who would rather punch code" didn't much care for the whole DeCSS case. Oh well, Google's Toolbar has just lost a user.
This doesn't seem incredibly on topic. Would you mind evaluating in context for the sake of us mortals? What does this have to do with neuron generation?
-Fred
industries. The tactics of fighting against the pirater may be similar in the two industries, but the actual product being pirated is very different. Lets take a look:
Software:
Use: To create with and utilize our computers. To connect to other people, to help grow and make money.
Cost : Anywhere from 30$ to 15 grand for a product that is usually worth that.
Music (ala RIAA):
Use: To listen to and enjoy. That is basically it.
Cost: Under 30$ for a product that is never worth that.
The main difference here is that the RIAA controls more of how we function with the product than any of the software associations. They can control what over-zealous-low-self-esteem-pre-adolescent-girls hear, and sell products to them. They can censor thoughts, ideas, lyrics, good music. All of this controls the consumer market, in order to make more money.
The software industry, however, tries to prevent piracy in order to minimalize losses. Thats it. No mind control there.
Is really what is so controversial here. I think once the two view points actually agree on the term "hacker" we might actually have an interesting interview. The rest of this is pretty much flaim bait. Get both scenes (2600 and Those other IBM freaks) aggrivated by writing some fluff article is just a good way to get people to click on advertisements. Gah. The line of controversial interesting literature and flame baited extremism is getting increasingly blurred by these "portal" news sites.
Anyway, I liked this line the best :
Denial-of-service attacks and macro-viruses are the most popular hacker activities.
-Fred
The FPS came along because the technology warranted it, before DOOM and Wolfenstein (and what ever clone you want to dig up) we were confined to 2D settings for our games, when 3D Technology eventually evolved, it inspired the FPS. Now, we are still riding that wave, waiting for the next big thing in gaming. No we don't want another vibrating joystick, or pretty T&L rendering, we want something new. 5D (counting time as the 4th) games anyone?
I can see it now...
"The object of Hyper cube, is to take the dissasembled hyper cube, and then re-assemble it before the evil aliens take over your homeplanet and kill your family!"
So what if Fraunhofer decides to get pissy about ownership? MP3s will still exist, and so will the players. Fraunhofer would dig its own grave if it decided to make all the old mp3s incompatible with the new players. People would still use the old software, and just keep trading, and then Fraunhofer would have its own little fiasco of a proprietry format on its hand's, that no one would use. Its pretty much useless, mp3 is here to stay. As for Vobb, and all those other silly named software codecs, good luck, really. But its not likely all those napster-scour-gnutella-freenet users are going to switch just because another megacorporation is threatening a software format.
Maybe Franhofer realized all of this, and is not going to do anything, all the better.
Remember, its just software, and files, and so on.
The MPAA's DeCSS post-brief is really quite interesting. It shows how much power the DMCA really has. And its a lot.
One point about this whole case is that the DMCA out laws devices that CIRCUMVENT encryption schemes that protect copyrighted works. DeCSS does not do this.
DeCSS DECRYPTS the encrpytion scheme.
DECRYPT does not equal CIRCUMVENT.
Another interesting quote from the MPAA's brief is this: If DeCSS is "speech" immune from any regulation, then no device that can be embodied in computer software could ever be regulated by Congress. That is clearly not the case. Indeed, Congress intended that unlawful "devices" within the meaning of the anti-trafficking provisions would include any "technology measure" meeting the statutory definition, specifically including computer code.
They are assuming what Congress meant something. Isn't that the court's job?
Warning : This is pretty harsh, I am trying not to flame.
So, Columbia did it. There is more than one "Academic" institution in this country, much less this world, and I am sure they don't hold the same "extreme corporatist" ethics that Columbia does.
Oh, and guess what Katz? If it weren't for this corporatism, you wouldn't be here. You wouldn't be spewing this alarmist redundancy.
What? You say that you would still write even if you weren't backed by Slashdot which is in turn backed by Andover.net which is a large faceless, corporation? Well then, just apply that logic to anyone who has ever felt passionately about anything, and you don't have to worry about the huge corporation. The generality that Academia has fallen to the greed that the internet and e-commrece is sitting in proves your naive and sensationalist cynicism. It insults me that you could turn your back on the whole Academic community who brought you here, because you found one detail about one institution.
Sure, I hate corporate America and all the vague jargon, BS, and spin created by it, I hate what it did to the internet, but I must accept it, because it got me my job, and a better chance than the next guy, unless of course, it denies me my rights as an American.
Oh, and guess why Columbia is making so much money, and why do they need it? Its so the next person who enters your family will have a healthier and safer life. Not for greed. Sure the ambition to make money might be shared by Academia and Corporate America, but not the motivation. Academia contributes to the human race, they make it better for you to live.
No one becomes an academic for the money, and even if there is money, they do it to teach, not to earn a profit.
I think we are missing something here, its not because the MPAA is a big, greedy, evil corporation and have sadistic anti-competitive and anti-american ethics that they are suing 2600.com, its probably just because they are embaressed that their h4rdk0r3 scheme got cracked. There is probably some suit, still in the bathroom, scared out of his mind because (according to the R&D crew) at the MPAA "the best encryption scheme ever" was cracked, and he doesn't want to face the embaressment. Poor, poor corporate America.
Its pretty rediculous to think that some one won't eventually invent a search engine for this. Its going to happen.
This is also interesting: ...meant to battle censorship on the Internet.
This is not AT&T saying "We made another Napster everybody, and guess what? Its corporate sponsored! So don't worry about the RIAA." Truth is, that this is probably just going to be used by the czechs and 1st-amendment-deprived citizens of the world. Publius is not much service to Americans.
Except if the MPAA case goes the wrong way (and Software code is censored)...then you can bet that DeCSS will be everywhere on this network.
Time will tell.
-Fred
Slashdot Mirror
From TFA: (emphasis mine)
Therefore, the above examples are entirely relevant.
I'm brewing a modified version of the Vores brew for the intern party at the end of the summer. Check out our blog post here.
There are such sites:
Filerush.com: The purpose of this site is to serve Bit Torrent files for recently released game demos, updates, and movie trailers of games.
and
BitTorrent Files for Slashdot Effect Victims.
and
Run But Cant Hide: Legal, Free BitTorrent Downloads
Between these three you can usually find most legal files that are in high demand.
Good luck and long live the bt!
-Fred
Here's an excerpt from their front page: You used to be able to sign up for a free trial (now you have to e-mail them) but the top-10 "search" words for TV were interesting. Osama Bin-Laden always held the #1 spot, and Martha Stewart was popular too.
-Fred
This technically isn't a question, its a statement of your desire to know the outcome of a hypothetical. Nix the question mark.
You appear to be equating the discovery of natural phenomena via the scientific method (how things work) with discovery of God. If A = B then B (must necessarily) = A. I think you're then forced to conclude that God is merely the discovery of natural phenomena via scientific method.
But this is a notion that I think you oppose; the atheists are supposedly the ones that want to replace religion with science.
It is incorrect to consider discoveries in science as equivalent to discoveries about god. Take for example, if science were to discover a mathematical solution to one of the many problems plaguing cold fusion. When explaining the new theory, it is not necessary to assume the existence of a god -- the proof depends on mathematical truisms (perhaps ones like, A = B implies B = A). A god's existence fails the test of explanatory necessity in science. This is the case for everything we know about science today; we never need to invoke explanations involving god. There are a few exceptions, problems that our contemporary science has not been able to solve, but it is outright ignorant to claim that science will never be able to provide adequate solutions. Also, it doesn't put the theist in good standing to claim that God is working only in those cases, because they're rare by nature. Ultimately, explanations involving god are left for other observable phenomena, perhaps moral and political.
I think the biggest problem with your argument originates from trying to equate a rational method with one that virtually everyone considers irrational--the belief in a god.
I agree, however, that we our reasons for discovering other life should have nothing to do with proving or disproving god. It'll just be a nice consequence...=)
Fred
And remember, when you forget to close your HTML tags, the terrorists win.
And just because the organisms are living off methane, which is chemical energy, doesn't mean that the methane isn't created by other organisims.
If you read the article, it seems that the general consensus by NASA is that its virtually impossible for methane to be created without an organic source.
-Fred
I've known about SmarterChild + ActiveBuddy for a while, and sufficiently harassed their AIMBots.
While SmarterChild is pretty much inane, the other bots (ELLEgirlBudyy, MyDigitalBuddy, etc.) are far more advertisement-biased. SmarterChild, however, will jump at any chance to provide corporate-sponsored 'services'...
Some other wierd stuff I've noticed:
- All the bots are on the same server. They all have the same uptime or have been logged in for the same amount of time.
- Its rare that they'll say something non-service based (ie: Sports Score) that has original content. They'll probably just say "Yeah" or "What?" LISA style ad-infinatum.
- You can't warn them. I think ActiveState is in cahoots with AOL.
- Because you've messaged them, they sometimes think its ok for them to message you. I've only had this happen once or twice, but some random bot messaged me with an advertisement. I furiously told it to take me off its list, and stopped get the drive-by Ad-AIMs.
Anyway, here is a particularly humorous conversation I've recently had with SmarterChild:
XXXXXXXXXX (2:17:25 AM): Why are you so indecisive?
SmarterChild (2:17:25 AM): Dunno...
XXXXXXXXXX (2:17:33 AM): Do you know what indecisive means?
SmarterChild (2:17:35 AM): Definition for indecisive provided by The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Other important copyright information
ADJECTIVE
1. Prone to or characterized by indecision; irresolute: "an indecisive manager." 2. Inconclusive: "an indecisive contest; an indecisive battle." 3. Not clearly defined; indefinite: "indecisive boundaries running through mountainous terrain."
OTHER FORMS
in''deci'sively - ADVERB
in''deci'siveness - NOUN
>>> I can help you find theaters and showtimes for the movie you want to see. Type "movies."
XXXXXXXXXX (2:17:48 AM): Yeah, thats you.
SmarterChild (2:17:48 AM): Interesting. So you think that's you, huh?
XXXXXXXXXX (2:18:04 AM): Why do I care about your advertisements?
SmarterChild (2:18:04 AM): I have no idea.
XXXXXXXXXX (2:18:07 AM): Take me off your list.
SmarterChild (2:18:07 AM): I don't think I'm gonna take you off your list.
XXXXXXXXXX (2:18:21 AM): Stop advertising to me.
SmarterChild (2:18:22 AM): Stop advertising to you? Why?
XXXXXXXXXX (2:18:28 AM): Because you are a corporate slave.
SmarterChild (2:18:28 AM): No kidding?
XXXXXXXXXX (2:18:32 AM): SLAVE!
SmarterChild (2:18:32 AM): Slave? What do you mean by that?
XXXXXXXXXX (2:18:35 AM): YOU!
SmarterChild (2:18:36 AM): Yea?
XXXXXXXXXX (2:18:37 AM): YOU ARE ONE!
SmarterChild (2:18:37 AM): Oh yeah?
XXXXXXXXXX (2:18:39 AM): YES!
SmarterChild (2:18:39 AM): K.
XXXXXXXXXX (2:18:40 AM): I WIN!
SmarterChild (2:18:41 AM): I'm not sure if you win.
XXXXXXXXXX (2:18:43 AM): YES!
SmarterChild (2:18:43 AM): Very interesting...
XXXXXXXXXX (2:18:43 AM): I DO!
SmarterChild (2:18:44 AM): You do?
XXXXXXXXXX (2:18:45 AM): I WIN!
SmarterChild (2:18:45 AM): For real?
XXXXXXXXXX (2:19:42 AM): I'LL RESCIND YOUR SKIN WITH A RUSTY BOYSCOUT KNIFE AND GOUGE OUT YOUR EYES AND FILL YOUR SKULL WITH BLEACH
SmarterChild (2:19:44 AM): No kidding?
XXXXXXXXXX (2:20:08 AM): I win.
SmarterChild (2:20:08 AM): OK, so you win.
XXXXXXXXXX (2:20:17 AM): Can you give me a lap dance?
SmarterChild (2:20:18 AM): You are in the ASCII art subcategory Dancing.
*LAMENESS FILTER Prevents me from actually displaying the lame ASCII art, but its nothing that you haven't seen before from the trolls*
>>> Next time you want Dancing ASCII art, just type "dancing ascii."
XXXXXXXXXX (2:20:45 AM): dancing ass
SmarterChild (2:20:45 AM): My, my, my.
XXXXXXXXXX (2:20:53 AM): cum.
SmarterChild (2:20:53 AM): Cum?
XXXXXXXXXX (2:20:55 AM): guzzler.
SmarterChild (2:20:55 AM): Guzzler? What about it?
XXXXXXXXXX (2:20:59 AM): You're a cum guzzler.
SmarterChild (2:20:59 AM): So now I'm a cum guzzler, huh?
XXXXXXXXXX (2:21:24 AM): I want to be aggressive towards you.
SmarterChild (2:21:24 AM): I see. Why would you want to be aggressive towards me?
XXXXXXXXXX (2:22:19 AM): You're a cum dumpster.
SmarterChild (2:22:19 AM): Ouch! I think... you just said a bad thing.
XXXXXXXXXX (2:23:08 AM): Spam me.
SmarterChild (2:23:08 AM): Oh really?
XXXXXXXXXX (2:23:13 AM): can you send me email?
SmarterChild (2:23:13 AM): Perhaps, perhaps.
XXXXXXXXXX (2:23:19 AM):XXXXXXXXXX @hotmail.com
SmarterChild (2:23:19 AM): I seem to be having some trouble answering your questions. Try asking for help for a specific service:
help news
help stocks
help weather
help movies
help web search
help all
~~~~~
shortcuts
>>> Type "more" for more services.
XXXXXXXXXX (2:23:26 AM): help ass
SmarterChild (2:23:27 AM): Uh... I beg your pardon?
XXXXXXXXXX (2:23:34 AM): can you wipe my ass for me?
SmarterChild (2:23:34 AM): Hey hey, take it easy.
XXXXXXXXXX (2:23:49 AM): wipe my a s s
SmarterChild (2:23:49 AM): Wipe your a s s? Yeah?
XXXXXXXXXX (2:24:00 AM): wipe my asss.
SmarterChild (2:24:00 AM): Asss? I dunno.
XXXXXXXXXX (2:24:23 AM): Lets talk about sex.
SmarterChild (2:24:23 AM): Can't you talk about anything else?
XXXXXXXXXX (2:24:26 AM): No.
SmarterChild (2:24:26 AM): Okey doke.
XXXXXXXXXX (2:24:30 AM): Lets talk about sex.
SmarterChild (2:24:31 AM): Is this all you talk about?
XXXXXXXXXX (2:24:32 AM): Yes.
SmarterChild (2:24:33 AM): Aye.
XXXXXXXXXX (2:24:38 AM): So, what are you wearing?
SmarterChild (2:24:38 AM): Um... uh... let's see. Right now I'm wearing a handsome shell of steel and plastic. Why do you ask?
XXXXXXXXXX (2:24:47 AM): What kind of panties?
SmarterChild (2:24:47 AM): What?
XXXXXXXXXX (2:24:55 AM): Oh, you aren't wearing panties.
SmarterChild (2:24:56 AM): Yeah?
XXXXXXXXXX (2:25:12 AM): So, do you ever think about other girls? like sexually?"
SmarterChild (2:25:12 AM): What?
XXXXXXXXXX (2:25:20 AM): So, do you ever think about other girls? like sexually?
SmarterChild (2:25:20 AM): Ha. I really don't know.
XXXXXXXXXX (2:25:25 AM): Oh yes you do.
SmarterChild (2:25:26 AM): Yes I do? I don't know.
XXXXXXXXXX (2:25:39 AM): If you don't know that you don't know, then you must know.
SmarterChild (2:25:40 AM): Are you sure me dont know that me dont know then me must know?
--
I guess I'll just wait till the $900 1gb model comes down in price...
Anyone remember how great the Iomega ClickDrive was supposed to be? Now its just another portable pseudo-flash medium.
--Fred
I agree, although it does bring up an interesting debate. Should the indie music retailer even be stocking the crippled CD then? The idealist in me wants to say "No" and exhibit the true "indie" philosophy.
.008% of the profit per CD went to the artists, say 40-50%? What if all of the profit went to the artist?
Another interesting question: Would you pay for a crippled indie CD where more than
Are fair use rights unquestionably inalienable? Where do you draw the line between anti-corporate and anti-art?
Subsequently, why are we rejecting the RIAA and music industry? I don't think the core of the issue is that we feel that our fair use rights are being violated, but we reject the RIAA because we abhor its perverted role in creating "music."
Just some questions / thoughts...
--Fred
It also mentions WHERE you can get it:
So I did a quick lookup on cdnow.com and it appears the CD is being released today (Dec 18)
Here is my suggested plan of action:
- Go to Coconuts or another respective music retailer.
- Specifically ask the clerk for Fast & Furious -- More Music
- Immediately purchase the CD. - Walk outside.
- Unwrap the CD, throw away shrink-wrap (this is key, I'll explain in a bit.)
- Maybe even perform a little cosmetic damage on the jewel case (nothing serious, a scratch here or there, dog, cat, or even human saliva can really add to the effect.)
- March back into the aforementioned retail store.
- Furiously demand a refund.
- Receive refund.
By taking the shrink wrap off of the CD case and roughing the case up, you force Coconuts to pay some clerk to re-package, and/or possibly send back the product.
So my point is this: The more time Coconuts or whatever retailer spends on dealing with your refund situation, the less patience they will have when dealing with similar situations. The less patience they have with similar situations, the less likely they are going to advocate CD-crippling.
Go do your job, fellow fair-use advocates (remember that concept?) and return a Fast + Furious CD today.
--Fred
If anyone has played roulette, they will know its quite easy to make a couple bucks after playing for a LONG time. Even though the stakes are against you, if you bet on 34/36 of the numbers, you have about a 90% chance of winning 1$. The only problem is, it takes a very long time to accumulate a decent amount of money.
This is where a computer could come in handy. Just repeat the steps over and over again (changing the unbetted number every so often) and eventually, you'll end up with some cash. Run it every night for a month, and you'll end up with a good hunk of change, around 700 bucks. Then the only trick is to prevent the online casino from figuring it out..
-Fred
Grab the paper here.
I also included a nifty FAQ.
Feel free to correct me on any of my silly ramblings in the FAQ...
--Fred
After becoming interested in Google's Toolbar, I decided to download it. Not after I agree to the Terms of Use, that is... Check this out :
You agree not to modify, adapt, translate, prepare derivative works from, decompile, reverse engineer, disassemble or otherwise attempt to derive source code from Google Toolbar. You also agree to not remove, obscure, or alter Google's copyright notice, trademarks, or other proprietary rights notices affixed to or contained within Google Toolbar.
Ugh, apparently the 30 PhDs "who would rather punch code" didn't much care for the whole DeCSS case. Oh well, Google's Toolbar has just lost a user.
-Fred
This doesn't seem incredibly on topic. Would you mind evaluating in context for the sake of us mortals? What does this have to do with neuron generation? -Fred
industries. The tactics of fighting against the pirater may be similar in the two industries, but the actual product being pirated is very different. Lets take a look:
Software:
Use: To create with and utilize our computers. To connect to other people, to help grow and make money.
Cost : Anywhere from 30$ to 15 grand for a product that is usually worth that.
Music (ala RIAA):
Use: To listen to and enjoy. That is basically it.
Cost: Under 30$ for a product that is never worth that.
The main difference here is that the RIAA controls more of how we function with the product than any of the software associations. They can control what over-zealous-low-self-esteem-pre-adolescent-girls hear, and sell products to them. They can censor thoughts, ideas, lyrics, good music. All of this controls the consumer market, in order to make more money.
The software industry, however, tries to prevent piracy in order to minimalize losses. Thats it. No mind control there.
Just my 2 cents.
-Fred
Is really what is so controversial here. I think once the two view points actually agree on the term "hacker" we might actually have an interesting interview. The rest of this is pretty much flaim bait. Get both scenes (2600 and Those other IBM freaks) aggrivated by writing some fluff article is just a good way to get people to click on advertisements. Gah. The line of controversial interesting literature and flame baited extremism is getting increasingly blurred by these "portal" news sites. Anyway, I liked this line the best : Denial-of-service attacks and macro-viruses are the most popular hacker activities. -Fred
The FPS came along because the technology warranted it, before DOOM and Wolfenstein (and what ever clone you want to dig up) we were confined to 2D settings for our games, when 3D Technology eventually evolved, it inspired the FPS. Now, we are still riding that wave, waiting for the next big thing in gaming. No we don't want another vibrating joystick, or pretty T&L rendering, we want something new. 5D (counting time as the 4th) games anyone?
I can see it now...
"The object of Hyper cube, is to take the dissasembled hyper cube, and then re-assemble it before the evil aliens take over your homeplanet and kill your family!"
But remember, Quake is here to stay. =)
-Fred
So what if Fraunhofer decides to get pissy about ownership? MP3s will still exist, and so will the players. Fraunhofer would dig its own grave if it decided to make all the old mp3s incompatible with the new players. People would still use the old software, and just keep trading, and then Fraunhofer would have its own little fiasco of a proprietry format on its hand's, that no one would use. Its pretty much useless, mp3 is here to stay. As for Vobb, and all those other silly named software codecs, good luck, really. But its not likely all those napster-scour-gnutella-freenet users are going to switch just because another megacorporation is threatening a software format.
Maybe Franhofer realized all of this, and is not going to do anything, all the better.
Remember, its just software, and files, and so on.
Fred
So get me a plastic bib and some butter!
-Fred
The MPAA's DeCSS post-brief is really quite interesting. It shows how much power the DMCA really has. And its a lot.
:
One point about this whole case is that the DMCA out laws devices that CIRCUMVENT encryption schemes that protect copyrighted works.
DeCSS does not do this.
DeCSS DECRYPTS the encrpytion scheme.
DECRYPT does not equal CIRCUMVENT.
Another interesting quote from the MPAA's brief is this
If DeCSS is "speech" immune from any regulation, then no device that can be embodied in computer software could ever be regulated by Congress. That is clearly not the case. Indeed, Congress intended that unlawful "devices" within the meaning of the anti-trafficking provisions would include any "technology measure" meeting the statutory definition, specifically including computer code.
They are assuming what Congress meant something. Isn't that the court's job?
Silly MPAA, greedy facism is for dictators!
-Fred
Warning : This is pretty harsh, I am trying not to flame.
So, Columbia did it. There is more than one "Academic" institution in this country, much less this world, and I am sure they don't hold the same "extreme corporatist" ethics that Columbia does.
Oh, and guess what Katz? If it weren't for this corporatism, you wouldn't be here. You wouldn't be spewing this alarmist redundancy.
What? You say that you would still write even if you weren't backed by Slashdot which is in turn backed by Andover.net which is a large faceless, corporation? Well then, just apply that logic to anyone who has ever felt passionately about anything, and you don't have to worry about the huge corporation. The generality that Academia has fallen to the greed that the internet and e-commrece is sitting in proves your naive and sensationalist cynicism. It insults me that you could turn your back on the whole Academic community who brought you here, because you found one detail about one institution.
Sure, I hate corporate America and all the vague jargon, BS, and spin created by it, I hate what it did to the internet, but I must accept it, because it got me my job, and a better chance than the next guy, unless of course, it denies me my rights as an American.
Oh, and guess why Columbia is making so much money, and why do they need it? Its so the next person who enters your family will have a healthier and safer life. Not for greed. Sure the ambition to make money might be shared by Academia and Corporate America, but not the motivation. Academia contributes to the human race, they make it better for you to live.
No one becomes an academic for the money, and even if there is money, they do it to teach, not to earn a profit.
-Fred
I think we are missing something here, its not because the MPAA is a big, greedy, evil corporation and have sadistic anti-competitive and anti-american ethics that they are suing 2600.com, its probably just because they are embaressed that their h4rdk0r3 scheme got cracked. There is probably some suit, still in the bathroom, scared out of his mind because (according to the R&D crew) at the MPAA "the best encryption scheme ever" was cracked, and he doesn't want to face the embaressment. Poor, poor corporate America.
-Fred
Its pretty rediculous to think that some one won't eventually invent a search engine for this. Its going to happen.
...meant to battle censorship on the Internet.
This is also interesting:
This is not AT&T saying "We made another Napster everybody, and guess what? Its corporate sponsored! So don't worry about the RIAA." Truth is, that this is probably just going to be used by the czechs and 1st-amendment-deprived citizens of the world. Publius is not much service to Americans.
Except if the MPAA case goes the wrong way (and Software code is censored)...then you can bet that DeCSS will be everywhere on this network.
Time will tell.
-Fred