Oh no. Things were so much easier when we could move forward based on the simple algorithm Bush = bad. Now that we have to actually think about stuff, what ever will we do?
Don't look at me. I didn't believe Hussein Obama when he first said it, then I saw proof when he voted for telecom immunity. If you honestly believed he wasn't going to do this, you really shouldn't be voting.
agreed. I always have a similar opinion when reading every article I read. I disregard anything that could be false or manipulated, leaving me knowing as much as I did before I started reading the article.
With the attitude so many are taking about the Evil Obama (not saying he is or is not, time will tell), it would be interesting to see what people said if it made it to him and he vetoed it. Hopefully, it will not get that far.
InnerWeb
If he vetoes it, kudos to him. I'll look at him a with a tad less suspicion. It doesn't get him off the hook for spending my money on everything but me, and telling me to cough up more.
If he truly stops acting like an FDR Socialist, then maybe I'll have a better opinion of him. Until then, he's a commie, as far as I'm concerned.
Ooo, please, godefroi, who wins the super bowl next year? you must be from the future, as you know the outcome of the bill... He's either going to veto it or not. We DO NOT know yet. Even if he doesn't, we don't know if he will (ab)use it. Stop doommongering.
Geee....
if someone put a contract in front of you, where basically your consideration in the contract was to "use what we give you at your leisure" and theirs was "giving you unlimited power", would you not sign it? If not, I'd call you stupid.
And as much as I can't stand Barack "hOpe" Hussein, I'm almost entirely sure he's not stupid.
I agree, it is naive to think that the president has zero influence on proposing bills in Congress. Almost as naive as thinking the president has 100% influence on proposing bills to Congress. Of course there is also the fact that Obama didn't actually propose the bill.
Now that that is cleared up, how about answering my original question? Why is Obama once again getting blamed for something Congress is trying to do?
Because he clearly benefits from it, and won't hesitate to abuse it as he wishes. Don't worry, Congress is quite to blame, as well. But don't tell anyone I said that. They might declare a "cyber-emergency" and use that as an excuse for a warrantless search of my home-network and house.
I'm very interested. Seriously. Does anyone remember the game for the Apple II called (I could be a little off) Trans-Canada Trucking. You drive a truck across Canada, picking up stuff and what not. It was all text based - Kind of went like this:
Welcome! You are in Calgary, you need to drive to Edmonton to pick up some product.
> Drive to Edmonton
Your truck is not on.
> Turn on truck
Truck is on.
> Drive to Edmonton
Your lights are off. It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue, eh.
> Turn on lights
Your lights are on.
> Drive to Edmonton
It is raining; your wipers are off.
> Turn on wipers
Your wipers are on.
> Drive to Edmonton
You arrive in Edmonton and pick up your load. You need to deliver it to Toronto... and so on.
Anyways, this Garbage Truck driver still sounds better than quite a few of the new games. I would prefer this to the new 50 cent game.
I sure hope this is an April Fool's joke. But then again, Larry Flynt asking for bailouts for the porn industry would've been much more believable, and funny for this one.
This is just sad. It's like the power company asking to raise rates because they're not making as much money because people are reducing the use of electricity (and power companies urge saving power).
I suppose we'll have to wait at least 4 more years to fix it. But I suspect something worse that will make us long for the good old days of the DMCA will come along that we'll have to roll back.
Really, mind pointing out who "a lot of people" are?
A lot of people are Chinese. A fair old number are Indian. HTH.
I'm going to run with "a rather informal recollection of people I've had various conversations with over the years. I won't vouch for how representative that sample is.
My initial point wasn't that Fox news wasn't biased (they're biased all over the place), but the gate swings both ways.
More dangerous is the bias in what doesn't get reported than what gets editorialized on. For example. if something really bad(tm) happens in gov't, and the media is sympathetic and doesn't report on it, that's a far worse bias than commentators screaming for a head or screaming that it was justified.
There are no such things as Digital Rights to be managed. There are just rights. Whether the information is in electronic form or affixed to physical form in meatspace, it is your right to use it how you deem fit, not to be managed by the one with an exclusive right to sell it.
So what happens when the government decides a newspaper is a little too biased in their reporting and claim that it's endorsing another candidate? Will the press have to censor themselves to avoid appearing like an endorsement?
I'm more curious about implicit endorsements. For instance, if I run a liberal newspaper somewhere that can't just say "vote for Obama", there are ways around it. I can run only stories showing his positives (with a small faux pas sprinkled in here and there to bring him down to Earth), whilst only running negative stories where his opponent is concerned.
In this case, you know the endorsement is there, but you can't put a finger on why. After all, you can't form an opinion on a story you don't know about (because it wasn't run).
The problem is the government gets to decide if they are violating their non-profit status. The pressure then comes from the government. With the government expanding and the private sector dwindling, I think it would be scarier to have the media slaves to the government than to their advertisers.
I can see this. If a paper seems too conservative for the current government, they'll get pressed on as politicking. If they're too liberal, same thing. Eventually, the newspapers just become the de-facto (unoffical) voice of the government. So much for freedom of the press.
I have to go down to the local gaming store and kill anyone who knows my real name! This is serious business, knowing my name!
Bad logic, dude.
At the game store, you're reasonably anonymous unless you willingly reveal that information. This is no different than walking into any other brick-and-mortar location or talking to the guy down the street. Of course, if they ask you for all sorts of personal info (like Radio Shack does for a cash purchase) so they can enter it into the computer, then your analogy works, sort of.
Hi. I'm Hordeking, and I'm an IBM Model-M Keybaholic.
I thought this was rather funny a story. A few years ago, I cobbled together a computer for a friend using spare parts and a TinyXP image (this was a really underpowered old pc for a dude who didn't have any pc). Anyway, about a year or two later, I decided I wanted a clicky old-style keyboard. Well, it turns out the keyboard I had given him was exactly what I wanted (and I didn't realise it). The next time I was at his apartment, I was poking at the now-retired cobble-box, and realised! It! Was! An! I!B!M! keyboard! Halleulah! Cue the chorus!
How do you define "traditional". From my end, I don't get to see the implementation details, just whether or not I can run the game/program without any hassles and maintain my anonymity. If you're forcing me to identify myself or otherwise check in with you, it's still traditional DRM.
Get a clue. If the game phones home at any point, I don't buy it.
Did anyone else think of Grey Goo when he read the bit about Stardock's "Goo"?
Ironically, their method sounds a bit like safedisc. You know...encrypt the executable file? But how does it work? When someone changes their email address, does that change follow with this? I'm guessing potentially not.
Another thing: Is it just me, or is it coincidence that MS, Valve, and Stardock (I've never heard of these guys) all happen to have DRMv2 far enough along that they can try to get their "Me Too"'s in?
Slashdot Mirror
Oh no. Things were so much easier when we could move forward based on the simple algorithm Bush = bad. Now that we have to actually think about stuff, what ever will we do?
Don't look at me. I didn't believe Hussein Obama when he first said it, then I saw proof when he voted for telecom immunity. If you honestly believed he wasn't going to do this, you really shouldn't be voting.
agreed. I always have a similar opinion when reading every article I read. I disregard anything that could be false or manipulated, leaving me knowing as much as I did before I started reading the article.
Remember this: Everything I say is a lie.
I believe you, oh truthful liar.
Dear USA, Please keep your "help" to yourself. Sincerly, Signed: The Rest of the World
Dear World,
If you want to be Socialist, feel free.
Stop pressing us to do so.
Sincerely,
The people of the United States
With the attitude so many are taking about the Evil Obama (not saying he is or is not, time will tell), it would be interesting to see what people said if it made it to him and he vetoed it. Hopefully, it will not get that far.
InnerWeb
If he vetoes it, kudos to him. I'll look at him a with a tad less suspicion. It doesn't get him off the hook for spending my money on everything but me, and telling me to cough up more.
If he truly stops acting like an FDR Socialist, then maybe I'll have a better opinion of him. Until then, he's a commie, as far as I'm concerned.
Ooo, please, godefroi, who wins the super bowl next year? you must be from the future, as you know the outcome of the bill... He's either going to veto it or not. We DO NOT know yet. Even if he doesn't, we don't know if he will (ab)use it. Stop doommongering.
Geee....
if someone put a contract in front of you, where basically your consideration in the contract was to "use what we give you at your leisure" and theirs was "giving you unlimited power", would you not sign it? If not, I'd call you stupid.
And as much as I can't stand Barack "hOpe" Hussein, I'm almost entirely sure he's not stupid.
I agree, it is naive to think that the president has zero influence on proposing bills in Congress. Almost as naive as thinking the president has 100% influence on proposing bills to Congress. Of course there is also the fact that Obama didn't actually propose the bill. Now that that is cleared up, how about answering my original question? Why is Obama once again getting blamed for something Congress is trying to do?
Because he clearly benefits from it, and won't hesitate to abuse it as he wishes. Don't worry, Congress is quite to blame, as well. But don't tell anyone I said that. They might declare a "cyber-emergency" and use that as an excuse for a warrantless search of my home-network and house.
I'm very interested. Seriously. Does anyone remember the game for the Apple II called (I could be a little off) Trans-Canada Trucking. You drive a truck across Canada, picking up stuff and what not. It was all text based - Kind of went like this: Welcome! You are in Calgary, you need to drive to Edmonton to pick up some product.
> Drive to Edmonton
Your truck is not on.
> Turn on truck
Truck is on.
> Drive to Edmonton
Your lights are off. It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue, eh.
> Turn on lights
Your lights are on.
> Drive to Edmonton
It is raining; your wipers are off.
> Turn on wipers
Your wipers are on.
> Drive to Edmonton
You arrive in Edmonton and pick up your load. You need to deliver it to Toronto... and so on.
Anyways, this Garbage Truck driver still sounds better than quite a few of the new games. I would prefer this to the new 50 cent game.
Fixed that for you. eh.
Hey, *I* am a retarded sea cow, you insensitive clod!
"Die, Rusty Venture! Die!!! GAHHHHHH!"
And that was the end of Doctor Dugong, at the hands of The Monarch!
I sure hope this is an April Fool's joke. But then again, Larry Flynt asking for bailouts for the porn industry would've been much more believable, and funny for this one.
This is just sad. It's like the power company asking to raise rates because they're not making as much money because people are reducing the use of electricity (and power companies urge saving power).
Support Linux if you don't like bailouts!
I'd prefer the follow up "Mastering Pussy"
My girlfriend loves it when I master her cat.
We don't have to avoid the cosmonauts, but we should deny them our essence.
In other words, if both myself and Xenia Onatopp were aboard the ISS, I should refrain from getting head from her?
That fuckin' sucks.
I suppose we'll have to wait at least 4 more years to fix it. But I suspect something worse that will make us long for the good old days of the DMCA will come along that we'll have to roll back.
A lot of people are Chinese. A fair old number are Indian. HTH.
I'm going to run with "a rather informal recollection of people I've had various conversations with over the years. I won't vouch for how representative that sample is.
My initial point wasn't that Fox news wasn't biased (they're biased all over the place), but the gate swings both ways.
More dangerous is the bias in what doesn't get reported than what gets editorialized on. For example. if something really bad(tm) happens in gov't, and the media is sympathetic and doesn't report on it, that's a far worse bias than commentators screaming for a head or screaming that it was justified.
There are no such things as Digital Rights to be managed. There are just rights. Whether the information is in electronic form or affixed to physical form in meatspace, it is your right to use it how you deem fit, not to be managed by the one with an exclusive right to sell it.
There are VERY FEW people who would know whether my hand is cybernetic - which one of those are you?
I'm your hand, posting on /.
Don't tell anyone, they all think I'm a real boy who uses IM.
So what happens when the government decides a newspaper is a little too biased in their reporting and claim that it's endorsing another candidate? Will the press have to censor themselves to avoid appearing like an endorsement?
I'm more curious about implicit endorsements. For instance, if I run a liberal newspaper somewhere that can't just say "vote for Obama", there are ways around it. I can run only stories showing his positives (with a small faux pas sprinkled in here and there to bring him down to Earth), whilst only running negative stories where his opponent is concerned.
In this case, you know the endorsement is there, but you can't put a finger on why. After all, you can't form an opinion on a story you don't know about (because it wasn't run).
The problem is the government gets to decide if they are violating their non-profit status. The pressure then comes from the government. With the government expanding and the private sector dwindling, I think it would be scarier to have the media slaves to the government than to their advertisers.
I can see this. If a paper seems too conservative for the current government, they'll get pressed on as politicking. If they're too liberal, same thing. Eventually, the newspapers just become the de-facto (unoffical) voice of the government. So much for freedom of the press.
The thing is, if you give up trying to be unbiased, you get Fox News, or CNN, or MSNBC, or Pravda.
Fixed that for you. Bias doesn't just swing to the right. A major complaint of a lot of people is that most of the media bias seems to be to the left.
That's nothing - I've been sleeping with a bot for 22 years.
Your hand is not cybernetic! Now, write that on the blackboard 500 times.
I have to go down to the local gaming store and kill anyone who knows my real name! This is serious business, knowing my name!
Bad logic, dude.
At the game store, you're reasonably anonymous unless you willingly reveal that information. This is no different than walking into any other brick-and-mortar location or talking to the guy down the street. Of course, if they ask you for all sorts of personal info (like Radio Shack does for a cash purchase) so they can enter it into the computer, then your analogy works, sort of.
Hi. I'm Hordeking, and I'm an IBM Model-M Keybaholic.
I thought this was rather funny a story. A few years ago, I cobbled together a computer for a friend using spare parts and a TinyXP image (this was a really underpowered old pc for a dude who didn't have any pc). Anyway, about a year or two later, I decided I wanted a clicky old-style keyboard. Well, it turns out the keyboard I had given him was exactly what I wanted (and I didn't realise it). The next time I was at his apartment, I was poking at the now-retired cobble-box, and realised! It! Was! An! I!B!M! keyboard! Halleulah! Cue the chorus!
Not a traditional DRM
Um...sure guys. Whatever you say.
How do you define "traditional". From my end, I don't get to see the implementation details, just whether or not I can run the game/program without any hassles and maintain my anonymity. If you're forcing me to identify myself or otherwise check in with you, it's still traditional DRM.
Get a clue. If the game phones home at any point, I don't buy it.
Did anyone else think of Grey Goo when he read the bit about Stardock's "Goo"?
Ironically, their method sounds a bit like safedisc. You know...encrypt the executable file? But how does it work? When someone changes their email address, does that change follow with this? I'm guessing potentially not.
Another thing: Is it just me, or is it coincidence that MS, Valve, and Stardock (I've never heard of these guys) all happen to have DRMv2 far enough along that they can try to get their "Me Too"'s in?
Apparently, the grammar Nazis are using single-bit parity, because there are actually two mistakes and noone noticed that.
A lot. I've had this happen. It happens no /. to.
Like the times when one typos a two letter word.
It took 13 minutes to notice that? The speeling Nazis are getting slower and slower these days...