DRM protection of documents didn't last because the only thing Microsoft has to gain from DRM protection of documents is to have a new feature to sell to the customer. If the customer doesn't want it, Microsoft gains no benefit from forcing it.
UEFI secure boot is different because Microsoft has something to gain from it even if no customer wants it. It is a scam in the sense that the stated goal of "security" is fake, but as a way to stop Linux, it's very real.
And if it gets in the way in a big corporation, what's the corporation going to do? Tell Microsoft that they won't buy Windows any more until Microsoft changes it? That's not going to work.
Wikipedia has rules for biographies of living people, many of which are just the same rules used elsewhere, but which they really mean this time.
One of those is undue weight. Wikipedia is not allowed to put more prominence on an event in a person's life than it actually has. Even if the event is important in showing what he's really like, it's not what he's primarily known for and isn't the first topic that comes up when talking about him (at least not to more than a minority of people). He is known as a politician, not as a bully.
Homebrew, as the term is usually used (of course there's no authority who can define English words), typically means writing code for a console in a way that isn't controlled by the manufacturer of the console. This doesn't have to mean "breaking through console security" since old systems like the Atari 2600 or Sega Genesis didn't have any security.
Xbox Live and similar services are not homebrew. I suppose whether Android counts depends on whether you consider it a console.
And homebrew, in this sense, *is* just about over. Nobody's jailbroken a PS3, an Xbox 360, a 3DS, or a Vita in a way that an average person could reasonably use (even in a "take the system to a shop to install a modchip" sense), and there's every sign that the protection measures on those systems are actually effective.
At the point in the DS's lifespan where the 3DS is now, there were already plenty of flashcarts. At the point in the PS2's lifespan where the PS3 is now, there were modchips that worked without swapping. There is basically nothing for modern systems because of the encryption, never mind the firmware updates.
Gun rights advocates have run into the car analogy lots of times. It's even worse than the standard Slashdot tactic of using car analogies with computers. If guns were licensed like cars, almost everyone would be able to get a license; and you would be able to own and fire a gun on private property without a license. And there would be almost no limits on selling guns.
Logically, having a printout of the law should be useless. If the officer doesn't know about the law already, he would be foolish to believe that a law is whatever some random person with a computer printout tells him it is--you can print anything on a computer printout.
How about an adult who posts about Pokemon and ends up considered a pedophile by an employer who isn't aware that some people above the age of 12 play Pokemon?
Repeat with conventional sources of discrimination, such as sexual orientation or religion.
Suicide bombing is almost always an inherently bad act. Even if the suicide bomber is trying to kill soldiers, the suicide bomber is deliberately hiding among civilians in order to kill the soldiers (if he didn't, suicide bombing wouldn't work). For combatants, either suicide or not, to disguise themselves as civilians is a war crime.
There's a better answer to that: those things have good effects (people can use them) and bad effects (money is taken from people so other people can use them) and you oppose them because you think the bad outweighs the good. You can't really "choose not to take them" because you can only choose not to take the good effects, but you can't choose not to take the bad effects. Refusing to take a college grant isn't going to get you a life without taxes that go to college grants.
Like the example goes, if the government confiscated $100 from everyone and used it to give everyone a $95 check, you would not be barred from taking the $95 check.
Not to mention that there are more negative effects than just directly being taxed. Perhaps by setting up X the government distorted the market and crowded out a private version of X that would have been more efficient. You certainly can't choose to take the private version; taking the less efficient government version is not hypocrisy, it's just cutting your losses.
If they're an American company for the purpose of "this is an American company trying to impose rules on Australians" they should also be considered an American company for the purpose of "this is Australia trying to impose rules on an American company". It's hypocritical to decide that the company is or is not American depending on which country is being blamed.
I'd go with incompetence. "Sex" is a very obvious keyword to use to automatically ban ads for something based on a keyword search. Follow up with bureaucracy lying about the reason they banned the ads because they want to pretend they banned the ads for cause instead of because nobody read them. I wouldn't be surprised if they also have internal policies about sexual ads and that even though those ads are not actually sexual, nobody at Google will unban the ads because overbanning won't get you fired but underbanning will.
It's going to be worse if the disease would have a good chance of being cured on Earth. There are going to be headlines about how we left the astronauts to die, no matter that they accepted the risk going in.
Yes, you have to decide for them that they're overreacting.
Are you seriously suggesting that they are the only ones who can decide if they themselves are overreacting? Newsflash: nobody thinks they are the ones who are overreacting. If overreacting could not be judged by another person, you'd never be able to say that anyone was overreacting at all.
As for WHY women don't like engineering/programming, I think it's because they are smart. They are smart enough not to go into such a boring field where the managers or HR treat you like low-level employees to be shoved into basement offices & worked 50 hours w/o overtime pay.
You may joke about it, but that's actually the answer. Once they get past a certain minimal level of income, women are generally much less willing than men to sacrifice their personal lives and job satisfaction to make a lot of money. (Also, given unequal notions of marriage, women may very well expect their husband to support the family and take the shitty job.) Under those circumstances, women won't make as much money, and won't be in certain fields very much.
A variation of this extends outside work. I'm sure that if girls were as willing to become social outcasts as boys, a lot more of them would be geeks.
Nobody asked this question: what happens when one of your permanent Mars colonists gets cancer or some other disease that may have only a small chance of being cured on Earth but none on Mars, and there are months of headlines of how an astronaut is dying of cancer on Mars?
Even worse if the disease is one that does have a high cure rate on Earth. Imagine the headlines then.
This problem alone is likely to mean the project will never happen.
The summary phrases it as though the person making the statement is stating his own position. In fact, he's attributing this position to the opposition.
It's like having a summary which says "(name): Muslims should take over the world" without mentioning that the quote is from someone who doesn't like Muslims and is attributing that idea to them, and is not a quote from a Muslim at all.
While I can't say it's wrong to try to show someone assaulting you a letter from your doctor, it's a desperate move that may be the only choice available, but which you should expect probably won't work. Writing about it as if he expected it to work and that this criminal is especially bad for refusing to read it shows a lack of common sense. And a lack of common sense is likely to increase your chances of getting assaulted in the first place, if only because you don't avoid bad neighborhoods or take other common precautions.
Consider what the guy did: he basically decided to troll real life. It has several hallmarks of a troll, including "I followed the literal rules, so what I did was permitted" (without regard to the fact that certain permitted things are very rude or that we trust most people to use discretion rather than having to write up a rule to prohibit every little thing that hurts someone else), and "it was art" (which not only is routinely used by trolls on its own, but is close to the even more common "I was doing it as an experiment").
To put it differently: imagine that instead of the Secret Service fighting him, it was doing the same thing as him: the Secret Service surreptitiously recorded thousands of images of people under circumstances where technically, they had no expectation of privacy so it was "okay". Would you be mad at the Secret Service? Yes, you would. Would he? Probably; trolls who dish it out often can't take it.
(And although Apple's security cameras take as many pictures of people, anyone with a lick of sense is aware that stores have security cameras and security cameras take pictures; they're inherently non-surreptitious.)
It's not just that the Gates Foundation partners with unsavory donors, it's that the Gates Foundations own donations come with strings attached that benefit those donors, or lobbies governments to benefit those donors.
You are contradicting yourself. Gaining market share because they "played hardball with OEMs" is not the same thing as gaining market share for "making software that people wanted".
But pointing out that the PPACA is meant to accomplish that same goal by also eliminating preventable emergencies through increased access to preventative care is, in fact, not irrelevant.
It's irrelevant because he can afford to pay for it himself. The whole argument is that while he claims that he can pay his own way, he really can't so we need Obamacare to keep him from being a burden on others. But he can pay his own way--he can buy catastrophic insurance only and buy his own preventative care directly. Paying for the preventative care directly must cost less than the preventative care portion of Obamacare (because that's how insurance works--insurance for routine expenses is never a good bargain).
So the effect is that Obamacare just screws him out of some money.
Slashdot Mirror
DRM protection of documents didn't last because the only thing Microsoft has to gain from DRM protection of documents is to have a new feature to sell to the customer. If the customer doesn't want it, Microsoft gains no benefit from forcing it.
UEFI secure boot is different because Microsoft has something to gain from it even if no customer wants it. It is a scam in the sense that the stated goal of "security" is fake, but as a way to stop Linux, it's very real.
And if it gets in the way in a big corporation, what's the corporation going to do? Tell Microsoft that they won't buy Windows any more until Microsoft changes it? That's not going to work.
Wikipedia has rules for biographies of living people, many of which are just the same rules used elsewhere, but which they really mean this time.
One of those is undue weight. Wikipedia is not allowed to put more prominence on an event in a person's life than it actually has. Even if the event is important in showing what he's really like, it's not what he's primarily known for and isn't the first topic that comes up when talking about him (at least not to more than a minority of people). He is known as a politician, not as a bully.
Homebrew, as the term is usually used (of course there's no authority who can define English words), typically means writing code for a console in a way that isn't controlled by the manufacturer of the console. This doesn't have to mean "breaking through console security" since old systems like the Atari 2600 or Sega Genesis didn't have any security.
Xbox Live and similar services are not homebrew. I suppose whether Android counts depends on whether you consider it a console.
And homebrew, in this sense, *is* just about over. Nobody's jailbroken a PS3, an Xbox 360, a 3DS, or a Vita in a way that an average person could reasonably use (even in a "take the system to a shop to install a modchip" sense), and there's every sign that the protection measures on those systems are actually effective.
At the point in the DS's lifespan where the 3DS is now, there were already plenty of flashcarts. At the point in the PS2's lifespan where the PS3 is now, there were modchips that worked without swapping. There is basically nothing for modern systems because of the encryption, never mind the firmware updates.
Gun rights advocates have run into the car analogy lots of times. It's even worse than the standard Slashdot tactic of using car analogies with computers. If guns were licensed like cars, almost everyone would be able to get a license; and you would be able to own and fire a gun on private property without a license. And there would be almost no limits on selling guns.
A generation ago, you didn't have half the population constantly carrying around motion picture cameras and recording devices in their cellphones.
Logically, having a printout of the law should be useless. If the officer doesn't know about the law already, he would be foolish to believe that a law is whatever some random person with a computer printout tells him it is--you can print anything on a computer printout.
How about an adult who posts about Pokemon and ends up considered a pedophile by an employer who isn't aware that some people above the age of 12 play Pokemon?
Repeat with conventional sources of discrimination, such as sexual orientation or religion.
Suicide bombing is almost always an inherently bad act. Even if the suicide bomber is trying to kill soldiers, the suicide bomber is deliberately hiding among civilians in order to kill the soldiers (if he didn't, suicide bombing wouldn't work). For combatants, either suicide or not, to disguise themselves as civilians is a war crime.
There's a better answer to that: those things have good effects (people can use them) and bad effects (money is taken from people so other people can use them) and you oppose them because you think the bad outweighs the good. You can't really "choose not to take them" because you can only choose not to take the good effects, but you can't choose not to take the bad effects. Refusing to take a college grant isn't going to get you a life without taxes that go to college grants.
Like the example goes, if the government confiscated $100 from everyone and used it to give everyone a $95 check, you would not be barred from taking the $95 check.
Not to mention that there are more negative effects than just directly being taxed. Perhaps by setting up X the government distorted the market and crowded out a private version of X that would have been more efficient. You certainly can't choose to take the private version; taking the less efficient government version is not hypocrisy, it's just cutting your losses.
You're trying to argue it both ways.
If they're an American company for the purpose of "this is an American company trying to impose rules on Australians" they should also be considered an American company for the purpose of "this is Australia trying to impose rules on an American company". It's hypocritical to decide that the company is or is not American depending on which country is being blamed.
I'd go with incompetence. "Sex" is a very obvious keyword to use to automatically ban ads for something based on a keyword search. Follow up with bureaucracy lying about the reason they banned the ads because they want to pretend they banned the ads for cause instead of because nobody read them. I wouldn't be surprised if they also have internal policies about sexual ads and that even though those ads are not actually sexual, nobody at Google will unban the ads because overbanning won't get you fired but underbanning will.
It's not hard to argue the other way around: Australia is trying to impose Australian moral standards on an American company.
It's going to be worse if the disease would have a good chance of being cured on Earth. There are going to be headlines about how we left the astronauts to die, no matter that they accepted the risk going in.
Yes, you have to decide for them that they're overreacting.
Are you seriously suggesting that they are the only ones who can decide if they themselves are overreacting? Newsflash: nobody thinks they are the ones who are overreacting. If overreacting could not be judged by another person, you'd never be able to say that anyone was overreacting at all.
You may joke about it, but that's actually the answer. Once they get past a certain minimal level of income, women are generally much less willing than men to sacrifice their personal lives and job satisfaction to make a lot of money. (Also, given unequal notions of marriage, women may very well expect their husband to support the family and take the shitty job.) Under those circumstances, women won't make as much money, and won't be in certain fields very much.
A variation of this extends outside work. I'm sure that if girls were as willing to become social outcasts as boys, a lot more of them would be geeks.
Nobody asked this question: what happens when one of your permanent Mars colonists gets cancer or some other disease that may have only a small chance of being cured on Earth but none on Mars, and there are months of headlines of how an astronaut is dying of cancer on Mars?
Even worse if the disease is one that does have a high cure rate on Earth. Imagine the headlines then.
This problem alone is likely to mean the project will never happen.
Correction: I meant the title.
Of course even Slashdot's summaries usually aren't that bad.
The summary phrases it as though the person making the statement is stating his own position. In fact, he's attributing this position to the opposition.
It's like having a summary which says "(name): Muslims should take over the world" without mentioning that the quote is from someone who doesn't like Muslims and is attributing that idea to them, and is not a quote from a Muslim at all.
While I can't say it's wrong to try to show someone assaulting you a letter from your doctor, it's a desperate move that may be the only choice available, but which you should expect probably won't work. Writing about it as if he expected it to work and that this criminal is especially bad for refusing to read it shows a lack of common sense. And a lack of common sense is likely to increase your chances of getting assaulted in the first place, if only because you don't avoid bad neighborhoods or take other common precautions.
Consider what the guy did: he basically decided to troll real life. It has several hallmarks of a troll, including "I followed the literal rules, so what I did was permitted" (without regard to the fact that certain permitted things are very rude or that we trust most people to use discretion rather than having to write up a rule to prohibit every little thing that hurts someone else), and "it was art" (which not only is routinely used by trolls on its own, but is close to the even more common "I was doing it as an experiment").
To put it differently: imagine that instead of the Secret Service fighting him, it was doing the same thing as him: the Secret Service surreptitiously recorded thousands of images of people under circumstances where technically, they had no expectation of privacy so it was "okay". Would you be mad at the Secret Service? Yes, you would. Would he? Probably; trolls who dish it out often can't take it.
(And although Apple's security cameras take as many pictures of people, anyone with a lick of sense is aware that stores have security cameras and security cameras take pictures; they're inherently non-surreptitious.)
I challenge you to find me a Jew who believes in the rapture.
Stop saying "Judeo-Christian" when you mean Christian.
Monsanto's seeds are basically DRM for seeds.
When you think of it that way it's more obvious why Bill might want to partner with them.
It's not just that the Gates Foundation partners with unsavory donors, it's that the Gates Foundations own donations come with strings attached that benefit those donors, or lobbies governments to benefit those donors.
You are contradicting yourself. Gaining market share because they "played hardball with OEMs" is not the same thing as gaining market share for "making software that people wanted".
It's irrelevant because he can afford to pay for it himself. The whole argument is that while he claims that he can pay his own way, he really can't so we need Obamacare to keep him from being a burden on others. But he can pay his own way--he can buy catastrophic insurance only and buy his own preventative care directly. Paying for the preventative care directly must cost less than the preventative care portion of Obamacare (because that's how insurance works--insurance for routine expenses is never a good bargain).
So the effect is that Obamacare just screws him out of some money.