Re:Hijacking banner ads is not illegal...
on
Gator Examined
·
· Score: 1
It comes down to intent. What do you think the intent is when they have a borderless window? If they wanted people to know it was a normal window they would make it appear as a normal window. It's deceptive. Deceptive and misleading advertising is wrong, morally and sometimes legally wrong.
As I said before hand, it has a handle on the side that shows it is an open window. If it was a normal window, it would also interfere with their browser by taking up real-estate over the actual content area.
And no like I said in my post if the users opts to see or not see something that between you and well yourself. Open as many IM windows as you want.
If a user installs Gator, they opt to see it. Simple as that.
Re:What the hell is Sun thinking...
on
Gator Examined
·
· Score: 1
Sun Microsystems is using this spyware windows program to target people going to IBM's website? Is this an allegorical example fabricated for the article, or is Sun actually doing this?
Because millions of people use Gator, and it isn't spyware? The only people who are against Gator don't read Gators website to see that they openly advertise everything they do, or have some irrational dislike towards pop-up ads and advertiser supported software.
I've disagreed with some of their technical decisions lately. I've certainly disagreed with some of their marketing decisions lately. But, for them to use one of the most abusive advertizing mechanisms on the Internet, is dissapointing if it's true.
How is Gator abusive? You have to install Gator or one of the software packages that tell you it's installing Gator because it's advertiser supported software. If you don't like something, don't do it.
Re:Hijacking banner ads is not illegal...
on
Gator Examined
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
It bloody well should be. I mean If I go out and deface a webpage thats hacking and I can go to jail. What did I do? I changed what the website owners wanted the viewer to see. If I write some 2bit program that along with it's crappy usefull functionality changes a websites banner adds I have just done the same thing. Only the way it stands right now I wont get in any trouble. I think it should be up to the end user that way the we don't run in to the problem of say how is a pop up blocker legal. It should be legal because the end user can choose to activate it. The end user can't chose to in the case of Gator or a defaced website. $0.02
I guess you better go ahead and sue Microsoft and everybody else because you can put a window on top of another window.
That's all Gator does, Mr. Misinformed. It opens a borderless window with a little handle (And you can move the window, and close it) on top of a websites banner advert. There is nothing more to it than that. I guess if I open an IM window over a website I should be sued as well by the website owner.
The end user can choose in the case of Gator by not installing it. No one is forcing you to use Gator or the software that Gator is supporting. It's your damned computer, take pride in your computer and accountability in the software that you install.
To comapre Google to spammers and spyware manufacturers is like, well, I can't think of anything right now. But the comparison is ridiculous.
How is Gator spyware? Here's a newsflash for all the bandwagon jumping Slashdotters: It isn't. Spyware would imply that they don't advertise all over their site specifically what they do. Their targetting stuff is kept private, but all the information harvesting and anything that relates to the client side is published.
Re:How does Gator operate?
on
Gator Examined
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
Gator operates by preying on the stupid, uninformed, and lazy in order to push a business model for which there is no proof that it actually works one bit, in the face of a mountain of proof that it generates ill will towards any company that uses it and its clients.
This is just bullshit. Gator is cash positive, and a lot of people actually like Gator. They advertise every little thing they do on their website, and if you download and install their software and don't read it and then don't like what it does than you are an idiot. You also have no right to complain.
Gator doesn't come in sleep with your wife, drink your beer, and install itself on your computer. You have to do it.
My experience was that the user was forced to swallow gator along with software that they actually want, and was not told accurately or fully what gator would actually do. Just a nice little flowery version that makes it sound like a good thing.
Gator is bundled with software, because that software is free and advertiser supported. If you don't want to use advertiser supported software, don't. Don't complain that the way they get paid is for you to see adverts.
Gator also posts a link to their website in the installation (on the initial install screen) that details everything Gator does. Gator is under more scrutiny than any other advertising company, yet they persist. Why? Because they disclose everything they do because they have no reason to hide it.
Re:How can you be that trusting?
on
Gator Examined
·
· Score: 1
How can you trust your passwords to an app the likes of gator? It is clear to me that they have to ethical backbone.
Because Gator a) Advertises on it's main page everything that they do, b) discloses everything that they do, c) doesn't give a rats ass what your passwords are, or d) is something you don't know anything about, and are just on the bandwagon?
People actually use gator on purpose? Who is this a Gator developer? Really, if you want password management you should be using Mozilla. Anyone that supports a business model based on spyware should be drug out on the street and shot. Why would anyone be using IE these days unless they were forced to by their employer?
How is Gator spyware? I would really like to hear how you think it is.
As a disclaimer I know many people that work for Gator on the technical side.
I have. Quit hand your handwaving. I defy you to find a singe exception that permits mental circumvention of DRM content. You repetedly claim there is, but never produce the goods.
Ok, I'm done. You're just being an illiterate ass. I told you there were exceptions, I posted one. I told you there were others, and you refuse to go and actually read and understand a law you so vehemently oppose.
That explicitly says that *I* am the owner of a copy of content that I have bought. It also explicitly says that I have the right to sell that copy. When you sell a copy it becomes the buyer's property. You have heard of used bookstores, right? Used CD stores? They exist because people own the copies they bought and they have the right to sell them.
Here's something else: With a lot of content, you do not own the content you are granted a license. You don't own anything. Get that through your head. You own the media, but you don't own the content.
DRM restricts things that you cannot legally put into a licence. Just like a contract clause selling your child into slavery is void. You can write it, but you can't legally enforce it.
Contract law is contract law, if both parties agree to it willingly and are competent it is binding. If I say as a provision of me licensing my content to you, you must abide by a set of following rules, it is binding. It's not like they are saying if you post the content on the internet you have to cut your hand off. They are merely saying you can't give it away, and enforcing that you don't.
Like I said before, I'm done with you. You are just another Slashbot that thinks you understand an issue and just parrots along 'DRM is teh sux0rs!' So why don't you go hug your damned penguin and let the world go on with itself because DRM is a necessity. It's jackasses like you that think just because you buy a CD rom you "own" the content on that CD.
I have a hearty appreciation for the katana, and it truly is an impressive weapon - both the straight type, and the curved one which came into vogue after horses. (hard to slash with a straight blade.) There are actually people in other countries making folded katanas now and you can get a pretty decent example of the art (though not a masterwork by any means) made with modern steel for about five hundred bucks.
My problem with non-Japanese katanas is their weights are typically not in tune with a traditional Japanese katana. Weight makes a huge difference in form, but I agree that you can get a really great sword for about $500. I hate seeing those Excaliber katanas be touted as "good swords."
canada has always had an amazing real Peackeeping force, perhaps this is the beginning of a virtual peace keeping force.
The Mounties? I shudder at the thought of a burly man, sitting in his underwear in front of the computer, wearing a mounty hat. We must think of the cost of keeping the peace, and decide if it's worth that cost.
Former student and star of the class is brought in (obviously from somewhere and time at which they for some reason cannot face computers (possibilities: severe RSI, Epilepsy set off miraculously by 65-85Hz screens, Blindness...) to defeat the mad professor, before the final showdown with badly executed profundities.
Nah, the former star student would be in jail and would be released a la The Jackal to catch the mad professor. Then they would let him "disappear" only to find him later at a cybercafe dead due to bloodclots in his legs...
Japanese steel is shit. What's special about steel weapons from Japan is the folding process and the sharpening process which goes with folded steel. Folding ten times gives you 1024 layers (2^10) which is where you get people saying Japanese steel is folded a thousand times. Japanese steel is crappy because there's not much iron around (which is probably why iron is an element like fire or water) and so you HAVE to fold it because it is brittle.
Yes, but the steel for their swords is very impressive after it's a sword. Hence saying, "Japanese steel is good." I would take a Japanese sword any day over a different variety, because it's manufacturing process makes it better.
Trust me on that one, because I've repaired both american and japanese steel and japanese steel doesn't withstand many hammer blows before it thins and becomes way too brittle to work. The only steel I'm talking about is swords.. anything beyond that I have absolutely zero knowledge. Theoretically I could smith a good sword, realistically there is no way in hell it would turn out... it would more closely resemble something horrid and awful, entirely barbaric, but not in the intimidating sense.
If you want to be some sort of nut it would not take a whole lot skill wise to spec some metals and make the ultimate slashes through anything sword.
Uhm, you obviously have no knowledge about making swords. I have broken two swords, and they were high quality swords. If you go up against someone who knows how to handle it, a poorly made sword can be made to snap by a boken. I have a hardwood boken that I can use to break just about any sword you'll see being sold at the mall or any sword aside from a real swordsmith.
They're pretty much the only people left in the world who make battle-quality chain mail, scale mail, and plate mail in the medieval style.
Not to rain on the SCA parade, but the skills that these guys use isn't what we're talking about.
Metalsmithing, perhaps. Making "battle ready" chain mail is nothing more than time consuming, and I seriously doubt that any of them (I know of a few, one who makes most the mail in the area) actually know how to make the rings. They know how to put them together quickly.
Their swords are nothing in comparison to traditional Toledo steel (exclude The Factory, for those in the know.) or Japanese steel. It's really half-assed, industrialized-support endeavors. I've seen SCA steel, and it really isn't anything special.
The last thing that I want given the unlikely circumstance of needing to know how to do things like make soap, distil water, survive without modern devices, is SCA members running around.
I think the purpose of this ask Slashdot is not about people running around pretending their in a medieval bubble that is roughly supported by industrialization, but to just learn how worldly things work.
If you list that the only resumes that will be acknowledged will follow a specific format, that requires some sort of human intervention, would that be legal?
For example, emailing your resume will result in a bounce message saying that the company doesn't accept resumes via email. Then, have a webform that requires them to be uploaded and have one of those wavy-text checks.
I love programming as much as ever, but all my energy for it is now sapped on the corporate grind. Like you observed, were this not my day job, I'd probably also be making more of a contribution to the open source community. Frankly, I'm starting to look forward to a third career in another field so I can do this for fun again...
Doing programming (especially consulting, same thing I'm doing) is a drain. At the end of the day, a lot of times the last thing I want to do is spend more time coding... I still do it though... it's like an addiction. I'm going into the management route I think, so I can spend my days thinking about cool shit and having other people do it. At that point, going home and programming will be a highlight and bring more excitement into the after-hours life. I suppose I could actually attempt to be social, but that's the Mrs. department:)
(To deduce whether I like computers or want to "make a quick buck", observe the fact that this is Slashdot.)
They aren't exclusive, you know? When I first was interested in computers, it was something you went to grad school for. If you wanted to get a good job, you had a Masters or PhD. By the time I actually got into college, that was changing and you only need a bachelors degree to get some really great jobs.
Why did I choose programming as a profession? I like it, and it pays very well. If I could make money doing pharmacutical research, I'd probably be doing that and programming on the side. It doesn't mean I'm less of a geek, it means that I'm intelligently weighing the decisions to allow me to have a comfortable life. I'm not saying do a job you don't like, but money is a factor when choosing your career.
Computers + Money = Great Job! Research + Money = Pretty damn good job, that gives me money to buy computer equipment for hobby programming.
I'd probably be a lot more involved in open source development if I wasn't a programmer all the time.
Partly. He says that he CAN'T save Trinity even if he tries, but trying will destroy all life within the Matrix *and* Zion, which was going to be destroyed no matter which door he chose. If he chose the right door, he would be able to begin repopulating Zion, continuing the cycle of the anomally.
And the Oracle told Neo he wasn't the one. You are confusing infallability with being omniscient. The Architect is still omniscient, and leading back to my original point as the exile programs are poorly contrived plot devices setup purely to "guide" Neo without much thought to their consistency... why does the Architect allow them to survive? Why do the Agents allow them to survive?
Again, my argument is that the Architect is quite probably not omniscient. He has abundant information sources, to be sure, but great information does not omniscience make. We don't understand the limits of his powers, his motivations or the powers and motivations of other entities (exiles and Neo) within (and out of) the Matrix.
How can he not be omniscient? He is all-knowing. Everything that goes on in the Matrix, he knows. He shows people through the world, and what they are doing. That's pretty damned all-knowing. Even if he, in the program constraints, isn't all-knowing, he has the ability to know all through the monitors. Since he can control the monitors at will, he can technically "know" anything that is happening anywhere.
There's too much happening with too many parties of too many unknown abilities and motivations to be crying "plot hole" at this point.
Again, this is why I thought the movie could have been written better. The abrupt ending to the side-plots leaves one feeling like he got ripped off by a hooker. The main reason why I didn't like it is because it tried to reach climactic moments and never hit it. It always fell short, then tried to add special effects to bring it there. That just doesn't work.
That statement is false because there is no "purpose" limitation on the crime of circumvention - refference Sec. 1201 (a)(1)(A). "Purpose" only applies to the manufacture/distribution of the means to circumvent [Sec. 1201 (a)(2)].
Go through and read the exceptions, and rights not affected. It should clear some things up. This right here says that you can:
Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a)(1)(A), a person who has lawfully obtained the right to use a copy of a computer program may circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a particular portion of that program for the sole purpose of identifying and analyzing those elements of the program that are necessary to achieve interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, and that have not previously been readily available to the person engaging in the circumvention, to the extent any such acts of identification and analysis do not constitute infringement under this title.
It doesn't mean that you have to achieve interoperability, just that it is your goal. If you break the decryption to possibly do it (not that you can release it, because if you do release it without interoperability code you have DeCSS all over again. DeCSS bundled with a player would have been fine in regards the DeCSS)
I agree that it's idiotic, but as far as I can tell it is true. I can make other arguments, but that's the most striking one. Ridicule it all you like, but you still haven't found any flaw in it. If I'm obviously wrong the it should be easy to find a flaw, right?
You aren't thinking of it right. You are expecting to find a flaw in the law? You won't find it. You will find poor interpretation of the law, but ones that a judge would not make. I would really urge you to read the entire law, especially the permitted use section, it will clear a lot of things up for you I think.
Yeay! We found a point we agree on! LOL. Several parts of the DMCA seriously need to be tried in court.
Agreed, until we have precedent we are exactly unsure how a judge will uphold the DMCA.
It is irrelivant what DRM allows you to do. The question is whether DRM is enforcable. A GPS-electrocution device allows me to enforce that you can't tresspass on my property. Does that mean I can implant one in your skull? Does that mean you go to jail if you remove it?
Irrelevent analogy. I don't have ownership of your skull. I do have ownership of my content. You have no rights. I can enforce my rights, and you have to put up with it. If I don't want my property going onto your property, I can have a device that is hooked up to a GPS receiver and will destroy all of my property and it's perfectly fine if it acts according to the license. That is my right. Albeit, that was a really weird example...
I understand why you want DRM, but that has nothing to with with whether it is enforcable. A good use for something doesn't mean that that something is legally enforcable.
You are clouding the issue with legal/illegal. DRM is a civil liabilities protection mechanism. You are not going to go to jail for violating my license, you will however get sued into oblivion. DRM enforces licenses, it does not put people in jail.
Funny, I could have sworn that she was alive at the end of the movie.
The Architect says, "You can choose to save humanity or try to save Trinity." He then shows what is going on with Trinity (ie, Her getting smacked around by agents)
To be specific, the Architect said that entering the Matrix to save Neo would cost her her life... it doesn't. Sure, it could be said that she "died" briefly, but it didn't cost her her life. Neo was there to save her.
When did the Architect say that? By the time Neo saw the Architect, Trinity was already in the Matrix... what the hell are you talking about?
You can't be omniscient and wrong at the same time unless you're lying, which leads into my whole question of either the Architect's omniscience or his motivations.
You know, I'm starting to think that we just didn't watch the same movie. The Architect says that if he tries to save Trinity, Zion will be destroyed and no one will be able to rebuild it.
He's either not omniscient or his motivations or abilities to act on those motivations are other than you think... or it's a plot hole.
He states his motives: Destroy Zion, Rebuild Zion, Destroy Zion, Rebuild Zion...
He is also all-knowing. One would assume since Agents are Agents of the Matrix, they work for the Architect. The Architect would want to delete the unused programs. The Architect is omniscient (as proven already) so why can he not delete the rogue/exile programs?
That is just one of the plot holes. There are others, but at least you are acknowledging their is a conflict here. Too bad you have to accuse me of lying to see there could possibly be a conflict.
It is rather tedious arguing with you. Your post did not contain a single fact or argument. Simply yelling the equivalent of "you're ugly" over and over does not make you right. Tossing wild insults is not a meaningful argument.
My last one didn't, aside from you do not understand the DMCA. You were the one making the wild, and idiotic, assertion that DMCA makes thinking illegal. Why should I post anything with any degree of logic if you are that grossly misinformed and filled with that much sheep-mentality?
My arguments are very concise: DRM can be good, if it enforces licensing on content.
You can object to that all you want, but you have no right to my content outside of what my license tells you you have. Deal with it.
I'm guessing you mean the The "REVERSE ENGINEERING" clause in the DMCA? Have you actually read it? It merely says it is not a crime to descramble encrypted programs, it only applies to portions of those programs, and it only applies for the purpose of getting that program to work. The reverse engineering clause is essentially worthless.
Actually, you can descramble content as long as the sole purpose of your application is not just to violate the encryption scheme. If you write something that will play encrypted media, it's perfectly legal as long as it's purpose is not to just decrypt the media, but also present and use that. This is why the Sklyarov case was of importance, and it's a shame it got dismissed so easily because it would have been a great test as to what that claus actually meant in the law books.
I have better things to do with my time than waste it on someone unwilling or unable to engage in a rational debate. If you continue to argue by tossing insults rather than presenting facts, evidence, or real arguments I will call you on it and consider you to have forfeited.
Sorry chief, you are lying to yourself. I told you my stance: DRM allows content produces to control their content in ways their licenses allow. If you don't agree to the license, don't use their content. End of story. That's my argument, and I've stated it over and over again. You are the one that is stating stupid statements like "The DMCA makes thinking illegal"
If that's the best you can do, you really should just go hide up in the hills and play with squirrels or something.
Yeah, that's why in your new journal entry, you're trumpeting how many "fans" you have in a not-so-subtle way. Because you don't care. That's more than a bit self-delusional.
Saying, "What the fuck is wrong with you people" isn't trumping. It's asking, "What the fuck is wrong with you people?" I think it's funny. I sit here and write whatever the fuck comes into my head and people either get pissed about it (you) or laugh about it (the 200 folks)
Additionally, you still claim Architect omniscience, when that is never said or shown in the movie.
Uhm, when he says, "All the people will die" and it shows all the people in the Matrix. Or "Trinity will die" and it shows what Trinity is going through.. Yeah.. that sure isn't omniscient.
I've backed up my stances. You're the one ignoring the tough arguments so you can feel good about your opinions.
You haven't even made any "tough arguments". Hell, you haven't even made any 98-pound weakling arguments. You just say, "Well, you didn't understand the movie!" Then you spout of shit that the movie tells you is wrong. If the movie didn't have the Architect being omniscient, than you would be right. But the movie does! You are wrong!
I've always had that "right every wrong" mentality that leads me to sometimes get into useless hair-pulling contests like this one when I'm not careful. People like you who spout strong opinions based upon minimal knowledge (Buffy) or lack of comprehension (Reloaded) rub me the wrong way.
I find it funny you are still back on this lack of comprehension bit. You are the one who can't back up what you are saying. You missed a few major events in Reloaded, and are saying that I'm not able to comprehend it? Riiight.
Apparently you also have that "I'm too stupid to just admit that I'm wrong" mentality as well. I watched 3 episodes of Buffy. They were all dumb soap-opera meets Scooby Do. They all had horrible writing and dialog. This is called "Subjective." Tou can't convince me that the writing is good. It's my opinion that it was shit. If someone can't convince me in an hour that they know what they're doing, I don't normally give them a second chance. Buffy got more than an hour and still fell short.
You started out actually being able to comment respectably, and now you are just in this mode where you are spouting off just plain wrong (Matrix) shit and invalidating my opinions because I obviously haven't dedicated enough of my life to a show I find to be retarded. Keep it up, your life must be very fullfilling.
Wrong. You are confused... again. Swing and a miss.
Sorry, different conversation. Senility is creeping in on me, my apologies for confusing you with someone else.
In terms of this discussion, it's an obvious plot inconsistency. If you didn't care whether or not people read your journal, you'd put everything in a text file or in some type of personal email directory.
While I do not care if people read my journal or not, people do. Denial of that fact would make me dumb, so I do not put things that I would not tell a stranger. That really is a stretch, but keep going, maybe someday you will actually hit something that's close to correct.
You want people to read your writings, so you put them up in a public forum. Further, if you didn't care what people thought, you wouldn't bother responding to them. You'd let some asshole like me criticize you, and you'd just ignore it and move on.
As I said before, I like writing. If someone reads my writing, then fine. If someone responds ot my writing, great. I'll respond, too. I like to write. I'm a quiet individual unless I have something to say, but I'll write anything I feel like writing. You're falling into a fallacy here by thinking that I am oblivious to the people who do read what I write, and mistaking that for caring what they think of me.
I think you're a condescending ass who forms unfounded negative opinions about things without the mental capacity to understand them.
I'm the condescending ass... I've already proven you were wrong about the Matrix. The Architect is at least omniscient. That is a fact, you are wrong. Your lack of ability to comprehend your own flawed understanding doesn't speak well of you, especially since you are attempting to insult me along the same basis. Outside of interprative opinions, the facts are on my side. You are the one who missed points of the movie.
Your ability to find plot holes is really so far mostly in your own mind, but I'd dislike for someone to unknowningly ignore Reloaded or Buffy because of the poorly formed opinions of one like yourself -- so I respond to them.
You may think they're poorly formed opinions, but I'm pretty sure you slept through Reloaded. I'm professing it as my opinion, as well. I'm not saying, "It is a fact that Reloaded sucked!" You are having some serious issues with my opinions, which is fine.
You've already foed me. You've called me a condescending ass. You can't back-up your stances on Reloaded. You haven't even defended the soap-opera that is Buffy. What are you attempting to do here? When you figure out the answer to that question, get back to me.
Please, Adam West must be rolling in the creepy coffin-bed he sleeps in to be compared to Ben fucking Afleck. It is possible to do a good-but-corny movie, but you need way more talent than ever got near that turd. Just like good real ham, good movie ham is only available from peculiar old men living in the deepest woods of New England, who rarely venture forth from their hermit shacks, and hardly ever help produce your adaptations of second-string Marvel characters.
Seriously man, think of it this way: Ben Affleck only does Daredevil for the next 20 years of his life. You know by the end of it he would rival Adam West.
I really wish that they picked someone other than Ben Affleck... the only movie I've ever liked him in was Sum of All Fears, and I think that was just because it was a pretty cool movie. At least it wasn't Tom Cruise.
Bullseye was great. Kingpin was freaking awesome. Just Daredevil had some overly dramatic moments. I felt like a 13 year old kid all over again when Kingpin decides to fight Daredevil.
Slashdot Mirror
It comes down to intent. What do you think the intent is when they have a borderless window? If they wanted people to know it was a normal window they would make it appear as a normal window. It's deceptive. Deceptive and misleading advertising is wrong, morally and sometimes legally wrong.
As I said before hand, it has a handle on the side that shows it is an open window. If it was a normal window, it would also interfere with their browser by taking up real-estate over the actual content area.
And no like I said in my post if the users opts to see or not see something that between you and well yourself. Open as many IM windows as you want.
If a user installs Gator, they opt to see it. Simple as that.
Sun Microsystems is using this spyware windows program to target people going to IBM's website? Is this an allegorical example fabricated for the article, or is Sun actually doing this?
Because millions of people use Gator, and it isn't spyware? The only people who are against Gator don't read Gators website to see that they openly advertise everything they do, or have some irrational dislike towards pop-up ads and advertiser supported software.
I've disagreed with some of their technical decisions lately. I've certainly disagreed with some of their marketing decisions lately. But, for them to use one of the most abusive advertizing mechanisms on the Internet, is dissapointing if it's true.
How is Gator abusive? You have to install Gator or one of the software packages that tell you it's installing Gator because it's advertiser supported software. If you don't like something, don't do it.
It bloody well should be. I mean If I go out and deface a webpage thats hacking and I can go to jail. What did I do? I changed what the website owners wanted the viewer to see. If I write some 2bit program that along with it's crappy usefull functionality changes a websites banner adds I have just done the same thing. Only the way it stands right now I wont get in any trouble. I think it should be up to the end user that way the we don't run in to the problem of say how is a pop up blocker legal. It should be legal because the end user can choose to activate it. The end user can't chose to in the case of Gator or a defaced website. $0.02
I guess you better go ahead and sue Microsoft and everybody else because you can put a window on top of another window.
That's all Gator does, Mr. Misinformed. It opens a borderless window with a little handle (And you can move the window, and close it) on top of a websites banner advert. There is nothing more to it than that. I guess if I open an IM window over a website I should be sued as well by the website owner.
The end user can choose in the case of Gator by not installing it. No one is forcing you to use Gator or the software that Gator is supporting. It's your damned computer, take pride in your computer and accountability in the software that you install.
To comapre Google to spammers and spyware manufacturers is like, well, I can't think of anything right now. But the comparison is ridiculous.
How is Gator spyware? Here's a newsflash for all the bandwagon jumping Slashdotters: It isn't. Spyware would imply that they don't advertise all over their site specifically what they do. Their targetting stuff is kept private, but all the information harvesting and anything that relates to the client side is published.
Gator operates by preying on the stupid, uninformed, and lazy in order to push a business model for which there is no proof that it actually works one bit, in the face of a mountain of proof that it generates ill will towards any company that uses it and its clients.
This is just bullshit. Gator is cash positive, and a lot of people actually like Gator. They advertise every little thing they do on their website, and if you download and install their software and don't read it and then don't like what it does than you are an idiot. You also have no right to complain.
Gator doesn't come in sleep with your wife, drink your beer, and install itself on your computer. You have to do it.
My experience was that the user was forced to swallow gator along with software that they actually want, and was not told accurately or fully what gator would actually do. Just a nice little flowery version that makes it sound like a good thing.
Gator is bundled with software, because that software is free and advertiser supported. If you don't want to use advertiser supported software, don't. Don't complain that the way they get paid is for you to see adverts.
Gator also posts a link to their website in the installation (on the initial install screen) that details everything Gator does. Gator is under more scrutiny than any other advertising company, yet they persist. Why? Because they disclose everything they do because they have no reason to hide it.
How can you trust your passwords to an app the likes of gator? It is clear to me that they have to ethical backbone.
Because Gator a) Advertises on it's main page everything that they do, b) discloses everything that they do, c) doesn't give a rats ass what your passwords are, or d) is something you don't know anything about, and are just on the bandwagon?
Take your pick.
People actually use gator on purpose? Who is this a Gator developer? Really, if you want password management you should be using Mozilla. Anyone that supports a business model based on spyware should be drug out on the street and shot. Why would anyone be using IE these days unless they were forced to by their employer?
How is Gator spyware? I would really like to hear how you think it is.
As a disclaimer I know many people that work for Gator on the technical side.
I have. Quit hand your handwaving. I defy you to find a singe exception that permits mental circumvention of DRM content. You repetedly claim there is, but never produce the goods.
Ok, I'm done. You're just being an illiterate ass. I told you there were exceptions, I posted one. I told you there were others, and you refuse to go and actually read and understand a law you so vehemently oppose.
That explicitly says that *I* am the owner of a copy of content that I have bought. It also explicitly says that I have the right to sell that copy. When you sell a copy it becomes the buyer's property. You have heard of used bookstores, right? Used CD stores? They exist because people own the copies they bought and they have the right to sell them.
Here's something else: With a lot of content, you do not own the content you are granted a license. You don't own anything. Get that through your head. You own the media, but you don't own the content.
DRM restricts things that you cannot legally put into a licence. Just like a contract clause selling your child into slavery is void. You can write it, but you can't legally enforce it.
Contract law is contract law, if both parties agree to it willingly and are competent it is binding. If I say as a provision of me licensing my content to you, you must abide by a set of following rules, it is binding. It's not like they are saying if you post the content on the internet you have to cut your hand off. They are merely saying you can't give it away, and enforcing that you don't.
Like I said before, I'm done with you. You are just another Slashbot that thinks you understand an issue and just parrots along 'DRM is teh sux0rs!' So why don't you go hug your damned penguin and let the world go on with itself because DRM is a necessity. It's jackasses like you that think just because you buy a CD rom you "own" the content on that CD.
I have a hearty appreciation for the katana, and it truly is an impressive weapon - both the straight type, and the curved one which came into vogue after horses. (hard to slash with a straight blade.) There are actually people in other countries making folded katanas now and you can get a pretty decent example of the art (though not a masterwork by any means) made with modern steel for about five hundred bucks.
My problem with non-Japanese katanas is their weights are typically not in tune with a traditional Japanese katana. Weight makes a huge difference in form, but I agree that you can get a really great sword for about $500. I hate seeing those Excaliber katanas be touted as "good swords."
canada has always had an amazing real Peackeeping force, perhaps this is the beginning of a virtual peace keeping force.
The Mounties? I shudder at the thought of a burly man, sitting in his underwear in front of the computer, wearing a mounty hat. We must think of the cost of keeping the peace, and decide if it's worth that cost.
Former student and star of the class is brought in (obviously from somewhere and time at which they for some reason cannot face computers (possibilities: severe RSI, Epilepsy set off miraculously by 65-85Hz screens, Blindness...) to defeat the mad professor, before the final showdown with badly executed profundities.
Nah, the former star student would be in jail and would be released a la The Jackal to catch the mad professor. Then they would let him "disappear" only to find him later at a cybercafe dead due to bloodclots in his legs...
Japanese steel is shit. What's special about steel weapons from Japan is the folding process and the sharpening process which goes with folded steel. Folding ten times gives you 1024 layers (2^10) which is where you get people saying Japanese steel is folded a thousand times. Japanese steel is crappy because there's not much iron around (which is probably why iron is an element like fire or water) and so you HAVE to fold it because it is brittle.
Yes, but the steel for their swords is very impressive after it's a sword. Hence saying, "Japanese steel is good." I would take a Japanese sword any day over a different variety, because it's manufacturing process makes it better.
Trust me on that one, because I've repaired both american and japanese steel and japanese steel doesn't withstand many hammer blows before it thins and becomes way too brittle to work.
The only steel I'm talking about is swords.. anything beyond that I have absolutely zero knowledge. Theoretically I could smith a good sword, realistically there is no way in hell it would turn out... it would more closely resemble something horrid and awful, entirely barbaric, but not in the intimidating sense.
If you want to be some sort of nut it would not take a whole lot skill wise to spec some metals and make the ultimate slashes through anything sword.
Uhm, you obviously have no knowledge about making swords. I have broken two swords, and they were high quality swords. If you go up against someone who knows how to handle it, a poorly made sword can be made to snap by a boken. I have a hardwood boken that I can use to break just about any sword you'll see being sold at the mall or any sword aside from a real swordsmith.
They're pretty much the only people left in the world who make battle-quality chain mail, scale mail, and plate mail in the medieval style.
Not to rain on the SCA parade, but the skills that these guys use isn't what we're talking about.
Metalsmithing, perhaps. Making "battle ready" chain mail is nothing more than time consuming, and I seriously doubt that any of them (I know of a few, one who makes most the mail in the area) actually know how to make the rings. They know how to put them together quickly.
Their swords are nothing in comparison to traditional Toledo steel (exclude The Factory, for those in the know.) or Japanese steel. It's really half-assed, industrialized-support endeavors. I've seen SCA steel, and it really isn't anything special.
The last thing that I want given the unlikely circumstance of needing to know how to do things like make soap, distil water, survive without modern devices, is SCA members running around.
I think the purpose of this ask Slashdot is not about people running around pretending their in a medieval bubble that is roughly supported by industrialization, but to just learn how worldly things work.
If you list that the only resumes that will be acknowledged will follow a specific format, that requires some sort of human intervention, would that be legal?
For example, emailing your resume will result in a bounce message saying that the company doesn't accept resumes via email. Then, have a webform that requires them to be uploaded and have one of those wavy-text checks.
Any thoughts on the legality of that?
I love programming as much as ever, but all my energy for it is now sapped on the corporate grind. Like you observed, were this not my day job, I'd probably also be making more of a contribution to the open source community. Frankly, I'm starting to look forward to a third career in another field so I can do this for fun again...
:)
Doing programming (especially consulting, same thing I'm doing) is a drain. At the end of the day, a lot of times the last thing I want to do is spend more time coding... I still do it though... it's like an addiction. I'm going into the management route I think, so I can spend my days thinking about cool shit and having other people do it. At that point, going home and programming will be a highlight and bring more excitement into the after-hours life. I suppose I could actually attempt to be social, but that's the Mrs. department
(To deduce whether I like computers or want to "make a quick buck", observe the fact that this is Slashdot.)
They aren't exclusive, you know? When I first was interested in computers, it was something you went to grad school for. If you wanted to get a good job, you had a Masters or PhD. By the time I actually got into college, that was changing and you only need a bachelors degree to get some really great jobs.
Why did I choose programming as a profession? I like it, and it pays very well. If I could make money doing pharmacutical research, I'd probably be doing that and programming on the side. It doesn't mean I'm less of a geek, it means that I'm intelligently weighing the decisions to allow me to have a comfortable life. I'm not saying do a job you don't like, but money is a factor when choosing your career.
Computers + Money = Great Job!
Research + Money = Pretty damn good job, that gives me money to buy computer equipment for hobby programming.
I'd probably be a lot more involved in open source development if I wasn't a programmer all the time.
Partly. He says that he CAN'T save Trinity even if he tries, but trying will destroy all life within the Matrix *and* Zion, which was going to be destroyed no matter which door he chose. If he chose the right door, he would be able to begin repopulating Zion, continuing the cycle of the anomally.
And the Oracle told Neo he wasn't the one. You are confusing infallability with being omniscient. The Architect is still omniscient, and leading back to my original point as the exile programs are poorly contrived plot devices setup purely to "guide" Neo without much thought to their consistency... why does the Architect allow them to survive? Why do the Agents allow them to survive?
Again, my argument is that the Architect is quite probably not omniscient. He has abundant information sources, to be sure, but great information does not omniscience make. We don't understand the limits of his powers, his motivations or the powers and motivations of other entities (exiles and Neo) within (and out of) the Matrix.
How can he not be omniscient? He is all-knowing. Everything that goes on in the Matrix, he knows. He shows people through the world, and what they are doing. That's pretty damned all-knowing. Even if he, in the program constraints, isn't all-knowing, he has the ability to know all through the monitors. Since he can control the monitors at will, he can technically "know" anything that is happening anywhere.
There's too much happening with too many parties of too many unknown abilities and motivations to be crying "plot hole" at this point.
Again, this is why I thought the movie could have been written better. The abrupt ending to the side-plots leaves one feeling like he got ripped off by a hooker. The main reason why I didn't like it is because it tried to reach climactic moments and never hit it. It always fell short, then tried to add special effects to bring it there. That just doesn't work.
Go through and read the exceptions, and rights not affected. It should clear some things up. This right here says that you can:
It doesn't mean that you have to achieve interoperability, just that it is your goal. If you break the decryption to possibly do it (not that you can release it, because if you do release it without interoperability code you have DeCSS all over again. DeCSS bundled with a player would have been fine in regards the DeCSS)
I agree that it's idiotic, but as far as I can tell it is true. I can make other arguments, but that's the most striking one. Ridicule it all you like, but you still haven't found any flaw in it. If I'm obviously wrong the it should be easy to find a flaw, right?
You aren't thinking of it right. You are expecting to find a flaw in the law? You won't find it. You will find poor interpretation of the law, but ones that a judge would not make. I would really urge you to read the entire law, especially the permitted use section, it will clear a lot of things up for you I think.
Yeay! We found a point we agree on! LOL. Several parts of the DMCA seriously need to be tried in court.
Agreed, until we have precedent we are exactly unsure how a judge will uphold the DMCA.
It is irrelivant what DRM allows you to do. The question is whether DRM is enforcable. A GPS-electrocution device allows me to enforce that you can't tresspass on my property. Does that mean I can implant one in your skull? Does that mean you go to jail if you remove it?
Irrelevent analogy. I don't have ownership of your skull. I do have ownership of my content. You have no rights. I can enforce my rights, and you have to put up with it. If I don't want my property going onto your property, I can have a device that is hooked up to a GPS receiver and will destroy all of my property and it's perfectly fine if it acts according to the license. That is my right. Albeit, that was a really weird example...
I understand why you want DRM, but that has nothing to with with whether it is enforcable. A good use for something doesn't mean that that something is legally enforcable.
You are clouding the issue with legal/illegal. DRM is a civil liabilities protection mechanism. You are not going to go to jail for violating my license, you will however get sued into oblivion. DRM enforces licenses, it does not put people in jail.
Funny, I could have sworn that she was alive at the end of the movie.
The Architect says, "You can choose to save humanity or try to save Trinity." He then shows what is going on with Trinity (ie, Her getting smacked around by agents)
To be specific, the Architect said that entering the Matrix to save Neo would cost her her life... it doesn't. Sure, it could be said that she "died" briefly, but it didn't cost her her life. Neo was there to save her.
When did the Architect say that? By the time Neo saw the Architect, Trinity was already in the Matrix... what the hell are you talking about?
You can't be omniscient and wrong at the same time unless you're lying, which leads into my whole question of either the Architect's omniscience or his motivations.
You know, I'm starting to think that we just didn't watch the same movie. The Architect says that if he tries to save Trinity, Zion will be destroyed and no one will be able to rebuild it.
He's either not omniscient or his motivations or abilities to act on those motivations are other than you think... or it's a plot hole.
He states his motives: Destroy Zion, Rebuild Zion, Destroy Zion, Rebuild Zion...
He is also all-knowing. One would assume since Agents are Agents of the Matrix, they work for the Architect. The Architect would want to delete the unused programs. The Architect is omniscient (as proven already) so why can he not delete the rogue/exile programs?
That is just one of the plot holes. There are others, but at least you are acknowledging their is a conflict here. Too bad you have to accuse me of lying to see there could possibly be a conflict.
It is rather tedious arguing with you. Your post did not contain a single fact or argument. Simply yelling the equivalent of "you're ugly" over and over does not make you right. Tossing wild insults is not a meaningful argument.
My last one didn't, aside from you do not understand the DMCA. You were the one making the wild, and idiotic, assertion that DMCA makes thinking illegal. Why should I post anything with any degree of logic if you are that grossly misinformed and filled with that much sheep-mentality?
My arguments are very concise: DRM can be good, if it enforces licensing on content.
You can object to that all you want, but you have no right to my content outside of what my license tells you you have. Deal with it.
I'm guessing you mean the The "REVERSE ENGINEERING" clause in the DMCA? Have you actually read it? It merely says it is not a crime to descramble encrypted programs, it only applies to portions of those programs, and it only applies for the purpose of getting that program to work. The reverse engineering clause is essentially worthless.
Actually, you can descramble content as long as the sole purpose of your application is not just to violate the encryption scheme. If you write something that will play encrypted media, it's perfectly legal as long as it's purpose is not to just decrypt the media, but also present and use that. This is why the Sklyarov case was of importance, and it's a shame it got dismissed so easily because it would have been a great test as to what that claus actually meant in the law books.
I have better things to do with my time than waste it on someone unwilling or unable to engage in a rational debate. If you continue to argue by tossing insults rather than presenting facts, evidence, or real arguments I will call you on it and consider you to have forfeited.
Sorry chief, you are lying to yourself. I told you my stance: DRM allows content produces to control their content in ways their licenses allow. If you don't agree to the license, don't use their content. End of story. That's my argument, and I've stated it over and over again. You are the one that is stating stupid statements like "The DMCA makes thinking illegal"
If that's the best you can do, you really should just go hide up in the hills and play with squirrels or something.
Yeah, that's why in your new journal entry, you're trumpeting how many "fans" you have in a not-so-subtle way. Because you don't care. That's more than a bit self-delusional.
Saying, "What the fuck is wrong with you people" isn't trumping. It's asking, "What the fuck is wrong with you people?" I think it's funny. I sit here and write whatever the fuck comes into my head and people either get pissed about it (you) or laugh about it (the 200 folks)
Additionally, you still claim Architect omniscience, when that is never said or shown in the movie.
Uhm, when he says, "All the people will die" and it shows all the people in the Matrix. Or "Trinity will die" and it shows what Trinity is going through.. Yeah.. that sure isn't omniscient.
I've backed up my stances. You're the one ignoring the tough arguments so you can feel good about your opinions.
You haven't even made any "tough arguments". Hell, you haven't even made any 98-pound weakling arguments. You just say, "Well, you didn't understand the movie!" Then you spout of shit that the movie tells you is wrong. If the movie didn't have the Architect being omniscient, than you would be right. But the movie does! You are wrong!
I've always had that "right every wrong" mentality that leads me to sometimes get into useless hair-pulling contests like this one when I'm not careful. People like you who spout strong opinions based upon minimal knowledge (Buffy) or lack of comprehension (Reloaded) rub me the wrong way.
I find it funny you are still back on this lack of comprehension bit. You are the one who can't back up what you are saying. You missed a few major events in Reloaded, and are saying that I'm not able to comprehend it? Riiight.
Apparently you also have that "I'm too stupid to just admit that I'm wrong" mentality as well. I watched 3 episodes of Buffy. They were all dumb soap-opera meets Scooby Do. They all had horrible writing and dialog. This is called "Subjective." Tou can't convince me that the writing is good. It's my opinion that it was shit. If someone can't convince me in an hour that they know what they're doing, I don't normally give them a second chance. Buffy got more than an hour and still fell short.
You started out actually being able to comment respectably, and now you are just in this mode where you are spouting off just plain wrong (Matrix) shit and invalidating my opinions because I obviously haven't dedicated enough of my life to a show I find to be retarded. Keep it up, your life must be very fullfilling.
Wrong. You are confused... again. Swing and a miss.
Sorry, different conversation. Senility is creeping in on me, my apologies for confusing you with someone else.
In terms of this discussion, it's an obvious plot inconsistency. If you didn't care whether or not people read your journal, you'd put everything in a text file or in some type of personal email directory.
While I do not care if people read my journal or not, people do. Denial of that fact would make me dumb, so I do not put things that I would not tell a stranger. That really is a stretch, but keep going, maybe someday you will actually hit something that's close to correct.
You want people to read your writings, so you put them up in a public forum. Further, if you didn't care what people thought, you wouldn't bother responding to them. You'd let some asshole like me criticize you, and you'd just ignore it and move on.
As I said before, I like writing. If someone reads my writing, then fine. If someone responds ot my writing, great. I'll respond, too. I like to write. I'm a quiet individual unless I have something to say, but I'll write anything I feel like writing. You're falling into a fallacy here by thinking that I am oblivious to the people who do read what I write, and mistaking that for caring what they think of me.
I think you're a condescending ass who forms unfounded negative opinions about things without the mental capacity to understand them.
I'm the condescending ass... I've already proven you were wrong about the Matrix. The Architect is at least omniscient. That is a fact, you are wrong. Your lack of ability to comprehend your own flawed understanding doesn't speak well of you, especially since you are attempting to insult me along the same basis. Outside of interprative opinions, the facts are on my side. You are the one who missed points of the movie.
Your ability to find plot holes is really so far mostly in your own mind, but I'd dislike for someone to unknowningly ignore Reloaded or Buffy because of the poorly formed opinions of one like yourself -- so I respond to them.
You may think they're poorly formed opinions, but I'm pretty sure you slept through Reloaded. I'm professing it as my opinion, as well. I'm not saying, "It is a fact that Reloaded sucked!" You are having some serious issues with my opinions, which is fine.
You've already foed me. You've called me a condescending ass. You can't back-up your stances on Reloaded. You haven't even defended the soap-opera that is Buffy. What are you attempting to do here? When you figure out the answer to that question, get back to me.
Please, Adam West must be rolling in the creepy coffin-bed he sleeps in to be compared to Ben fucking Afleck. It is possible to do a good-but-corny movie, but you need way more talent than ever got near that turd. Just like good real ham, good movie ham is only available from peculiar old men living in the deepest woods of New England, who rarely venture forth from their hermit shacks, and hardly ever help produce your adaptations of second-string Marvel characters.
Seriously man, think of it this way: Ben Affleck only does Daredevil for the next 20 years of his life. You know by the end of it he would rival Adam West.
I really wish that they picked someone other than Ben Affleck... the only movie I've ever liked him in was Sum of All Fears, and I think that was just because it was a pretty cool movie. At least it wasn't Tom Cruise.
Bullseye was great. Kingpin was freaking awesome. Just Daredevil had some overly dramatic moments. I felt like a 13 year old kid all over again when Kingpin decides to fight Daredevil.