You're infringing on my IP, dammit. I'm gonna sue your ass. Check it
And on your forums, no less! I think that constitutes a warning of infringement. Now that you've willfully disregarded that, I've got no choice but to sue you for millions. I think you copied my design, to, which was a trade secret.
This is, in fact, new. This has never been done: "Bessie's gaur, named Noah and due to be born next month, was cloned from a single skin cell taken from a dead gaur".
It may seem like an obvious extension of cloning and surrogates, but it's not nearly that simple. They've been trying to get this sort of thing quite some time. One issue with dead animals is how well their DNA has been preserved-- that's a big issue with cloning the wooly mammoth.
The coolest new possibility the article mentioned at the end was this: Even if that cloning effort is successful, it will be impossible to re-create a breeding population of bucardos, because cells have been preserved from just one sex. That means a mate will have to be created.... The ACT team hopes to gain permission from Spanish authorities to use recently developed molecular techniques to give some of the preserved bucardo cells a male chromosome taken from a related goat.
All vulnerabilities reported to the CERT/CC will be disclosed to the public 45 days after the initial report, regardless of the existence or availability of patches or workarounds from affected vendors. Extenuating circumstances, such as active exploitation, threats of an especially serious (or trivial) nature, or situations that require changes to an established standard may result in earlier or later disclosure.
For example, while MS didn't improve LanMan until l0pht released l0phtcrack, neither was anybody cracking it!... CERT has it right. Disclose the vulnerability to the vendor. Give them A LOT of time to fix it, and a lot of goodwill.
It's funny that you mention Microsoft during your argument about giving vendors time to fix things. Microsoft won't even fix widely known vulnerabilities, much less things that are pointed out to them and kept private. You're talking about the company that maintained for DAYS after ILOVEYOU destroyed data everywhere that there was absolutely no problem with the way Outlook worked. They had been notified of this problem MONTHS before ILOVEYOU hit, and chose to do nothing. And then after it hit, they still chose to do nothing for a few days.
Keep in mind that your enemies are the skript kiddiez, NOT the corporations or end users.
Hmm, none of my friends have been sued by script kiddiez, or been threatened by their lawyers. I'm not saying I'm in love with script kiddiez, but the corporations are capable of doing a lot more damage.
Personally attacking the writer and then telling him to "grow up" is absurd. Commenting on one small part of his argument and then telling him his "whole argument is absurd" is absurd. The idea that commercial lecture notes are so students can skip class is absurd. Saying that lecture notes are sold as the lectures themselves is absurd. But most of all, professors (who draw much of their information from books and such, and then lecture on it without getting permission from the authors, and who supposedly entered the profession to encourage the pursuit of knowledge) complaining about people distributing information gleaned from their lectures is absurd.
Each installment of the series sells millions of copies in Japan and the U.S.. Those people who spend $50 on a game are going to spend the $10 on a movie (yay, SoCal movie prices), and they're going to take their friends. It's gotta be a much bigger audience than for Highlander, which spawned 4 movies.
The rest of the audience, of course, will be the same millions of people who see animated movies all the time. They don't have to link the promotion to the game at all-- and if they're smart, they probably won't. Pitch it as a good movie, and people will see it.
Re:Query for "Bloom County" fans! ... (NOT O-T)
on
One Click Patent News
·
· Score: 1
Ah, yes, we've been discussing "no-click" shopping here for some time. We haven't implemented it yet, but one idea is to simply have items jump in the user's shopping cart and bill his card. Canceling, of course, would require many more clicks.
Oh, boy. Before you make a post like this, you really need to look at the context./. deep-linked. If you go to the front page, though, it says this: Help us celebrate as we unveil networking's 10 most influential people.
So, uh, Nelson Mandela really would have been a bad choice.
Paraphrase: "I won't argue this point anymore. Below, please read my argument."
If you were arguing, then I would be forced to argue that:
a) that's not a catch 22
b) you have no idea whether or not the person you were replying to would have heard of the Offspring; I certainly knew of them before they were signed
c) your in depth analysis of contract law falls far short of relevance, as we don't even know what the contract says
But since I'm not going to argue the point either, I won't have to point that out.
Yes, there ARE better ways to handle the situation. Especially all the porn crap-- just put the computers in an open area in plain sight, like near the entrance to the library, near where they check out books. Then not only can the librarians see what you're doing, but so can anyone entering the library. Put the computers all right next to each other, too.
Maybe that doesn't solve 100% of the problems, but I bet it solves more than censorware does.
On a side note, the "IE only" thing is really funny. I was at the Metreon in San Francisco, and went into the Microsoft store to check my e-mail. It was IE-only with high security settings. Guess whose web e-mail client doesn't work under that? That's right, Microsoft Outlook. I couldn't check my Microsoft Outlook e-mail using Microsoft Internet Explorer on Microsoft Windows in the Microsoft Store. That rocked.
Has anyone ever seen a bigger mod war? Stupid thing has 22 mods on it already.:) Time to bust out the metamod this afternoon. I think people on both sides are gonna get some Karma hammering.
LOL. I don't think the moderator realized this was satire.
To the uninitiated: VoodooExtreme is a news collection site. While it produces some of its own content, much of it is just links all over the web. You know, like slashdot. They excuse it by giving credit to all the contributors.
It's a thin line, though, between performing a service by seeking out cool stories, and just ripping off other sites' news. This point was best made by OldManMurray, who just linked to all of VoodooExtreme. It used to be at this link to "marvin sedate", but that gave me some odd redirect to here, so they probably stopped doing it back in February, which is what the latter links to. Still funny.
Oh, shit! I hadn't thought of that! Oh, wait, yes I had-- it's posted up in just about every damned/. discussion that has anything at all to do with speech. Freedom of speech? "Oh, you'll hate freedom of speech when they start posting your credit card number!" (To see that sentiment, read the discussions on DeCSS especially.)
First of all, you're assuming "free" as in free vs. slavery. But what about "free" as in doesn't cost anything? What would happen if someone got a hold of my credit card number and wanted to distribute it to some friends? They could do so freely-- it wouldn't cost them anything to replicate that data as many times as they wanted. And because of that, it might be replicated many times. Once that information has been released into the wild, so to speak, it'd be silly for me not to change my credit card number.
So, in a sense, my credit card number is screaming that, in my wallet. And I'm keeping it kept in there against its will, because if it gets onto the net, there's no stopping it.
If you do useful work, your employer (unless he's stupid) will continue to keep you on.
This is simply untrue, even with your qualifier. Maybe there's some magical fairyland somewhere where better, more qualified workers always get the better salaries, regardless of race, age, or sex. That is obviously not the case. I'm getting the impression you don't have a terribly long history in the workforce, and here are a few more reasons why:
And why shouldn't you accept the wage I'm willing to take to keep yours?... Salary? Skills? Those things are both in your control.
No, salary is NOT always in your control. There are plenty of companies with hard salary scales, requiring that they pay older, more experienced workers higher salaries (Motorola is, I believe, one example). You could go in, say, "I'll do this for $20,000 a year!", and it wouldn't do any good. There are numerous other problems associated with working for less, not the least of which is driving down wages across the board.
I'm especially confused about this line of your argument: "it'll benefit the rest of society because prices for IT services will be cheaper.". I don't see how reducing wages for U.S. citizens is good for the U.S. as a whole. Wages are extremely low in China, but the factory workers there often can't even afford what they're working on. Sweatshops in other countries are far worse-- the controversy over Nike in Burma is only one obvious example. Reduced wages is not the same as increased efficiency, and is in fact the opposite of increased wealth.
Your take on unions also seems terribly one-sided: "Unions are simply cartels. They drive up wages and benefits by restricting supply.". Do you have no knowledge of history? Are you simply unaware of why unions sprung up in the first place, and required legal protection? Perhaps you should start with The Grapes of Wrath. Corporations are the worst cartels-- more numerous, more unified, and much richer than the unions. While corruption certainly occurs within unions, they are a welcome alternative to the incredible exploitation of the workforce that occurred before they existed.
What really amazes me, though, is that after disagreeing with you on practically every point, I still agree with you on the central one:
It always amazes me that people act as though the interests of the foreign workers is irrelevant. It's all about me, me, me. We have it pretty damn good here. So what if foreign workers will drive down our wages a bit? It's drive up their wages a *lot.*
Every time this sort of foreign worker discussion comes up, there's a lot of veiled racism, and the assumption that American workers are inherently more deserving of higher wages. I think the valid point is that we certainly don't want to just reduce American wages to what foreign workers were already being paid, nor do we want to ruin the prosperity of the U.S.. However, too much protectionism results in ugly nationalism and racism-- and there's no valid ethical reason that someone born in a different country should automatically have worse opportunities than we do.
One counterargument to all this, of course, is that this is still a temporary increase in temporary work visas. This is not the U.S. deciding, ethically, "let's let the other countries in on some of our prosperity". No, it's a thinly veiled (totally unveiled?) move to get a lot of campaign donations from Silicon Valley. In the short term, we get more workers. In the long term, wages go down, fewer people go into computer science, the number of available workers remains small, the "crisis" grows. It hardly needs to be said that our government doesn't actually believe in capitalism-- they artificially increase supply when the price is high enough that people bitch about it.
Well, it has to be said with just about every/. story, so I guess it's my turn. RTFA. A lot of people are saying, "boy I'm pissed, how did they lose any money?". The fine is NOT damages. This is not compensatory payment. Right in the article, it says: "Universal had not alleged damages". These are punitive damages, meant "to send a message of deterrence".
On another note, to clarify how this is different from you uploading your music to i-Drive and listening to it from there. First of all, there is the difference that i-Drive doesn't know what you're uploading-- they just provide space. Second, you actually have to upload the file to i-Drive, which is time consuming. MP3.com is saying, "here, since we already know what you're going to upload, let's save you the time". But that's where they get into trouble, because they're using Universal's property (the music) to provide a service to you.
Don't know too much about the drive. It takes smaller media (physically-- smaller radius) than DVD, and is basically a token modification made to DVD to discourage piracy. The physical size restriction is also a step in that direction, I'm sure. Slipped my mind what company's making it. It's supposed to store about 2 gigs.
I don't have scanners, video editing suites, etc., etc.. So as far as I'm concerned, USB was just another way to hook up my keyboard and mouse.
But-- surprise! Even my mouse performs like crap over USB. Ask anyone who plays a mouse-intensive game like Quake or UT. Or try it for yourself. Plug the mouse into your PS2 port, play a bit. Then plug it into your USB port, play a bit. Seem a little less responsive? A LOT less responsive? Completely miss your 180 degree turns?
Anyways, does USB2 fix this? Is this a latency issue? I don't care about bandwidth-- my mouse doesn't really suck up that much. So does USB2 add anything except bandwidth?
Politicians of all stripes make campaign promises, including tax cuts or entitlement increases to influence voters to vote for them, which could be construed as logically equivalent to buying votes, but I don't really think it is.
Currently, votes are bought, not sold. The difference? More money for TV ads, pins, campaign signs, travel expenses, hired consultants, surveys, etc. all gets you more votes, regardless of your stance on the issues. David Duke would get more votes if he put up a bunch of TV ads than if he didn't. So people who contribute money to a political campaign are buying votes for the politician-- that's the whole point. Your point about people not being able to calculate about issues-- that's also the point. Most people don't care about most issues. They pick one or two like abortion, and then they go with hearsay, charisma, who their friends are voting for, and so on and so forth.
The great thing about VoteAuction is that now people can see a direct benefit from their bought vote. Previously, all they got out of all this campaign contribution money was a bunch of stupid TV ads. Now, they get money in their pocket. I, for one, wouldn't miss the stupid TV ads.
"I'm for education, and against crime! I like kids. Vote for me."
Re:Most disgraceful thing on the web
on
Voteauction.com
·
· Score: 1
But if you sell that vote, then your giving someone else a greater influence on the final decision than everyone else.... If this wasn't illegal, the rich would control the entire government.
Damn. Can you imagine a country where the rich controlled the government? I'm from the U.S., and I can't imagine someone winning an election just because they come from a rich and powerful family. Can't think of anyone off the top of my head who has a 16 point lead in polls, despite the lack of any real qualifications for the job.
Yeah, here in the good ol' U.S. of A., poor men (and women!) routinely win big, important elections.
The specs are much nicer, and the games will obviously be more advanced because of it. But graphically, it looks like they're still finding new tricks with the current Gameboy. Check out these shots of the upcoming Alone in the Dark:
Slashdot Mirror
You're infringing on my IP, dammit. I'm gonna sue your ass. Check it
And on your forums, no less! I think that constitutes a warning of infringement. Now that you've willfully disregarded that, I've got no choice but to sue you for millions. I think you copied my design, to, which was a trade secret.
This is, in fact, new. This has never been done: "Bessie's gaur, named Noah and due to be born next month, was cloned from a single skin cell taken from a dead gaur".
It may seem like an obvious extension of cloning and surrogates, but it's not nearly that simple. They've been trying to get this sort of thing quite some time. One issue with dead animals is how well their DNA has been preserved-- that's a big issue with cloning the wooly mammoth.
The coolest new possibility the article mentioned at the end was this: Even if that cloning effort is successful, it will be impossible to re-create a breeding population of bucardos, because cells have been preserved from just one sex. That means a mate will have to be created.... The ACT team hopes to gain permission from Spanish authorities to use recently developed molecular techniques to give some of the preserved bucardo cells a male chromosome taken from a related goat.
All vulnerabilities reported to the CERT/CC will be disclosed to the public 45 days after the initial report, regardless of the existence or availability of patches or workarounds from affected vendors. Extenuating circumstances, such as active exploitation, threats of an especially serious (or trivial) nature, or situations that require changes to an established standard may result in earlier or later disclosure.
For example, while MS didn't improve LanMan until l0pht released l0phtcrack, neither was anybody cracking it! ... CERT has it right. Disclose the vulnerability to the vendor. Give them A LOT of time to fix it, and a lot of goodwill.
It's funny that you mention Microsoft during your argument about giving vendors time to fix things. Microsoft won't even fix widely known vulnerabilities, much less things that are pointed out to them and kept private. You're talking about the company that maintained for DAYS after ILOVEYOU destroyed data everywhere that there was absolutely no problem with the way Outlook worked. They had been notified of this problem MONTHS before ILOVEYOU hit, and chose to do nothing. And then after it hit, they still chose to do nothing for a few days.
Keep in mind that your enemies are the skript kiddiez, NOT the corporations or end users.
Hmm, none of my friends have been sued by script kiddiez, or been threatened by their lawyers. I'm not saying I'm in love with script kiddiez, but the corporations are capable of doing a lot more damage.
Personally attacking the writer and then telling him to "grow up" is absurd. Commenting on one small part of his argument and then telling him his "whole argument is absurd" is absurd. The idea that commercial lecture notes are so students can skip class is absurd. Saying that lecture notes are sold as the lectures themselves is absurd. But most of all, professors (who draw much of their information from books and such, and then lecture on it without getting permission from the authors, and who supposedly entered the profession to encourage the pursuit of knowledge) complaining about people distributing information gleaned from their lectures is absurd.
Each installment of the series sells millions of copies in Japan and the U.S.. Those people who spend $50 on a game are going to spend the $10 on a movie (yay, SoCal movie prices), and they're going to take their friends. It's gotta be a much bigger audience than for Highlander, which spawned 4 movies.
The rest of the audience, of course, will be the same millions of people who see animated movies all the time. They don't have to link the promotion to the game at all-- and if they're smart, they probably won't. Pitch it as a good movie, and people will see it.
Ah, yes, we've been discussing "no-click" shopping here for some time. We haven't implemented it yet, but one idea is to simply have items jump in the user's shopping cart and bill his card. Canceling, of course, would require many more clicks.
Will this ever stop? Just two articles down, doesn't it say:
Red Space Station Infested With Bugs?
Look at their index page. They call it the Top 10 Most Important Networking People.
Oh, boy. Before you make a post like this, you really need to look at the context. /. deep-linked. If you go to the front page, though, it says this: Help us celebrate as we unveil networking's 10 most influential people.
So, uh, Nelson Mandela really would have been a bad choice.
subjective, you mean. Not objective.
Paraphrase: "I won't argue this point anymore. Below, please read my argument."
If you were arguing, then I would be forced to argue that:
a) that's not a catch 22
b) you have no idea whether or not the person you were replying to would have heard of the Offspring; I certainly knew of them before they were signed
c) your in depth analysis of contract law falls far short of relevance, as we don't even know what the contract says
But since I'm not going to argue the point either, I won't have to point that out.
And if you'd use html properly, then we wouldn't have to get a 404, but could instead go to xyu.dhs.org.
Yes, there ARE better ways to handle the situation. Especially all the porn crap-- just put the computers in an open area in plain sight, like near the entrance to the library, near where they check out books. Then not only can the librarians see what you're doing, but so can anyone entering the library. Put the computers all right next to each other, too.
Maybe that doesn't solve 100% of the problems, but I bet it solves more than censorware does.
On a side note, the "IE only" thing is really funny. I was at the Metreon in San Francisco, and went into the Microsoft store to check my e-mail. It was IE-only with high security settings. Guess whose web e-mail client doesn't work under that? That's right, Microsoft Outlook. I couldn't check my Microsoft Outlook e-mail using Microsoft Internet Explorer on Microsoft Windows in the Microsoft Store. That rocked.
Has anyone ever seen a bigger mod war? Stupid thing has 22 mods on it already. :) Time to bust out the metamod this afternoon. I think people on both sides are gonna get some Karma hammering.
LOL. I don't think the moderator realized this was satire.
To the uninitiated: VoodooExtreme is a news collection site. While it produces some of its own content, much of it is just links all over the web. You know, like slashdot. They excuse it by giving credit to all the contributors.
It's a thin line, though, between performing a service by seeking out cool stories, and just ripping off other sites' news. This point was best made by OldManMurray, who just linked to all of VoodooExtreme. It used to be at this link to "marvin sedate", but that gave me some odd redirect to here, so they probably stopped doing it back in February, which is what the latter links to. Still funny.
Oh, shit! I hadn't thought of that! Oh, wait, yes I had-- it's posted up in just about every damned /. discussion that has anything at all to do with speech. Freedom of speech? "Oh, you'll hate freedom of speech when they start posting your credit card number!" (To see that sentiment, read the discussions on DeCSS especially.)
First of all, you're assuming "free" as in free vs. slavery. But what about "free" as in doesn't cost anything? What would happen if someone got a hold of my credit card number and wanted to distribute it to some friends? They could do so freely-- it wouldn't cost them anything to replicate that data as many times as they wanted. And because of that, it might be replicated many times. Once that information has been released into the wild, so to speak, it'd be silly for me not to change my credit card number.
So, in a sense, my credit card number is screaming that, in my wallet. And I'm keeping it kept in there against its will, because if it gets onto the net, there's no stopping it.
Mod me down as redundant, but how the fuck did that get a 5:insightful? I know metamoderators everywhere are drooling.
If you do useful work, your employer (unless he's stupid) will continue to keep you on.
... Salary? Skills? Those things are both in your control.
This is simply untrue, even with your qualifier. Maybe there's some magical fairyland somewhere where better, more qualified workers always get the better salaries, regardless of race, age, or sex. That is obviously not the case. I'm getting the impression you don't have a terribly long history in the workforce, and here are a few more reasons why:
And why shouldn't you accept the wage I'm willing to take to keep yours?
No, salary is NOT always in your control. There are plenty of companies with hard salary scales, requiring that they pay older, more experienced workers higher salaries (Motorola is, I believe, one example). You could go in, say, "I'll do this for $20,000 a year!", and it wouldn't do any good. There are numerous other problems associated with working for less, not the least of which is driving down wages across the board.
I'm especially confused about this line of your argument: "it'll benefit the rest of society because prices for IT services will be cheaper.". I don't see how reducing wages for U.S. citizens is good for the U.S. as a whole. Wages are extremely low in China, but the factory workers there often can't even afford what they're working on. Sweatshops in other countries are far worse-- the controversy over Nike in Burma is only one obvious example. Reduced wages is not the same as increased efficiency, and is in fact the opposite of increased wealth.
Your take on unions also seems terribly one-sided: "Unions are simply cartels. They drive up wages and benefits by restricting supply.". Do you have no knowledge of history? Are you simply unaware of why unions sprung up in the first place, and required legal protection? Perhaps you should start with The Grapes of Wrath. Corporations are the worst cartels-- more numerous, more unified, and much richer than the unions. While corruption certainly occurs within unions, they are a welcome alternative to the incredible exploitation of the workforce that occurred before they existed.
What really amazes me, though, is that after disagreeing with you on practically every point, I still agree with you on the central one:
It always amazes me that people act as though the interests of the foreign workers is irrelevant. It's all about me, me, me. We have it pretty damn good here. So what if foreign workers will drive down our wages a bit? It's drive up their wages a *lot.*
Every time this sort of foreign worker discussion comes up, there's a lot of veiled racism, and the assumption that American workers are inherently more deserving of higher wages. I think the valid point is that we certainly don't want to just reduce American wages to what foreign workers were already being paid, nor do we want to ruin the prosperity of the U.S.. However, too much protectionism results in ugly nationalism and racism-- and there's no valid ethical reason that someone born in a different country should automatically have worse opportunities than we do.
One counterargument to all this, of course, is that this is still a temporary increase in temporary work visas. This is not the U.S. deciding, ethically, "let's let the other countries in on some of our prosperity". No, it's a thinly veiled (totally unveiled?) move to get a lot of campaign donations from Silicon Valley. In the short term, we get more workers. In the long term, wages go down, fewer people go into computer science, the number of available workers remains small, the "crisis" grows. It hardly needs to be said that our government doesn't actually believe in capitalism-- they artificially increase supply when the price is high enough that people bitch about it.
Well, it has to be said with just about every /. story, so I guess it's my turn. RTFA. A lot of people are saying, "boy I'm pissed, how did they lose any money?". The fine is NOT damages. This is not compensatory payment. Right in the article, it says: "Universal had not alleged damages". These are punitive damages, meant "to send a message of deterrence".
On another note, to clarify how this is different from you uploading your music to i-Drive and listening to it from there. First of all, there is the difference that i-Drive doesn't know what you're uploading-- they just provide space. Second, you actually have to upload the file to i-Drive, which is time consuming. MP3.com is saying, "here, since we already know what you're going to upload, let's save you the time". But that's where they get into trouble, because they're using Universal's property (the music) to provide a service to you.
Don't know too much about the drive. It takes smaller media (physically-- smaller radius) than DVD, and is basically a token modification made to DVD to discourage piracy. The physical size restriction is also a step in that direction, I'm sure. Slipped my mind what company's making it. It's supposed to store about 2 gigs.
I don't have scanners, video editing suites, etc., etc.. So as far as I'm concerned, USB was just another way to hook up my keyboard and mouse.
But-- surprise! Even my mouse performs like crap over USB. Ask anyone who plays a mouse-intensive game like Quake or UT. Or try it for yourself. Plug the mouse into your PS2 port, play a bit. Then plug it into your USB port, play a bit. Seem a little less responsive? A LOT less responsive? Completely miss your 180 degree turns?
Anyways, does USB2 fix this? Is this a latency issue? I don't care about bandwidth-- my mouse doesn't really suck up that much. So does USB2 add anything except bandwidth?
Politicians of all stripes make campaign promises, including tax cuts or entitlement increases to influence voters to vote for them, which could be construed as logically equivalent to buying votes, but I don't really think it is.
Currently, votes are bought, not sold. The difference? More money for TV ads, pins, campaign signs, travel expenses, hired consultants, surveys, etc. all gets you more votes, regardless of your stance on the issues. David Duke would get more votes if he put up a bunch of TV ads than if he didn't. So people who contribute money to a political campaign are buying votes for the politician-- that's the whole point. Your point about people not being able to calculate about issues-- that's also the point. Most people don't care about most issues. They pick one or two like abortion, and then they go with hearsay, charisma, who their friends are voting for, and so on and so forth.
The great thing about VoteAuction is that now people can see a direct benefit from their bought vote. Previously, all they got out of all this campaign contribution money was a bunch of stupid TV ads. Now, they get money in their pocket. I, for one, wouldn't miss the stupid TV ads.
"I'm for education, and against crime! I like kids. Vote for me."
But if you sell that vote, then your giving someone else a greater influence on the final decision than everyone else.... If this wasn't illegal, the rich would control the entire government.
Damn. Can you imagine a country where the rich controlled the government? I'm from the U.S., and I can't imagine someone winning an election just because they come from a rich and powerful family. Can't think of anyone off the top of my head who has a 16 point lead in polls, despite the lack of any real qualifications for the job.
Yeah, here in the good ol' U.S. of A., poor men (and women!) routinely win big, important elections.
The specs are much nicer, and the games will obviously be more advanced because of it. But graphically, it looks like they're still finding new tricks with the current Gameboy. Check out these shots of the upcoming Alone in the Dark:
http://pocket.ign.com/news/23128.html