When a group of people are meeting to discuss something that you do, it is only wise to try to participate. Perhaps you don't feel as though you should have to defend yourself, and that's understandable. However, if you don't, and no-one else does, you run the risk of bad things happening almost by default.
That's not a good analogy. You're not trying to charge for use of the course, you're trying to charge for use of the techniques you used to reach the end. Others are free to hop, skip and jump where you sprinted, or carry the egg in their hand where you used a spoon.
I bet it took them 3 years to file the lawsuit because law moves slower than technology, and they had to take time to build a claim.
Exactly. My guess is that it simply took them that long to discover a possible infringement, research it, confirm it, then gather evidence and build a case.
If every company launched into a lawsuit the moment they thought their IP was being infringed upon, there would be a hell of a lot of spurious suits and we slashdotters would be up in arms. (Well, that's our natural state, but I digress...)
Is this the standard retort to people who criticize Firefox's long-standing memory usage problems?
It's one of them; another is that it's not Firefox, it's a theme or extension (which may be the case, of course), while another is that there is no memory issue - ie the poster is mistaken or lying.
Me to web developers: They're my windows; get your grubby JavaScript off them!
Don't just tell us - tell the information architects, clients, etc. 9 times out of 10 it's out of my hands, no matter how much I explain that it's a bad thing to annoy your users.
non-iTune tracks to be encrypted using Apple's DRM and therefore be playable on iPods.
iPods support playing of non-iTunes tracks out of the box - you can dump as many mp3s and unencrypted AAC files on there as you like and play them to your heart's content.
What you can't currently do is sell music protected using FairPlay, which is the only DRM system that the iPod supports. *That* is what this allows you to do, assuming it works, Apple doesn't sue, etc.
could it be IE fleshes out most of its work to the operating system and doesn't have to rely on memory in one app or would that just make no sense?
That wouldn't make a lot of sense, and would be an awful lot of work for little or no gain. Most of the RAM usage of a browser, barring the initial start-up hit of the user interface, will be in in-memory caches, the data structures associated with the page(s) viewed, javascript, etc. Theoretically you could farm that off to some sort of caching service, but performance would take a hit, and to what end? The average user doesn't care how much RAM something uses as long as it works and is fast. Those of us who do care about the amount of RAM our apps use are a vanishingly small minority.
And then quite quickly became untrue. That's pretty-much the definition of short-sighted in that context - unable to see beyond the immediate situation.
While I largely agree with you, I have to take issue with this:
The collapse of residential computer security has meant that virtually nobody can keep their Windows machine secure anymore. Not even gurus.
I have a hardware firewall and I keep XP and my AV software (grisoft AVG) up to date, and I've not had a problem in 5+ years. Ditto the other computers that I use. It's hard for most users to keep their machines clean because they simply don't know how to. I even run as admin, I'm just sensible about *what* I run. (Never using IE or Outlook helps)
doing business on the internet is rapidly becoming difficult or impossible
I don't doubt that some companies hae genuine problems, and I've certainly heard about the DDoS extortion scams. However, things aren't nearly as bleak as you paint them.
Apart from that, I pretty much agree with you - I don't want anything to be able to mess with my kernel either. If that and other security improvements make Symantec et al irrelevant, well that's just too bad.
I used the term "word processor" here because I thought people would realize I was using a term with a standardized meaning
But that meaning covers such a broad spectrum as to be useless in this context. You give examples of a wysiwyg HTML editor that only understands three tags (which is still potentially several days work!), then as proof link to an article citing MS Word and OO Writer as examples of word processors. That's a huge range of features all summed up with the same two-word term. It's impossible for anyone here to determine whether or not 10 hours work for what you wanted was reasonable.
On the other hand, I agree that the guy was being a dick.
In a corporate environment, users typically can't even install things like print drivers without admin rights.
The last time I got a new PC at work was the first time it was sourced via a particular department of our corporate owners. It arrived set up such that local admin accounts couldn't even change the desktop background.
Of course, as we've never been properly integrated into the company as a whole, we're not part of the coporate Active Directory structure, so 5 minutes googling and 30 seconds of gpedit.msc fixed that. However the point is that it is indeed possible to lock an XP machine up tight if you know what you're doing and have the infrastructure to support it.
Apparently being jailed for questioning the Holocaust is not considered an issue for press freedom.
The theory behind it being a crime to deny the Holocaust is that by doing so, you are in effect calling all Holocaust survivors liars (as it never happened, so they must be lying about what they saw/did). That would be libel or slander, a civil crime, *except* that in this case it is felt that the survivors have already been through enough, and should not have to defend themselves in court, hence it is a criminal matter, so the state can do it for them.
Sue Pleming, "Foreign governments line up to help after Katrina," Reuters AlterNet, September 2, 2005: "The United Nations offered to help coordinate international relief efforts for the United States.... The State Department said offers so far had come from Belgium, Canada, Russia, Japan, France, Germany, Britain, China, Australia, Jamaica, Honduras, Greece, Venezuela, the Organization of American States, NATO, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Greece, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Mexico, South Korea, Israel and the United Arab Emirates."
People around the world need to realize that US Citizens and the US Government are two different things.
That's as maybe, but the same applies to a lot of US citizens who railed against the French for their criticisms of Gulf War 2 ("freedom fries", anyone?), etc. Speaking of a country (or indeed any group of people) as though everyone in it holds identical viewpoints is hardly a solely non-American trait.
Yes, wheels will always be round. Work on materials to make those wheels out of, on self-inflating/eslf-repairing tires, on tires that give better traction in a wider range of conditions, that give much better traction in a given weather condition, etc, will likely never end.
You don't like a given advance? Don't use it. No-one's forcing you to.
That depends on your definition of failure. They set out to cure Parkinson's, and they did. At the same time, they caused cancer. It's a failure in that this is not currently a viable treatment. It's a success in that they did in fact cure the disease.
you blame the religious nuts
You and at least one moderator completely missed his point; he's not blaming the "religious nuts", he's castigating the headline author for over-playing the seriousness of the failure, likening it to the way in which certain groups campaign against stem cell research. This does not demonstrate that stem cell therapy causes cancer; all it shows it that in this case, cancer was caused. That's a huge difference, similar to the difference between "Cars Kill" and "Not all Car Crashes Survivable".
It talks about using fetal brain tissue. That's a little more advanced then "a clump of cells."
I know what you're getting at, but foetal brain tissue (or my brain tissue, for that matter) is just a clump of cells.
The funny part is that you're probably opposed to the death penalty.
I can't speak for the OP, but yes, I am. I believe that the risk of killing an innocent is too great, given the finality of the punishment. Once someone is dead, however, I think if medical science can use any part of them, it should. I certainly don't advocate killing for medical science, but if they're dead anyway, put them to use. I appreciate that this is an emotive issue, however...
Damnit - looks like I've discovered an equivlent to the "any post correcting spelling or grammar will contain at least one mistake of its own" rule. I was so sure.cd wouldn't exist I didn't even bother to check it... Turns out it's for the Democratcic Republic of the Congo.
I do not concede this point at all. I'm definitely not agreeing to anything when I buy an iPod. Now, I know some folks (and courts) want to say that opening an iPod package or using an iPod signifies my consent to some onerous licensing agreement... but I feel (hope?) that eventually sanity and rationality will win out on the whole idea that vendors/manufacturers can modify the implied agreement (hallowed for, literally, millenia) that is embodied in the sale of a good, after the fact.
I don't remember any licensing agreement with my ex's iPod Mini, nor do I see how one could possibly be enforced - it's hardware, not software. I am aware of the legal argument for requiring a licence with software, that by installing and running it you are creating copies, and as such need express permission from the copyright holder. I don't see how that argument applies to hardware, even taking into account the firmware.
Slashdot Mirror
When a group of people are meeting to discuss something that you do, it is only wise to try to participate. Perhaps you don't feel as though you should have to defend yourself, and that's understandable. However, if you don't, and no-one else does, you run the risk of bad things happening almost by default.
I had to go hunt down a keyboard with a ps/2 connector because I couldn't do the install with the USB KB.
Then there's something wrong with the hardware, as I've installed XP (plain and SP2) on several machines with USB keyboards without any issue at all.
I don't know what your problem was, but it wasn't the OS.
That's not a good analogy. You're not trying to charge for use of the course, you're trying to charge for use of the techniques you used to reach the end. Others are free to hop, skip and jump where you sprinted, or carry the egg in their hand where you used a spoon.
I bet it took them 3 years to file the lawsuit because law moves slower than technology, and they had to take time to build a claim.
Exactly. My guess is that it simply took them that long to discover a possible infringement, research it, confirm it, then gather evidence and build a case.
If every company launched into a lawsuit the moment they thought their IP was being infringed upon, there would be a hell of a lot of spurious suits and we slashdotters would be up in arms. (Well, that's our natural state, but I digress...)
Male fantasy character stupidly over-muscled, film at 11.
-or-
Trivial aspect of cult game tweaked, hardcore fans up in arms, continue paying monthly fees.
From the "who gives a shit?" department.
Are you sure they haven't changed the default to block 3rd party cookies?
Given that that could have undesirable side effects (such as breaking single sign on, etc) I would hope not.
Is this the standard retort to people who criticize Firefox's long-standing memory usage problems?
It's one of them; another is that it's not Firefox, it's a theme or extension (which may be the case, of course), while another is that there is no memory issue - ie the poster is mistaken or lying.
Me to web developers: They're my windows; get your grubby JavaScript off them!
Don't just tell us - tell the information architects, clients, etc. 9 times out of 10 it's out of my hands, no matter how much I explain that it's a bad thing to annoy your users.
non-iTune tracks to be encrypted using Apple's DRM and therefore be playable on iPods.
iPods support playing of non-iTunes tracks out of the box - you can dump as many mp3s and unencrypted AAC files on there as you like and play them to your heart's content.
What you can't currently do is sell music protected using FairPlay, which is the only DRM system that the iPod supports. *That* is what this allows you to do, assuming it works, Apple doesn't sue, etc.
I should have fact checked it better before submission
There are those of us who would suggest that kdawson should have fact checked it better after submission...
Still, respect for owning up to your mistake.
could it be IE fleshes out most of its work to the operating system and doesn't have to rely on memory in one app or would that just make no sense?
That wouldn't make a lot of sense, and would be an awful lot of work for little or no gain. Most of the RAM usage of a browser, barring the initial start-up hit of the user interface, will be in in-memory caches, the data structures associated with the page(s) viewed, javascript, etc. Theoretically you could farm that off to some sort of caching service, but performance would take a hit, and to what end? The average user doesn't care how much RAM something uses as long as it works and is fast. Those of us who do care about the amount of RAM our apps use are a vanishingly small minority.
Europe is great if you are young or unemployed. Europe sucks if you actually want to make something of yourself through hard work.
Based on a few years in Italy, you conclude that the whole of Europe is like that?
Did you hurt yourself making that jump?
And then quite quickly became untrue. That's pretty-much the definition of short-sighted in that context - unable to see beyond the immediate situation.
While I largely agree with you, I have to take issue with this:
The collapse of residential computer security has meant that virtually nobody can keep their Windows machine secure anymore. Not even gurus.
I have a hardware firewall and I keep XP and my AV software (grisoft AVG) up to date, and I've not had a problem in 5+ years. Ditto the other computers that I use. It's hard for most users to keep their machines clean because they simply don't know how to. I even run as admin, I'm just sensible about *what* I run. (Never using IE or Outlook helps)
doing business on the internet is rapidly becoming difficult or impossible
I don't doubt that some companies hae genuine problems, and I've certainly heard about the DDoS extortion scams. However, things aren't nearly as bleak as you paint them.
Apart from that, I pretty much agree with you - I don't want anything to be able to mess with my kernel either. If that and other security improvements make Symantec et al irrelevant, well that's just too bad.
I used the term "word processor" here because I thought people would realize I was using a term with a standardized meaning
But that meaning covers such a broad spectrum as to be useless in this context. You give examples of a wysiwyg HTML editor that only understands three tags (which is still potentially several days work!), then as proof link to an article citing MS Word and OO Writer as examples of word processors. That's a huge range of features all summed up with the same two-word term. It's impossible for anyone here to determine whether or not 10 hours work for what you wanted was reasonable.
On the other hand, I agree that the guy was being a dick.
In a corporate environment, users typically can't even install things like print drivers without admin rights.
The last time I got a new PC at work was the first time it was sourced via a particular department of our corporate owners. It arrived set up such that local admin accounts couldn't even change the desktop background.
Of course, as we've never been properly integrated into the company as a whole, we're not part of the coporate Active Directory structure, so 5 minutes googling and 30 seconds of gpedit.msc fixed that. However the point is that it is indeed possible to lock an XP machine up tight if you know what you're doing and have the infrastructure to support it.
Apparently being jailed for questioning the Holocaust is not considered an issue for press freedom.
The theory behind it being a crime to deny the Holocaust is that by doing so, you are in effect calling all Holocaust survivors liars (as it never happened, so they must be lying about what they saw/did). That would be libel or slander, a civil crime, *except* that in this case it is felt that the survivors have already been through enough, and should not have to defend themselves in court, hence it is a criminal matter, so the state can do it for them.
But when Katrina hit New Orleans, what other country (besides my Canada) offered aid or assistance to the US?
... The State Department said offers so far had come from Belgium, Canada, Russia, Japan, France, Germany, Britain, China, Australia, Jamaica, Honduras, Greece, Venezuela, the Organization of American States, NATO, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Greece, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Mexico, South Korea, Israel and the United Arab Emirates."
From the first hit on google for "katrina international aid":
Sue Pleming, "Foreign governments line up to help after Katrina," Reuters AlterNet, September 2, 2005: "The United Nations offered to help coordinate international relief efforts for the United States.
People around the world need to realize that US Citizens and the US Government are two different things.
That's as maybe, but the same applies to a lot of US citizens who railed against the French for their criticisms of Gulf War 2 ("freedom fries", anyone?), etc. Speaking of a country (or indeed any group of people) as though everyone in it holds identical viewpoints is hardly a solely non-American trait.
wheels will always be round
Yes, wheels will always be round. Work on materials to make those wheels out of, on self-inflating/eslf-repairing tires, on tires that give better traction in a wider range of conditions, that give much better traction in a given weather condition, etc, will likely never end.
You don't like a given advance? Don't use it. No-one's forcing you to.
Does the Vatican have a press, or any reporters? If not, then you wouldn't expect to find them in the list...
An experiment failed
That depends on your definition of failure. They set out to cure Parkinson's, and they did. At the same time, they caused cancer. It's a failure in that this is not currently a viable treatment. It's a success in that they did in fact cure the disease.
you blame the religious nuts
You and at least one moderator completely missed his point; he's not blaming the "religious nuts", he's castigating the headline author for over-playing the seriousness of the failure, likening it to the way in which certain groups campaign against stem cell research. This does not demonstrate that stem cell therapy causes cancer; all it shows it that in this case, cancer was caused. That's a huge difference, similar to the difference between "Cars Kill" and "Not all Car Crashes Survivable".
It talks about using fetal brain tissue. That's a little more advanced then "a clump of cells."
I know what you're getting at, but foetal brain tissue (or my brain tissue, for that matter) is just a clump of cells.
The funny part is that you're probably opposed to the death penalty.
I can't speak for the OP, but yes, I am. I believe that the risk of killing an innocent is too great, given the finality of the punishment. Once someone is dead, however, I think if medical science can use any part of them, it should. I certainly don't advocate killing for medical science, but if they're dead anyway, put them to use. I appreciate that this is an emotive issue, however...
.cd is actually a valid top level domain already
.cd wouldn't exist I didn't even bother to check it... Turns out it's for the Democratcic Republic of the Congo.
Damnit - looks like I've discovered an equivlent to the "any post correcting spelling or grammar will contain at least one mistake of its own" rule. I was so sure
(Fortunately, I've never used it myself)
I do not concede this point at all. I'm definitely not agreeing to anything when I buy an iPod. Now, I know some folks (and courts) want to say that opening an iPod package or using an iPod signifies my consent to some onerous licensing agreement... but I feel (hope?) that eventually sanity and rationality will win out on the whole idea that vendors/manufacturers can modify the implied agreement (hallowed for, literally, millenia) that is embodied in the sale of a good, after the fact.
I don't remember any licensing agreement with my ex's iPod Mini, nor do I see how one could possibly be enforced - it's hardware, not software. I am aware of the legal argument for requiring a licence with software, that by installing and running it you are creating copies, and as such need express permission from the copyright holder. I don't see how that argument applies to hardware, even taking into account the firmware.
The Wright Brothers were first in flight excepting some spurious claims.
Sorry, I'm being pedantic as I know what you mean, but the hot air balloon was around for a little while before the Wright brothers first flew.