The truth is I am neither black nor am I even remotely offended by these things (on the contrary, it's tough to type such vitriol when you're ROTFL). Now I actually feel kinda bad. What I considered a fun troll at the time has actually come to pass.
YHBT. WAHL. INHANDAA. You Have Been Trolled. We All Have Lost. I'm Not Having A Nice Day At All.:^(
I just wanted to see "anti-circumvention" written like that one more time, because gosh darn it, they only did it 12 fscking times in the article.
Rule of journalism #27: You only put an unfamiliar phrase in quotes once. After that your "readers" are probably "smart enough" to be "comfortable" with the "new" "phrase".
"This is an attempt to show you we are not hiding anything,'' said Gene Habiger, director of security and emergency response for the Department of Energy. ''If anyone thinks the government, the Department of Energy, can suppress the truth, they're wrong."
'Scuse me for being paranoid, but this does not set my mind at ease.
I don't think that I made very much sense there. Apologies. But it's difficult to explain something that is so absurd.
Yeah, I ran up against the same wall in another post. There's something deeply wrong with NSI's logic that they can own something you created, but damned if I can come up with a good way to explain it.
You'd think with all these programmers around here somebody could work through the logic on this (or lack thereof;)
This implies (to me, at least) that NSI "owns" allunregistered names, too. If they "own" the domain then they must have owned it before, too, right? I certainly wouldn't create a name myself and then promptly give it to someone else for the privledge of being listed in a routing table. If you follow the logic then NSI also "owns" all domains registered through other registrars. At least according to them.
How exactly does this work? The only way I can see it (possibly) holding up legally is if when you agree to their terms of service you do indeed give them those rights, and I really don't think those sorts of rights are assignable.
Somebody explain this, as it makes no sense to me.
...the administrators seem to have no compunctions about taking the posts and publishing them elsewhere to make a profit...
Interesting point. If you believe/. is allowed to keep the Micros~1 posts available then you logically must also conclude that they have done nothing wrong in republishing the Hellmouth posts w/out asking permission.
Similarly, if you are one of those crying foul over the Hellmouth book then you must support Micros~1 in their fight to have their copyrighted material removed from/.'s servers.
DivX isn't meant to replace or compete w/ DVD codecs, and the DVD-Quality is simply hype that you're not really supposed to believe (or at least shouldn't).
The real purpose of DivX can be found in alt.binairies.movies, a place where degraded video quality is an accepted trade off over ungodly download times. Plus, 1/2 the stuff "released" as a DivX.avi is a camcorder recording from Row 7, so again quality is not the point here.
The prevailing attitude I see here is that of a bunch of shelterd, affluent, white people who have no real dealings with racism as it exists in America. It is painfully obvious that none of you have ever dealt with it and that your ideas of race relations are based on watching Chris Rock on TV.
Go look at a real ghetto. Talk to the residents. Read them the above post. See if they find it funny.
You say I am over-reacting because you absolutely have no idea what racism means or how much damage these "harmless jokes" do. I guess the current state of the world looks just dandy from those lilly-white suburbs and office parks.
and if I tell you that I'm black, that I'm pretty sick and tired being told that "harmless humor" isn't meant to be derogatory against me, your whole theory ends up in the trash where it belongs
I made a point of stating "most people" and not "I" for the simple reason that I may just not get the joke. And obviously, I didn't.
But I would like to point out two things:
First, intentionally or not this issue directly relates to the parent article. Most people hear "hacker" & think "evil computer vandal". Similarly, most people read "slap mah fro" and think "rascist joke". Like it or not, how the majority views something tends to become accepted as fact, even if that view is (yes, like mine. I admit it) mistaken.
Second, stating that it's ok because it's not intending to be racist reminds me a lot of the current arguments over the Confederate flag. And I consider those arguments in favor of keeping it to be seriously lacking.
If this makes me way too PC as some have stated, so be it. But honestly, how would you expect someone to take the original post without the context of the Dialectizer web page to explain it? And what excuse for that is their? That the reader is supposed to already know about it? That centuries of repression aren't supposed to make him/her overly-sensitive to some things?
You're operating on the particularly American assumption that political views are strictly linear (right & left only): Criticising the War on Drugs => Leftist => Democrat This is simply not the case, and I would argue that if we could just get over this mindset that we only have degrees between 2 extremes we could solve many of our problems.
I'm going against the general concensus here, and even my own deep-seated reading preferences, and saying dump the printed manuals. The reasons are purely environmental, and everyone who wants to keep them printed for whatever reason (like the guy who mentioned taking them to the john) is cultivating a dangerous and selfish attitude.
Computers have the promise of significantly reducing the amount of paper we use as a society, but so far they have actually increased consumption because so many of us print out every damn email aunt Millie sends us. Add this to the ever present excessive packaging and thousands of pages of (usually) useless manuals, and we're squandering one of our opportunities to actually do something good.
First, how many of the applications that you use actually require you to read the manual? 10%? 5%? Most software these days is pretty damn self-explanatory, even to the extreme novice ("Let's see if clicking 'SEND' sends my mail...").
Second, computer and software manuals are not in the same league as a cherished, leather-bound copy of 'Moby Dick'. Due to the constantly changing nature of technology all these books become obsolete in a few years, if not months. Then they go to the recycling bin (we hope), or worse, the landfill.
Third is the size. These books tend to be HUGE! Three years ago the manuals for Softimage took up 16 inches of shelf space, and since they've upgraded the program several times that's now all useless trash. Even my accounting program has 3 books & 500+ pages, and I damn well know that just about nobody is ever going to read them all.
The disadvantages behind online documentation are very real and I don't dispute them, but we have a social responsibility to use them even if it takes a little more effort. I hate separating my trash, I hate having to replace the catalytic converter on my car, and I hate not being able to throw garbage out my car window. But they are all necessary. I accept it because it is right.
The only exception, though, may be installation instructions (NOT user manuals) for hardware and OS'es. The reason for this should be pretty obvious.
The original "It's not their*job*" reply is the sort of thing that makes me uneasy. I was showing (or at leats trying to show) how that line of thinking is a slippery slope. I hate it when people try to blow off moral/ethical responsibilities with, "hey, not my job!" crap.
Yes, somewhat. Dell does provide financial & other support to some organizations. Of course they put their name all over it, so it's more PR than charity.
Many of the executives of the company (including Michael himself) do donate quite a bit of their own $ to local arts groups, too. Again, though, how much of this is done to generate good press and help the ol' tax return is open to debate.
But however you look at it, there are quite a few organizations that would either be struggling or simply not exist if it weren't for Dell's profits.
Slashdot Mirror
CRT's? Cloning goats? RNA?!?
What the HELL are you talking about?
"thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of Jon Katz"
-- Bene Gesserit Coda
Uh-oh. That may have been me.
The truth is I am neither black nor am I even remotely offended by these things (on the contrary, it's tough to type such vitriol when you're ROTFL). Now I actually feel kinda bad. What I considered a fun troll at the time has actually come to pass.
YHBT. WAHL. INHANDAA. :^(
You Have Been Trolled. We All Have Lost. I'm Not Having A Nice Day At All.
I just wanted to see "anti-circumvention" written like that one more time, because gosh darn it, they only did it 12 fscking times in the article.
Rule of journalism #27: You only put an unfamiliar phrase in quotes once. After that your "readers" are probably "smart enough" to be "comfortable" with the "new" "phrase".
Hell, just about ANY sort of intelligence would be an improvement, IMO. ;)
OK, I'll bite.
You've obviously known him for more than 10 years. I'm asking you for proof of your claims.
Yeah, I know... don't feed those who dwell under bridges. Still, I'd be fascinating if true.
umm... they performed this test with empty containers, I hope? :)
</I> !
"This is an attempt to show you we are not hiding anything,'' said Gene Habiger, director of security and emergency response for the Department of Energy. ''If anyone thinks the government, the Department of Energy, can suppress the truth, they're wrong."
'Scuse me for being paranoid, but this does not set my mind at ease.
I don't think that I made very much sense there. Apologies. But it's difficult to explain something that is so absurd.
Yeah, I ran up against the same wall in another post. There's something deeply wrong with NSI's logic that they can own something you created, but damned if I can come up with a good way to explain it.
You'd think with all these programmers around here somebody could work through the logic on this (or lack thereof ;)
This implies (to me, at least) that NSI "owns" all unregistered names, too. If they "own" the domain then they must have owned it before, too, right? I certainly wouldn't create a name myself and then promptly give it to someone else for the privledge of being listed in a routing table. If you follow the logic then NSI also "owns" all domains registered through other registrars. At least according to them.
How exactly does this work? The only way I can see it (possibly) holding up legally is if when you agree to their terms of service you do indeed give them those rights, and I really don't think those sorts of rights are assignable.
Somebody explain this, as it makes no sense to me.
Interesting point. If you believe /. is allowed to keep the Micros~1 posts available then you logically must also conclude that they have done nothing wrong in republishing the Hellmouth posts w/out asking permission.
Similarly, if you are one of those crying foul over the Hellmouth book then you must support Micros~1 in their fight to have their copyrighted material removed from /.'s servers.
DivX isn't meant to replace or compete w/ DVD codecs, and the DVD-Quality is simply hype that you're not really supposed to believe (or at least shouldn't).
The real purpose of DivX can be found in alt.binairies.movies, a place where degraded video quality is an accepted trade off over ungodly download times. Plus, 1/2 the stuff "released" as a DivX .avi is a camcorder recording from Row 7, so again quality is not the point here.
The prevailing attitude I see here is that of a bunch of shelterd, affluent, white people who have no real dealings with racism as it exists in America. It is painfully obvious that none of you have ever dealt with it and that your ideas of race relations are based on watching Chris Rock on TV.
Go look at a real ghetto. Talk to the residents. Read them the above post. See if they find it funny.
You say I am over-reacting because you absolutely have no idea what racism means or how much damage these "harmless jokes" do. I guess the current state of the world looks just dandy from those lilly-white suburbs and office parks.
and if I tell you that I'm black, that I'm pretty sick and tired being told that "harmless humor" isn't meant to be derogatory against me, your whole theory ends up in the trash where it belongs
I made a point of stating "most people" and not "I" for the simple reason that I may just not get the joke. And obviously, I didn't.
But I would like to point out two things:
First, intentionally or not this issue directly relates to the parent article. Most people hear "hacker" & think "evil computer vandal". Similarly, most people read "slap mah fro" and think "rascist joke". Like it or not, how the majority views something tends to become accepted as fact, even if that view is (yes, like mine. I admit it) mistaken.
Second, stating that it's ok because it's not intending to be racist reminds me a lot of the current arguments over the Confederate flag. And I consider those arguments in favor of keeping it to be seriously lacking.
If this makes me way too PC as some have stated, so be it. But honestly, how would you expect someone to take the original post without the context of the Dialectizer web page to explain it? And what excuse for that is their? That the reader is supposed to already know about it? That centuries of repression aren't supposed to make him/her overly-sensitive to some things?
Oh yeah, blatant racism is a f*cking riot.
Is that suppoosed to be funny? Most people will find it really f*cking offensive and in very poor taste.
You're operating on the particularly American assumption that political views are strictly linear (right & left only):
Criticising the War on Drugs => Leftist => Democrat
This is simply not the case, and I would argue that if we could just get over this mindset that we only have degrees between 2 extremes we could solve many of our problems.
You mean I still can't boot from my 7-exabyte drive w/out patitioning?
I'm going against the general concensus here, and even my own deep-seated reading preferences, and saying dump the printed manuals. The reasons are purely environmental, and everyone who wants to keep them printed for whatever reason (like the guy who mentioned taking them to the john) is cultivating a dangerous and selfish attitude.
Computers have the promise of significantly reducing the amount of paper we use as a society, but so far they have actually increased consumption because so many of us print out every damn email aunt Millie sends us. Add this to the ever present excessive packaging and thousands of pages of (usually) useless manuals, and we're squandering one of our opportunities to actually do something good.
First, how many of the applications that you use actually require you to read the manual? 10%? 5%? Most software these days is pretty damn self-explanatory, even to the extreme novice ("Let's see if clicking 'SEND' sends my mail...").
Second, computer and software manuals are not in the same league as a cherished, leather-bound copy of 'Moby Dick'. Due to the constantly changing nature of technology all these books become obsolete in a few years, if not months. Then they go to the recycling bin (we hope), or worse, the landfill.
Third is the size. These books tend to be HUGE! Three years ago the manuals for Softimage took up 16 inches of shelf space, and since they've upgraded the program several times that's now all useless trash. Even my accounting program has 3 books & 500+ pages, and I damn well know that just about nobody is ever going to read them all.
The disadvantages behind online documentation are very real and I don't dispute them, but we have a social responsibility to use them even if it takes a little more effort. I hate separating my trash, I hate having to replace the catalytic converter on my car, and I hate not being able to throw garbage out my car window. But they are all necessary. I accept it because it is right.
The only exception, though, may be installation instructions (NOT user manuals) for hardware and OS'es. The reason for this should be pretty obvious.
The original "It's not their*job*" reply is the sort of thing that makes me uneasy. I was showing (or at leats trying to show) how that line of thinking is a slippery slope. I hate it when people try to blow off moral/ethical responsibilities with, "hey, not my job!" crap.
It's not an engineer's *job* to be social responsible. It's an engineer's *job* to discover how to make better and more leathal weapons.
It's not a soldier's *job* to be social responsible. It's a soldier's *job* to kill whoever s/he is told to kill.
It's not a teacher's *job* to be social responsible. It's a teacher's *job* to teach the curiculum without questioning it's value.
I could continue, but I think you get the point.
Does Dell donate any of its profits to charity?
Yes, somewhat. Dell does provide financial & other support to some organizations. Of course they put their name all over it, so it's more PR than charity.
Many of the executives of the company (including Michael himself) do donate quite a bit of their own $ to local arts groups, too. Again, though, how much of this is done to generate good press and help the ol' tax return is open to debate.
But however you look at it, there are quite a few organizations that would either be struggling or simply not exist if it weren't for Dell's profits.
Does this mean I'll have Painter running on my Linux box and Kai's Power Tools plugins for the Gimp soon?
Hopefully not. Especially after today's story about GUI standards. Metatools is absolutely the worst for this stuff