Konqueror (which I run on both of my main computers when I'm not on my Windows partition) has disappointing tabby power; Chrome spoiled me with the on-the-top-bar tabs with the x/+ side by side. Eh, I guess I should just shut up and reprogram it myself; I'm just too lazy.
You know, on most parts of the high-webs, accusing someone of trolling repeatedly is considered trolling... anyway, let me rephrase: "Piracy is a name given to sharing information to steal inherit immutable social rights. Sharing information is not piracy." Better? Anyway, of course I used inflammatory terminology, someone just got slammed with multi-million dollar fines for something I feel is a right no different than breathing or speaking freely.
This scheme is stimulating. People won't invest in multimillion pound movies without getting something back. With no copyright law these movies wouldn't be made. Smaller creative activities would continue, I made and gave away a tutorial on Inkscape the other day licensed BY-NC-SA 3.0,uk. Without any copyright I don't have the moral right to be named as the author of that work (the BY part) nor to specify that it can't be used commercially without recompensing me; nor indeed to stop someone maliciously editing it and leaving me attributed.
You're adding to the situation to get those results, though; we don't need copyright law to say it's wrong to impersonate another person with malicious intent -- that's wrong for a different set of reasons.
Multi-million dollars movies are nice, but in order to have them you have to make it illegal for individuals to share information. For example, say I have a program, G, which accepts a string of words and converts them into a binary MP3 file: when I say G("song song eleven") it uses some advanced algorithms to convert it into a music file. It is now illegal for anyone to say "song song eleven" aloud, as they are transferring the information required to reproduce a given song.
That is to say, an MP3 file is nice and abstract, but it is still simply information. In fact, certain natural numbers are illegal to share with others, because when converted to binary form they reproduce music files!
It's easy to sit back and jabber about how it has all of these great ways of making money, but at the end of the day it's still a model of business based off of copyrighting points on the real number line. That information is free, universal, and something that no one can "own." Yes, big movie companies would die, but they should have never existed in the first place. We've been frogs in warming water, and since the advent of the Internet, the water has finally started to boil.
Any goon sitting at a computer can cause millions of dollars in damages at the drop of a hat. The problem is that people have assigned value to information. Personally, while this may seem radical, I personally believe that distributing information should be entirely legal in any situation except where someone is personally threatened (say, giving out SSNs and Bank Account numbers.)
This would instantly destroy a lot of business, but the matter of the fact is that these businesses should have never existed in the first place. If companies could charge people for using mathematical constants or specific words, we would be in the same situation. It is inheritly wrong to charge people for information. Piracy is not theft, it never has been and never will be -- piracy is a name given to steal inherit immutable social rights.
Unfortunately, this is a world that likes to set logic aside and play by letter of law; not thinking out your wording is often more destructive than ill-intended but well thought out wording (at least one doesn't come with surprises twenty years down the line!)
(Assuming a first time offense) At worst, I'll probably spend a few months on probation and lose about $1,000 in legal fees/fines. If I download the same CD online (which, for the record, didn't cost the record company shiping or a CD) I'll get slammed with hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines. I don't care if she's guilty -- she shouldn't suffer any more than someone who stole the same music off a store shelf.
Bouncing customers is a good way to keep them from calling back -- grandma is much more likely to phone up 'lil Tim for computer advice if she knows the hotline tech is going to bounce her to ten different places; where I work, we get a good bit of troubleshooting work because the customers hate calling the hotlines provided by the manufacturer. Sadly, annoying your customers is a good way to keep them from calling back, and as long as your product is good enough people will still pay-up. E.g. I'm screwed into Suddenlink where I live. After being promised $85.01 TV/Net, I got a $100.00 bill because of hidden fees. Guess what -- I'm screwed into paying, because the only alternative (Cox) was bought out by Suddenlink.
The WHO was on the ball, keeping this outbreak small; I was scared a lot, until I got this shot; now I'm sleep'n sound, 'cause the Swine flu ain't come'n around; bum dum dump dump.
So I take it you and mister O'Reily agree on the liberal conspiracy to turn America into a communist regime? Today executive power to the Tzars, tomorrow the world! -- Erm, America; really though, if you can't keep your footing on a slippery slope then you have bigger issues than the bottom of the cliff. All you've done is argue that this should be carefully monitored, not thrown into place willy-nilly. The public is very very aware of what is going on, and the moment China slips in some naughty business, the dogs will bark (or do you really think no one will notice it when this software starts blocking political content?)
Today when I awakened, I saw something that had me shake'n; the WHO was warning of da flu, something new, this strange new Swine flu; now this big 'ol pandemic is causing quite a panic; the media is trip'n, help'n the economy keep slip'n; dum dee dee dum dum; I don't know where to run, so I'll sit here on my bum sip'n on sum rum; dum dee dee dum dum.
"protect" them from what? From the evils of porn? This isn't 1995 here people, and its pretty hard to not know your going to a porn site today especially if you use a search engine to find sites. If your kid is searching for porn then obviously they aren't as "innocent" as you think they are. And whenever their censorship is under the guise of "protecting" the people from such evil ideas as human rights and alternate ideologies, it gets quite suspicious whenever they try to mandate more controls.
If you do not mind your children looking at pornographic material, then feel free to uninstall the software; you, however, are not the sole arbitor of parental guidance; different people and different cultures have their own views and ideologies on what children should and should not view. They are not telling you how to raise your children, they are helping others raise their children as they see fit. Again, this is not mandated for the parents, it is madated for the computer manufacturer.
Thats nice, but why install it in the first place? There are loads of internet "protection" filters out there, mandating the installation of one, especially from a government that constantly abuses its citizens should be cause of concern or alarm. Don't you think?
It's not cause for defamation, it's cause for careful monitoring. When you start insulting a government before it has even done anything wrong, it makes -you- look bad; make your worries clear, and wait to see what happens. Furthermore, not everyone is as tech savvy as you or the other slashdotters. Many parents aren't even aware such options exist, simply because they're uneducated.
TVs, in general, cannot be hijacked (BoTVnet?) The mentioned security concerns are reasons to push for improvements to the software, not as an excuse to defame a government for trying to give parents more tools to protect their children. Again, if you do not wish to use this software, please feel free to uninstall it -- it's only there for those who want to use it.
No, we've assured his skills will remain in good use. If you wish to speak on him, please PM him on the US Shattered Hand Realm for WoW, where he has been assigned 18 years of reeducation through labor in the WoW-gold mining servers.
The "mandatory" software these computers will be shipped with is no different than a VChip inside of all modern American TVs; it's a feature people may use, but are allowed to uninstall at their sole discretion. Besides, this stuff runs on Windows, it's just one more straw on the pile of ways to hijack an unprotected computer. We also choose a tool that doesn't run on Linux because we're sick of typing 'sudo apt-get install wine' everytime we install a new Linux distro. This assures minimal typing for all Chinese Linux users.
I run Kubuntu, does that make my opinion not matter? Probably; anyway, Synaptic isn't that bad, other than the fact the search options are sometimes terrible (well, usually terrible.) Apt is perfect for advice/howto situations.
Redundant on three accounts, funny no? Find the third and mod me down for it.;p On a serious note, I'd be willing to donate coding time to open source cell apps.
I guess this is why the alternative never seems to get any votes. Oh well, I'll add multiple candidates to my to-do-list, next to encryption, validation and thread safety.
Even more reason to be angry at/. for having a subscription service? Doesn't that just mean Hulu SHOULD charge because the users don't contribute? Really, though, my point was just that subscription services aren't always bad.
I'm pretty sure, somewhere in that code, was a server thread handle which states "if {vote=="thisGuy"){thisGuy++;}else{otherGuy++;}" - because validating your requests might require extra code.
Slashdot has paid subscription and I don't see people throwing hiss fits here. I'd see nothing wrong with a pay-to-remove-the-ads service (assuming they don't double up on the ads just to annoy people into paying.) What if they charge so you can stream movies still at the theatre? There are a lot of reasons pay content might not be a bad thing. It all depends on how they go about doing it.
Please read the entire post before grasping at straws:
"Lets make a small observation: Fundamentalist Jews (who aren't running a country) are generally harmless," - Me. Fundamentalism can be a method of control, but people who are in bad social situations tend to it (and to the most extreme forms) as a way of coping with their surrounding (look at street gangs, for example.)
Not to start a hostile, brutal flame war, but I'm somewhat glad. Lets make a small observation: Fundamentalist Jews (who aren't running a country) are generally harmless, well kept people; Fundamentalist Muslims make headlines all of the time for murder. The Torah is just as violent as the Qu'ran, in fact they're closely related. So why are there so many more violent fundy Muslims than Jews/Christians? Take a quick look at their social situation: war-torn poor countries with next to no education. Any surprise the un-educated group tends to violence? We see the same pattern in African countries plagued by famine. These people need education, and that's what they're getting; maybe now they'll have a shot at living a normal life.
Slashdot Mirror
Konqueror (which I run on both of my main computers when I'm not on my Windows partition) has disappointing tabby power; Chrome spoiled me with the on-the-top-bar tabs with the x/+ side by side. Eh, I guess I should just shut up and reprogram it myself; I'm just too lazy.
You know, on most parts of the high-webs, accusing someone of trolling repeatedly is considered trolling... anyway, let me rephrase: "Piracy is a name given to sharing information to steal inherit immutable social rights. Sharing information is not piracy." Better? Anyway, of course I used inflammatory terminology, someone just got slammed with multi-million dollar fines for something I feel is a right no different than breathing or speaking freely.
This scheme is stimulating. People won't invest in multimillion pound movies without getting something back. With no copyright law these movies wouldn't be made. Smaller creative activities would continue, I made and gave away a tutorial on Inkscape the other day licensed BY-NC-SA 3.0,uk. Without any copyright I don't have the moral right to be named as the author of that work (the BY part) nor to specify that it can't be used commercially without recompensing me; nor indeed to stop someone maliciously editing it and leaving me attributed.
You're adding to the situation to get those results, though; we don't need copyright law to say it's wrong to impersonate another person with malicious intent -- that's wrong for a different set of reasons.
Multi-million dollars movies are nice, but in order to have them you have to make it illegal for individuals to share information. For example, say I have a program, G, which accepts a string of words and converts them into a binary MP3 file: when I say G("song song eleven") it uses some advanced algorithms to convert it into a music file. It is now illegal for anyone to say "song song eleven" aloud, as they are transferring the information required to reproduce a given song.
That is to say, an MP3 file is nice and abstract, but it is still simply information. In fact, certain natural numbers are illegal to share with others, because when converted to binary form they reproduce music files!
It's easy to sit back and jabber about how it has all of these great ways of making money, but at the end of the day it's still a model of business based off of copyrighting points on the real number line. That information is free, universal, and something that no one can "own." Yes, big movie companies would die, but they should have never existed in the first place. We've been frogs in warming water, and since the advent of the Internet, the water has finally started to boil.
Any goon sitting at a computer can cause millions of dollars in damages at the drop of a hat. The problem is that people have assigned value to information. Personally, while this may seem radical, I personally believe that distributing information should be entirely legal in any situation except where someone is personally threatened (say, giving out SSNs and Bank Account numbers.) This would instantly destroy a lot of business, but the matter of the fact is that these businesses should have never existed in the first place. If companies could charge people for using mathematical constants or specific words, we would be in the same situation. It is inheritly wrong to charge people for information. Piracy is not theft, it never has been and never will be -- piracy is a name given to steal inherit immutable social rights.
Unfortunately, this is a world that likes to set logic aside and play by letter of law; not thinking out your wording is often more destructive than ill-intended but well thought out wording (at least one doesn't come with surprises twenty years down the line!)
... oh hai it's meh jobs guys, i forgets dis 1 bug, 10$ for fixes plox.
(Assuming a first time offense) At worst, I'll probably spend a few months on probation and lose about $1,000 in legal fees/fines. If I download the same CD online (which, for the record, didn't cost the record company shiping or a CD) I'll get slammed with hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines. I don't care if she's guilty -- she shouldn't suffer any more than someone who stole the same music off a store shelf.
Bouncing customers is a good way to keep them from calling back -- grandma is much more likely to phone up 'lil Tim for computer advice if she knows the hotline tech is going to bounce her to ten different places; where I work, we get a good bit of troubleshooting work because the customers hate calling the hotlines provided by the manufacturer. Sadly, annoying your customers is a good way to keep them from calling back, and as long as your product is good enough people will still pay-up. E.g. I'm screwed into Suddenlink where I live. After being promised $85.01 TV/Net, I got a $100.00 bill because of hidden fees. Guess what -- I'm screwed into paying, because the only alternative (Cox) was bought out by Suddenlink.
The WHO was on the ball, keeping this outbreak small; I was scared a lot, until I got this shot; now I'm sleep'n sound, 'cause the Swine flu ain't come'n around; bum dum dump dump.
So I take it you and mister O'Reily agree on the liberal conspiracy to turn America into a communist regime? Today executive power to the Tzars, tomorrow the world! -- Erm, America; really though, if you can't keep your footing on a slippery slope then you have bigger issues than the bottom of the cliff. All you've done is argue that this should be carefully monitored, not thrown into place willy-nilly. The public is very very aware of what is going on, and the moment China slips in some naughty business, the dogs will bark (or do you really think no one will notice it when this software starts blocking political content?)
Today when I awakened, I saw something that had me shake'n; the WHO was warning of da flu, something new, this strange new Swine flu; now this big 'ol pandemic is causing quite a panic; the media is trip'n, help'n the economy keep slip'n; dum dee dee dum dum; I don't know where to run, so I'll sit here on my bum sip'n on sum rum; dum dee dee dum dum.
"protect" them from what? From the evils of porn? This isn't 1995 here people, and its pretty hard to not know your going to a porn site today especially if you use a search engine to find sites. If your kid is searching for porn then obviously they aren't as "innocent" as you think they are. And whenever their censorship is under the guise of "protecting" the people from such evil ideas as human rights and alternate ideologies, it gets quite suspicious whenever they try to mandate more controls.
If you do not mind your children looking at pornographic material, then feel free to uninstall the software; you, however, are not the sole arbitor of parental guidance; different people and different cultures have their own views and ideologies on what children should and should not view. They are not telling you how to raise your children, they are helping others raise their children as they see fit. Again, this is not mandated for the parents, it is madated for the computer manufacturer.
Thats nice, but why install it in the first place? There are loads of internet "protection" filters out there, mandating the installation of one, especially from a government that constantly abuses its citizens should be cause of concern or alarm. Don't you think?
It's not cause for defamation, it's cause for careful monitoring. When you start insulting a government before it has even done anything wrong, it makes -you- look bad; make your worries clear, and wait to see what happens. Furthermore, not everyone is as tech savvy as you or the other slashdotters. Many parents aren't even aware such options exist, simply because they're uneducated.
TVs, in general, cannot be hijacked (BoTVnet?) The mentioned security concerns are reasons to push for improvements to the software, not as an excuse to defame a government for trying to give parents more tools to protect their children. Again, if you do not wish to use this software, please feel free to uninstall it -- it's only there for those who want to use it.
No, we've assured his skills will remain in good use. If you wish to speak on him, please PM him on the US Shattered Hand Realm for WoW, where he has been assigned 18 years of reeducation through labor in the WoW-gold mining servers.
The "mandatory" software these computers will be shipped with is no different than a VChip inside of all modern American TVs; it's a feature people may use, but are allowed to uninstall at their sole discretion. Besides, this stuff runs on Windows, it's just one more straw on the pile of ways to hijack an unprotected computer. We also choose a tool that doesn't run on Linux because we're sick of typing 'sudo apt-get install wine' everytime we install a new Linux distro. This assures minimal typing for all Chinese Linux users.
I run Kubuntu, does that make my opinion not matter? Probably; anyway, Synaptic isn't that bad, other than the fact the search options are sometimes terrible (well, usually terrible.) Apt is perfect for advice/howto situations.
Redundant on three accounts, funny no? Find the third and mod me down for it. ;p On a serious note, I'd be willing to donate coding time to open source cell apps.
Your code fu is strong, but not strong enough! [tally[vote] for vote in voteBox.getVotes()]
I guess this is why the alternative never seems to get any votes. Oh well, I'll add multiple candidates to my to-do-list, next to encryption, validation and thread safety.
Even more reason to be angry at /. for having a subscription service? Doesn't that just mean Hulu SHOULD charge because the users don't contribute? Really, though, my point was just that subscription services aren't always bad.
I'm pretty sure, somewhere in that code, was a server thread handle which states "if {vote=="thisGuy"){thisGuy++;}else{otherGuy++;}" - because validating your requests might require extra code.
Slashdot has paid subscription and I don't see people throwing hiss fits here. I'd see nothing wrong with a pay-to-remove-the-ads service (assuming they don't double up on the ads just to annoy people into paying.) What if they charge so you can stream movies still at the theatre? There are a lot of reasons pay content might not be a bad thing. It all depends on how they go about doing it.
... would be to put a portrait of the Prime Minister in every home which has a small spy-cam installed.
Please read the entire post before grasping at straws: "Lets make a small observation: Fundamentalist Jews (who aren't running a country) are generally harmless," - Me. Fundamentalism can be a method of control, but people who are in bad social situations tend to it (and to the most extreme forms) as a way of coping with their surrounding (look at street gangs, for example.)
Not to start a hostile, brutal flame war, but I'm somewhat glad. Lets make a small observation: Fundamentalist Jews (who aren't running a country) are generally harmless, well kept people; Fundamentalist Muslims make headlines all of the time for murder. The Torah is just as violent as the Qu'ran, in fact they're closely related. So why are there so many more violent fundy Muslims than Jews/Christians? Take a quick look at their social situation: war-torn poor countries with next to no education. Any surprise the un-educated group tends to violence? We see the same pattern in African countries plagued by famine. These people need education, and that's what they're getting; maybe now they'll have a shot at living a normal life.