Then good, the 3D was well done and passively creates a more immersive experience. It's a lot better than cartoons that use 3D mainly to poke sticks at your eyes.
Bring the *AA in to help. I'm sure they're all pretty angry about www.thepiratebay.org becoming the number one place to get your games since all the other venues are censored. Not exactly an environment conducive to respecting copyright.
Is that power and materials per lightbulb or are the numbers adjusted to account for the fact that fluorescent lights last a heck of a lot longer than incandescent ones?
When I need to search for something, I put the search terms into the URL bar and Google Chrome automatically sends me to the answer page for the search query. Sometimes it even takes me straight to a Wikipedia article.
So if the majority of the population think censorship is okay, it becomes okay? Sorry, but individuals should NOT be subjected to a tyranny of the majority. If someone wants to look at something that 99% of the population find offensive, he should still have that right. A censorship system controlled by the people would be subject to personal and public tastes and prejudices and not in the public's best interest. As for gray area cases, so far all the judges can come up with to define obscenity is "I know it when I see it." How are people who want to create borderline art supposed to work with that?
What is obscene and censorable is something that humans are simply incapable of handling, which is why we need a system of hard, bright lines. No censorship at all, no illegal numbers and no illegal works is a good place to start.
But I will talk freedom. Censorship solutions are made up of software, and software, being information, is protected speech and should not be regulated. Instructions on making chem/bio weapons, also being information, should also not be banned because of freedom of speech. You can't defend your principles by abandoning them.
The planet we live on currently has about 6.8 billion residents. Most estimates of Earth's carrying capacity are around 5 billion. We simply cannot sustainably survive on one planet unless we're willing to have a nuclear war to kill a few billion people. We need a plan to start moving people off of Earth in the next 50 years. NASA and it's European, Russian and Chinese equivalents are the most important agencies for the future of humanity, and I find it appalling that they're getting less funding than the wars in the Middle East.
It is perfectly possible for the morally correct choice to be against everyone's short term interests. We approve of Google's actions because Google is sticking to their principles and not supporting an evil regime for profit like most other megacorps are inclined to do. In the long term, if more companies follow Google's lead, it will teach the Chinese government that the civilized world will not support their policies and they will change their ways, even if out of self-interest.
Chinese citizens are sovereign individuals and have a right to free access to information. China may not agree with these rights, but it has to abide by them or pay the price.
The interesting thing is that for crimes that are easy to do and get away with, like uploading files (I realize that's not a crime, but bear with me) and shoplifting chocolate bars is that psychology is the best defense. Shaming potential thieves by putting up a "please don't do it" sign actually works. Putting in technological defenses does nothing and also attracts the kind of people who are interested in a challenge.
You grossly misunderstood the parent. He does not mean that you can't use someone else's copyrighted stuff, he means that you can't force someone else to host your free speech on their servers.
Are there any Youtube alternatives that don't take content down so easily? With HTML5 and the video tag I imagine it would be a lot easier now to create something like that.
Internet decentralization is good, and we need to take advantage of it and not put everything on Google's servers (and not put everything on Microsoft's servers, and not put everything on (insert freedom-loving startup based in Sealand here)'s servers) so that internet freedom doesn't rest on a single pedestal. Single pedestals can be brought down, but a million can't.
The argument's truth depends on the scale. If you're a 10-man business, then it won't make a difference (unless the idealistic types haven't been kicked under the wheels of capitalism yet) but if you're the US government then it will.
Yep. I do find it funny how many Linux types will advocate Linux more or less as a "security through obscurity" thing. "Oh use Linux because all these attacks target Windows!" Ok, well if everyone took your advice and switched to Linux, they'd target Linux instead.
"All my games only work on Windows"
"Well, if you all switch to Linux they'll write games for Linux instead."
The reason why this argument doesn't work is exactly the same as the reason why yours also doesn't.
We're probably going to either die or become dramatically weaker in the next few decades because the internet has made our presence superfluous. However, we can make $$$BIG_MONEY for five extra years if we slow the internet down a bit with our sheer number of lawyers.
Slashdot Mirror
Then good, the 3D was well done and passively creates a more immersive experience. It's a lot better than cartoons that use 3D mainly to poke sticks at your eyes.
Bring the *AA in to help. I'm sure they're all pretty angry about www.thepiratebay.org becoming the number one place to get your games since all the other venues are censored. Not exactly an environment conducive to respecting copyright.
Exactly, and you could easily justify it by having all the characters speak Sindarin.
Is that power and materials per lightbulb or are the numbers adjusted to account for the fact that fluorescent lights last a heck of a lot longer than incandescent ones?
When I need to search for something, I put the search terms into the URL bar and Google Chrome automatically sends me to the answer page for the search query. Sometimes it even takes me straight to a Wikipedia article.
Search isn't dead, it's just transparent.
Or hertz per diopter
So if the majority of the population think censorship is okay, it becomes okay? Sorry, but individuals should NOT be subjected to a tyranny of the majority. If someone wants to look at something that 99% of the population find offensive, he should still have that right. A censorship system controlled by the people would be subject to personal and public tastes and prejudices and not in the public's best interest. As for gray area cases, so far all the judges can come up with to define obscenity is "I know it when I see it." How are people who want to create borderline art supposed to work with that?
What is obscene and censorable is something that humans are simply incapable of handling, which is why we need a system of hard, bright lines. No censorship at all, no illegal numbers and no illegal works is a good place to start.
But I will talk freedom. Censorship solutions are made up of software, and software, being information, is protected speech and should not be regulated. Instructions on making chem/bio weapons, also being information, should also not be banned because of freedom of speech. You can't defend your principles by abandoning them.
The planet we live on currently has about 6.8 billion residents. Most estimates of Earth's carrying capacity are around 5 billion. We simply cannot sustainably survive on one planet unless we're willing to have a nuclear war to kill a few billion people. We need a plan to start moving people off of Earth in the next 50 years. NASA and it's European, Russian and Chinese equivalents are the most important agencies for the future of humanity, and I find it appalling that they're getting less funding than the wars in the Middle East.
It is perfectly possible for the morally correct choice to be against everyone's short term interests. We approve of Google's actions because Google is sticking to their principles and not supporting an evil regime for profit like most other megacorps are inclined to do. In the long term, if more companies follow Google's lead, it will teach the Chinese government that the civilized world will not support their policies and they will change their ways, even if out of self-interest.
Chinese citizens are sovereign individuals and have a right to free access to information. China may not agree with these rights, but it has to abide by them or pay the price.
At the very least, designing games for Windows and Mac usually implies that the game will run well on Wine too.
proprietary unix vendors
Wait, does that include OSX?
The interesting thing is that for crimes that are easy to do and get away with, like uploading files (I realize that's not a crime, but bear with me) and shoplifting chocolate bars is that psychology is the best defense. Shaming potential thieves by putting up a "please don't do it" sign actually works. Putting in technological defenses does nothing and also attracts the kind of people who are interested in a challenge.
Are you sure that you already have this you think it's called emacs?
No, that can't be right. The semiconductor was invented in Eurasia, and we're at war with Eurasia.
The corporation are removing content out of fear of lawsuits. They are NOT doing it for their personal profit
Agree with the first part, but they're still afraid of lawsuits because they reduce their personal profit.
You grossly misunderstood the parent. He does not mean that you can't use someone else's copyrighted stuff, he means that you can't force someone else to host your free speech on their servers.
ISP servers, there's your single pedestal. Thank you, you've made my point even stronger than before.
Are there any Youtube alternatives that don't take content down so easily? With HTML5 and the video tag I imagine it would be a lot easier now to create something like that.
Internet decentralization is good, and we need to take advantage of it and not put everything on Google's servers (and not put everything on Microsoft's servers, and not put everything on (insert freedom-loving startup based in Sealand here)'s servers) so that internet freedom doesn't rest on a single pedestal. Single pedestals can be brought down, but a million can't.
The argument's truth depends on the scale. If you're a 10-man business, then it won't make a difference (unless the idealistic types haven't been kicked under the wheels of capitalism yet) but if you're the US government then it will.
Yep. I do find it funny how many Linux types will advocate Linux more or less as a "security through obscurity" thing. "Oh use Linux because all these attacks target Windows!" Ok, well if everyone took your advice and switched to Linux, they'd target Linux instead.
"All my games only work on Windows"
"Well, if you all switch to Linux they'll write games for Linux instead."
The reason why this argument doesn't work is exactly the same as the reason why yours also doesn't.
No, they're saying:
We're probably going to either die or become dramatically weaker in the next few decades because the internet has made our presence superfluous. However, we can make $$$BIG_MONEY for five extra years if we slow the internet down a bit with our sheer number of lawyers.
Maybe Canada paid them to have the puck gravitate over to the US's net for the hockey game.
Flash is a plugin. It may be ubiquitous, but it's still proprietary and it's still a plugin.