Yeah--one big, gaping hole: the player manufacturers are not producing hardware "that can remove the copy protection on your work. " They are producing hardware that can view your work. There's a big difference. If you would try to copy it the Macrovision would kick in and scramble the signal.
Sure they are. You see, any idiot can hook up the VCR and make a recording (albeit imperfect) of your DVD. (The quality loss obviously doesn't matter, as the MP3 controversy shows.)
Furthermore, by producing a DVD you implicitly allow it to be viewed on a DVD player. Duh. How else could you possibly view any type of media except on a player that was designed to view that type of media!
Well, actually this DVD will only be licensed to be played on your DVD player, under Linux. (Based on DeCSS or whatnot.) Seems to me that there's no real difference between the two situations.
Re:Who really needs a lesson
on
Lawsuits Suck
·
· Score: 1
Not a bad idea at all, although perhaps it does need a seperate page. A site in Uganda, run similarily to slashdot (So we don't have to worry about adding masses of people to the/. staff.) Then, it shouldn't be too hard to add a slashbox that read the stories off the Ugandan site and provided headlines and links to the relevant articles.
Re:Who really needs a lesson
on
Lawsuits Suck
·
· Score: 1
I think you missed it: He was saying that we've rejected them as well. I know I have; I can't stand the rampant stupidity that reigns outside this little safe haven. I personally don't think that the people in the "real world" are out to get us as you think, or even hold anything against us. The problem is (as the article states) that the two camps just don't interact. (Like in this discussion. In the space of a few hours, it's already racked up nearly 400 posts, maybe more by the time I write this. And none of us, least of all me, has taken the oppertunity to do something productive.)
And why the Hell isn't it the citizen's job to take care of his kids, instead of letting K-mart, Wal-Mart, the MPAA and other clueless corporate pieces of shit be responsible for them?
Nobody's saying that your kid can't read, watch, and play what he wants. If you want it that way, go to KMart yourself and buy it for him or her. (Of course, you have other things to do than that, and couldn't be bothered to take any responsibility for your views by taking some action.) You can disagree with KMart and WalMart all you want, but saying that they should share your views is unfounded arrogance on your part, that's shared by most of your clueless slashdot colleagues.
any frustrated teenager will tell you video games are a tool for catharsis
No, not any teenager. Some will. I sure wouldn't when I was in -- guess what -- many of the situations you mention. If graphical depictions of violence are considered good psychological replacements for actually dealing with you problems, or even are treated as a generic escape route, then I think that there's a problem, and it's not KMart's.
stores don't do things like this out of a feeling of beneficence, they do it because they perceive that people like you want them to
Why do you think that they do what they think people want them to? Just for fun? No, they want people to shop there. And the funny thing is, they're rarely wrong -- the majority of parents have some ideas of what they do and don't want their kids to see, and appreciate a policy that agrees with them. The rest of your paragraph is a fine argument that unrestricted access is ideal, but it misses the point. KMart is taking reasonable actions to fit in to the society that it caters to.
A lack of rights is the fundamental problem that causes teenagers to snap.
I already stated that restricting access to violent video games doesn't neccesarily lead to restriction of other 'rights.' (In fact, I think that the idea that it does is complete hogwash.) And anyone that's going to "snap" because they're denied their video games has mental problems anyway. Everyone has limits on what they're allowed to do. Teenagers have a few more; they always have in our society. Learning to live with that is part of growing up.
BTW: Great song, great Lyrics, and great point, but completely irrelevant except for moderation value.
"KMart, where we won't sell you violent games, but the real thing is just around the corner in the Weaponry department"
Hate to break this to you, but your 12-year-old can't just walk into K-Mart and buy the real thing either. So this statement is meaningless.
That said, why are so many people whining about this? Do you really think that it's that important for a kid to be able to see animated gore etc. without his or her parents' permission? Do you think it is a good, unreplaceable outlet for energy and creativity, or maybe a political statement, or perhaps a unsurrpassable bonding experience for them and their friends?
Yeah, some people say that "If they censor Blood & Guts Extreme 2001, tomorrow they'll censor something of real value." First, why should KMart be dedicated to Free Speech? (That's the citizen's job, not theirs.) Someone elsewhere in the discussion was saying that 'violent games promote violence' is a "slippery slope" argument. Isn't the 'ever-widening blanket of censorship' a slippery slope argument as well? Until there's some proof either way (hint: the former has a lot more than the latter) you don't need to get yourself into a tizzy because, against all expectations, KMart tries to make a buck.
If you can get a 'good enough' job (defined to be one that you're happy with, both what your doing and how much money you're making, whether or not it's as good as you could get after college) then I'd say go for it.
Now, if you want to make loads of money, or get the coolest jobs, you'll probably need a college degree. But if you don't, and you don't like school, there's absolutely no reason why you should put up with it. (IMO, school is a complete waste of my time.) The conventional wisdom that more schooling is always better isn't always true.
The US has never been a 'pure democracy' and it wouldn't work for it to ever be a 'pure democracy.' We're a republic, and we elect
representatives to champion our interests in congress. If all laws were passed by popular election, what we would have is a tyrrany of
the majority. Minority rights would cease to exist.
Um... no. The republican system is not intended to (and would not be effective for) preserving minority representation. (Our particular implementation of that system give the rich more power than anyone else, but that's not the point of the whole thing.) To help preserves the rights of the minority, we have the constitution, which effectively sets the ground rules. (That's why it takes more than a majority vote to amend it.) This is why we need the court system.
More to the point, I think, is that the client has the textures etc. because the consumer has already paid for them. Using these textures should then be considered fair use.
Exactly WHY wouldn't you want to give up Linux in favor of this?
Well, more software and support, for starters. From what I see, (And as they state) this isn't intended to become a desktop standard OS, by any means -- rather, it will fill a small niche. As so, developers will probably stick to their traditional platforms. And of course, perhaps this will be a kick in the pants to the Linux folk... Nothing better than competition to spur development.
Is Photon's solution a good one. It's fast, light, and mostly X compatible. Could we finally get rid of X with something like this?
I personally love it. Now, I'm a console kind of guy... always booted to DOS back in my Windows days, and didn't even install X. (Partly because I'm using old hardware, partly because I didn't want it.) However, there are a few things that really need a GUI, and non-X based graphics is an iffy thing on most systems. In these cases, the sheer bloat and occasional strangeness of X makes me shudder. If this GUI is good and fast (I can't really speak with authority, but if their claims are any indication, these people know what speed means) I say port it and make it a standard. Sounds great to me:)
Well, I definately wouldn't give up using Linux in favor of this (And although being able to dual-boot to it might be cool, I don't really think it would serve much purpose.) However, it seems like it might make a really nice operating system when you don't have time to mess with Linux. Linux takes a couple hours to get installed, set up, make sure you've got all the packages you want... from what the article says, I'd probably be able to get QNX working several times in the same time span. If, for instance, you have (or just have to use) a Windows box for some reason, slap this on and you've actually got a real operating system. Perhaps you can put it on that old 486 you've got sitting around and use it for menial tasks. Whatever.
Oh, one other thought -- what about educational uses? Would, for instance, high schools have to pay to use it, or would they be able to install it for free? If the installation process is as simple as it sounds, maybe it would be possible to have QNX labs around -- it seems to me that this could be a great platform for kids to be working with, after it's been given a little more time to mature.
Linux, despite being as widely adored as it is, is just not cut out to compete as a desktop OS. It's more difficult to install than either Win95 or MacOS 9, it has fewer software options than either, and its OS and software are overall less intuitive. A desktop OS really needs to be "idiot-friendly"; Linux still isn't.
This assumes that to use a desktop computer, you have to be an idiot. I don't consider myself an idiot, therefore Linux makes perfect sense to be on my desktop. As far as I'm concerned, the idiots can rot with their MS software. (So, I'm an elitist. Can you name many Linux users who aren't?)
The claim that "Linux isn't ready for the desktop" is completely unfounded. Some people aren't ready for Linux, but there's lots of proof that Linux is a great desktop OS. (Try talking to the people who really do use linux. No, not the dual-booting "I use Linux 'cause Windoze sux, but I still need it to play games and read Word documents and run Visual Basic..." The people who actually use and like it on their desktops.)
If these students are going to be professional programmers, they're going to be using IDEs their entire career.
Um...hate to burst your bubble, but there are jobs out there for people who (gasp) don't program using Windows. For an example, I'm doing an internship at a... oh, fairly enormous company right now. And guess what? All the work I'm doing is on AIX and Solaris. Never use any IDE beyond gvim in one window and a terminal in another. (I won't even address your assumption that an inane set of buttons, menus, and other clutter will somehow enable me to code faster.)
Yeah, if you intend to be locked into using Windows for the rest of your life, you'll probably be stuck using an IDE. Otherwise, chances are you'll find that they're unneccesary. Fortunately, some of us prefer to stay away from that. Maybe they should teach development using an IDE as part of their curriculum, but there's no reason that everything should be based around it.
After all, the TA probably wouldn't know how to compile something from the command line. It sounds like you're not locked into actually using it for anything but a quick run-through at the end to make sure it compiles right. (This is nothing compared to what my friends have to put up with at my school -- all Windows, all Java... they might as well call the CS degree the Programming in Java degree. One of the many reasons why I wouldn't go anywhere near that program.)
Of course, much of this has to do with the well-known fact that 99% of people teaching in 'higher education' are complete idiots. At least, it's well-known to me; don't know about anyone else. So this and worse should come as no surprise to anyone.
Sorry, but your statement is stupid. Don't you hate it when that happens? (Yeah, yeah, flamebait. Everyone so for in this discussion has been playing the karma game, too, though, especially this idiot.)
If a group of people use Linux successfully on the desktop, and prefer it to Windows, then is sure as hell is ready for the desktop. Just because you have some problems using it doesn't mean that it's not a perfectly good choice for desktop use. Your argument about 'devices not working under Linux' is crap -- 95% of typical desktop systems contain hardware that works just fine with Linux. (About the only fairly common exception I can think of are Winmodems.) By your logic, we should say Windows is not ready for server use, since Linux runs on a wider variety of architectures than Windows.
Mostly likely piracy will go up, and I would not be surprised if it triples or more.
May I ask where you get that idea? I like your statements, however the idea that this ruling will somehow cause piracy to triple just sounds like air to me. Can you give a reason why that would happen? Meaningless and untruestatistics don't do anything but weaken your argument.
And the.doc files usually run around a K higher than they would be in text.
Yeah, right. By a K higher, you mean 1000 times bigger, right? Example I have handy: aristotle.txt (short essay I wrote) = 7854 bytes. aristotle.doc (translated to word format so I could print it on the school computers) = 101754 bytes. Try checking facts before spouting.
Why was this comment moderated as 'insightful'? Come on, the only reason this person posted this was because he sees the obligatory complaints that come with every 'Ask Slashdot'. The topic is relevant and interesting, and I have never seen much about it (although I have thought about it a bit before myself.) If it doesn't capture your interest, you don't need to read it.
I'm surprised that he posted anonymously, as these comments always get modded up. Oh well. But moderators -- a whiny complaint never deserves to have its score raised. Well-reasoned argument is fine; this is a troll.
(Posted non-anonymously, because a name has more weight:)
That's why the whole abandonware argument doesn't make much sense. The fact that companies still protect old software is proof that it still has some value. Are we really supposed to believe that executives hold on to copyrights just because they enjoy making people suffer?
Um... no. If you haven't noticed, no copyrighted software has naturally entered the public domain. The reason why they hold on to the copyright is because they don't have any proof that they do not have any more value. (Follow that?)
That said, they do have some value -- to a game player. because they're fun. By holding on to the copyrights like that, though, they have no value to the company. As I said in an earlier post, most people who use abandonware are actually pretty reasonable. They like the companies that made the softare or games that they use, and would be willing to buy it legally if given the chance.
Sure. They don't have to share. But once they decide to release it, sell it, and make some money... they've already given it away. If they didn't want people to own their software (which is, in general, what these companies want for old programs... they want them to be completely obliterated so that they can sell you new stuff) then they shouldn't have released it in the first place.
It seems like just an act of wastefulness on the part of these companies. Some of the best games ever made are now nearly lost, and completely unsupported by their manufacturers. (Case in point: Corncob 3D, one of the best and most entertaining flight simulation games ever produced. The company's website now doesn't even mention having made it, and my disks were corrupted long ago. I did finally manage to get it from somewhere.)
Even if the companies refused to make them freely available, it would be nice if they would continue to sell them to people who request it. They wouldn't have to advertise or even mention them, but if people requested an old game, they'd throw it on a floppy and send it to them for a few dollars. Heck, same for old nintendo ROMS and so forth. I'd be more than willing to pay a few dollars to play my games legally.
No kiddin'. I think that all web sites should be required to work correctly in Lynx, or the server should have its power and network lines immediately severed. Maybe then people would learn how to design a decent web page, rather than just throwing around the latest, flashy, and incredibly ugly 'features' that you only get from IE.
But by no means is it a common idiom. In fact, the only reason why you hear it commonly is because people want to use a big, important-sounding phrase even if they don't know what it means. I'm all for letting language change, but there still will be a 'right' and 'wrong' set of grammar. This will be 'wrong' for quite a long time to come.
Um...did anyone actually look at the site here? This guy's right -- the page doesn't say anything substantiated or of value. From what little I can tell from HP's page, it's actually a lower-level calculator than the 49. (Only 256k of memory? You going to be putting many MP3s on that?) I can't find any real evidence that much of this is true at all. (I'm thinking this will be more like the TI-83... a simple calculator for people that don't need the 85 or 89.)
Anyway, I was rather dissapointed with the 49. (No IR, keys feel all wrong.) It seems doubtful that this would fix those problems. I think I'll stick with my 48gx for the foreseeable future.
'such spanning power'? Let's get this straight, here. The post isn't about allowing the feds free reign to read and see everything you do. It's about allowing them to gather information after there's already evidence that you're doing something illegal, and that watching your communications will provide more evidence. Whether or not the police are corrupt is another matter, but tying their hands behind their backs doesn't help anyone.
This guy knows what he's talking about. (Moderators, if you don't mind...nobody's going to see it if you don't help:)
If we set up TLDs for porn sites, most sites would move right over -- after all, they love any kind of advertising they can get, and being able to say that their domain ends in.xxx will attract them. (there would have to be a rule that, say, the owner of a.xxx domain can't use the corresponding.com domain to redirect users, but that could be dealt with.)
The only sites you'll have left are the sites that spammers put up on geocities and them hope somebody gets to before they're taken down, and other similarily shady sites. I really don't know how prevalent they are (I get the emails and so forth constantly, but when I've tried the links they're already down.) so I don't know how much of a problem that is. Still, blocking the.xxx domains would give you a far greater accuracy rate than the censorware products available now.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure they are. You see, any idiot can hook up the VCR and make a recording (albeit imperfect) of your DVD. (The quality loss obviously doesn't matter, as the MP3 controversy shows.)
Furthermore, by producing a DVD you implicitly allow it to be viewed on a DVD player. Duh. How else could you possibly view any type of media except on a player that was designed to view that type of media!
Well, actually this DVD will only be licensed to be played on your DVD player, under Linux. (Based on DeCSS or whatnot.) Seems to me that there's no real difference between the two situations.
Not a bad idea at all, although perhaps it does need a seperate page. A site in Uganda, run similarily to slashdot (So we don't have to worry about adding masses of people to the /. staff.) Then, it shouldn't be too hard to add a slashbox that read the stories off the Ugandan site and provided headlines and links to the relevant articles.
I think you missed it: He was saying that we've rejected them as well. I know I have; I can't stand the rampant stupidity that reigns outside this little safe haven. I personally don't think that the people in the "real world" are out to get us as you think, or even hold anything against us. The problem is (as the article states) that the two camps just don't interact. (Like in this discussion. In the space of a few hours, it's already racked up nearly 400 posts, maybe more by the time I write this. And none of us, least of all me, has taken the oppertunity to do something productive.)
And why the Hell isn't it the citizen's job to take care of his kids, instead of letting K-mart, Wal-Mart, the MPAA and other clueless corporate pieces of shit be responsible for them?
Nobody's saying that your kid can't read, watch, and play what he wants. If you want it that way, go to KMart yourself and buy it for him or her. (Of course, you have other things to do than that, and couldn't be bothered to take any responsibility for your views by taking some action.) You can disagree with KMart and WalMart all you want, but saying that they should share your views is unfounded arrogance on your part, that's shared by most of your clueless slashdot colleagues.
any frustrated teenager will tell you video games are a tool for catharsis No, not any teenager. Some will. I sure wouldn't when I was in -- guess what -- many of the situations you mention. If graphical depictions of violence are considered good psychological replacements for actually dealing with you problems, or even are treated as a generic escape route, then I think that there's a problem, and it's not KMart's.
stores don't do things like this out of a feeling of beneficence, they do it because they perceive that people like you want them to
Why do you think that they do what they think people want them to? Just for fun? No, they want people to shop there. And the funny thing is, they're rarely wrong -- the majority of parents have some ideas of what they do and don't want their kids to see, and appreciate a policy that agrees with them. The rest of your paragraph is a fine argument that unrestricted access is ideal, but it misses the point. KMart is taking reasonable actions to fit in to the society that it caters to.
A lack of rights is the fundamental problem that causes teenagers to snap.
I already stated that restricting access to violent video games doesn't neccesarily lead to restriction of other 'rights.' (In fact, I think that the idea that it does is complete hogwash.) And anyone that's going to "snap" because they're denied their video games has mental problems anyway. Everyone has limits on what they're allowed to do. Teenagers have a few more; they always have in our society. Learning to live with that is part of growing up.
BTW: Great song, great Lyrics, and great point, but completely irrelevant except for moderation value.
Hate to break this to you, but your 12-year-old can't just walk into K-Mart and buy the real thing either. So this statement is meaningless.
That said, why are so many people whining about this? Do you really think that it's that important for a kid to be able to see animated gore etc. without his or her parents' permission? Do you think it is a good, unreplaceable outlet for energy and creativity, or maybe a political statement, or perhaps a unsurrpassable bonding experience for them and their friends?
Yeah, some people say that "If they censor Blood & Guts Extreme 2001, tomorrow they'll censor something of real value." First, why should KMart be dedicated to Free Speech? (That's the citizen's job, not theirs.) Someone elsewhere in the discussion was saying that 'violent games promote violence' is a "slippery slope" argument. Isn't the 'ever-widening blanket of censorship' a slippery slope argument as well? Until there's some proof either way (hint: the former has a lot more than the latter) you don't need to get yourself into a tizzy because, against all expectations, KMart tries to make a buck.
Now, if you want to make loads of money, or get the coolest jobs, you'll probably need a college degree. But if you don't, and you don't like school, there's absolutely no reason why you should put up with it. (IMO, school is a complete waste of my time.) The conventional wisdom that more schooling is always better isn't always true.
Um... no. The republican system is not intended to (and would not be effective for) preserving minority representation. (Our particular implementation of that system give the rich more power than anyone else, but that's not the point of the whole thing.) To help preserves the rights of the minority, we have the constitution, which effectively sets the ground rules. (That's why it takes more than a majority vote to amend it.) This is why we need the court system.
More to the point, I think, is that the client has the textures etc. because the consumer has already paid for them. Using these textures should then be considered fair use.
Well, more software and support, for starters. From what I see, (And as they state) this isn't intended to become a desktop standard OS, by any means -- rather, it will fill a small niche. As so, developers will probably stick to their traditional platforms. And of course, perhaps this will be a kick in the pants to the Linux folk ... Nothing better than competition to spur development.
Is Photon's solution a good one. It's fast, light, and mostly X compatible. Could we finally get rid of X with something like this?
I personally love it. Now, I'm a console kind of guy ... always booted to DOS back in my Windows days, and didn't even install X. (Partly because I'm using old hardware, partly because I didn't want it.) However, there are a few things that really need a GUI, and non-X based graphics is an iffy thing on most systems. In these cases, the sheer bloat and occasional strangeness of X makes me shudder. If this GUI is good and fast (I can't really speak with authority, but if their claims are any indication, these people know what speed means) I say port it and make it a standard. Sounds great to me :)
Oh, one other thought -- what about educational uses? Would, for instance, high schools have to pay to use it, or would they be able to install it for free? If the installation process is as simple as it sounds, maybe it would be possible to have QNX labs around -- it seems to me that this could be a great platform for kids to be working with, after it's been given a little more time to mature.
This assumes that to use a desktop computer, you have to be an idiot. I don't consider myself an idiot, therefore Linux makes perfect sense to be on my desktop. As far as I'm concerned, the idiots can rot with their MS software. (So, I'm an elitist. Can you name many Linux users who aren't?)
The claim that "Linux isn't ready for the desktop" is completely unfounded. Some people aren't ready for Linux, but there's lots of proof that Linux is a great desktop OS. (Try talking to the people who really do use linux. No, not the dual-booting "I use Linux 'cause Windoze sux, but I still need it to play games and read Word documents and run Visual Basic..." The people who actually use and like it on their desktops.)
Um...hate to burst your bubble, but there are jobs out there for people who (gasp) don't program using Windows. For an example, I'm doing an internship at a ... oh, fairly enormous company right now. And guess what? All the work I'm doing is on AIX and Solaris. Never use any IDE beyond gvim in one window and a terminal in another. (I won't even address your assumption that an inane set of buttons, menus, and other clutter will somehow enable me to code faster.)
Yeah, if you intend to be locked into using Windows for the rest of your life, you'll probably be stuck using an IDE. Otherwise, chances are you'll find that they're unneccesary. Fortunately, some of us prefer to stay away from that. Maybe they should teach development using an IDE as part of their curriculum, but there's no reason that everything should be based around it.
After all, the TA probably wouldn't know how to compile something from the command line. It sounds like you're not locked into actually using it for anything but a quick run-through at the end to make sure it compiles right. (This is nothing compared to what my friends have to put up with at my school -- all Windows, all Java ... they might as well call the CS degree the Programming in Java degree. One of the many reasons why I wouldn't go anywhere near that program.)
Of course, much of this has to do with the well-known fact that 99% of people teaching in 'higher education' are complete idiots. At least, it's well-known to me; don't know about anyone else. So this and worse should come as no surprise to anyone.
Sorry, but your statement is stupid. Don't you hate it when that happens? (Yeah, yeah, flamebait. Everyone so for in this discussion has been playing the karma game, too, though, especially this idiot.)
If a group of people use Linux successfully on the desktop, and prefer it to Windows, then is sure as hell is ready for the desktop. Just because you have some problems using it doesn't mean that it's not a perfectly good choice for desktop use. Your argument about 'devices not working under Linux' is crap -- 95% of typical desktop systems contain hardware that works just fine with Linux. (About the only fairly common exception I can think of are Winmodems.) By your logic, we should say Windows is not ready for server use, since Linux runs on a wider variety of architectures than Windows.
May I ask where you get that idea? I like your statements, however the idea that this ruling will somehow cause piracy to triple just sounds like air to me. Can you give a reason why that would happen? Meaningless and untruestatistics don't do anything but weaken your argument.
Yeah, right. By a K higher, you mean 1000 times bigger, right? Example I have handy: aristotle.txt (short essay I wrote) = 7854 bytes. aristotle.doc (translated to word format so I could print it on the school computers) = 101754 bytes. Try checking facts before spouting.
Why was this comment moderated as 'insightful'? Come on, the only reason this person posted this was because he sees the obligatory complaints that come with every 'Ask Slashdot'. The topic is relevant and interesting, and I have never seen much about it (although I have thought about it a bit before myself.) If it doesn't capture your interest, you don't need to read it.
:)
I'm surprised that he posted anonymously, as these comments always get modded up. Oh well. But moderators -- a whiny complaint never deserves to have its score raised. Well-reasoned argument is fine; this is a troll.
(Posted non-anonymously, because a name has more weight
Um... no. If you haven't noticed, no copyrighted software has naturally entered the public domain. The reason why they hold on to the copyright is because they don't have any proof that they do not have any more value. (Follow that?)
That said, they do have some value -- to a game player. because they're fun. By holding on to the copyrights like that, though, they have no value to the company. As I said in an earlier post, most people who use abandonware are actually pretty reasonable. They like the companies that made the softare or games that they use, and would be willing to buy it legally if given the chance.
Sure. They don't have to share. But once they decide to release it, sell it, and make some money ... they've already given it away. If they didn't want people to own their software (which is, in general, what these companies want for old programs ... they want them to be completely obliterated so that they can sell you new stuff) then they shouldn't have released it in the first place.
It seems like just an act of wastefulness on the part of these companies. Some of the best games ever made are now nearly lost, and completely unsupported by their manufacturers. (Case in point: Corncob 3D, one of the best and most entertaining flight simulation games ever produced. The company's website now doesn't even mention having made it, and my disks were corrupted long ago. I did finally manage to get it from somewhere.)
Even if the companies refused to make them freely available, it would be nice if they would continue to sell them to people who request it. They wouldn't have to advertise or even mention them, but if people requested an old game, they'd throw it on a floppy and send it to them for a few dollars. Heck, same for old nintendo ROMS and so forth. I'd be more than willing to pay a few dollars to play my games legally.
No kiddin'. I think that all web sites should be required to work correctly in Lynx, or the server should have its power and network lines immediately severed. Maybe then people would learn how to design a decent web page, rather than just throwing around the latest, flashy, and incredibly ugly 'features' that you only get from IE.
But by no means is it a common idiom. In fact, the only reason why you hear it commonly is because people want to use a big, important-sounding phrase even if they don't know what it means. I'm all for letting language change, but there still will be a 'right' and 'wrong' set of grammar. This will be 'wrong' for quite a long time to come.
Anyway, I was rather dissapointed with the 49. (No IR, keys feel all wrong.) It seems doubtful that this would fix those problems. I think I'll stick with my 48gx for the foreseeable future.
'such spanning power'? Let's get this straight, here. The post isn't about allowing the feds free reign to read and see everything you do. It's about allowing them to gather information after there's already evidence that you're doing something illegal, and that watching your communications will provide more evidence. Whether or not the police are corrupt is another matter, but tying their hands behind their backs doesn't help anyone.
perhaps not such a great idea... imagine what the astral plane would be like if it was supposed to cover 5 screens...
If we set up TLDs for porn sites, most sites would move right over -- after all, they love any kind of advertising they can get, and being able to say that their domain ends in .xxx will attract them. (there would have to be a rule that, say, the owner of a .xxx domain can't use the corresponding .com domain to redirect users, but that could be dealt with.)
The only sites you'll have left are the sites that spammers put up on geocities and them hope somebody gets to before they're taken down, and other similarily shady sites. I really don't know how prevalent they are (I get the emails and so forth constantly, but when I've tried the links they're already down.) so I don't know how much of a problem that is. Still, blocking the .xxx domains would give you a far greater accuracy rate than the censorware products available now.