I agree completely. I think, as a group, we should OBJECT to the terms of the settlement because as the aggrieved parties, we were never in anyway contacted by the attorneys in question, never gave implicit or explicit permission for them to represent us, and are currently sharing none of the windfall. Some lawyer among us should draft and official response that we can all cut and paste. Ten or twenty objections will be blown off. Ten or Twenty thousand will not.
Sorry, but it doesn't work that way.
You can object all you want, and it will have NO effect. A settlement has been reached and that's the end of that...
... HOWEVER, the email we all received includes a link that permits each of us, as an individual, to OPT OUT of the settlement. By opting out, we, in effect, each, individually, make the statement that "these lawyers do NOT represent ME, and I accept no blame or responsibility for this shyster-enriching settlement, nor am I satisfied with its outcome." As an added bonus, opting out preserves your individual legal options for future action, which also sends a message to Google that the fat lady has yet to sing on this issue.
Unfortunately, opting out won't reduce the ambulance chasers' take by a single dime, but as a vehicle to express your distaste at the terms of the settlement in a legally-meaningful way, it provides at least some moral satisfaction - and it puts Google on notice that taking the easy way out isn't necessarily going to benefit them, either.
And again the rest of the world finds it appalling you only have two parties to choose from.
The two-party system is not the problem. Our broken-ass campaign financing system of legalized bribery is the problem. First our (Republican majority) Supreme Court declared that money and free speech are equivalent. Then our (even more Republican-dominated) Supreme Court ruled that corporate "persons" are entitled to spend unlimited amounts of "free speech" to influence our elections.
Oh, and our Fox "News" channel, with its (un)Fair and (un)Balanced all-Republican-talking-points-all-the-time editorial policy helps keep the campaign of fear a sacrosanct "core values" issue that no politician of any party dares to challenge.
As much as I appreciate the diminishment of death and suffering when a disease like malaria can be neutralized, I wonder if anyone has taken into account the population growth question that results and what the impact on poor regions like Africa that suffer most of the deaths?
It's "only" 800,000 some deaths per year, but given that they are mostly among children this has the potential to equal millions more people if even a relatively small portion (25%?) go on to produce a family with 4-6 offspring.
The current overpopulation problem in Africa and elsewhere is due in some measure to the ready availability of inexpensive antibiotics, as well as social factors, such as resistance to the use of birth control by men, and the increase in social status from fathering many children.
Improved life expectancy alone has no effect on this trend - it's better, higher, more widespread education, combined with a higher standard of living that brings birth rates down. As long as the majority of Africa remains desperately impoverished and uneducated, removing malaria from the picture will, indeed, result in additional population pressure there.
In my book, that means that eliminating malaria is still desirable - alleviating human suffering is always a Good Thing - but it absolutely must be combined with a concerted, long-term effort to raise both Africa's standard of living and its general educational level by considerable amounts. Otherwise, the Law of Unintended Consequences raises its ugly, fanged head, and defeating malaria winds up adding to, rather than subtracting from, the sum of Africa's misery.
Think the Netanyahu and Obama administrations' paralysis over how to handle the settlers in the West Bank.
There's no "paralysis" on Netanyahu's part - it's a deliberate policy. Because of the batshit-crazy Israeli parliamentary party-list proportional representation seat-allocation system, he's forced to cater to extreme Zionists in order to hold onto a majority large enough to keep his government in power. Since personal power is more important to him than statesmanship, the settlers therefore are allowed to get away with anything short of outright murder - and, more often than not, they get away with that, too.
The only way to achieve peaceful co-existence between Israel and Palestine is for Israel to recognize an autonomous Palestinian state - and that will never happen, unless and until the Knesset's party-list proportional election system is reformed. And (surprise!), since the reforms would have to be adopted by the Knesset itself (which would cost all those tiny, religious-extremist parties their seats), it's about as likely as meaningful election finance reform in the United States.
And, mind you, most Israelis are in favor of such reforms - just as most Americans favor reforming our campaign finance system. In Israel's case, it'd probably require the adoption of a formal constitution - something the Knesset has resisted since Israel's formation. In America's case (thanks to the Roberts court), it'd take a constitutional amendment stripping corporations of the right to spend money to influence the outcome of elections.
Steve Manuel of TechCrunch claims that the Force-TLS 2.0 Firefox extension can defeat Firesheep. (You have to configure it manually for each site you want to protect, though, so it's somewhat of a PITA.)
Another option is the HTTPS Everywhere Firefox extension from EFF and the Tor Project. Although HTTPS Everywhere has a predefined ruleset that includes some of the most popular Web sites, you'll still have to write your own ruleset for any site not on their default list.
... I wish old Steve nothing but luck and give him credit for taking a company the Pepsi guy had all but killed and bringing them back from the dead...
"The Pepsi guy" was not the one who was responsible for nearly killing Apple. THAT honor goes to Apple's Board of Directors, and the guys they picked to lead the company after they fired "the Pepsi guy."
(FWIW, I neither own nor endorse Apple products - being an inmate in Steve's fascistic little "walled garden" does not in any way appeal to me - but I have no problem with those who do.)
Being a dog owner, I think most dogs just want to hump, eat, and sleep. Some like to bark.
That's pretty much it.
Being a dog owner, I think it's a bit more complex than that.
Our first dog - a gorgeous AmStaff - had an irrepressibly sunny disposition. Although he had been criminally neglected by his original owners (when the SPCA took him in, he was skeletally thin, had a heartworm infection so severe he could hardly breathe, and had a choke chain so deeply embedded in his throat that the flesh had grown completely over it, and it had to be surgically removed under general anesthesia), he was a happy guy, who never seemed depressed for long. He was also highly intelligent, very well-socialized, and incredibly eager to please. Our second dog - a mutt - is high-strung, has the attention span of a two-year-old, and has very little impulse control. (She is also well-socialized, but she's dumb as a box of rocks.) Our third dog - a St. Bernard - was another happy-go-lucky fella, and also very well-socialized. Our newest addition - an American bulldog - was abandoned by his owners in the middle of January (when the temperature around here hovered near zero). He was hyper-vigilant, paranoid, and clearly depressed. His behavior has improved tremendously since we adopted him, and he is now a very well-socialized and friendly dog - but he still suffers from separation anxiety, and doesn't seem happy by default, as his predecessors were.
I attribute the improvements in our bulldog's temperament to leadership, regular exercise, and our refusal to cater to his anxieties. He gets petted and praised when he's calm and relaxed. When he's anxious and fretting, we ignore him until he settles down.
Personally, I know for a fact that dogs have individual personalities. They all like to sleep and eat; they all enjoy going for walks and meeting new people; they all like to be praised and petted; and they all respond positively to calm, confident leadership, and a consistent structure of discipline. But, beyond that, they definitely have internal lives of their own, and each has a unique personality. Our AmStaff and our mutt both enjoy chewing on Nylabones and Pup Treads, while neither our St. Bernard nor our bulldog have much interest in either. Our mutt likes to jump up on people and compulsively lick them. None of our other dogs has shown similar OCD symptoms. Our AmStaff and our Saint liked to lean against people. Our bulldog and our mutt don't. Our Saint liked and our bulldog likes to stick their snoots under people's hands to insist they be petted - a habit exhibited by neither our AmStaff nor our mutt.
And so on.
I'm convinced that the personalities of dogs are as varied and individual as those of humans. Their communications repertoire is more limited, true, but if you've ever doubted that dogs have very real feelings of their own, then clearly you've never seen one smile.
I'm very much looking forward to being able to uninstall iTunes and never have to fire up that piece of crap again
Amen to that, brother.
iTunes on Apple machines may be a joy to its users, but iTunes on a Windows machine is a big, wet, stinky pile of crap. I reluctantly installed it on my wife's computer - only because her iPod won't work without it - but I will not permit it on any of the other machines on our home network.
Showbiz types generally hate hanging endings. I'll guess fans will be disappointed with it being "reimagined".
And the ending of Blade Runner is disappointing in what way?
Ridley Scott is my favorite director, in part because he doesn't seem to give much of a damn about Hollywood marketing conventions. His recent version of Robin Hood, for instance, ends where most Robin Hood movies begin, and his underrated White Squall focuses on character delineation and development, with a determinedly non-Hollywood ending. All the evidence says Scott cares first about authenticity, second about story, and googleth about Hollywood conventions.
I expect Scott's version of TMITHC will expand Dick's story, include a romantic relationship, and end as satisfyingly to fanboys as Blade Runner did - because Ridley Scott clearly is a PKD fanboy himself.
I'm not justifying the actions of those who made the bomb threat or who are behind the DDoS attacks, but if US Copyright Group is going to act like a bully they are going to experience some backlash in a variety of forms. They think they can do as they wish just because they're lawyers, etc, but they're discovering that the public doesn't like a bully, plain and simple.
Two things spring immediately to mind in response:
1. Bomb threats are over the line, period. Make one and your protest instantly loses all claim to legitimacy.
2. And, more importantly, Operation Payback is aiming its retaliation at the wrong target. That copyright lawyers are conscienceless dicks who will select those least able to defend themselves for their predation is a given. And, if it's not the USCG (note: NOT the U.S. Coast Guard!) who does it, some other collection of scum-sucking bottom feeders (my apologies in advance to catfish, etc.) will do so. The thing is, though, that USCG and its ilk won't bother to fart in the general direction of individual users without clients to represent. Were it not for MAZEfilms and other crap factory production houses like them (I'm looking at YOU, Uwe Boll), who provide USCG with the standing to sue individuals who have the poor taste to download their excretions, these lawsuits wouldn't exist.
The real issues are: that there's no such thing as a p2p sandbox where new users can learn the ropes in safety (such as which trackers to avoid, which uploaders to trust, etc.); and that crap factories like MAZEfilms apparently have just enough willing consumers for their excretions to keep them in business, but not enough such suckers to make them as rich as they delusionally think they deserve to be.
Soulskill's reviews score is mostly meaningless because probably 3/4ths of his reviews are 8/10. This was 8/10, Halo Reach was 8/10, Dragon Age: Origins was 8/10. Champions Online got an 8/10. I could go on. While he occasionally goes down to 7/10 or sometimes up to 9/10, probably 95% or more of his reviews are an above average score which makes his scale meaningless. It's like the review sites that give every game at least a 9/10 no matter how much criticism they give of it.
Has it occurred to you that perhaps he only bothers to write detailed reviews for games he likes? And that 8/10 is pretty much the minimum level of enjoyment he requires to motivate him to go to the trouble of writing a review?
So someone's on your property. You think most people would just unload a weapon at them, without even noticing such details as police uniform? *This* is why private gun ownership is a problem. It could be a guy who's lost, it could be kids doing a prank: I think it's scary that someone's immediate reaction would be shoot first, think later.
No. "Someone" was not ON his property. The cops were IN his house. At night. When it was dark, and (because he'd been sleeping) there were no lights on in the house.
And he didn't shoot first. He warned the intruders - who had not identified themselves as police up to that point - "I've got a gun."
To which they responded, "So do we. And we're the police."
At which point he hastily (and quite sensibly) laid down his revolver and put his hands in the air. THEN they explained to him that one of his neighbors had reported a prowler on his property - and apologized for trespassing thereon themselves.
But you're right, what's really scary about ubiquitous private gun ownership is, indeed, the "shoot first, ask questions later" mentality. That's why, in the U.S., the most likely victim of gun violence is a member of the shooter's family - and very often it's a teenager who's sneaking in after curfew, a spouse who's gotten up to check on the cat, or the like who gets shot.
Depends on where you live. Down here in S. Florida I once worked in a small company where everyone owned at least a pistol. In my previous company I regularly went to the range with four or five co-workers. On my block at least six homes have firearms and the firearms per household ratio is higher than 1.0.
Up here in rural, southern Ohio, I live in an impoverished section of a small town in the Appalachian foothills. My neighborhood is split between retirees who are trapped here by the housing collapse, and meth-using, hillbilly-heroin-addicted felons and their welfare-dependent women and children. Here, it's mostly the retirees that own the guns (only because felons are prohibited from owning firearms, and there are stiff penalties if they're caught with them). My landlord, who lives next door, keeps two loaded pistols in his nightstand - and dozens of other firearms locked in gun safes in storage elsewhere. The only time he's used his guns in self-defense was when two local cops entered his unlocked house after a neighbor reported a prowler on his property. He's very fortunate that he challenged the police before shooting at them (after all, they were trespassing), or he'd have been the subject of a headline like "Police kill local gunman."
And I see him as typical of many of my neighbors: he loves guns; he owns lots of them; and he considers them as useful mostly for self-defense and for sport shooting. (Out in the country, it's hunting, sport shooting, and self-defense, in that order.)
I see shooting in many ways to be like archery. It's not something I'd consider using for defense, but the peace and satisfaction it gives me is healthy. On shooting days I wake up at 5AM, don't drink coffee, don't have road rage, etc., because those things will affect how well I shoot. It's very calming to put a target 100 yards out and hit it (and yes, 100 yards is not very long but I'm happy). Some people may thousands a year for therapy or yoga or sensory deprivation electronics, I get my relaxation from a couple hours at the range.
Yes, but unlike the firearms-loving hillbillies that surround me (and that, I'm sorry to say, I think are more representative of the typical American attitude toward gun ownership than is yours), you don't consider their primary use as self-defense - or as a penis substitute, for that matter. And it's the latter that I think is the single most common reason for owning handguns in this country. Long arms are for hunting and sport shooting, but you don't hunt deer with a pistol. They're strictly for "self defense" (i.e. - shooting humans) and target practice - and, time and again, it's the former that owners cite as their reason for having short arms.
Essentially, it's an artifact of the cowboy mythology: the mostly false belief that we Americans are rough, tough, self-reliant, downright dangerous sumbitches, and you'd better not mess with us, hombre. That may have been true of our 19th-Century ancestors, but nowadays, we're more likely to be delusional, proudly ignorant, more-than-a-little-dim, couch potato crybabies, than the nation of John Waynes we think we are. And hombre, you mess with us, and you'll be hearing from our lawyers!
Also Just about every Tectonic model puts the formation of the Gulf starting to tear apart around Early Jurassic , Whereas the impact in question was around the Late Permian.
The Gulf of Mexico did not exist until the end of the Permian. Afterwards, there is a Gulf-sized hole in Pangaea, and, later, in Gondwanaland, as well.
The cart horse horse cart conundrum plays in your post. For instance, the costs of studio time wouldn't be so great if the superstar artists weren't getting paid so much. And there are significantly more failures than there are successes; studio time costs cause the failure (failed album or even band) as much as the successful ones demonstrates that the costs drive the loss, rather than "loss due to success having the rug pulled out from under it via pirating". Let me rephrase. The costs of the studio time and the post processing time creates the greatest loss, for if it was reasonable it wouldn't cost so much. Not every band that uses studio time and post processing time should be charged at the rate that the superstar gets charged--and maybe they don't but they are close and the RIAA would love to make that happen.
Sorry, but you're full of shit.
To build a decent commercial recording studio costs upward of a couple of million dollars - and significantly more than that for a really top-notch studio (Electric Ladyland, say, or The Record Plant). And that's just the cost of building the physical facility (architect's fees alone are astronomical - and you can't skimp on that because architects who specialize in recording studio design are VERY expensive, and worth every penny) - equipping it properly is horrendously expensive, with just one top-of-the-line microphone retailing for $5K or more (and a top-of-the-line preamp for that microphone costs $2.5K). Outboard effects are constantly evolving, so you have to replace them every few years, and then there's the cost of equipping the facility with instruments and amplifiers.
Only then do you get to consider personnel costs. Qualified engineers aren't cheap, and really great engineers (who have spent years or even decades honing their skills) are expensive. Good producers may agree to defer some of their charges in the form of profit participation (and most great producers will happily do so - because they are free to pick and choose which projects they will take on, and they believe in the value that their own contribution adds to the project).
And so on.
Most people don't learn to become song writers or singers or band members. They become them because they are already talented. This isn't an education system where they are paying their $70,000 for their college tuition.
Again, you are completely wrong. And, clearly, profoundly out of your depth on this subject.
Talent is good to have. It makes learning to be a musician and performer easier. But, talent or no, learning to play an instrument takes years of practice. So does learning to sing really well. And learning to perform is a whole separate thing from merely learning to play. You clearly don't want to admit that's the case - apparently you'd rather believe that the talent fairy sprinkles magic dust on wannabes and *poof*, they're instant superstar musicians.
And, again, you want to conflate the RIAA - an organization for whom I have nothing good to say - with the artists themselves. Perhaps that soothes your conscience, but it doesn't alter the fact that stealing music deprives artists of income they have EARNED - and deserve.
The rest of your spiel is just regurgitated piracy justification, especially "they wouldn't have bought the music they steal anyway, so there's no real harm done." That's utter nonsense. If they had no way to steal the music, then they'd have had to buy it or do without - and, given that choice, history says they'd buy at least SOME of it.
The thing is that justifying piracy "because I can" is at least being honest about your motives and behavior. It doesn't make it right, but, at a minimum, it's not trying to excuse theft by waving your hands.
So, man up. Admit you're a thief. At least that way you're not a liar, too.
somehow the book industry has survived that, as well as the Xerox machine, the scanner, the library, and the good old "here, I've finished this - you have it". This is not a new "problem" - whereas the culture of making obscene incomes from little or no real work is becoming the defining problem of the modern world.
Like so many apologists for piracy, you deliberately conflate middlemen with artists, so as to pretend the targets of your scorn all equally "deserve" being ripped off.
The fact is that middlemen ripping off artists does not justify you (and others like you) also ripping off those same artists.
The artists themselves don't fit your "making obscene incomes from little or no real work" straw man. It takes years of sustained effort simply to become a competent instrumentalist or singer. To learn to use the recording studio as a tool (much less an instrument in and of itself) requires still more time and effort. Learning to write and arrange music is yet another non-trivial skills development process - and time sink. And all those things, plus purchasing studio time (or building your own, plus purchasing all the hardware - mics, preamps, effects, computers, synths, amps, etc. - you'll need), have to happen before an artist is in a position to record any complex or ambitious work. That, in turn, takes still more time and effort. When you pirate that work, you deny that artist just compensation for his or her investment in creating that work, regardless of whether his record company is also ripping him off.
And spare me the "give the work away and make money from touring" because "the marketplace is changing and artists have to change with it" claptrap in an attempt to justify your theft. If you're going to pirate artworks, at least have the balls to take responsibility for your own ethical decision. You're a thief. You chose not to pay for the music you steal because you don't want to pay for it, not because of your high ethical standards - because, buddy, if you steal music, you don't have high ethical standards. Deal with it.
NOTE: None of the above is directed at folks who download music to "try before you buy." If you delete every song that you don't own a legitimately-purchased or licensed copy of (or subsequently buy a copy of), then you're not a thief. Otoh, if you merely say you download music to see if it's worth buying, but you never bother to delete the gigabytes of stuff you have not purchased (and will not purchase) legitimately, then you are, in fact, a thief.
If you dislike my message of personal responsibility, feel free to mod me down. It won't change the facts in the slightest.
Exactly. A less sensational headline could have been "XJ Power button kinda flakey".... For people of this level of technical sophisticaiton (Toughbooks, OBD2 interfaces, etc) to do this is shameful.
Sadly, this kind of reportage is absolutely in the mainstream of British journalism, where tabloid mentality is king. A breathless tone, a heavy dependence on gee whizzery, and a less-than-diligent (to say the most) attention to factual detail are all hallmarks of the British style - as is an obligatory serving of snark.
Or, to put it another way, I am shocked... shocked... to hear that British journalists engage in sensationalism.
Disclaimer: I am not British... and I am humbly grateful for that.
I submitted this story yesterday - but that was before the NY Times picked it up, so my submission "only" pointed to sites like PhysOrg and PubMed. I guess that just wasn't "newsy" enough for/.'s discriminating editorial staff to bother with.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree completely. I think, as a group, we should OBJECT to the terms of the settlement because as the aggrieved parties, we were never in anyway contacted by the attorneys in question, never gave implicit or explicit permission for them to represent us, and are currently sharing none of the windfall. Some lawyer among us should draft and official response that we can all cut and paste. Ten or twenty objections will be blown off. Ten or Twenty thousand will not.
Sorry, but it doesn't work that way.
You can object all you want, and it will have NO effect. A settlement has been reached and that's the end of that ...
... HOWEVER, the email we all received includes a link that permits each of us, as an individual, to OPT OUT of the settlement. By opting out, we, in effect, each, individually, make the statement that "these lawyers do NOT represent ME, and I accept no blame or responsibility for this shyster-enriching settlement, nor am I satisfied with its outcome." As an added bonus, opting out preserves your individual legal options for future action, which also sends a message to Google that the fat lady has yet to sing on this issue.
Unfortunately, opting out won't reduce the ambulance chasers' take by a single dime, but as a vehicle to express your distaste at the terms of the settlement in a legally-meaningful way, it provides at least some moral satisfaction - and it puts Google on notice that taking the easy way out isn't necessarily going to benefit them, either.
Just my $0.02, fwiw.
Oh, and, for the record, IANAL.
And again the rest of the world finds it appalling you only have two parties to choose from.
The two-party system is not the problem. Our broken-ass campaign financing system of legalized bribery is the problem. First our (Republican majority) Supreme Court declared that money and free speech are equivalent. Then our (even more Republican-dominated) Supreme Court ruled that corporate "persons" are entitled to spend unlimited amounts of "free speech" to influence our elections.
Oh, and our Fox "News" channel, with its (un)Fair and (un)Balanced all-Republican-talking-points-all-the-time editorial policy helps keep the campaign of fear a sacrosanct "core values" issue that no politician of any party dares to challenge.
So thanks, Australia!
...that you people continue to put up with this crap.
Whereas WE continue to find it appalling that we seem to have no choice but to put up with this crap, regardless of which party is in power.
And the same goes for the war on pot, warrantless wiretapping, indefensible patent and copyright law, etc., etc., et-fucking-c...
... cookies are delicious!
As much as I appreciate the diminishment of death and suffering when a disease like malaria can be neutralized, I wonder if anyone has taken into account the population growth question that results and what the impact on poor regions like Africa that suffer most of the deaths?
It's "only" 800,000 some deaths per year, but given that they are mostly among children this has the potential to equal millions more people if even a relatively small portion (25%?) go on to produce a family with 4-6 offspring.
The current overpopulation problem in Africa and elsewhere is due in some measure to the ready availability of inexpensive antibiotics, as well as social factors, such as resistance to the use of birth control by men, and the increase in social status from fathering many children.
Improved life expectancy alone has no effect on this trend - it's better, higher, more widespread education, combined with a higher standard of living that brings birth rates down. As long as the majority of Africa remains desperately impoverished and uneducated, removing malaria from the picture will, indeed, result in additional population pressure there.
In my book, that means that eliminating malaria is still desirable - alleviating human suffering is always a Good Thing - but it absolutely must be combined with a concerted, long-term effort to raise both Africa's standard of living and its general educational level by considerable amounts. Otherwise, the Law of Unintended Consequences raises its ugly, fanged head, and defeating malaria winds up adding to, rather than subtracting from, the sum of Africa's misery.
Does it come in black?
Think the Netanyahu and Obama administrations' paralysis over how to handle the settlers in the West Bank.
There's no "paralysis" on Netanyahu's part - it's a deliberate policy. Because of the batshit-crazy Israeli parliamentary party-list proportional representation seat-allocation system, he's forced to cater to extreme Zionists in order to hold onto a majority large enough to keep his government in power. Since personal power is more important to him than statesmanship, the settlers therefore are allowed to get away with anything short of outright murder - and, more often than not, they get away with that, too.
The only way to achieve peaceful co-existence between Israel and Palestine is for Israel to recognize an autonomous Palestinian state - and that will never happen, unless and until the Knesset's party-list proportional election system is reformed. And (surprise!), since the reforms would have to be adopted by the Knesset itself (which would cost all those tiny, religious-extremist parties their seats), it's about as likely as meaningful election finance reform in the United States.
And, mind you, most Israelis are in favor of such reforms - just as most Americans favor reforming our campaign finance system. In Israel's case, it'd probably require the adoption of a formal constitution - something the Knesset has resisted since Israel's formation. In America's case (thanks to the Roberts court), it'd take a constitutional amendment stripping corporations of the right to spend money to influence the outcome of elections.
Please exhale.
here: http://codebutler.com/firesheep.
Steve Manuel of TechCrunch claims that the Force-TLS 2.0 Firefox extension can defeat Firesheep. (You have to configure it manually for each site you want to protect, though, so it's somewhat of a PITA.)
Another option is the HTTPS Everywhere Firefox extension from EFF and the Tor Project. Although HTTPS Everywhere has a predefined ruleset that includes some of the most popular Web sites, you'll still have to write your own ruleset for any site not on their default list.
... I wish old Steve nothing but luck and give him credit for taking a company the Pepsi guy had all but killed and bringing them back from the dead ...
"The Pepsi guy" was not the one who was responsible for nearly killing Apple. THAT honor goes to Apple's Board of Directors, and the guys they picked to lead the company after they fired "the Pepsi guy."
(FWIW, I neither own nor endorse Apple products - being an inmate in Steve's fascistic little "walled garden" does not in any way appeal to me - but I have no problem with those who do.)
... Google it?
Being a dog owner, I think most dogs just want to hump, eat, and sleep. Some like to bark.
That's pretty much it.
Being a dog owner, I think it's a bit more complex than that.
Our first dog - a gorgeous AmStaff - had an irrepressibly sunny disposition. Although he had been criminally neglected by his original owners (when the SPCA took him in, he was skeletally thin, had a heartworm infection so severe he could hardly breathe, and had a choke chain so deeply embedded in his throat that the flesh had grown completely over it, and it had to be surgically removed under general anesthesia), he was a happy guy, who never seemed depressed for long. He was also highly intelligent, very well-socialized, and incredibly eager to please. Our second dog - a mutt - is high-strung, has the attention span of a two-year-old, and has very little impulse control. (She is also well-socialized, but she's dumb as a box of rocks.) Our third dog - a St. Bernard - was another happy-go-lucky fella, and also very well-socialized. Our newest addition - an American bulldog - was abandoned by his owners in the middle of January (when the temperature around here hovered near zero). He was hyper-vigilant, paranoid, and clearly depressed. His behavior has improved tremendously since we adopted him, and he is now a very well-socialized and friendly dog - but he still suffers from separation anxiety, and doesn't seem happy by default, as his predecessors were.
I attribute the improvements in our bulldog's temperament to leadership, regular exercise, and our refusal to cater to his anxieties. He gets petted and praised when he's calm and relaxed. When he's anxious and fretting, we ignore him until he settles down.
Personally, I know for a fact that dogs have individual personalities. They all like to sleep and eat; they all enjoy going for walks and meeting new people; they all like to be praised and petted; and they all respond positively to calm, confident leadership, and a consistent structure of discipline. But, beyond that, they definitely have internal lives of their own, and each has a unique personality. Our AmStaff and our mutt both enjoy chewing on Nylabones and Pup Treads, while neither our St. Bernard nor our bulldog have much interest in either. Our mutt likes to jump up on people and compulsively lick them. None of our other dogs has shown similar OCD symptoms. Our AmStaff and our Saint liked to lean against people. Our bulldog and our mutt don't. Our Saint liked and our bulldog likes to stick their snoots under people's hands to insist they be petted - a habit exhibited by neither our AmStaff nor our mutt.
And so on.
I'm convinced that the personalities of dogs are as varied and individual as those of humans. Their communications repertoire is more limited, true, but if you've ever doubted that dogs have very real feelings of their own, then clearly you've never seen one smile.
I'm very much looking forward to being able to uninstall iTunes and never have to fire up that piece of crap again
Amen to that, brother.
iTunes on Apple machines may be a joy to its users, but iTunes on a Windows machine is a big, wet, stinky pile of crap. I reluctantly installed it on my wife's computer - only because her iPod won't work without it - but I will not permit it on any of the other machines on our home network.
I mean, seriously: Bonjour?
<shudder>
Showbiz types generally hate hanging endings. I'll guess fans will be disappointed with it being "reimagined".
And the ending of Blade Runner is disappointing in what way?
Ridley Scott is my favorite director, in part because he doesn't seem to give much of a damn about Hollywood marketing conventions. His recent version of Robin Hood, for instance, ends where most Robin Hood movies begin, and his underrated White Squall focuses on character delineation and development, with a determinedly non-Hollywood ending. All the evidence says Scott cares first about authenticity, second about story, and googleth about Hollywood conventions.
I expect Scott's version of TMITHC will expand Dick's story, include a romantic relationship, and end as satisfyingly to fanboys as Blade Runner did - because Ridley Scott clearly is a PKD fanboy himself.
I'm not justifying the actions of those who made the bomb threat or who are behind the DDoS attacks, but if US Copyright Group is going to act like a bully they are going to experience some backlash in a variety of forms. They think they can do as they wish just because they're lawyers, etc, but they're discovering that the public doesn't like a bully, plain and simple.
Two things spring immediately to mind in response:
The real issues are: that there's no such thing as a p2p sandbox where new users can learn the ropes in safety (such as which trackers to avoid, which uploaders to trust, etc.); and that crap factories like MAZEfilms apparently have just enough willing consumers for their excretions to keep them in business, but not enough such suckers to make them as rich as they delusionally think they deserve to be.
Soulskill's reviews score is mostly meaningless because probably 3/4ths of his reviews are 8/10. This was 8/10, Halo Reach was 8/10, Dragon Age: Origins was 8/10. Champions Online got an 8/10. I could go on. While he occasionally goes down to 7/10 or sometimes up to 9/10, probably 95% or more of his reviews are an above average score which makes his scale meaningless. It's like the review sites that give every game at least a 9/10 no matter how much criticism they give of it.
Has it occurred to you that perhaps he only bothers to write detailed reviews for games he likes? And that 8/10 is pretty much the minimum level of enjoyment he requires to motivate him to go to the trouble of writing a review?
So someone's on your property. You think most people would just unload a weapon at them, without even noticing such details as police uniform? *This* is why private gun ownership is a problem. It could be a guy who's lost, it could be kids doing a prank: I think it's scary that someone's immediate reaction would be shoot first, think later.
No. "Someone" was not ON his property. The cops were IN his house. At night. When it was dark, and (because he'd been sleeping) there were no lights on in the house.
And he didn't shoot first. He warned the intruders - who had not identified themselves as police up to that point - "I've got a gun."
To which they responded, "So do we. And we're the police."
At which point he hastily (and quite sensibly) laid down his revolver and put his hands in the air. THEN they explained to him that one of his neighbors had reported a prowler on his property - and apologized for trespassing thereon themselves.
But you're right, what's really scary about ubiquitous private gun ownership is, indeed, the "shoot first, ask questions later" mentality. That's why, in the U.S., the most likely victim of gun violence is a member of the shooter's family - and very often it's a teenager who's sneaking in after curfew, a spouse who's gotten up to check on the cat, or the like who gets shot.
Depends on where you live. Down here in S. Florida I once worked in a small company where everyone owned at least a pistol. In my previous company I regularly went to the range with four or five co-workers. On my block at least six homes have firearms and the firearms per household ratio is higher than 1.0.
Up here in rural, southern Ohio, I live in an impoverished section of a small town in the Appalachian foothills. My neighborhood is split between retirees who are trapped here by the housing collapse, and meth-using, hillbilly-heroin-addicted felons and their welfare-dependent women and children. Here, it's mostly the retirees that own the guns (only because felons are prohibited from owning firearms, and there are stiff penalties if they're caught with them). My landlord, who lives next door, keeps two loaded pistols in his nightstand - and dozens of other firearms locked in gun safes in storage elsewhere. The only time he's used his guns in self-defense was when two local cops entered his unlocked house after a neighbor reported a prowler on his property. He's very fortunate that he challenged the police before shooting at them (after all, they were trespassing), or he'd have been the subject of a headline like "Police kill local gunman."
And I see him as typical of many of my neighbors: he loves guns; he owns lots of them; and he considers them as useful mostly for self-defense and for sport shooting. (Out in the country, it's hunting, sport shooting, and self-defense, in that order.)
I see shooting in many ways to be like archery. It's not something I'd consider using for defense, but the peace and satisfaction it gives me is healthy. On shooting days I wake up at 5AM, don't drink coffee, don't have road rage, etc., because those things will affect how well I shoot. It's very calming to put a target 100 yards out and hit it (and yes, 100 yards is not very long but I'm happy). Some people may thousands a year for therapy or yoga or sensory deprivation electronics, I get my relaxation from a couple hours at the range.
Yes, but unlike the firearms-loving hillbillies that surround me (and that, I'm sorry to say, I think are more representative of the typical American attitude toward gun ownership than is yours), you don't consider their primary use as self-defense - or as a penis substitute, for that matter. And it's the latter that I think is the single most common reason for owning handguns in this country. Long arms are for hunting and sport shooting, but you don't hunt deer with a pistol. They're strictly for "self defense" (i.e. - shooting humans) and target practice - and, time and again, it's the former that owners cite as their reason for having short arms.
Essentially, it's an artifact of the cowboy mythology: the mostly false belief that we Americans are rough, tough, self-reliant, downright dangerous sumbitches, and you'd better not mess with us, hombre. That may have been true of our 19th-Century ancestors, but nowadays, we're more likely to be delusional, proudly ignorant, more-than-a-little-dim, couch potato crybabies, than the nation of John Waynes we think we are. And hombre, you mess with us, and you'll be hearing from our lawyers!
Also Just about every Tectonic model puts the formation of the Gulf starting to tear apart around Early Jurassic , Whereas the impact in question was around the Late Permian.
The Gulf of Mexico did not exist until the end of the Permian. Afterwards, there is a Gulf-sized hole in Pangaea, and, later, in Gondwanaland, as well.
A lot of people don't realize the gulf of mexico was formed by a giant hot spot like yellowstone.
Unless it wasn't(pdf).
... beer!
The cart horse horse cart conundrum plays in your post. For instance, the costs of studio time wouldn't be so great if the superstar artists weren't getting paid so much. And there are significantly more failures than there are successes; studio time costs cause the failure (failed album or even band) as much as the successful ones demonstrates that the costs drive the loss, rather than "loss due to success having the rug pulled out from under it via pirating". Let me rephrase. The costs of the studio time and the post processing time creates the greatest loss, for if it was reasonable it wouldn't cost so much. Not every band that uses studio time and post processing time should be charged at the rate that the superstar gets charged--and maybe they don't but they are close and the RIAA would love to make that happen.
Sorry, but you're full of shit.
To build a decent commercial recording studio costs upward of a couple of million dollars - and significantly more than that for a really top-notch studio (Electric Ladyland, say, or The Record Plant). And that's just the cost of building the physical facility (architect's fees alone are astronomical - and you can't skimp on that because architects who specialize in recording studio design are VERY expensive, and worth every penny) - equipping it properly is horrendously expensive, with just one top-of-the-line microphone retailing for $5K or more (and a top-of-the-line preamp for that microphone costs $2.5K). Outboard effects are constantly evolving, so you have to replace them every few years, and then there's the cost of equipping the facility with instruments and amplifiers.
Only then do you get to consider personnel costs. Qualified engineers aren't cheap, and really great engineers (who have spent years or even decades honing their skills) are expensive. Good producers may agree to defer some of their charges in the form of profit participation (and most great producers will happily do so - because they are free to pick and choose which projects they will take on, and they believe in the value that their own contribution adds to the project).
And so on.
Most people don't learn to become song writers or singers or band members. They become them because they are already talented. This isn't an education system where they are paying their $70,000 for their college tuition.
Again, you are completely wrong. And, clearly, profoundly out of your depth on this subject.
Talent is good to have. It makes learning to be a musician and performer easier. But, talent or no, learning to play an instrument takes years of practice. So does learning to sing really well. And learning to perform is a whole separate thing from merely learning to play. You clearly don't want to admit that's the case - apparently you'd rather believe that the talent fairy sprinkles magic dust on wannabes and *poof*, they're instant superstar musicians.
And, again, you want to conflate the RIAA - an organization for whom I have nothing good to say - with the artists themselves. Perhaps that soothes your conscience, but it doesn't alter the fact that stealing music deprives artists of income they have EARNED - and deserve.
The rest of your spiel is just regurgitated piracy justification, especially "they wouldn't have bought the music they steal anyway, so there's no real harm done." That's utter nonsense. If they had no way to steal the music, then they'd have had to buy it or do without - and, given that choice, history says they'd buy at least SOME of it.
The thing is that justifying piracy "because I can" is at least being honest about your motives and behavior. It doesn't make it right, but, at a minimum, it's not trying to excuse theft by waving your hands.
So, man up. Admit you're a thief. At least that way you're not a liar, too.
somehow the book industry has survived that, as well as the Xerox machine, the scanner, the library, and the good old "here, I've finished this - you have it". This is not a new "problem" - whereas the culture of making obscene incomes from little or no real work is becoming the defining problem of the modern world.
Like so many apologists for piracy, you deliberately conflate middlemen with artists, so as to pretend the targets of your scorn all equally "deserve" being ripped off.
The fact is that middlemen ripping off artists does not justify you (and others like you) also ripping off those same artists.
The artists themselves don't fit your "making obscene incomes from little or no real work" straw man. It takes years of sustained effort simply to become a competent instrumentalist or singer. To learn to use the recording studio as a tool (much less an instrument in and of itself) requires still more time and effort. Learning to write and arrange music is yet another non-trivial skills development process - and time sink. And all those things, plus purchasing studio time (or building your own, plus purchasing all the hardware - mics, preamps, effects, computers, synths, amps, etc. - you'll need), have to happen before an artist is in a position to record any complex or ambitious work. That, in turn, takes still more time and effort. When you pirate that work, you deny that artist just compensation for his or her investment in creating that work, regardless of whether his record company is also ripping him off.
And spare me the "give the work away and make money from touring" because "the marketplace is changing and artists have to change with it" claptrap in an attempt to justify your theft. If you're going to pirate artworks, at least have the balls to take responsibility for your own ethical decision. You're a thief. You chose not to pay for the music you steal because you don't want to pay for it, not because of your high ethical standards - because, buddy, if you steal music, you don't have high ethical standards. Deal with it.
NOTE: None of the above is directed at folks who download music to "try before you buy." If you delete every song that you don't own a legitimately-purchased or licensed copy of (or subsequently buy a copy of), then you're not a thief. Otoh, if you merely say you download music to see if it's worth buying, but you never bother to delete the gigabytes of stuff you have not purchased (and will not purchase) legitimately, then you are, in fact, a thief.
If you dislike my message of personal responsibility, feel free to mod me down. It won't change the facts in the slightest.
Exactly. A less sensational headline could have been "XJ Power button kinda flakey". ... For people of this level of technical sophisticaiton (Toughbooks, OBD2 interfaces, etc) to do this is shameful.
Sadly, this kind of reportage is absolutely in the mainstream of British journalism, where tabloid mentality is king. A breathless tone, a heavy dependence on gee whizzery, and a less-than-diligent (to say the most) attention to factual detail are all hallmarks of the British style - as is an obligatory serving of snark.
Or, to put it another way, I am shocked ... shocked ... to hear that British journalists engage in sensationalism.
Disclaimer: I am not British ... and I am humbly grateful for that.
I submitted this story yesterday - but that was before the NY Times picked it up, so my submission "only" pointed to sites like PhysOrg and PubMed. I guess that just wasn't "newsy" enough for /.'s discriminating editorial staff to bother with.
But apparently it is now.
Fucking /. ...
the uncertainty principle is in doubt.
If the Uncertainty Principle is valid, then how come I still get speeding tickets?