Let's see... the header says you can filter posts *FROM* a particular author, not *ABOUT* a particular author. The filter does exactly what it claims about. If you want them to filter out articles about Jon Katz, click the mailto link at the bottom of the prefs page and suggest it. Just don't whine about a function that does what it says it will do.
AC, I'm going to be very blunt. No one can have a correct opinion. From Merriam-Webster online:
Main Entry: opinion
Pronunciation: &-'pin-y&n Function: noun Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin opinion-, opinio, from opinari Date: 14th century 1 a : a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter b : APPROVAL, ESTEEM 2 a : belief stronger than impression and less strong than positive knowledge b : a generally held view 3 a : a formal expression of judgment or advice by an expert b : the formal expression (as by a judge, court, or referee) of the legal reasons and principles upon which a legal decision is based
A view, a judgement, an appraisal, a belief... less strong than positive knowledge. None of these imply any possibility of a correct opinion.
His opinion is the opinion of slashdot
Last I heard,/. was a news/discussion site, incapable of forming an opinion. Getting right down to it,/. is a bunch of perl code on several linux servers running Apache. On a more basic level,/. is nothing more than silicon, metal, plastic, ones and zeros. Machines don't have opinions (please, no ST:TNG references).
And, BTW, I for one don't think he should necessarily go away. I may not agree with him very often, but that is the whole point of opinions!
There is a little link on the left hand side of the main/. page called preferences. Click it and follow the directions. You can filter out articles by author (ie. he who posts the article) or by subject.
BTW, there is no Jon Katz subject filter, so you'll still get articles like the Jon Katz interviews (CmdrTaco is responsible for those).
This same guy has made many posts using the accuont name Bruce Perens. (yes, the . is part of the username here). I thought someone at/. was going to clear out all of these bogus "Famous Person Name". accounts...
In October 1999, an individual or group, believed to be in Europe, managed to "hack'' CSS2 and began offering, via the Internet, a software utility called DeCSS that enables users to break the CSS copy protection system and hence to make and distribute digital copies of DVD movies.
I don't think it's been "proven" that this is only to copy DVD's!! We know this isn't the only reason, therefore the use of the word "hence" really makes me uneasy. We can't even make copies for playback right now with a DVD-RAM, and you don't even need to break the encryption if you have a stamp machine. I can't beleive this was in the opinion, it sounds more like something the corporations would say.
Firstly, it most certainly is not the only way to pirate DVDs, but, as at least one pirate admitted, it certainly is the easiest. However, the judge's wording implies that this is DeCSS's only purpose. He further states that no evidence to the contrary (that DeCSS is used for linux-interoperability) has been presented. I'd like to know why not. Did the defense really think the judge would take their word for it? Where was the laptop running linux that couldn't play DVDs until software based on DeCSS was installed?
As there is no evidence of any commercially significant purpose of DeCSS other than circumvention of CSS, defendants' actions likely violated Section 1201(a)(2)(B).
This makes it painfully obvious that the judge has no understanding of the Open Source movement. Of course there is no commercially signigicant purpose; who's going to pay for OSS when it is freely (speech AND beer) available? Besides, the primary intent of DeCSS (unless you believe the judge) is to allow viewing DVDs that have already been bought under linux.
But wait, the judge doesn't buy the whole linux argument in the first place:
[E]ven assuming that DeCSS runs under Linux, it concededly runs under Windows---a far more widely used operating system---as well. It therefore cannot reasonably be said that DeCSS was developed "for the sole purpose'' of achieving interoperability between Linux and DVDs.
[A]ssuming that DeCSS runs under Linux...??? Where has this guy been??? Oh, wait, I bet he doesn't read SlashDot, does he? Anyway, if the defense had done its job, there would be no assuming this or that about DeCSS and Linux. Secondly, he completely misses the point about programs "running" under operating systems. It's computer code. Download it, compile it, and *poof* it runs on your computer. (The complete lack of proprietary MicroSoft foundation classes, libraries and 'extensions' of standards might be a clue that it was developed in a *nix environment!) Finally, where does he get off deciding what was going through the head of the anonymous German hacker who actually wrote the program? How does he know the intent with which the program was developed? Sure, some people may use the program for illegal gains, but that isn't what the judge is apparently concerned about here. Apparently, I can claim that I developed something with one purpose in mind, but if someone else finds a malicious use for it, that is somehow my fault. I think not! Otherwise, gun and/or bullet manufacturers would be held accountable for every firearms-related homicide.
Finally, I think the judge misses the point in the paragraph in which he quotes the following from the DMCA:
"a person who has lawfully obtained the right to use a copy of a computer program may circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a particular portion of that program for the sole purpose of identifying and analyzing those elements of the program that are necessary to achieve interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs . . . to the extent that any such acts of identification and analysis do not constitute infringement under this title.'' (Note: my use of bold.)
This statement specifically refers to reverse engineering computer codes that have been legally obtained. The point of the matter is that it is not clear whether it was an encryption algorithm that was reverse engineered or if the algorithm was discovered by "hacking" the Xing encoder. Maybe this point wasn't made clear enough in the hearing. (I won't even go into the argument about the legal status of click-through licenses. Suffice it to say that I've never read through one... I'll just make this point: how does paragraph reconcile with licenses explicitly forbidding reverse engineering? Which right trumps the other?)
Overall, from the judge's repudiation of the defendants' claims, it is clear that 1) the judge knows little about technology and 2) the defense did little in the courtroom to back up their assertions. Since this was merely the issuance of preliminary injunction, there will be further opportunities to back up the claims of the defense. I just hope they are more prepared then than they were last month.
Of course, having more than one weekend notice might help matters a bit...
Millennium said:
Someone talked about the idea of interviewing prospective students. Most colleges already do that. I went through a bunch of interviews, as did my sisters when they went off to college, as did everyone I know who went to or is currently at college.
I can tell you for a fact that, at many larger schools (including the one I attended for undergraduate and graduate work) there were no interviews during the admissions phase (this includes colleges for which I applied and did not attend).
I had numerous interviews for various scholarship "competitions" but those typically took place after I had already been admitted (got early acceptance in Nov. of senior year of HS).
In fact, to provide a counter-example to yours, I know of no one who had interviews as part of their admissions procedure, but that may have to do with the fact that almost everyone I know went to one of two or three large, public universities.
As a side note, I don't exactly believe that outstanding performance on standardized tests is any better an indicator of future performance in college that poor performance. I know of several people who went to my high school who made outstanding scores on the SAT/HS GPA/etc. but, once at college and out from under Mommy and Daddy's control, took to too much partying and ended up failing/dropping out of college. Likewise, several "marginal" students went on to excellent college careers. However, I am not advocating the "dumbing-down" of admissions standards. As a graduate teaching assistant, I encountered far too many students lacking basic mathematical and communicative skills. I actually know of a student who wrote the following on a physics lab report: "It is would be much more actual in percent difference. And much more correct to[sic]."
I can't remember what vendor I saw this from (I really wish I could) but at one point there was an option of getting no OS pre-installed, and there was an $89/$99 (again, can't remember exactly) discount if Windows was not installed. This is what I'm talking about.
I know Dell doesn't pay $100/machine for WinXX but I seriously doubt they pass on the license at no markup. Everything that is sold is marked up by every middleman between the manufacturer and the end consumer.
I want to know what is happening to the "extra money" that is no longer a Microsoft tax? Is Dell keeping it as a surcharge for installing linux? Do I get a copy of Windows anyway? Do I get the RH package complete with 3(?) months of tech support?
When CD's came out...was in the days of 1200 baud modems and 300 mb hard drives...
Seeing as how CDs came out in the mid 1980s, hard drives may have been as large as 20MB. My first personal computer (ie. not one my parents bought) was purchased in late 1991 with a whopping 106 MB HD. I certainly remember my parents' first x86 machine being a 286 with a 20 MB drive in either '87 or '88. Talk about truly infeasible!
Also, as the original poster failed to note, you can rip CDs into mp3s, but it is wholly illegal to email/ftp/post for download/etc. that mp3 to someone else without consent from the music company (good luck getting that consent, BTW). Similarly, (IMO only) the DVD-CCA was trying to 1) prevent widespread piracy that is fairly commonplace with music CDs and 2) milk their cash cow as long as possible. 1) is certainly within their best interest. 2) however, is downright despicable, especially given their tactics (selective prosecution, attacking links to information, which, contrary to a certain NY state judge, is covered under the first amendment, etc).
Take this all with a mighty big grain of salt. Most of this is certainly just my take of things (except the discussion of HD sizes, of course;)
Would it be possible for SlashDot to take a vote on whether or not the AC account should block Jon Katz articles?
No point to that. You already have a built-in filtering mechanism. It's called a brain. The way it works is that your brain interprets the signal from your optic nerves. It recognizes the string JonKatz. Your brain then sends a signal to your hand to scroll on past the article and, under no circumstance to click on the link to the story. Pretty simple, huh? It's how I pass on the stories that don't interest me. I know they're there, but am able to ignore the content.
Besides, maybe some ACs like to read JonKatz stories. Personally, I find the comments much more amusing than I find the story interesting!
Consider the fact that there have been (literally) hundreds (if not more than a thousand) total lunar eclipses in the past 2000 years, I'm not all that worried. Assuming it stays clear, this will be my fourth total lunar eclipse. I'm all for them!
Your position on Earth relative to the Equator has nothing to do with it. Set up this experiment... Take a flashlight (close to a point source of light, similar to the Sun), turn it on, set it on something (so you can move around without the flashlight) and use it to cast a shadow on the wall. Go to the wall and put a sticky note on the wall in the shadow. Now, no matter where you move in the room, the sticky note will not appear out of the shadow. The angle with which the beam of light impacts the intervening object (the one casting the shadow) does not change. Thus, the position of the shadow does not change. Obviously, unless the sticky note falls off the wall, its position does not change. The simple fact of moving yourself around the room doesn't do anything (other than maybe knock over a chair in the dark!).
Similarly, your position with respect to the Equator will not change the fact that the entire moon will lie within Earth's shadow. That's what is required for a full lunar eclipse.
People in Eastern Europe (different longitude) will not see the eclipse simply because the moon will have set for them already. Remember, if the eclipse starts at 10pm, with totality onset at 11pm, this is 3am and 4am GMT, respectively. Eastern European sites are at GMT + several hours. It will already be daytime, and since a full moon rises at sunset, and sets at sunrise, these people will miss out.
I can agree with your assessment that there is only one moon, however.
They certainly should be able to see it in the southern hemisphere! Unlike solar eclipses (where the moon's shadow only covers a small part of Earth), lunar eclipses are widely observable because you are watching the Earth's shadow cover the Moon. The real difference is that solar eclipses are seen when *you* are covered by the moon's shadow, lunar eclipses are seen when the moon is covered by the Earth's shadow. It's much easier to see the shadow cast by an object than to lie within that same shadow.
And, as you state, it *is* the same moon, it's just upside down;) (no, really, it is! or at least appears to be)
Really only the former suggestion would make for an interesting loop. Onset to totality takes around an hour, during which you see the Earth's shadow creep across the disc of the Moon. During totality, not all that much happens. The moon is brick red. That's about it. A great picture, but not worth making a loop out of it.
I have no personal experience with the DivX/DVD fiasco, but it seems to me that one of the major drawbacks to the DivX is that, after the 48 hour window was up, you either had to pay more money to get a key to unlock the disc, or you were stuck with a glorified coaster (the other problem being incompatibility with some DVD players, IIRC).
How is this new technology going to be different? Oh, that's right, you *can't* pay for extra time, the disc itself degrades under laser exposure. All the drawbacks of DivX with less long-term potential for the customer. In the end, you're still stuck with a coaster (or microwave experiment... kids, don't try this at home!).
Am I way off the mark here? Which was the bigger drawback of DivX? Heaps of coasters or lack of universal compatability? If it was the heaps of coasters, this technology will fail the same as DivX.
On the other hand, this technique could surely be useful elsewhere... I'm just not immediately sure where.
..it is announced that the FCC will be allowing individuals and groups the ability to run low powered FM (yes, FM) radio stations..
This is a direct quote from the/. post, and we all know how accurate those are;) Read the article on NYT (or just the first paragraph I quoted before) and notice that included are educational, religious and community groups. No mention at all of individuals.
Jon sayeth: "[Adolescent males] have plenty to contribute - brains, energy, information and technical skills. But they need mentoring. If their flames are met with a barrage of protest, criticism or ridicule, they'll take notice."
To be the bearer of bad news, the barrage of protest, criticism and ridicule is exactly what many flamers/trollers are looking for. Telling some kid he's being a jerk for posting such messages isn't gonna make h[im|er] think "Hmm... maybe I *have* been hurting other people's feelings or sense of (pick your favorite psychobabble term). I should step back and change my ways." The only thing it does is to encourage them to post more flames/trolls.
As many people have pointed out, the only way to make them go away is to ignore them. It may not work, but takes far less effort than reacting to it. (Read this as browse comments at threshhold of +1 or +2.)
I'm not sure this will allow just anyone to get a licence for a 10/100 W station. The lead paragraph of the NYT article states
"Moving to open the radio airwaves to hundreds of small broadcasters, the federal government is planning to approve rules to allow educational, religious and community groups to run inexpensive low-power FM radio stations."
I can't tell if the application would require some sort of verification of the "group's status" or not. It would be fairly easy to check the status of educational or religious groups, but a fair and consistent definition of "community group" may be hard to come by. However, I didn't see anywhere in the article a mention that individuals could apply for such a license. I guess my 24 hour a day polka station is out:)
The whole point is that this posting is about Linux*Care* not Linux*One*. (Your new link also points to a LinuxOne article, and there again is no match for linuxcare.) We all know that LinuxOne is a fraud. If you go to/. home page and click on the LinuxCare logo, you'll see that this is the first post about that company (at least since it was given its own logo).
And, maybe you weren't flaming, but demanding you were right without checking behind yourself is what got my boxers in a wad.
Read your own fscking link, moron, and stop flaming people who are trying to hit you with a clue stick!
The headline for the article you linked to is (quoted, so your puny mind can comprehend) "LinuxOne May Be One Linux Company to Avoid"... The slashdot article was titled "BusinessWeek on LinuxOne".
Nowhere in either the post or the article does/[Ll]inux[Cc]are/ show up. Now, get your head out of your @$$ before you post next time.
You're correct. Monday, AOL opened trading around $80. As of this afternoon, it's hovering around $62. Approximately 25% drop in price in just over three days isn't a ringing endorsement from your stockholders.
Time Warner (TWX) opened Monday just shy of $100. Now, it's around $80.50. Here, nearly a 20% drop in value.
Of course, the two companies have a combined market cap of around $240B, but these are pretty significant losses that are obviously connected to the planned "merger" (read buyout).
"Time Warner and America Online stock will be converted to AOL Time Warner stock at fixed exchange ratios. The Time Warner shareholders will receive 1.5 shares of AOL Time Warner for each share of Time Warner stock they own. America Online shareholders will receive one share of AOL Time Warner stock for each share of America Online stock they own."
This says AOL share holders get a 1 for 1 trade, while TW share holders get 1.5 to 1 in the deal. Not the other way around.
Yah, and time and again, courts have ruled that implicit agreements don't have the same importance as explicity one's. Blah Blah...
Calling 'taking advantage of the "offer"' fraudulent makes it sound illegal. It's not. It's exploiting a loophole in an agreement. Note, that in my original post, I stated that accepting the "offer" clearly isn't taking the moral high ground...
As to taking candy from a baby... try taking candy from a RICH baby, who routinely exploits computer users with their EULA-babble and who has ample legal resources at hand but didn't bother utilizing them.
And no, I'm not trying to be a lawyer... I'm merely using what usually passes for common sense.
Slashdot Mirror
Let's see... the header says you can filter posts *FROM* a particular author, not *ABOUT* a particular author. The filter does exactly what it claims about. If you want them to filter out articles about Jon Katz, click the mailto link at the bottom of the prefs page and suggest it. Just don't whine about a function that does what it says it will do.
Eric
PS Everyone *is* out to get you...
A view, a judgement, an appraisal, a belief ... less strong than positive knowledge. None of these imply any possibility of a correct opinion.
Last I heard, /. was a news/discussion site, incapable of forming an opinion. Getting right down to it, /. is a bunch of perl code on several linux servers running Apache. On a more basic level, /. is nothing more than silicon, metal, plastic, ones and zeros. Machines don't have opinions (please, no ST:TNG references).
And, BTW, I for one don't think he should necessarily go away. I may not agree with him very often, but that is the whole point of opinions!
Eric
There is a little link on the left hand side of the main /. page called preferences. Click it and follow the directions. You can filter out articles by author (ie. he who posts the article) or by subject.
BTW, there is no Jon Katz subject filter, so you'll still get articles like the Jon Katz interviews (CmdrTaco is responsible for those).
Cheers
Eric
This same guy has made many posts using the accuont name Bruce Perens. (yes, the . is part of the username here). I thought someone at /. was going to clear out all of these bogus "Famous Person Name". accounts...
Eric
Firstly, it most certainly is not the only way to pirate DVDs, but, as at least one pirate admitted, it certainly is the easiest. However, the judge's wording implies that this is DeCSS's only purpose. He further states that no evidence to the contrary (that DeCSS is used for linux-interoperability) has been presented. I'd like to know why not. Did the defense really think the judge would take their word for it? Where was the laptop running linux that couldn't play DVDs until software based on DeCSS was installed?
This makes it painfully obvious that the judge has no understanding of the Open Source movement. Of course there is no commercially signigicant purpose; who's going to pay for OSS when it is freely (speech AND beer) available? Besides, the primary intent of DeCSS (unless you believe the judge) is to allow viewing DVDs that have already been bought under linux.
But wait, the judge doesn't buy the whole linux argument in the first place:
[A]ssuming that DeCSS runs under Linux...??? Where has this guy been??? Oh, wait, I bet he doesn't read SlashDot, does he? Anyway, if the defense had done its job, there would be no assuming this or that about DeCSS and Linux. Secondly, he completely misses the point about programs "running" under operating systems. It's computer code. Download it, compile it, and *poof* it runs on your computer. (The complete lack of proprietary MicroSoft foundation classes, libraries and 'extensions' of standards might be a clue that it was developed in a *nix environment!) Finally, where does he get off deciding what was going through the head of the anonymous German hacker who actually wrote the program? How does he know the intent with which the program was developed? Sure, some people may use the program for illegal gains, but that isn't what the judge is apparently concerned about here. Apparently, I can claim that I developed something with one purpose in mind, but if someone else finds a malicious use for it, that is somehow my fault. I think not! Otherwise, gun and/or bullet manufacturers would be held accountable for every firearms-related homicide.
Finally, I think the judge misses the point in the paragraph in which he quotes the following from the DMCA:
This statement specifically refers to reverse engineering computer codes that have been legally obtained. The point of the matter is that it is not clear whether it was an encryption algorithm that was reverse engineered or if the algorithm was discovered by "hacking" the Xing encoder. Maybe this point wasn't made clear enough in the hearing. (I won't even go into the argument about the legal status of click-through licenses. Suffice it to say that I've never read through one... I'll just make this point: how does paragraph reconcile with licenses explicitly forbidding reverse engineering? Which right trumps the other?)
Overall, from the judge's repudiation of the defendants' claims, it is clear that 1) the judge knows little about technology and 2) the defense did little in the courtroom to back up their assertions. Since this was merely the issuance of preliminary injunction, there will be further opportunities to back up the claims of the defense. I just hope they are more prepared then than they were last month.
Of course, having more than one weekend notice might help matters a bit...
Eric
I can tell you for a fact that, at many larger schools (including the one I attended for undergraduate and graduate work) there were no interviews during the admissions phase (this includes colleges for which I applied and did not attend).
I had numerous interviews for various scholarship "competitions" but those typically took place after I had already been admitted (got early acceptance in Nov. of senior year of HS).
In fact, to provide a counter-example to yours, I know of no one who had interviews as part of their admissions procedure, but that may have to do with the fact that almost everyone I know went to one of two or three large, public universities.
As a side note, I don't exactly believe that outstanding performance on standardized tests is any better an indicator of future performance in college that poor performance. I know of several people who went to my high school who made outstanding scores on the SAT/HS GPA/etc. but, once at college and out from under Mommy and Daddy's control, took to too much partying and ended up failing/dropping out of college. Likewise, several "marginal" students went on to excellent college careers. However, I am not advocating the "dumbing-down" of admissions standards. As a graduate teaching assistant, I encountered far too many students lacking basic mathematical and communicative skills. I actually know of a student who wrote the following on a physics lab report: "It is would be much more actual in percent difference. And much more correct to[sic]."
Eric
I can't remember what vendor I saw this from (I really wish I could) but at one point there was an option of getting no OS pre-installed, and there was an $89/$99 (again, can't remember exactly) discount if Windows was not installed. This is what I'm talking about.
I know Dell doesn't pay $100/machine for WinXX but I seriously doubt they pass on the license at no markup. Everything that is sold is marked up by every middleman between the manufacturer and the end consumer.
Eric
I want to know what is happening to the "extra money" that is no longer a Microsoft tax? Is Dell keeping it as a surcharge for installing linux? Do I get a copy of Windows anyway? Do I get the RH package complete with 3(?) months of tech support?
In short, where is my "extra" $100 going?
Eric
Seeing as how CDs came out in the mid 1980s, hard drives may have been as large as 20MB. My first personal computer (ie. not one my parents bought) was purchased in late 1991 with a whopping 106 MB HD. I certainly remember my parents' first x86 machine being a 286 with a 20 MB drive in either '87 or '88. Talk about truly infeasible!
Also, as the original poster failed to note, you can rip CDs into mp3s, but it is wholly illegal to email/ftp/post for download/etc. that mp3 to someone else without consent from the music company (good luck getting that consent, BTW). Similarly, (IMO only) the DVD-CCA was trying to 1) prevent widespread piracy that is fairly commonplace with music CDs and 2) milk their cash cow as long as possible. 1) is certainly within their best interest. 2) however, is downright despicable, especially given their tactics (selective prosecution, attacking links to information, which, contrary to a certain NY state judge, is covered under the first amendment, etc).
Take this all with a mighty big grain of salt. Most of this is certainly just my take of things (except the discussion of HD sizes, of course ;)
Eric
Besides, maybe some ACs like to read JonKatz stories. Personally, I find the comments much more amusing than I find the story interesting!
Eric
Consider the fact that there have been (literally)
hundreds (if not more than a thousand) total lunar eclipses in the past 2000 years, I'm not all that worried. Assuming it stays clear, this will be my fourth total lunar eclipse. I'm all for them!
Eric
Your position on Earth relative to the Equator has nothing to do with it. Set up this experiment... Take a flashlight (close to a point source of light, similar to the Sun), turn it on, set it on something (so you can move around without the flashlight) and use it to cast a shadow on the wall. Go to the wall and put a sticky note on the wall in the shadow. Now, no matter where you move in the room, the sticky note will not appear out of the shadow. The angle with which the beam of light impacts the intervening object (the one casting the shadow) does not change. Thus, the position of the shadow does not change. Obviously, unless the sticky note falls off the wall, its position does not change. The simple fact of moving yourself around the room doesn't do anything (other than maybe knock over a chair in the dark!).
Similarly, your position with respect to the Equator will not change the fact that the entire moon will lie within Earth's shadow. That's what is required for a full lunar eclipse.
People in Eastern Europe (different longitude) will not see the eclipse simply because the moon will have set for them already. Remember, if the eclipse starts at 10pm, with totality onset at 11pm, this is 3am and 4am GMT, respectively. Eastern European sites are at GMT + several hours. It will already be daytime, and since a full moon rises at sunset, and sets at sunrise, these people will miss out.
I can agree with your assessment that there is only one moon, however.
Eric
They certainly should be able to see it in the southern hemisphere! Unlike solar eclipses (where the moon's shadow only covers a small part of Earth), lunar eclipses are widely observable because you are watching the Earth's shadow cover the Moon. The real difference is that solar eclipses are seen when *you* are covered by the moon's shadow, lunar eclipses are seen when the moon is covered by the Earth's shadow. It's much easier to see the shadow cast by an object than to lie within that same shadow.
;) (no, really, it is! or at least appears to be)
And, as you state, it *is* the same moon, it's just upside down
Really only the former suggestion would make for an interesting loop. Onset to totality takes around an hour, during which you see the Earth's shadow creep across the disc of the Moon. During totality, not all that much happens. The moon is brick red. That's about it. A great picture, but not worth making a loop out of it.
Eric
I have no personal experience with the DivX/DVD fiasco, but it seems to me that one of the major drawbacks to the DivX is that, after the 48 hour window was up, you either had to pay more money to get a key to unlock the disc, or you were stuck with a glorified coaster (the other problem being incompatibility with some DVD players, IIRC).
How is this new technology going to be different? Oh, that's right, you *can't* pay for extra time, the disc itself degrades under laser exposure. All the drawbacks of DivX with less long-term potential for the customer. In the end, you're still stuck with a coaster (or microwave experiment... kids, don't try this at home!).
Am I way off the mark here? Which was the bigger drawback of DivX? Heaps of coasters or lack of universal compatability? If it was the heaps of coasters, this technology will fail the same as DivX.
On the other hand, this technique could surely be useful elsewhere... I'm just not immediately sure where.
Eric
This is a direct quote from the /. post, and we all know how accurate those are ;) Read the article on NYT (or just the first paragraph I quoted before) and notice that included are educational, religious and community groups. No mention at all of individuals.
Chrs
Eric
Jon sayeth: "[Adolescent males] have plenty to contribute - brains, energy, information and technical skills. But they need mentoring. If their flames are met with a barrage of protest, criticism or ridicule, they'll take notice."
To be the bearer of bad news, the barrage of protest, criticism and ridicule is exactly what many flamers/trollers are looking for. Telling some kid he's being a jerk for posting such messages isn't gonna make h[im|er] think "Hmm... maybe I *have* been hurting other people's feelings or sense of (pick your favorite psychobabble term). I should step back and change my ways." The only thing it does is to encourage them to post more flames/trolls.
As many people have pointed out, the only way to make them go away is to ignore them. It may not work, but takes far less effort than reacting to it. (Read this as browse comments at threshhold of +1 or +2.)
Eric
I'm not sure this will allow just anyone to get a licence for a 10/100 W station. The lead paragraph of the NYT article states
:)
"Moving to open the radio airwaves to hundreds of small broadcasters, the federal government is planning to approve rules to allow educational, religious and community groups to run inexpensive low-power FM radio stations."
I can't tell if the application would require some sort of verification of the "group's status" or not. It would be fairly easy to check the status of educational or religious groups, but a fair and consistent definition of "community group" may be hard to come by. However, I didn't see anywhere in the article a mention that individuals could apply for such a license. I guess my 24 hour a day polka station is out
Eric
The whole point is that this posting is about Linux*Care* not Linux*One*. (Your new link also points to a LinuxOne article, and there again is no match for linuxcare.) We all know that LinuxOne is a fraud. If you go to /. home page and click on the LinuxCare logo, you'll see that this is the first post about that company (at least since it was given its own logo).
And, maybe you weren't flaming, but demanding you were right without checking behind yourself is what got my boxers in a wad.
Chrs
Eric
The headline for the article you linked to is (quoted, so your puny mind can comprehend) "LinuxOne May Be One Linux Company to Avoid"... The slashdot article was titled "BusinessWeek on LinuxOne".
Nowhere in either the post or the article does /[Ll]inux[Cc]are/ show up. Now, get your head out of your @$$ before you post next time.
My $0.25... use it to get a clue!
Eric
Select Home Audio Department, search for AD-600A:
Your Search for AD-600A returned 0 items.
I wonder what all the hush-hush is over...fear of getting sued by RIAA?
Eric
You're correct. Monday, AOL opened trading around $80. As of this afternoon, it's hovering around $62. Approximately 25% drop in price in just over three days isn't a ringing endorsement from your stockholders.
Time Warner (TWX) opened Monday just shy of $100. Now, it's around $80.50. Here, nearly a 20% drop in value.
Of course, the two companies have a combined market cap of around $240B, but these are pretty significant losses that are obviously connected to the planned "merger" (read buyout).
Eric
Quote from press release...
"Time Warner and America Online stock will be converted to AOL Time
Warner stock at fixed exchange ratios. The Time Warner shareholders
will receive 1.5 shares of AOL Time Warner for each share of Time
Warner stock they own. America Online shareholders will receive one
share of AOL Time Warner stock for each share of America Online
stock they own."
This says AOL share holders get a 1 for 1 trade, while TW share holders get 1.5 to 1 in the deal. Not the other way around.
Eric
Wow! and I usually check myself at least once... I plead prayer for judgement continued. Just don't ticket me for excessive use of ellipses... ;)
...
Eric, who lives and dies by
Yah, and time and again, courts have ruled that implicit agreements don't have the same importance as explicity one's. Blah Blah...
Calling 'taking advantage of the "offer"' fraudulent makes it sound illegal. It's not. It's exploiting a loophole in an agreement. Note, that in my original post, I stated that accepting the "offer" clearly isn't taking the moral high ground...
As to taking candy from a baby... try taking candy from a RICH baby, who routinely exploits computer users with their EULA-babble and who has ample legal resources at hand but didn't bother utilizing them.
And no, I'm not trying to be a lawyer... I'm merely using what usually passes for common sense.
Eric