I'll be at the start of any "I hate Microsoft, they're evil!" line, but I DO NOT want to see MS die. We need more competition not less.
Ironically, some would say Microsoft coming into existence is what killed competition, and strangely enough, them leaving the market despite being one less player would allow plenty more to enter, survive, and prosper.
It would really depend on the pressure your body was in just before being exposed to the vacuum.
Just being in a vacuum by itself would smell like nothing, as there are not enough particles to collect together to signal enough smell receptors at once to trigger a scent.
However rapidly changing pressure is likely to cause blood vessels to rupture, thus tasting your own blood, since among everywhere else too, you will be bleeding into your mouth and sinus cavities.
A lot of people mistakenly think (probably due to Hollywood movies) that when you are in a vacuum, you Must somehow have changed pressure and exploded or something. This is most likely what the GP was implying is the case.
That isn't a given however at all. In fact if you were in your space ship at the same pressure as space outside is, you could technically hold your breath and go outside and be OK, at least until the extreme cold causes other bodily functions to fail. The holding your breath part would suck too of course.
But in either of those cases, it wouldn't be an instant death, as it takes time to use up all the oxygen in the breath you're holding, and takes time for your body heat to bleed away.
Sorry but thats life - Copyright law covers distribution, not private usage, and this is private usage.
Funny, simply using software requires a 'usage' right from the copyright holder, since a copy gets made in ram for your private personal usage and goes no further, but not using a program in the exact way the copyright holder desires is still a copyright violation, even after no distribution in any way shape or form has happened.
If your statement was true, the judge would never have ruled loading a program into RAM was a copyright violation if done without the software authors permission.
or if I said I didn't have an incentive to grow cotton unless I could own slaves on the plantation, most people would see this is these as the worthless shallow arguments that they are.
That "worthless shallow argument" killed over 620,000 Americans alone. (I don't have the historical knowledge to know how many world-wide.)
I'd continue reading your post, but if you're the type of person to just piss all over history like that, I'm pretty sure you have nothing useful to say on the topic.
So wait. Do you mean to say you feel the statement "I do not have incentive to grow cotton unless I can own slaves" is worthwhile and deep? Or that it is a good argument or reason?
I'm assuming not, but still, I'm also not exactly following what you think the problem is with my opinion.
Yes, the excuse "I do not have incentive to grow cotton unless I can own slaves" is a lie on multiple levels, is not accurate, nor is even a valid excuse to own slaves if it WAS accurate and true. We would tell them to hell with their incentive, don't grow cotton at all then.
That makes it a worthless and shallow excuse for slavery to exist. I feel slavery should NOT exist, no matter what the excuse is, but especially for that excuse. I'm not saying no other reasons for not having slavery don't rank higher than this reason, but it is still way up there on the list of bad.
So seriously, are you disagreeing with that one statement? If not, what is the issue with it? And if so, how do you rationalize that?
How on earth does this limit "free speach" or "free expression"? In no way does it stop anyone going out and saying what they want.
I dunno, go ask the pirate bay owners.
They said what they wanted, which is even legal on the books (both before and after the trial, no laws got changed here) and they were still sentenced 1 year in jail and fines.
I'd say copyright totally stops you from saying what you want, when you can get a year in jail for saying "i know someone who knows someone who [...,n] who has the work i'm talking about, and my only data i have stored outside of by brain about this work is a little hash number only 64 digits ling, so you can know the work you are referencing is the same one I am referencing"
The issue seems fairly obvious to solve, to me: You, as the copyright holder, must submit a copy of the document to the Library of Congress for storage in high-resolution (or whatever the content equivalent is), and must send them a registered letter or similar once a year for your work to be declared not orphaned.
Woah woah woah! What is this?! Using the Library of Congress for its original intended purpose, instead of as a unit of measurement???
You my friend have just made many an enemy on slashdot from both sides of the fence:{
If I said I didn't have an incentive to grow oranges unless I could plant a tree in your yard, or if I said I didn't have an incentive to grow cotton unless I could own slaves on the plantation, most people would see this is these as the worthless shallow arguments that they are. But if I said I didn't have an incentive to to make beneficial or creative works without a copyright monopoly, then all of a sudden people just take it on faith, they don't even question it, they just assume that society would fall apart without them. In my humble opinion, this is intellectually dishonest, especially considering that the entire Renaissance happened without copyrights.
The simple fact is, there is no equivalence relationship between copyrights and property rights - incentive does not a right make. The moral and historical foundation of property derives from the fact that property has physical limits, while the foundation of copyrights dervives from kings who granted publishers monopolies in return for not publishing bad things about the monarchy. The history of copyrights is not one of rights, but control of sharing and restricting the open use of knowledge.
That is why people who copy are not criminals, thieves, or akin to pirates who board ships and murder people. No, infact they are really victims of a cruel deception. A deception that copyrights somehow financially benefit artists and creators. The simple fact is, that for every artist that makes it "big" there are literally thousands who copyrights haven't helped a bit, even hindered, or destroyed.
However, this is not the only failure of copyrights - it is just one in many issues related to copyrights that are just blown off ignored, or glossed over. Like the failures of Hollywood culture, the failures of big media to provide quality material, the failures to provide reasonably priced books to college students while tabloids are dirt cheap, and massive anti-trust behavior in the software industry to name a few.
While the problems associated with copyrights might have been bearable 20 years ago when the biggest issue was Xerox machines, today we are in the information age where information is so easy to copy and manipulate that there can be no middle ground. Our society will either have to control all of it or none of it. Our communications will either have to be monitored or free, our privacy to be either continuously probed or protected.
In that sense, copyrights are like a vine that will never stop growing to choke off our freedoms until we cut it off at the root. The DMCA, infinite extensions, billion dollar lawsuits, are all just symptoms of a poor belief system - not the cause. So the efforts to find a "middle ground" on copyrights are a failure because they do not address the core issue. That contrary to copyrights, the right to copy and distribute creative works and knowledge is a right!
Like freedom of religion, and freedom of the press, the right to copy things is a right that exists above government. It is a moral right, it is an inherent right, it defines the very nature of the human condition. It is beyond politics and the petition of leaders.
In fact, the entire foundation of politics rests on the notion that it's better to fight wars with words than wars with bloodshed. But to copy things does not require coercion or violence at all, the rules are not the same. We will not change the copyright situation by petitioning our leaders, or voting to change the system. It can only be changed by defiance.
Defiance by holding the belief that people have rights, even if those rights appear contrary to the popular mob or to the system. Defiance, by shedding off the guilt and shame that those who try to impose copyrights on us and understanding that they are the ones who should be guilty and shameful. Defiance by copying and sharing creative works whenever we have access to them. Defiance by using technologies
What about people for who $50 is a year salary? Congrats, you just split the internet into the rich and the poor. No more accessing the internet from africa from an old PC powered by a donated solar cell. Good job. You probably going to get a nobel price.
Worse than that. Spammers have plenty of cash.
The two solutions also are for two totally separate unrelated problems.
A capcha is only to test if the client is a human or a computer. It doesn't now, nor ever did, test if the client has money to spend.
In fact, the solution to that persons problem sounds like a reverse-capcha! If the client passes the capcha, they are clearly a lowly human being and shouldn't be allowed to continue into his site. If the capcha is failed on first and second trys, it is probably a bot being run by a spammer, and spammers have lots of cash!
So yes the parents point is 100% correct. You can only replace capchas with another test that actually tests for the same thing.
If all someone wants is only paying customers on their site, a captcha isnt even needed to signup. A credit card where you can place a successful charge using a merchant account is all you need. After all, a human with cash and a spammer with cash both need to be allowed, and a capcha would only prevent bots run by spammers with cash from signing up.
Yet again, stupid greedy website operators, who more than likely add no value to the internet hawking their overpriced crap that everyone else hawks, have just totally taken a new technology and ignored what it really does, then implemented it as wrong as humanly possible.
To be insensitive, what value do they add as a user? Are they going to spend $1 on some product advertised on my site?
You messed up. CAPCHA is not a test to tell if your viewers have any money. It is just a test if they are a human or computer.
If you want nothing but people who have $1 to spend at your site, what you want is NO capcha. Spammers after all have lots of money, and as you say you'd prefer them over those without $1.
Try implementing the correct technology and you will get your wish.
But if you are innocent your DNA is not very likely to be there.
Actually this database by definition will be nothing BUT innocent people.
If you are convicted as guilty by a court, they already have the right to take your DNA sample before incarcerating you. The guilty ones already are in a database.
The only reason to change and expand the law at all on this is to collect the DNA of non guilty people.
I'm sorry. Where do we have a right to copy others' work?
It's right there in copyright law.
The only purpose for granting other people a copyright is so in exchange it will become public domain.
You can't copyright something without already promising the public payment.
It's hardly our fault that the producers of a lot of works want to go back on that deal and rip us off. If anything, it is our fault for falling for the lies for so long.
You don't want to pay for the rights you received? Then you get no rights. By default that work belongs to the public.
You can only apply logic within the legal system when the law is designed to promote fairness and logic. That is not at all the case, so please stop trying to do so.
If i keep saying 'Its ok, pay me later' which is exactly what happens with copyright, and time and time again I get ripped off and not paid, are you really shocked i finally stop saying it's OK to pay me later? Pay me now, or no deal. With copyright, there isn't a way to pay now, and even if there was its not like they would agree to give up their illegally gained control, so it doesn't matter. Thus, no deal.
Was Google created to promote and facilitate illegal file-sharing? No? Then Google is safe.
But yes they were created for exactly that.
Everything google links to is copyrighted. Everything.
Not a single google link leads you to a non-copyrighted work.
The law clearly makes no distinction between legal and illegal file sharing, as addressed by this case. HTML files are still files, so even plain web pages being linked to are file sharing.
This case also points out that following the letter of the law, and the spirit of the law, when you aren't even accused of a crime that can be named by the prosecution, will still result in jail time and fines.
Google should be very worried about their Swedish presence.
One should also note that google makes MUCH more with their ad service than TPB could ever have hoped to. That just means more jail time and much much higher fines.
It's called buying the right device for your needs.
You don't go out and buy a hammer and complain it doesn't work well removing screws.
If you want a device to check your email directly, then you should probably buy a device that can check your email directly.
These devices do not work that way, so sound like the wrong choice if that is what you need.
There are plenty of devices on the market that can check email directly and don't require their own server component in between. This person should be looking at those.
He clearly realizes what he needs, but refuses to buy a device that can do it, and now expects RIM to change and be one of those other devices instead.
When such information is one google search away, you can't expect us to feel much sympathy for their mistake.
A fairly recent round of laws to come into play for all EU member states specifies that data like this must be retained for 6months.
It really is amazing how changing a single line in a config file is all that is needed to make an action legal or illegal.
You are probably correct in the interpretation of deleting said data is illegal. We can even assume it is as a 'worst case' assumption, since I do not know for sure either.
However, _Not_ logging said data in the first place means no deleting was done, and it is not illegal.
Now i realize the article linked here was factually wrong, in that this ISP is not deleting any logs, they just simply are not logging that data, and it has been for a lil while now (Unsure how long, but was definitely done before today and before TPB trial started)
I just find it funny that if you don't make a mistake, you are fine, if you make a mistake, you are fine, but if you make a mistake and fix it, its a crime.
It's because they were early scientists and most of them were claiming things they couldn't yet prove.
While you are posting anon, so its clear you are trolling and dont believe what you say. I wanted to reply for others.
Your statement is false. The rest of your post has nothing to do with anyone (noone mentioned string theory) so i wont bother with it.
More than half of the people on that list DID prove their claims.
It was proven the earth orbited the sun, which you can do outside today with nothing more than two yard sticks (or meter sticks if you prefer)
It was also proven the other planets were out there and oribited the sun, even more so, since the only tool Galileo had was a telescope, and he never tried to make claims and prove them, he instead simply described what he saw (He didn't like the idea either at first, but only the church can deny what their eyes saw and still think they were right)
Also
You know what else that list has in common? All those names involved people who died more than a century ago.
Those who don't remember history are doomed to repeat it. Especially when you force yourself to forget what happened in history 'Just 100 years ago' and past.
I hate to break it to you, but mankind was around longer than a century, longer than 2000 years, and just because you don't want to believe something happened just because it was over a century ago, doesn't mean it didn't and those lessons should be learned from.
Either way your argument is bunk. If you want to deny that something important happened because it was over X years ago, then instead of our current discussion on WHY it happened, you just open yourself to arguing over different values of X, while still ignoring the main issue for why that X value would even be needed.
If you get a child that has a genetic mutation that either has extra genetic material (or less) than the definition, that person could LEGALLY be considered not human. This is an enormous can of worms. What rights would a sentient non-human, who looks human, expect to have in society?
The same rights as the last race of intelligent, sentient, humans who were classed as non-humans. The same as all countless of them through out time.
The scary part however, laws are always made to be used. There WILL be a sub-human class of people defined by this law, and a group who happens to match whatever definition they come up with. The states intent is pretty clear, they want to bring back slavery:{
Then again, you seem to be expecting them to set a definition, then find people to fit it (IE those born matching said definition.) My lak of faith in humanity assumes worse. They already know what group they plan to do this to, and will adjust the definition accordingly.
Someone should tell Louisiana that the civil war is over and the north won. Slaves aren't allowed anymore, despite this laws attempt to create that entire class over again.
After obtaining the power rates for industrial business in our area from the department of energy website, verified with our electric bill, and using minimum wage as a worst-case rate (even our lowest paid employee makes more than min wage), it turned out to be cheaper to 'waste' 16 hours of electricity than it would be to 'pay' that employee for 15 minutes while waiting for the PC to boot and perform its nightly maintenance and standard boot process.
A good 3 times cheaper.
Now in our case, we are an electronic manufacturer, so both are charged at a low industrial rate, and have such a high electrical usage that we get further discounts. So this is not exactly the usual office place rates or costs.
Additionally, its actually a lot more than 3 times as expensive to power off at night, since as i said, not a single employee actually makes min wage, everyones pay is higher. But without prying into HR details that are none of ITs business, it was a good assumption to base the numbers off of.
I typically look up and run these numbers every 6 months, in match to the report schedule from the DOE and AEP (our local power company) as electrical rates change frequently. Min wage can change as well, but if anything its once a year.
Windows Update does not use IE and hasn't since XP. You need to get information that isn't many years out of date.
Wait, what? Since XP? I think you meant since Win 2003, not since XP (since as worded that would include XP)
I still use XP, and for me at least it really seems windows update is tied to IE.
Parts of it in XP still use active x controls, and in some funky strange way as well. It works fine in IE of course, but load the mozilla active x extensions and I still cant run windows update in firefox.
If you did mean what you typed, I'm really really interested to know how you got windows update to run outside of IE?
IMO, an "educated" opinion from a technical crowd is in any way better than a simple Google query. I don't know, for example, how Google could possibly have a differentiated answer to the pros and cons of particular clients.
Re-read the ask slashdot... He never once asked anyone to compare pros or cons, nor implied he was even interested in our opinions. He laid out a list of requirements (which towards the end sound more like demands) and his last 'sentence' is one word/question:
Suggestions?
How is a google result list anything other than a list of suggestions?
I literally pasted the article title (sans "Ask slashdot: ") into google, and the first 4 results are free client/server packages of which some have already suggested. There also appears to be someone else asking this same question to some other forum, with attached answer...
I realized ask slashdot has been for years now less about questions for geeks than kids wanting someone else to do their homework, but when did ask slashdot replace google search?
the totally insane witch hunt we have going on when it comes to kiddie pron
Have you ever seen kiddie porn? Usenet makes it all too simple, and let me tell you: it's not busty blonde 17 year olds "this close" to 18, and it's really, really disgusting.
Dude... How does the horribleness of those pictures in any way/shape/or form justify putting tens to hundreds of thousands of innocent people through trials and basically branded as guilty pedophiles for life, only to discover they really were innocent and let go?
Those peoples lives are ruined forever. Friends and associates lost, families torn apart, carriers ruined... All because the accusations make front page news for weeks, and the retraction and court outcome is 2 lines in small print somewhere towards the bottom of page E-10...
That is the witch hunt of which the GP speaks.
And No, I don't buy your excuse for why that is OK to do to people, simply because the pictures are really really disgusting. If ANYTHING, that reason of yours should be EXACTLY why this madness needs to stop, so the real criminals taking the pictures and doing the child abuse might get caught, instead of given a week to get away while someone else is "investigated"
You truly are a sick person to prefer innocent peoples lives are ruined instead of the real criminals caught
One should not lambaste officials without looking at the scientist's track-record. I have yet to see a single item suggesting that he had a serious track-record of predicting with any reasonable level of accuracy the time, place and magnitude of an event as well as "safe" periods.
Fortunately that's OK, as we have also yet to see a single item suggesting government officials are any different;}
Slashdot Mirror
I'll be at the start of any "I hate Microsoft, they're evil!" line, but I DO NOT want to see MS die. We need more competition not less.
Ironically, some would say Microsoft coming into existence is what killed competition, and strangely enough, them leaving the market despite being one less player would allow plenty more to enter, survive, and prosper.
Going from 10.4 to 10.5 is an upgrade not a service pack.
And the rabbit that is eating my tulip bulbs is really a very tiny grizzly bear.
English is a great language, no?
Ahh, so you are one of those who thinks going from Windows 2000 to Windows XP is just a service pack and shouldn't cost extra?
First Amendment be damned...
The large majority of us do not work for the US government, and lo and behold an even larger majority of us do not live in the USA.
There is no way possible for any of us to violate the first amendment, seeing as one of the requirements is that you are the government doing it.
You have zero free speech rights when talking to another person, in law or morally.
Why would you smell your blood in a vacuum?
It would really depend on the pressure your body was in just before being exposed to the vacuum.
Just being in a vacuum by itself would smell like nothing, as there are not enough particles to collect together to signal enough smell receptors at once to trigger a scent.
However rapidly changing pressure is likely to cause blood vessels to rupture, thus tasting your own blood, since among everywhere else too, you will be bleeding into your mouth and sinus cavities.
A lot of people mistakenly think (probably due to Hollywood movies) that when you are in a vacuum, you Must somehow have changed pressure and exploded or something. This is most likely what the GP was implying is the case.
That isn't a given however at all.
In fact if you were in your space ship at the same pressure as space outside is, you could technically hold your breath and go outside and be OK, at least until the extreme cold causes other bodily functions to fail. The holding your breath part would suck too of course.
But in either of those cases, it wouldn't be an instant death, as it takes time to use up all the oxygen in the breath you're holding, and takes time for your body heat to bleed away.
Sorry but thats life - Copyright law covers distribution, not private usage, and this is private usage.
Funny, simply using software requires a 'usage' right from the copyright holder, since a copy gets made in ram for your private personal usage and goes no further, but not using a program in the exact way the copyright holder desires is still a copyright violation, even after no distribution in any way shape or form has happened.
If your statement was true, the judge would never have ruled loading a program into RAM was a copyright violation if done without the software authors permission.
http://digital-law-online.info/lpdi1.0/treatise20.html
or if I said I didn't have an incentive to grow cotton unless I could own slaves on the plantation, most people would see this is these as the worthless shallow arguments that they are.
That "worthless shallow argument" killed over 620,000 Americans alone. (I don't have the historical knowledge to know how many world-wide.)
I'd continue reading your post, but if you're the type of person to just piss all over history like that, I'm pretty sure you have nothing useful to say on the topic.
So wait. Do you mean to say you feel the statement "I do not have incentive to grow cotton unless I can own slaves" is worthwhile and deep? Or that it is a good argument or reason?
I'm assuming not, but still, I'm also not exactly following what you think the problem is with my opinion.
Yes, the excuse "I do not have incentive to grow cotton unless I can own slaves" is a lie on multiple levels, is not accurate, nor is even a valid excuse to own slaves if it WAS accurate and true. We would tell them to hell with their incentive, don't grow cotton at all then.
That makes it a worthless and shallow excuse for slavery to exist. I feel slavery should NOT exist, no matter what the excuse is, but especially for that excuse. I'm not saying no other reasons for not having slavery don't rank higher than this reason, but it is still way up there on the list of bad.
So seriously, are you disagreeing with that one statement? If not, what is the issue with it? And if so, how do you rationalize that?
How on earth does this limit "free speach" or "free expression"? In no way does it stop anyone going out and saying what they want.
I dunno, go ask the pirate bay owners.
They said what they wanted, which is even legal on the books (both before and after the trial, no laws got changed here) and they were still sentenced 1 year in jail and fines.
I'd say copyright totally stops you from saying what you want, when you can get a year in jail for saying "i know someone who knows someone who [...,n] who has the work i'm talking about, and my only data i have stored outside of by brain about this work is a little hash number only 64 digits ling, so you can know the work you are referencing is the same one I am referencing"
The issue seems fairly obvious to solve, to me: You, as the copyright holder, must submit a copy of the document to the Library of Congress for storage in high-resolution (or whatever the content equivalent is), and must send them a registered letter or similar once a year for your work to be declared not orphaned.
Woah woah woah! What is this?! Using the Library of Congress for its original intended purpose, instead of as a unit of measurement???
You my friend have just made many an enemy on slashdot from both sides of the fence :{
If I said I didn't have an incentive to grow oranges unless I could plant a tree in your yard,
or if I said I didn't have an incentive to grow cotton unless I could own slaves on the
plantation, most people would see this is these as the worthless shallow arguments that they are.
But if I said I didn't have an incentive to to make beneficial or creative works without a
copyright monopoly, then all of a sudden people just take it on faith, they don't even question
it, they just assume that society would fall apart without them. In my humble opinion, this is
intellectually dishonest, especially considering that the entire Renaissance happened without
copyrights.
The simple fact is, there is no equivalence relationship between copyrights and property rights -
incentive does not a right make. The moral and historical foundation of property derives from the
fact that property has physical limits, while the foundation of copyrights dervives from kings
who granted publishers monopolies in return for not publishing bad things about the monarchy. The
history of copyrights is not one of rights, but control of sharing and restricting the open use
of knowledge.
That is why people who copy are not criminals, thieves, or akin to pirates who board ships and
murder people. No, infact they are really victims of a cruel deception. A deception that
copyrights somehow financially benefit artists and creators. The simple fact is, that for every
artist that makes it "big" there are literally thousands who copyrights haven't helped a bit,
even hindered, or destroyed.
However, this is not the only failure of copyrights - it is just one in many issues related to
copyrights that are just blown off ignored, or glossed over. Like the failures of Hollywood
culture, the failures of big media to provide quality material, the failures to provide
reasonably priced books to college students while tabloids are dirt cheap, and massive anti-trust
behavior in the software industry to name a few.
While the problems associated with copyrights might have been bearable 20 years ago when the
biggest issue was Xerox machines, today we are in the information age where
information is so easy to copy and manipulate that there can be no middle ground. Our society
will either have to control all of it or none of it. Our communications will either have to be
monitored or free, our privacy to be either continuously probed or protected.
In that sense, copyrights are like a vine that will never stop growing to choke off our freedoms
until we cut it off at the root. The DMCA, infinite extensions, billion dollar lawsuits, are all
just symptoms of a poor belief system - not the cause. So the efforts to find a "middle ground"
on copyrights are a failure because they do not address the core issue. That contrary to
copyrights, the right to copy and distribute creative works and knowledge is a right!
Like freedom of religion, and freedom of the press, the right to copy things is a right that
exists above government. It is a moral right, it is an inherent right, it defines the very nature
of the human condition. It is beyond politics and the petition of leaders.
In fact, the entire foundation of politics rests on the notion that it's better to fight wars
with words than wars with bloodshed. But to copy things does not require coercion or violence at
all, the rules are not the same. We will not change the copyright situation by petitioning our
leaders, or voting to change the system. It can only be changed by defiance.
Defiance by holding the belief that people have rights, even if those rights appear contrary to
the popular mob or to the system. Defiance, by shedding off the guilt and shame that those who
try to impose copyrights on us and understanding that they are the ones who should be
guilty and shameful. Defiance by copying and sharing creative works whenever we have access to
them. Defiance by using technologies
What about people for who $50 is a year salary? Congrats, you just split the internet into the rich and the poor. No more accessing the internet from africa from an old PC powered by a donated solar cell. Good job. You probably going to get a nobel price.
Worse than that. Spammers have plenty of cash.
The two solutions also are for two totally separate unrelated problems.
A capcha is only to test if the client is a human or a computer.
It doesn't now, nor ever did, test if the client has money to spend.
In fact, the solution to that persons problem sounds like a reverse-capcha! If the client passes the capcha, they are clearly a lowly human being and shouldn't be allowed to continue into his site. If the capcha is failed on first and second trys, it is probably a bot being run by a spammer, and spammers have lots of cash!
So yes the parents point is 100% correct. You can only replace capchas with another test that actually tests for the same thing.
If all someone wants is only paying customers on their site, a captcha isnt even needed to signup. A credit card where you can place a successful charge using a merchant account is all you need. After all, a human with cash and a spammer with cash both need to be allowed, and a capcha would only prevent bots run by spammers with cash from signing up.
Yet again, stupid greedy website operators, who more than likely add no value to the internet hawking their overpriced crap that everyone else hawks, have just totally taken a new technology and ignored what it really does, then implemented it as wrong as humanly possible.
To be insensitive, what value do they add as a user? Are they going to spend $1 on some product advertised on my site?
You messed up. CAPCHA is not a test to tell if your viewers have any money. It is just a test if they are a human or computer.
If you want nothing but people who have $1 to spend at your site, what you want is NO capcha. Spammers after all have lots of money, and as you say you'd prefer them over those without $1.
Try implementing the correct technology and you will get your wish.
But if you are innocent your DNA is not very likely to be there.
Actually this database by definition will be nothing BUT innocent people.
If you are convicted as guilty by a court, they already have the right to take your DNA sample before incarcerating you. The guilty ones already are in a database.
The only reason to change and expand the law at all on this is to collect the DNA of non guilty people.
I'm sorry. Where do we have a right to copy others' work?
It's right there in copyright law.
The only purpose for granting other people a copyright is so in exchange it will become public domain.
You can't copyright something without already promising the public payment.
It's hardly our fault that the producers of a lot of works want to go back on that deal and rip us off. If anything, it is our fault for falling for the lies for so long.
You don't want to pay for the rights you received? Then you get no rights. By default that work belongs to the public.
You can only apply logic within the legal system when the law is designed to promote fairness and logic. That is not at all the case, so please stop trying to do so.
If i keep saying 'Its ok, pay me later' which is exactly what happens with copyright, and time and time again I get ripped off and not paid, are you really shocked i finally stop saying it's OK to pay me later?
Pay me now, or no deal. With copyright, there isn't a way to pay now, and even if there was its not like they would agree to give up their illegally gained control, so it doesn't matter.
Thus, no deal.
Was Google created to promote and facilitate illegal file-sharing? No? Then Google is safe.
But yes they were created for exactly that.
Everything google links to is copyrighted. Everything.
Not a single google link leads you to a non-copyrighted work.
The law clearly makes no distinction between legal and illegal file sharing, as addressed by this case.
HTML files are still files, so even plain web pages being linked to are file sharing.
This case also points out that following the letter of the law, and the spirit of the law, when you aren't even accused of a crime that can be named by the prosecution, will still result in jail time and fines.
Google should be very worried about their Swedish presence.
One should also note that google makes MUCH more with their ad service than TPB could ever have hoped to. That just means more jail time and much much higher fines.
It's called buying the right device for your needs.
You don't go out and buy a hammer and complain it doesn't work well removing screws.
If you want a device to check your email directly, then you should probably buy a device that can check your email directly.
These devices do not work that way, so sound like the wrong choice if that is what you need.
There are plenty of devices on the market that can check email directly and don't require their own server component in between. This person should be looking at those.
He clearly realizes what he needs, but refuses to buy a device that can do it, and now expects RIM to change and be one of those other devices instead.
When such information is one google search away, you can't expect us to feel much sympathy for their mistake.
A fairly recent round of laws to come into play for all EU member states specifies that data like this must be retained for 6months.
It really is amazing how changing a single line in a config file is all that is needed to make an action legal or illegal.
You are probably correct in the interpretation of deleting said data is illegal. We can even assume it is as a 'worst case' assumption, since I do not know for sure either.
However, _Not_ logging said data in the first place means no deleting was done, and it is not illegal.
Now i realize the article linked here was factually wrong, in that this ISP is not deleting any logs, they just simply are not logging that data, and it has been for a lil while now (Unsure how long, but was definitely done before today and before TPB trial started)
I just find it funny that if you don't make a mistake, you are fine, if you make a mistake, you are fine, but if you make a mistake and fix it, its a crime.
It's because they were early scientists and most of them were claiming things they couldn't yet prove.
While you are posting anon, so its clear you are trolling and dont believe what you say. I wanted to reply for others.
Your statement is false. The rest of your post has nothing to do with anyone (noone mentioned string theory) so i wont bother with it.
More than half of the people on that list DID prove their claims.
It was proven the earth orbited the sun, which you can do outside today with nothing more than two yard sticks (or meter sticks if you prefer)
It was also proven the other planets were out there and oribited the sun, even more so, since the only tool Galileo had was a telescope, and he never tried to make claims and prove them, he instead simply described what he saw (He didn't like the idea either at first, but only the church can deny what their eyes saw and still think they were right)
Also
You know what else that list has in common? All those names involved people who died more than a century ago.
Those who don't remember history are doomed to repeat it. Especially when you force yourself to forget what happened in history 'Just 100 years ago' and past.
I hate to break it to you, but mankind was around longer than a century, longer than 2000 years, and just because you don't want to believe something happened just because it was over a century ago, doesn't mean it didn't and those lessons should be learned from.
Either way your argument is bunk. If you want to deny that something important happened because it was over X years ago, then instead of our current discussion on WHY it happened, you just open yourself to arguing over different values of X, while still ignoring the main issue for why that X value would even be needed.
If you get a child that has a genetic mutation that either has extra genetic material (or less) than the definition, that person could LEGALLY be considered not human. This is an enormous can of worms. What rights would a sentient non-human, who looks human, expect to have in society?
The same rights as the last race of intelligent, sentient, humans who were classed as non-humans. The same as all countless of them through out time.
The scary part however, laws are always made to be used. There WILL be a sub-human class of people defined by this law, and a group who happens to match whatever definition they come up with. The states intent is pretty clear, they want to bring back slavery :{
Then again, you seem to be expecting them to set a definition, then find people to fit it (IE those born matching said definition.)
My lak of faith in humanity assumes worse. They already know what group they plan to do this to, and will adjust the definition accordingly.
Someone should tell Louisiana that the civil war is over and the north won. Slaves aren't allowed anymore, despite this laws attempt to create that entire class over again.
</bitterness></hope>
I have a similar but opposite situation.
After obtaining the power rates for industrial business in our area from the department of energy website, verified with our electric bill, and using minimum wage as a worst-case rate (even our lowest paid employee makes more than min wage), it turned out to be cheaper to 'waste' 16 hours of electricity than it would be to 'pay' that employee for 15 minutes while waiting for the PC to boot and perform its nightly maintenance and standard boot process.
A good 3 times cheaper.
Now in our case, we are an electronic manufacturer, so both are charged at a low industrial rate, and have such a high electrical usage that we get further discounts. So this is not exactly the usual office place rates or costs.
Additionally, its actually a lot more than 3 times as expensive to power off at night, since as i said, not a single employee actually makes min wage, everyones pay is higher. But without prying into HR details that are none of ITs business, it was a good assumption to base the numbers off of.
I typically look up and run these numbers every 6 months, in match to the report schedule from the DOE and AEP (our local power company) as electrical rates change frequently. Min wage can change as well, but if anything its once a year.
Windows Update does not use IE and hasn't since XP. You need to get information that isn't many years out of date.
Wait, what? Since XP? I think you meant since Win 2003, not since XP (since as worded that would include XP)
I still use XP, and for me at least it really seems windows update is tied to IE.
Parts of it in XP still use active x controls, and in some funky strange way as well.
It works fine in IE of course, but load the mozilla active x extensions and I still cant run windows update in firefox.
If you did mean what you typed, I'm really really interested to know how you got windows update to run outside of IE?
also it looks like http://www.confickerworkinggroup.org/ [confickerw...ggroup.org] is down
I can still get to it... you must be infected!
(Ok, ok, i'm just joking, it doesn't load for me either. It seemed a lot funnier when i first started typing it :P )
IMO, an "educated" opinion from a technical crowd is in any way better than a simple Google query. I don't know, for example, how Google could possibly have a differentiated answer to the pros and cons of particular clients.
Re-read the ask slashdot... He never once asked anyone to compare pros or cons, nor implied he was even interested in our opinions.
He laid out a list of requirements (which towards the end sound more like demands) and his last 'sentence' is one word/question:
Suggestions?
How is a google result list anything other than a list of suggestions?
I literally pasted the article title (sans "Ask slashdot: ") into google, and the first 4 results are free client/server packages of which some have already suggested. There also appears to be someone else asking this same question to some other forum, with attached answer...
I realized ask slashdot has been for years now less about questions for geeks than kids wanting someone else to do their homework, but when did ask slashdot replace google search?
the totally insane witch hunt we have going on when it comes to kiddie pron
Have you ever seen kiddie porn?
Usenet makes it all too simple, and let me tell you: it's not busty blonde 17 year olds "this close" to 18, and it's really, really disgusting.
Dude... How does the horribleness of those pictures in any way/shape/or form justify putting tens to hundreds of thousands of innocent people through trials and basically branded as guilty pedophiles for life, only to discover they really were innocent and let go?
Those peoples lives are ruined forever. Friends and associates lost, families torn apart, carriers ruined... All because the accusations make front page news for weeks, and the retraction and court outcome is 2 lines in small print somewhere towards the bottom of page E-10...
That is the witch hunt of which the GP speaks.
And No, I don't buy your excuse for why that is OK to do to people, simply because the pictures are really really disgusting.
If ANYTHING, that reason of yours should be EXACTLY why this madness needs to stop, so the real criminals taking the pictures and doing the child abuse might get caught, instead of given a week to get away while someone else is "investigated"
You truly are a sick person to prefer innocent peoples lives are ruined instead of the real criminals caught
One should not lambaste officials without looking at the scientist's track-record. I have yet to see a single item suggesting that he had a serious track-record of predicting with any reasonable level of accuracy the time, place and magnitude of an event as well as "safe" periods.
Fortunately that's OK, as we have also yet to see a single item suggesting government officials are any different ;}