Yeah, like openly defying international law so he can pick a fight with an annoying little dictator whose main crime at the moment seems to be that he's weaker than North Korea. As long as he doesn't do anything stupid like that he'll be fine.
The library buys a fixed number of copies of songs/albums, and they can only be used by one person at a time. If there is popular demand for more copies of that song, the library pays for more and increases the fixed number.
I was on the Academic Technology Committee at the university where I work, at one of the meetings we discussed library e-books and I didn't get the point. They were buying books that were available electronically, but the software was crippled so they could only be "checked out" by one person at a time, while that copy was in use nobody else could access it until it was "returned." I guess it destroyed itself on the user's hard drive somehow after a certain period of time and that was the return. And the text was actually image files so you could not search the text or copy and paste anything. These "books" cost more than your average library volume, although the library got a deal for buying lots of them at once. But I didn't understand why they'd bother. What's the point of getting electronic versions of a book at all? Those restrictions made the electronic copy functionally no different than the actual book -- worse in fact since you could still photocopy a real book, plus you get all the other advantages of having a physical book. We are crippling the technology as fast as we can invent it, just to protect the greed of corporations who own artists' work. I think the p2p issues are the same. Why should we cripple the internet? Why did we bother inventing it in the first place?
The coolest thing about Texas death row is that the last meals of all the condemned are published on the web. It's amazing how much junk food is on that list too....
Yeah that makes a lot of sense. Post a virus to a website that is probably registered in your name, and protect your anonymity by checking "Post Anonymously" on slashdot??
(1) Column View is the best feature for file browsing not available on any other OS.
This is good as an option in Finder, but I think it's a mess in open and save dialogues. It reminds me of Greg's Browser from OS 7 or something; it was a great finder alternative for power browsing multiple large directories. But in the open/save dialogues it is sheer agony, especially since there seems to be not much rhyme or reason as to how things jump around. I tried Default Folder X for a while but it didn't help much; it had a few options that made things easier but I just feel like columns are kludgy when you're opening or saving.
What are you going on about? Taco did give Microsoft a break. He said quite clearly, as you quoted, that this is not Microsoft's fault. He was not comparing unix to MS as you seem to assume. But in any case if you actually read the mailing lists you subscribe to, rather than just counting MS-related and UNIX-related complaints, you'd know that a larger number of UNIX-related posts has no relation to whether one OS is more or less secure than another.
The blog you linked indicates it was well covered by other mainstream papers (mentioned are NYT, BG and WSJ, the first two widely considered "liberal"). I'm not surprised the LATimes missed the boat. LATimes may publish a lot of good writing but it's widely known that actual journalism is not their strong point.
What I mean by altering history is that I don't think they should go back and change a review they published before. If they published a review they must have had someone actually review the book. If they just published a press release from the publisher as a "review," you're right, that's despicable. And yeah I would like to see them publish new information that the book has been discredited, but no I don't expect them to change a review that is old. If they want to they can put a link to the new review on the old page but I don't think it's unethical for them not to, especially if the old page has a publication date on it.
It's funny but it's true. If you have a website about something a lot of people will be interested in, you should expect it to be read by a lot of people. I don't understand why a slashdotting is any worse than having your website linked to CNN, or Wired, or the New York Times. Nobody would ever seriously raise the question of whether CNN would be liable in such a situation; why is it different with slashdot?
As an example, some of your so called professional sites still have raving reviews up of Belliesles anti-gun book Arming America, which has been firmly debunked as a work of fraud. Still think they are professional?
Yes. When they posted the reviews the book had not been criticized in this manner. When Belliesles resigned from Emory many of these news outlets reported it. That doesn't mean they should go back and alter history by changing their review. When a panel of experts criticized the book as "unprofessional and misleading" it was reported, not covered up. That's as I would expect.
Well theres the supposed ice in the perpetual shadows of some craters.
Which is important because after a long day of working in the mines, nothing is better than a nice cold beverage, preferably scotch on the rocks. We need that ice!!!
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, like openly defying international law so he can pick a fight with an annoying little dictator whose main crime at the moment seems to be that he's weaker than North Korea. As long as he doesn't do anything stupid like that he'll be fine.
I was on the Academic Technology Committee at the university where I work, at one of the meetings we discussed library e-books and I didn't get the point. They were buying books that were available electronically, but the software was crippled so they could only be "checked out" by one person at a time, while that copy was in use nobody else could access it until it was "returned." I guess it destroyed itself on the user's hard drive somehow after a certain period of time and that was the return. And the text was actually image files so you could not search the text or copy and paste anything. These "books" cost more than your average library volume, although the library got a deal for buying lots of them at once. But I didn't understand why they'd bother. What's the point of getting electronic versions of a book at all? Those restrictions made the electronic copy functionally no different than the actual book -- worse in fact since you could still photocopy a real book, plus you get all the other advantages of having a physical book. We are crippling the technology as fast as we can invent it, just to protect the greed of corporations who own artists' work. I think the p2p issues are the same. Why should we cripple the internet? Why did we bother inventing it in the first place?
You're kidding. There's oil on Mars?
or you could blame Al Gore for running a weak-ass campaign and for trying only to appeal to voters who were gonna vote for Bush.
The coolest thing about Texas death row is that the last meals of all the condemned are published on the web. It's amazing how much junk food is on that list too....
Actually, I don't, though we may have talked about him before. You see, I've got this condition....
Yeah that makes a lot of sense. Post a virus to a website that is probably registered in your name, and protect your anonymity by checking "Post Anonymously" on slashdot??
(1) Column View is the best feature for file browsing not available on any other OS.
This is good as an option in Finder, but I think it's a mess in open and save dialogues. It reminds me of Greg's Browser from OS 7 or something; it was a great finder alternative for power browsing multiple large directories. But in the open/save dialogues it is sheer agony, especially since there seems to be not much rhyme or reason as to how things jump around. I tried Default Folder X for a while but it didn't help much; it had a few options that made things easier but I just feel like columns are kludgy when you're opening or saving.
After all, it was peer pressure that got me started on pr0n in the first place!
That'll keep them from finding you. After all, they'd never think to look in your bed.
Right. Nukes ensured that we could fight our wars in the third world instead.
This is your boss. Please quit posting to slashdot and get back to work.
What are you going on about? Taco did give Microsoft a break. He said quite clearly, as you quoted, that this is not Microsoft's fault. He was not comparing unix to MS as you seem to assume. But in any case if you actually read the mailing lists you subscribe to, rather than just counting MS-related and UNIX-related complaints, you'd know that a larger number of UNIX-related posts has no relation to whether one OS is more or less secure than another.
this helps me finish my money making scheme, which until now went like this:
1. collect cowshit
2. ????
3. profit!
I have been doing a lot of step 1, but until now I hadn't figured out step 2. Now I know!!!!
Al Gore.
Slashdot Karma Axiom #12: putting "goodbye karma" in your post or otherwise indicating your post will cost you karma, results in karma.
How do you expect to skratch using holograms?
7200 RPM should be fast enough for anybody.
The blog you linked indicates it was well covered by other mainstream papers (mentioned are NYT, BG and WSJ, the first two widely considered "liberal"). I'm not surprised the LATimes missed the boat. LATimes may publish a lot of good writing but it's widely known that actual journalism is not their strong point.
What I mean by altering history is that I don't think they should go back and change a review they published before. If they published a review they must have had someone actually review the book. If they just published a press release from the publisher as a "review," you're right, that's despicable. And yeah I would like to see them publish new information that the book has been discredited, but no I don't expect them to change a review that is old. If they want to they can put a link to the new review on the old page but I don't think it's unethical for them not to, especially if the old page has a publication date on it.
It's funny but it's true. If you have a website about something a lot of people will be interested in, you should expect it to be read by a lot of people. I don't understand why a slashdotting is any worse than having your website linked to CNN, or Wired, or the New York Times. Nobody would ever seriously raise the question of whether CNN would be liable in such a situation; why is it different with slashdot?
You must be new here.
Yes. When they posted the reviews the book had not been criticized in this manner. When Belliesles resigned from Emory many of these news outlets reported it. That doesn't mean they should go back and alter history by changing their review. When a panel of experts criticized the book as "unprofessional and misleading" it was reported, not covered up. That's as I would expect.
Nah; this is so they can calculate how long it will take to mine on the moon.
That is it, isn't it? Ummmmm, wait a minute.
Which is important because after a long day of working in the mines, nothing is better than a nice cold beverage, preferably scotch on the rocks. We need that ice!!!