Copyright law is only a criminal matter if the government pursues it. In all cases so far relating to file sharing, copyright violations have been a civil matter.
This is the entire point of patterns; there are things that pop up nearly identically over and over. Reinventing the wheel, it will always be round with a hole in the middle.
Because most people are willing to watch content on Hulu. Unlike the network-specific browsers, Hulu doesn't crash regularly, has a reasonable back end, allows for maximization and pop-out rather than having to watch things with banner ads running and has less advertising. Oh, and it doesn't look like crap.
Right. By "hacking" they didn't mean, "got full access to the router", they meant, "could use the WiFi." I run an open router because I think blanketing as much of the country in open WiFi is important. I keep appropriate security for it, and I don't use that network, but there is no reason to equate the two unless you're a FUD company profiting off people thinking that just because someone can use their WiFi they are going to commit identity theft. By that point, wouldn't it be easier to find some of those credit card checks in the trash? How many of these people use shredders? Probably fewer than secure their wireless network.
I did it, though relying on the old x86 wiki
on
The Hackintosh Guide
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
For $500 I built a gaming machine that dual-booted nicely with much better hardware than I could get in a Mac Mini, especially the base version, and I've been able to upgrade it piece-meal in the four years since. Why? Well, there are some programs that are Mac-only, but mostly because I like the user interface for general day-to-day use. I can't get the polish yet in Linux. It may be purely aesthetic, but it matters to me.
I have a licensed copy for the machine, and stuck a mac sticker onto my case. No reason to break the EULA if I don't have to, and it just says "apple-labeled hardware";-)
Obama keeps whining about people who supported him when he was speaking about Google about the importance of an open internet don't want to vote for him anymore. Gee, I wonder....
Except that the ADA covers far more than building design. That's actually a tiny portion of the accessibility allowed by the ADA. Most of the ADA is enforced by people suing after they are discriminated against, which is a pretty haphazard approach.
The building thing is easier because the planning permit system was already in place. No one issues website permits.
Women in the US, at least, can remove their own bras without taking off their shirts. It just involves unclasping your bra and then shimmying the strap down under your sleeves one at a time. Depending on the shirt you either pull it out a sleeve or down the bottom of the shirt. Donning a new bra requires you to actually take your arms out of your sleeves, so they'd have better luck at catching sight of some nipple if they found a weapon that could be defended against by putting on a bra.
The difference between the public and private has also diminished as women have entered the work force. Now that many women actively seek out equal participation in the public sphere and society has realized there is no logical reason to deny them, it is no longer considered appropriate to base culture around the exclusion of women.
As men's need to distinguish themselves from women diminishes, since being a woman is no longer considered a bad thing, these words carry less power. As they participate more in home life, the language of masculinity enters the domestic sphere. As gender stops being the primary defining factor of individuality, there is no longer the requirement for secrecy around words of power, and so children pick them up. They also, in my experience, learn to use them in context; without the forbidden aspect it isn't like you are making a point by cursing all the time.
And APB... wasn't. Tried it out at PAX and the play wasn't terrible; It was just never clear why you were playing. If you wanted to play a FPS, you'd probably just have bought a FPS and used the XBox Live sub you already had.
I wonder how many times consumers will have to get burned before they stop buying MMOs.
Testosterone, by itself, does not cause aggression. http://e-collection.ethbib.ethz.ch/eserv/eth:266/eth-266-01.pdf includes a description of a double-blind study of testosterone administered to women (due to more reliable dosing). In this case, the belief that they had received testosterone made them more aggressive, but actually receiving testosterone made them more likely to find cooperative solutions.
There are plenty of ways that higher testosterone levels could be linked with people being more aggressive or selfish, without testosterone actually causing any of that. Correlation, as indicated in this study, does not indicate causation, no matter how convenient the excuse is for asshole men.
(One note: testosterone isn't a product of the dick. It is metabolized in the testes, ovaries, placenta and the adrenal cortex.)
Tyranny of the majority isn't better if the minority is minors. Parents should parent, and teach their kids how to make good decisions about what games to play. It is totally and completely not the government's job.
100% of me thinks you should give me money, but that doesn't mean it would make good law. I'm willing to try it out and see, though!
Yep. In Massachusetts the police hate that they can't arrest people over tiny amounts of pot anymore, because it removed a loophole around people asking "am I free to go?" Used to be the cops could pick people up they thought had committed worse crimes and book them on pot; now they have to actually find evidence of whatever they think they are guilty of.
Of course, that probably just means they'll continue to beat the crap out of people for jaywalking, completely legally. Until cops are held individually responsible for misconduct, and citizens allowed to sue them, the power imbalance will remain no matter how many stupid laws we finally get rid of.
Perhaps if journalists stopped taking studies that suggest minor correlations and presenting them to the public as though they proved major causations it would be reasonable to claim censorship here. Nothing in their directive suggests even that the scientist themselves can't, for example, publish a blog where they discuss their findings, just that they shouldn't talk to journalists attempting to use government-funded science to provide a veneer of respectability to their article.
That seems fair to me. I have frequently seen articles on video games, for example, where the article reported something very different than the peer reviewed paper it was supposedly about based on un-peer reviewed comments from the scientist involved. Like, "video games encourage stimulus-seeking behavior that clearly leads to ADHD", when the study found that children with attention problems were far more likely to play video games than children without. If I could prevent my tax dollars from going to support such misinformation campaigns I gladly would.
In the future no one's computer will be able to render a web page, but they will all boast about how great it performs!
Honestly, it takes a $500 graphics card and an OS 35% of PC gamers use in order to access DirectX11, plus a desire to not use PhysX. I wouldn't think "we made the internet require real hardware!" would be something to boast about. I bet the hardware vendors are happy, though; they might finally convince people to stop buying netbooks that are completely sufficient for their needs and go back to selling hardware that's major overkill with excellent margins.
Um, the US government wants this, with the rational of "the war on drugs", but mostly because they hate any communication they can't track. I am somewhat surprised that cash is still printed.
Of course, the US government is also the best reason to not use email services. All your subject lines are considered "metadata", and they can access them without a warrant, or even telling you they are. http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-9890761-38.html
It also doesn't require it, and specifically says it is optional. Given the concern of compromising accounts by impersonating the owners, this seems like a reasonable option to offer.
Given how much of their ad revenue probably comes from those illegal streams, I don't know if "suffers" is the right word. They may respond promptly to take down requests, but it doesn't mean they don't benefit in the meantime.
Only if you want PayPal to be able to reach in and take all the money you have in your bank account out any time they want. As other people here have pointed out, there's good reason not to trust PayPal.
Additionally, if you do that, anyone who hacks your PayPal can clean you out for every single nickel and dime to your name. Someone I know got a key logged and next thing he knew he couldn't make rent. His bank wouldn't help, since to them it looked like a legit transaction, and PayPal wouldn't help because they are PayPal. Eventually PayPal offered a partial return, but didn't even seem to care that their mode of operation allowed completely untraceable theft. They claimed that since they couldn't recover it from the email address it was sent to, they weren't going to give him any of it.
It is much, much safer not to have PayPal connected to anything.
Exactly. The additional effort to force modern features onto an antiquated, insecure, depreciated and unsupported browser was, for some reason, not worth it.
Slashdot Mirror
In California, people die from heat and lack of water. Heat waves don't produce the awesome photos of a dramatic blizzard, though.
Copyright law is only a criminal matter if the government pursues it. In all cases so far relating to file sharing, copyright violations have been a civil matter.
This is the entire point of patterns; there are things that pop up nearly identically over and over. Reinventing the wheel, it will always be round with a hole in the middle.
We all thought the problem would be MySQL!
http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/04/20/128246&from=rss
Because most people are willing to watch content on Hulu. Unlike the network-specific browsers, Hulu doesn't crash regularly, has a reasonable back end, allows for maximization and pop-out rather than having to watch things with banner ads running and has less advertising. Oh, and it doesn't look like crap.
Right. By "hacking" they didn't mean, "got full access to the router", they meant, "could use the WiFi." I run an open router because I think blanketing as much of the country in open WiFi is important. I keep appropriate security for it, and I don't use that network, but there is no reason to equate the two unless you're a FUD company profiting off people thinking that just because someone can use their WiFi they are going to commit identity theft. By that point, wouldn't it be easier to find some of those credit card checks in the trash? How many of these people use shredders? Probably fewer than secure their wireless network.
For $500 I built a gaming machine that dual-booted nicely with much better hardware than I could get in a Mac Mini, especially the base version, and I've been able to upgrade it piece-meal in the four years since. Why? Well, there are some programs that are Mac-only, but mostly because I like the user interface for general day-to-day use. I can't get the polish yet in Linux. It may be purely aesthetic, but it matters to me.
;-)
I have a licensed copy for the machine, and stuck a mac sticker onto my case. No reason to break the EULA if I don't have to, and it just says "apple-labeled hardware"
Obama keeps whining about people who supported him when he was speaking about Google about the importance of an open internet don't want to vote for him anymore. Gee, I wonder....
Except that the ADA covers far more than building design. That's actually a tiny portion of the accessibility allowed by the ADA. Most of the ADA is enforced by people suing after they are discriminated against, which is a pretty haphazard approach.
The building thing is easier because the planning permit system was already in place. No one issues website permits.
Women in the US, at least, can remove their own bras without taking off their shirts. It just involves unclasping your bra and then shimmying the strap down under your sleeves one at a time. Depending on the shirt you either pull it out a sleeve or down the bottom of the shirt. Donning a new bra requires you to actually take your arms out of your sleeves, so they'd have better luck at catching sight of some nipple if they found a weapon that could be defended against by putting on a bra.
The More You Know.
Only if you've never done it before.
Not everyone is less rude in real life than they are on the internet.
The difference between the public and private has also diminished as women have entered the work force. Now that many women actively seek out equal participation in the public sphere and society has realized there is no logical reason to deny them, it is no longer considered appropriate to base culture around the exclusion of women.
As men's need to distinguish themselves from women diminishes, since being a woman is no longer considered a bad thing, these words carry less power. As they participate more in home life, the language of masculinity enters the domestic sphere. As gender stops being the primary defining factor of individuality, there is no longer the requirement for secrecy around words of power, and so children pick them up. They also, in my experience, learn to use them in context; without the forbidden aspect it isn't like you are making a point by cursing all the time.
p.s. a "girl" is a child by definition.
And women with PhDs: Dr. Goldberg was one of the founders.
And APB ... wasn't. Tried it out at PAX and the play wasn't terrible; It was just never clear why you were playing. If you wanted to play a FPS, you'd probably just have bought a FPS and used the XBox Live sub you already had.
I wonder how many times consumers will have to get burned before they stop buying MMOs.
Testosterone, by itself, does not cause aggression. http://e-collection.ethbib.ethz.ch/eserv/eth:266/eth-266-01.pdf includes a description of a double-blind study of testosterone administered to women (due to more reliable dosing). In this case, the belief that they had received testosterone made them more aggressive, but actually receiving testosterone made them more likely to find cooperative solutions.
There are plenty of ways that higher testosterone levels could be linked with people being more aggressive or selfish, without testosterone actually causing any of that. Correlation, as indicated in this study, does not indicate causation, no matter how convenient the excuse is for asshole men.
(One note: testosterone isn't a product of the dick. It is metabolized in the testes, ovaries, placenta and the adrenal cortex.)
Tyranny of the majority isn't better if the minority is minors. Parents should parent, and teach their kids how to make good decisions about what games to play. It is totally and completely not the government's job.
100% of me thinks you should give me money, but that doesn't mean it would make good law. I'm willing to try it out and see, though!
Yep. In Massachusetts the police hate that they can't arrest people over tiny amounts of pot anymore, because it removed a loophole around people asking "am I free to go?" Used to be the cops could pick people up they thought had committed worse crimes and book them on pot; now they have to actually find evidence of whatever they think they are guilty of.
Of course, that probably just means they'll continue to beat the crap out of people for jaywalking, completely legally. Until cops are held individually responsible for misconduct, and citizens allowed to sue them, the power imbalance will remain no matter how many stupid laws we finally get rid of.
Perhaps if journalists stopped taking studies that suggest minor correlations and presenting them to the public as though they proved major causations it would be reasonable to claim censorship here. Nothing in their directive suggests even that the scientist themselves can't, for example, publish a blog where they discuss their findings, just that they shouldn't talk to journalists attempting to use government-funded science to provide a veneer of respectability to their article.
That seems fair to me. I have frequently seen articles on video games, for example, where the article reported something very different than the peer reviewed paper it was supposedly about based on un-peer reviewed comments from the scientist involved. Like, "video games encourage stimulus-seeking behavior that clearly leads to ADHD", when the study found that children with attention problems were far more likely to play video games than children without. If I could prevent my tax dollars from going to support such misinformation campaigns I gladly would.
In the future no one's computer will be able to render a web page, but they will all boast about how great it performs!
Honestly, it takes a $500 graphics card and an OS 35% of PC gamers use in order to access DirectX11, plus a desire to not use PhysX. I wouldn't think "we made the internet require real hardware!" would be something to boast about. I bet the hardware vendors are happy, though; they might finally convince people to stop buying netbooks that are completely sufficient for their needs and go back to selling hardware that's major overkill with excellent margins.
Um, the US government wants this, with the rational of "the war on drugs", but mostly because they hate any communication they can't track. I am somewhat surprised that cash is still printed.
Of course, the US government is also the best reason to not use email services. All your subject lines are considered "metadata", and they can access them without a warrant, or even telling you they are. http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-9890761-38.html
It also doesn't require it, and specifically says it is optional. Given the concern of compromising accounts by impersonating the owners, this seems like a reasonable option to offer.
Given how much of their ad revenue probably comes from those illegal streams, I don't know if "suffers" is the right word. They may respond promptly to take down requests, but it doesn't mean they don't benefit in the meantime.
Only if you want PayPal to be able to reach in and take all the money you have in your bank account out any time they want. As other people here have pointed out, there's good reason not to trust PayPal. Additionally, if you do that, anyone who hacks your PayPal can clean you out for every single nickel and dime to your name. Someone I know got a key logged and next thing he knew he couldn't make rent. His bank wouldn't help, since to them it looked like a legit transaction, and PayPal wouldn't help because they are PayPal. Eventually PayPal offered a partial return, but didn't even seem to care that their mode of operation allowed completely untraceable theft. They claimed that since they couldn't recover it from the email address it was sent to, they weren't going to give him any of it. It is much, much safer not to have PayPal connected to anything.
Exactly. The additional effort to force modern features onto an antiquated, insecure, depreciated and unsupported browser was, for some reason, not worth it.