Real, suffering human lives could be saved using this technology, by sacrificing an single-celled organism with no nervous system.
That says a lot. Cool imagery -- I see archaeologists sifting through our records, determining that "They Sacrificed animals and babies to this God called Science.
In return, this God gave them Wisdom."
I think if someone wants to participate in an experiment, then they have the legal right to do so. It's their bodies and products of their bodies, far before any sentience or even central nervous system.
Besides, far larger embryos and fetuses have been aborted naturally; I would have had an older sister. Why should that tissue somehow be sacred? Why can't my mom help the cause of science to help her get through her sorrow? Why can't she have a silver lining?
Potential for abuse? Sure! There's potential for abuse when you hand your kid the car keys. It's everywhere, all around you! Boo!!!;-)
Seriously, as with any other technology there will be checks and balances. But outright banning something because it's distasteful to you seems like the ledge of a very slippery slope that many past civilizations started to slide down just after their peak.
You may not agree with that belief, and you have every right to disagree with it, but you should respect the fact that some conservatives actually have reasons for our positions;)
I fully respect your positions, and your right to have your positions.
Therefore, I will not conduct research on you or anyone in your household.
If there are willing volunteers, what natural[1] right gives you the power to tell them they can't volunteer?
[1] - Almost said "God-given" but then that answers the question. With a loop, but the question is answered.
I'm using Mozilla 0.9.9. I don't think I've ever registered with them before. Checking my cookies... Yes, I just cleaned out a bunch but none of them were from download.com or cnet.com.
So I installed Mozilla 0.9.9 in a virgin VM (W2K). I cut-and-pasted the cnet.com address, not even logging in to Slashdot to find it in the comments (perhaps a Slashdot cookie has an effect on the outcome?). Up popped the "Save File" dialog, as soon as I clicked on Download Now.
What browser are you using?
I figure I should try to answer that myself. So I launched IE in that VM (it had never been launched), pasted the URL in, and clicking on Download Now also gave me the "Save File" dialog.
Which leaves two conclusions: you're using a very minority browser which cNet has targeted as marketing-mandatory, or you're trolling. (I've never used that word before. I feel so... dirty.)
Isn't it a bit ironic that download.com forces users to register their name, email, job function, etc to download this MP3?
The parent was modded "+5, Funny" but it is also untrue. I am currently downloading the MP3 and did not have to fill out any forms. (One popped up but I clicked the [X] to close it and the download still started.)
It seems that major search engines are the biggest "violators" of deep linking.
I propose that Slashdot, from now on, only provides links to pages in the Google cache.
This will achieve three goals:
Slashdot readers will not be required to register for any of the posted links.
No company will be able to sue Slashdot for "deep linking." (Anyone else think of Lolita when they read that?)
The "Slashdot effect" would be eliminated.
Thoughts?
PS Did/. change the comments.pl page? It is putting my reply first, and the original post second, when I preview. Earlier today it put the original post first, and my reply second.
Toward the bottom of his script, there appears to be a typo.
He has two regex sections. The first starts with "Set term1 = New RegExp" and then defines three attributes for term1.
The second section starts with "Set term2 = New RegExp" (note term2), but then defines three attributes for term1.
This must not have been found in testing, as the keywords in the regexes are found in just about any EULA. Still, it's worth noting. I'm not a VB programmer and I saw that immediately -- are there any other potential errors in the code?
Have the installation program ask you what you want as your default save formats.
Actually, that's not easier. Your solution involves the admin touching every desktop to implement.
I really like the original idea, because then it doesn't matter who installed OpenOffice/MS Office, or how it was installed -- documents that fly around the mail system will automatically be converted into the proper form for that organization.
If the filters are good enough, of course.
My preference is automation, especially when dealing with over 100 desktops.
To get people to move to Linux, we must first get them to use alternatives to MS Office and other packaged software. Get them using the cross-platform software and then switching the underlying OS won't be as tough down the road.
This is, in fact, exactly the tactic Microsoft has already used.
When Microsoft started developing Windows 95, they already had Windows NT 3.something. They knew they wanted everyone to move to NT, as it was more stable and performed better. So when they made the "Designed for Windows 95" logo program, they made one of the qualifications for receiving that logo to be that the program ran on both Windows 95 and Windows NT.
6 years later they were able to produce Windows XP, on which almost all software written for Windows 9x will run.
I'm no big fan of MS, but I appreciate their solution. And you're right, in order to move people off Windows and onto Linux, a similar migration would have to occur.
Perhaps someone (Red Hat?) can start a "Designed for WINE" logo program, and require software that receives that logo to run on both Linux (under WINE) and Windows.
Turn it around. Implement SAMBA in windows.
My FTP-client is integrated in windows, so why don't they make a SAMBA-plugin for windows.
Don't bow for windows and accept everything they invent.
Even better: implement WINE on Windows.
Sounds a little silly, but I'm completely serious -- develop replacements for each DLL/EXE, one at a time, and use those instead of the Windows DLLs/EXEs.
Might be a little work getting it to behave properly with (I forget the name) the piece of Windows that replaces corrupted files (it would see these as corrupted, since their checksums/whatever won't match).
And of course there'll be problems with windowsupdate.com (heh).
Extra credit: write a replacement for windowsupdate.com, so any user with any version of Windows could go there and (after a lengthy download) have Open Source Windows.
Yeah, I know, I'm dreaming, it's more work than anyone would pay for. But we've already got WINE and SAMBA; my idea is more packaging than actual development.
I do know that it is illegal for me to start making copies of a Terry Redlin print I own.
Are you sure? I believe it's legal in the context of fair use: making backups. If you replaced "making" with "selling" your sentence would be correct (although I'm not certain that it's not, IANAL after all).
I'll close this discussion with:
Your nick is surprisingly apropos, considering the cheesiness of your derivative.;-)
The problem with your examples is they all use material goods, and music is not a material good.
The music (and software) producers are trying to have it both ways, by saying you're not taking ownership; you're actually licensing the music. But when I want a replacement because the media on which the music I licensed becomes defective, they call it goods that I purchased and I'll have to repurchase them to get them back.
(Actually, most software companies are more fogiving than music companies -- there's usually a way to get replacement media at-cost.)
Shoes and paintings are physical, material goods. There's no way to license them (yet -- with nanotechnology we'll be able to "purchase" "blueprints" over the Internet, which will be created by a machine in your home; but that's a few years off yet, anywhere between 5 and 100).
Getting back on topic, I find it somewhat absurd that our (old-tech) laws are biting us so hard in the ass these days, colliding with our new-tech economy. If I create a derivative work of fiction and distribute it for free, why should Lucas (or anyone else) have any say in the matter?
With CD burners getting faster and cheaper all the time, on-demand CD production (whether it's mix and match or entire albums) has become reasonable; Perhaps someone will make it a reality.
You're not kidding. A small anecdote from today:
I just started working out again after a nasty shoulder injury (still hurts but I can avoid the exercises that abuse it). In the past, I had worked out to Jesus Jones' "Doubt" -- it's got a nice, moving beat and uplifting lyrics (for the most part).
So I set up my bench and dumbells in the garage, and went looking for the CD. I couldn't find it. But luckily I had started a project months ago to rip my CDs, and that was one I had ripped. 8 minutes later, I had burned it onto CD (at 12x), and had a good workout session.
If Gateway uses distribution methods that complement this type of behavior, they'll succeed. But if they follow the RIAA's stance (that anyone burning a CD is commiting a crime), then they won't get very far.
I'm very happy to see this development. Music makes a lot of money, and the barriers to entry keep falling. I would imagine that many, many companies (from various different fields) will jump on the music distribution bandwagon in the next couple years.
Believe it or not, I'm not being exploited by the cheese manufacturers.
I think you've chosen a poor analogy. Cheese is both consumable and perishable: using it destroys it, as does time.
Entertainment (in general) is not consumable nor perishable (for the most part). Granted, CDs and DVDs will eventually degrade, so it can be said to be perishable. And there are those weirdos who grind up their CDs and drink them with Ovaltine...
The difference is cheese is tangible, whereas entertainment is intangible and consumed in a variety of ways (movies/concerts, radio/CDs/DVDs/VHSs, TV/cable, etc.), some of which the consumer doesn't get to "keep".
If the difference between Edition 1 and Edition 2 is 10 minutes of additional footage, shouldn't consumers who already purchased Edition 1 get a steep discount on Edition 2? They've already paid for most of the content.
Did you notice the hiccups prior to adding the 80 GB disk? I just upgraded to 80 GB (from 20) prior to a long vacation. I'm having trouble remembering if they were as frequent before as they are now.
Tell me more about the powered splitter -- did it resolve hiccup issues or were they something else?
The two big reasons I'd upgrade now are: 1. closed captions; 2. archivability. Those are more along the lines of ReplayTV 4000 than Tivo, so my choice is easy. Now I just need to save up for it; perhaps the subscription model will help make it that much more affordable.
It sounds neither better nor worse than Digital Millenium Copyright Act. The words individually make sense but they don't seem to be arranged in such a way as to be meaningful. What is a "Digital Millenium Copyright"? Or even a "Digital Millenium" or a "Millenium Copyright"?
Just remember: "What type of act is it?" "It's a 'Copyright Act'."
If the in show commercals dont show up then you will have the networks trying to do the same thing the cd companys are doing and try to make the tivo like devices completely useless with copy protection...
I think they may have already started. I've been noticing "hiccups" in my ReplayTV 2020, mostly when recording from Fox. The hiccup lasts 2-5 seconds, and has jerky video and no audio.
Now, this could be a problem with my unit, or with my cable. I'm not sure how to diagnose it to that level. But I haven't noticed it on non-Fox shows, nor have I noticed it on the show I tape (the ReplayTV doesn't have dual tuners, and 24 and Smallville are both too good to miss;-). (I tape Smallville, from the WB network.)
Has anyone else noticed this issue, especially with older-model ReplayTV units?
There shouldn't be Flash ads - please e-mail me when you find one.
Hemos,
You might want to temporarily add "If the above is a Flash ad, please email hemos@slashdot.org" below each advertising image.
This will get you the information you're looking for much faster; and it will also let the companies who are breaking the rules know that you know that they are breaking the rules.
In its current state, I am very glad I'm not paying a cent for/. access. Stuff like this posting really brings down the average content quality big time.
At the point I am posting this, your post currently has 5 replies. Mine is #6.
My belief is that such "mistakes" have historically garnered a lot more activity. Hence it is in Slashdot's best interest to continue making "mistakes" in order to keep activity high. The more posts per article, the theory goes, the more eyeballs viewed the ad(s) at the top, so they can charge more.
It's always about the money. And I agree -- the mistakes are easily catchable (duplicate postings), juvenile (witness 4/1/02), and irritating (the headline for this article is just ambiguous enough to make you want to read the damn thing).
The worst part? Slashdot is addictive; although they're not getting money directly from me in the form of a subscription, they are getting money from me indirectly in the form of page views, which cost the advertisers more; and posts, which probably cost the advertisers more than a page view. So even though I'll most likely never subscribe, my activity is still helping make them money. And if it educates/entertains me in the meantime, well, that's cool.
My point? Don't worry about it. If the quality has gone that far downhill, we'd start seeing.sig lines hawking alternative news discussion sites at the same frequency as we're seeing the "Great Slashdot Blackout" coming up the week of April 21(ish). But Slashdot is
Heroinware; there's plenty of us junkies keeping stats up.
Push the power button and it says... Invalid Boot Sector:The OS you are trying to load is not Longhorn... Please call microsoft.
They've already started: I went to create a new Hotmail account for a throwaway registration, using Mozilla 0.9.9 on Win2K. I got a message saying my browser was "no longer supported" or "an outdated version" and to upgrade to Microsoft's latest Internet Explorer.
I could have manually changed the headers, but I went to Yahoo instead.
That's not the point, though; the point is Microsoft's in the position where they can dictate to the consumer, and the consumer has no choice.
Luckily we have Open Source. Or, conversely, thank Microsoft we have Open Source/Free Software; without their strong-arm tactics it would be (commercially) as unnecessary as Napster would be, if music CDs cost $2 each.
Slashdot Mirror
That says a lot. Cool imagery -- I see archaeologists sifting through our records, determining that "They Sacrificed animals and babies to this God called Science.
In return, this God gave them Wisdom."
I think if someone wants to participate in an experiment, then they have the legal right to do so. It's their bodies and products of their bodies, far before any sentience or even central nervous system.
Besides, far larger embryos and fetuses have been aborted naturally; I would have had an older sister. Why should that tissue somehow be sacred? Why can't my mom help the cause of science to help her get through her sorrow? Why can't she have a silver lining?
Potential for abuse? Sure! There's potential for abuse when you hand your kid the car keys. It's everywhere, all around you! Boo!!! ;-)
Seriously, as with any other technology there will be checks and balances. But outright banning something because it's distasteful to you seems like the ledge of a very slippery slope that many past civilizations started to slide down just after their peak.
Was the Internet bubble our peak?
I fully respect your positions, and your right to have your positions.
Therefore, I will not conduct research on you or anyone in your household.
If there are willing volunteers, what natural[1] right gives you the power to tell them they can't volunteer?
[1] - Almost said "God-given" but then that answers the question. With a loop, but the question is answered.
So I installed Mozilla 0.9.9 in a virgin VM (W2K). I cut-and-pasted the cnet.com address, not even logging in to Slashdot to find it in the comments (perhaps a Slashdot cookie has an effect on the outcome?). Up popped the "Save File" dialog, as soon as I clicked on Download Now.
What browser are you using?
I figure I should try to answer that myself. So I launched IE in that VM (it had never been launched), pasted the URL in, and clicking on Download Now also gave me the "Save File" dialog.
Which leaves two conclusions: you're using a very minority browser which cNet has targeted as marketing-mandatory, or you're trolling. (I've never used that word before. I feel so ... dirty.)
The parent was modded "+5, Funny" but it is also untrue. I am currently downloading the MP3 and did not have to fill out any forms. (One popped up but I clicked the [X] to close it and the download still started.)
I propose that Slashdot, from now on, only provides links to pages in the Google cache.
This will achieve three goals:
Thoughts?
PS Did
He has two regex sections. The first starts with "Set term1 = New RegExp" and then defines three attributes for term1.
The second section starts with "Set term2 = New RegExp" (note term2), but then defines three attributes for term1.
This must not have been found in testing, as the keywords in the regexes are found in just about any EULA. Still, it's worth noting. I'm not a VB programmer and I saw that immediately -- are there any other potential errors in the code?
Actually, that's not easier. Your solution involves the admin touching every desktop to implement.
I really like the original idea, because then it doesn't matter who installed OpenOffice/MS Office, or how it was installed -- documents that fly around the mail system will automatically be converted into the proper form for that organization.
If the filters are good enough, of course.
My preference is automation, especially when dealing with over 100 desktops.
Are you are thinking are there's are an are extra are word are in are there?
Now, just what type of tester performs that? ;-)
This is, in fact, exactly the tactic Microsoft has already used.
When Microsoft started developing Windows 95, they already had Windows NT 3.something. They knew they wanted everyone to move to NT, as it was more stable and performed better. So when they made the "Designed for Windows 95" logo program, they made one of the qualifications for receiving that logo to be that the program ran on both Windows 95 and Windows NT.
6 years later they were able to produce Windows XP, on which almost all software written for Windows 9x will run.
I'm no big fan of MS, but I appreciate their solution. And you're right, in order to move people off Windows and onto Linux, a similar migration would have to occur.
Perhaps someone (Red Hat?) can start a "Designed for WINE" logo program, and require software that receives that logo to run on both Linux (under WINE) and Windows.
Even better: implement WINE on Windows.
Sounds a little silly, but I'm completely serious -- develop replacements for each DLL/EXE, one at a time, and use those instead of the Windows DLLs/EXEs.
Might be a little work getting it to behave properly with (I forget the name) the piece of Windows that replaces corrupted files (it would see these as corrupted, since their checksums/whatever won't match).
And of course there'll be problems with windowsupdate.com (heh).
Extra credit: write a replacement for windowsupdate.com, so any user with any version of Windows could go there and (after a lengthy download) have Open Source Windows.
Yeah, I know, I'm dreaming, it's more work than anyone would pay for. But we've already got WINE and SAMBA; my idea is more packaging than actual development.
Are you sure? I believe it's legal in the context of fair use: making backups. If you replaced "making" with "selling" your sentence would be correct (although I'm not certain that it's not, IANAL after all).
I'll close this discussion with:
Your nick is surprisingly apropos, considering the cheesiness of your derivative. ;-)
The music (and software) producers are trying to have it both ways, by saying you're not taking ownership; you're actually licensing the music. But when I want a replacement because the media on which the music I licensed becomes defective, they call it goods that I purchased and I'll have to repurchase them to get them back.
(Actually, most software companies are more fogiving than music companies -- there's usually a way to get replacement media at-cost.)
Shoes and paintings are physical, material goods. There's no way to license them (yet -- with nanotechnology we'll be able to "purchase" "blueprints" over the Internet, which will be created by a machine in your home; but that's a few years off yet, anywhere between 5 and 100).
Getting back on topic, I find it somewhat absurd that our (old-tech) laws are biting us so hard in the ass these days, colliding with our new-tech economy. If I create a derivative work of fiction and distribute it for free, why should Lucas (or anyone else) have any say in the matter?
You're not kidding. A small anecdote from today:
I just started working out again after a nasty shoulder injury (still hurts but I can avoid the exercises that abuse it). In the past, I had worked out to Jesus Jones' "Doubt" -- it's got a nice, moving beat and uplifting lyrics (for the most part).
So I set up my bench and dumbells in the garage, and went looking for the CD. I couldn't find it. But luckily I had started a project months ago to rip my CDs, and that was one I had ripped. 8 minutes later, I had burned it onto CD (at 12x), and had a good workout session.
If Gateway uses distribution methods that complement this type of behavior, they'll succeed. But if they follow the RIAA's stance (that anyone burning a CD is commiting a crime), then they won't get very far.
I'm very happy to see this development. Music makes a lot of money, and the barriers to entry keep falling. I would imagine that many, many companies (from various different fields) will jump on the music distribution bandwagon in the next couple years.
I think you've chosen a poor analogy. Cheese is both consumable and perishable: using it destroys it, as does time.
Entertainment (in general) is not consumable nor perishable (for the most part). Granted, CDs and DVDs will eventually degrade, so it can be said to be perishable. And there are those weirdos who grind up their CDs and drink them with Ovaltine...
The difference is cheese is tangible, whereas entertainment is intangible and consumed in a variety of ways (movies/concerts, radio/CDs/DVDs/VHSs, TV/cable, etc.), some of which the consumer doesn't get to "keep".
If the difference between Edition 1 and Edition 2 is 10 minutes of additional footage, shouldn't consumers who already purchased Edition 1 get a steep discount on Edition 2? They've already paid for most of the content.
Tell me more about the powered splitter -- did it resolve hiccup issues or were they something else?
The two big reasons I'd upgrade now are: 1. closed captions; 2. archivability. Those are more along the lines of ReplayTV 4000 than Tivo, so my choice is easy. Now I just need to save up for it; perhaps the subscription model will help make it that much more affordable.
Just remember: "What type of act is it?" "It's a 'Copyright Act'."
Then fill in the D and the M.
I think they may have already started. I've been noticing "hiccups" in my ReplayTV 2020, mostly when recording from Fox. The hiccup lasts 2-5 seconds, and has jerky video and no audio.
Now, this could be a problem with my unit, or with my cable. I'm not sure how to diagnose it to that level. But I haven't noticed it on non-Fox shows, nor have I noticed it on the show I tape (the ReplayTV doesn't have dual tuners, and 24 and Smallville are both too good to miss ;-). (I tape Smallville, from the WB network.)
Has anyone else noticed this issue, especially with older-model ReplayTV units?
I've noticed a lot of people getting confused by this. The best way to remember it:
"The Village People Act"
Just change the Y to a D (i.e., "YMCA" -> "DMCA").
Hemos,
You might want to temporarily add "If the above is a Flash ad, please email hemos@slashdot.org" below each advertising image.
This will get you the information you're looking for much faster; and it will also let the companies who are breaking the rules know that you know that they are breaking the rules.
Agreed, not the most subtle approach...
whew! 420, man!
Waitaminit. If we're not watching /. this week, and we're not watching TV, what the hell are we going to watch?!?!?
San Dimas High School football rules!
At the point I am posting this, your post currently has 5 replies. Mine is #6.
My belief is that such "mistakes" have historically garnered a lot more activity. Hence it is in Slashdot's best interest to continue making "mistakes" in order to keep activity high. The more posts per article, the theory goes, the more eyeballs viewed the ad(s) at the top, so they can charge more.
It's always about the money. And I agree -- the mistakes are easily catchable (duplicate postings), juvenile (witness 4/1/02), and irritating (the headline for this article is just ambiguous enough to make you want to read the damn thing).
The worst part? Slashdot is addictive; although they're not getting money directly from me in the form of a subscription, they are getting money from me indirectly in the form of page views, which cost the advertisers more; and posts, which probably cost the advertisers more than a page view. So even though I'll most likely never subscribe, my activity is still helping make them money. And if it educates/entertains me in the meantime, well, that's cool.
My point? Don't worry about it. If the quality has gone that far downhill, we'd start seeing .sig lines hawking alternative news discussion sites at the same frequency as we're seeing the "Great Slashdot Blackout" coming up the week of April 21(ish). But Slashdot is
Heroinware ; there's plenty of us junkies keeping stats up.
They've already started: I went to create a new Hotmail account for a throwaway registration, using Mozilla 0.9.9 on Win2K. I got a message saying my browser was "no longer supported" or "an outdated version" and to upgrade to Microsoft's latest Internet Explorer.
I could have manually changed the headers, but I went to Yahoo instead.
That's not the point, though; the point is Microsoft's in the position where they can dictate to the consumer, and the consumer has no choice.
Luckily we have Open Source. Or, conversely, thank Microsoft we have Open Source/Free Software; without their strong-arm tactics it would be (commercially) as unnecessary as Napster would be, if music CDs cost $2 each.