Facts are not libel, the truth is an absolute defense.
Free speech implies that you have a backbone and are willing to accept speech that makes you uncomfortable.
If Google can show that people frequently combine those terms, then there is no libel. To prevent such factual statements as a matter of law is a hinderance to the very essence of free speech.
If it's libel to say that "when searching for X, people have commonly searched for X+Y" where Y is unkind towards X, then you may want to rethink your notion of libel. If Europeans don't like free speech, then they absolutely
I think, in his time, he was under-appreciated. But he certainly is appreciated now, if not a cherished part of the science-fiction canon. We are fortunate, as science-fiction readers, that he did not move on to other genres as he originally had intended (or, maybe not, I don't know. In some other reality, PKD was a furnature saleman who never had the inkling to write at all).
I don't get this. Most of the good American content online exists behind paywalls (that require a US address) or foreign blacklists. Sure, we can circumvent many of these measures, but the average user doesn't (I assume). My point is that American advertisers will happily take over from the CRTC in denying Canadians access to American content.
Personally, I don't get the point -- since many American shows are produced in Canada, doesn't that inherently make them "Canadian content?"
If they re-sealed the box and represented it as unopened, I can see the case. But if you willingly purchase an opened box and expect the contents of the box to be unmolested then you've got a screw loose somewhere.
So, yesterday I read that MIT cured the common cold, Penn cured Leukemia, a cancer, and today a private researcher claims to have solved both the fuel and emissions problems that are currently only getting worse. Okay, yeah, all of these are preliminary and experimental, but holy shit... Got Hope? Obama fucking delivered!
I didn't say it was a crime. I said it was illegal. Breach of contract is not a crime either, per se, but it is still illegal and you can still take someone to court over it, just as they are trying to do here.
Thanks for both missing and proving my point.
The point is that it's not an automatic police rush in and arrest you situation. The copyright owner has to take action.
In other words, permissions is granted by the very virtue that the copyright owners aren't suing them - they're suing the people who are actually infringing and not the hirelings who are investigating.
Copyright infringement is a tort where one party can make a case, take it to an open forum (court), and sue another party for damages. Police, for example, do not arrest people for copyright infringement (although there are similar crimes that can lead to an arrest).
If the MPAA/RIAA/whatever do not sue the people who did the investigation, then there is no "crime" (again, copyright infringement is not a crime).
If they are acting on behalf of the copyright owner, they're fine.
Copyright is not a criminal law, it's a civil law. A copyright owner has the right to decide, within the framework of the copyright laws, if an activity is infringing or not. In other words, they can authorize whatever copying they want.
The "hirelings" don't need any special rights. They just need the copyright owner to approve.
It turns out that Dropbox claims in one place that encrypted data makes it impossible for employees to see into user files, but in another says that they're only 'prohibited' from doing so.
The two claims are not mutually exclusive -- support agents cannot get in because they don't have decryption keys, while deeper levels of the company can get access because they have access to the keys.
It makes sense to me, anyway. At any rate, the moral of the story is if you want something to be private, do not rely on third parties to encrypt things for you (and, if you do, it's not secure).
My main development interface is my MacBook Pro (Unibody).
In the past year, I have done projects involving: SQL Server, C#,.NET, PHP, Objective-C, C, and I have written a deployment infrastructure using git that currently supports 20+ clients over 4 geographically separated servers with thousands of users.
The boss can pry my MacBook Pro away from my cold dead hands.
The UI is solid. After about 2 years of using it, I cannot live without the finger-swipe-expose feature. I'll have dozens of windows open across multiple desktops (I use 4 spaces), and with an extremely efficient swipe of my hand I see everything and switch between applications so quickly that it's embarrassing to think how I lived on Windows.
I will agree with the OP that getting some linux-y things going on a mac can be downright painful. But, then again, our office has tens of thousands of dollars of development server equipment that I can log into and have a field day with -- so my Mac is my *interface* but it is not what runs the code. I have VMs for Windows and Linux that I uses as experimentation zones.
The Mac is not designed for hard core Emacs developers. It is designed for the average joe who doesn't even know what emacs is, let alone make, gcc, or vi are. The fact that these things run well and work in OS-X makes it leaps and bounds ahead of Windows. The quality of the UI and device integration is what gives it a lead over Linux.
I ad-block sites that I've never been to before. If they look like a cool site or something that I'd use in the future, I turn off the ad-blocker on that site for any future visits. It's my way of saying "hmm, good job" to the site.
I realized then that most websites offer opt-out advertising. That is, you have to see it unless you pay, use an ad-blocking program, or contribute something that the owners deem worthy of removing adds (like that tempting "no ads for good karma" thing I keep seeing on/.).
I agree with what this community manager said and I would dare ask the logical follow-up question: why don't websites ask you to opt-in to their advertising? The idea would be simple - you visit the site and after X page views, or some other evil metric, you are taken to a page that says: hey, you can help us out with $$$, view ads, or just be a leech. I firmly believe that you will find that the majority of people who become engaged with the content will select either the $$$ or advertising paths. Right then and there your advertising space is worth more than all of the traditional "opt-out" websites.
So, do any advertising market providers allow for this?
I want to express that I meant not to defend the idea that this technology exists, merely that it is plausible. Actually, I think my point was that it's absurd to replace specialized hardware with generic software and expect a lower cost. Or something.
Hell, MS would be interested in doing it non-virtualized. Be a cool selling point of a new Windows if you didn't need a GPU anymore.
DirectX has a software mode implementation (the Reference Rasterizer) that is included with the SDK. It is just as fast as one might expect (read: horribly horribly slow) but does the entire shebang in software. If you threw enough computing power at it, you could conceptually match GPU performance. However, this begs the question as to how much computing power they can afford to throw at it while keeping costs down enough to, at least, break even (a curse word to investors).
there's also the "throw money at it" solution, which (when possible) involves, you know, paying for a closed license. People tend to like money, and many GPL projects owners are happy to multi-license when money becomes involved.
Slashdot Mirror
The things I post on the Internet are not private?
Oh, shii....
I will happily admit that my "If Europeans..." line was both incomplete and merely a ruse to poke fun at the
Facts are not libel, the truth is an absolute defense.
Free speech implies that you have a backbone and are willing to accept speech that makes you uncomfortable.
If Google can show that people frequently combine those terms, then there is no libel. To prevent such factual statements as a matter of law is a hinderance to the very essence of free speech.
If it's libel to say that "when searching for X, people have commonly searched for X+Y" where Y is unkind towards X, then you may want to rethink your notion of libel. If Europeans don't like free speech, then they absolutely
I think, in his time, he was under-appreciated. But he certainly is appreciated now, if not a cherished part of the science-fiction canon. We are fortunate, as science-fiction readers, that he did not move on to other genres as he originally had intended (or, maybe not, I don't know. In some other reality, PKD was a furnature saleman who never had the inkling to write at all).
I don't get this. Most of the good American content online exists behind paywalls (that require a US address) or foreign blacklists. Sure, we can circumvent many of these measures, but the average user doesn't (I assume). My point is that American advertisers will happily take over from the CRTC in denying Canadians access to American content.
Personally, I don't get the point -- since many American shows are produced in Canada, doesn't that inherently make them "Canadian content?"
Sue for what?
If they re-sealed the box and represented it as unopened, I can see the case. But if you willingly purchase an opened box and expect the contents of the box to be unmolested then you've got a screw loose somewhere.
*shrug*
This doesn't bother me at all.
Unless they are re-sealing the boxes and are representing them as unopened, I don't see the problem.
Caveat emptor used to mean something.
Kudos on the perfect reply. Bravo. :)
So, yesterday I read that MIT cured the common cold, Penn cured Leukemia, a cancer, and today a private researcher claims to have solved both the fuel and emissions problems that are currently only getting worse. Okay, yeah, all of these are preliminary and experimental, but holy shit... Got Hope? Obama fucking delivered!
(LOL)
But if the TSA doesn't grope my junk, who will?
Forever Alone...
I didn't say it was a crime. I said it was illegal. Breach of contract is not a crime either, per se, but it is still illegal and you can still take someone to court over it, just as they are trying to do here.
Thanks for both missing and proving my point.
The point is that it's not an automatic police rush in and arrest you situation. The copyright owner has to take action.
In other words, permissions is granted by the very virtue that the copyright owners aren't suing them - they're suing the people who are actually infringing and not the hirelings who are investigating.
The problem is, that's illegal!
Uh, copyright infringement is not a crime.
Copyright infringement is a tort where one party can make a case, take it to an open forum (court), and sue another party for damages. Police, for example, do not arrest people for copyright infringement (although there are similar crimes that can lead to an arrest).
If the MPAA/RIAA/whatever do not sue the people who did the investigation, then there is no "crime" (again, copyright infringement is not a crime).
If they are acting on behalf of the copyright owner, they're fine.
Copyright is not a criminal law, it's a civil law. A copyright owner has the right to decide, within the framework of the copyright laws, if an activity is infringing or not. In other words, they can authorize whatever copying they want.
The "hirelings" don't need any special rights. They just need the copyright owner to approve.
This pretty much describes my entire career.
Finally, MovieOS being used in a production environment. Pretty soon, the cops will be using Visual Basic to hunt down suspects.
This is not a new argument. It's an uphill battle to be taken seriously. From the horse's mouth: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0s23dZCZ2vk
It turns out that Dropbox claims in one place that encrypted data makes it impossible for employees to see into user files, but in another says that they're only 'prohibited' from doing so.
The two claims are not mutually exclusive -- support agents cannot get in because they don't have decryption keys, while deeper levels of the company can get access because they have access to the keys.
It makes sense to me, anyway. At any rate, the moral of the story is if you want something to be private, do not rely on third parties to encrypt things for you (and, if you do, it's not secure).
My main development interface is my MacBook Pro (Unibody).
In the past year, I have done projects involving: SQL Server, C#, .NET, PHP, Objective-C, C, and I have written a deployment infrastructure using git that currently supports 20+ clients over 4 geographically separated servers with thousands of users.
The boss can pry my MacBook Pro away from my cold dead hands.
The UI is solid. After about 2 years of using it, I cannot live without the finger-swipe-expose feature. I'll have dozens of windows open across multiple desktops (I use 4 spaces), and with an extremely efficient swipe of my hand I see everything and switch between applications so quickly that it's embarrassing to think how I lived on Windows.
I will agree with the OP that getting some linux-y things going on a mac can be downright painful. But, then again, our office has tens of thousands of dollars of development server equipment that I can log into and have a field day with -- so my Mac is my *interface* but it is not what runs the code. I have VMs for Windows and Linux that I uses as experimentation zones.
The Mac is not designed for hard core Emacs developers. It is designed for the average joe who doesn't even know what emacs is, let alone make, gcc, or vi are. The fact that these things run well and work in OS-X makes it leaps and bounds ahead of Windows. The quality of the UI and device integration is what gives it a lead over Linux.
The OP can suck my ethernet cable.
Don't forget about DNF. It's supposed to come out in 2011. This year for sure!
To play the requisite part of the devil's advocate:
Lesson to be learned: don't become the story you are reporting.
There is one line in the post that intrigued me:
I ad-block sites that I've never been to before. If they look like a cool site or something that I'd use in the future, I turn off the ad-blocker on that site for any future visits. It's my way of saying "hmm, good job" to the site.
I realized then that most websites offer opt-out advertising. That is, you have to see it unless you pay, use an ad-blocking program, or contribute something that the owners deem worthy of removing adds (like that tempting "no ads for good karma" thing I keep seeing on /.).
I agree with what this community manager said and I would dare ask the logical follow-up question: why don't websites ask you to opt-in to their advertising? The idea would be simple - you visit the site and after X page views, or some other evil metric, you are taken to a page that says: hey, you can help us out with $$$, view ads, or just be a leech. I firmly believe that you will find that the majority of people who become engaged with the content will select either the $$$ or advertising paths. Right then and there your advertising space is worth more than all of the traditional "opt-out" websites.
So, do any advertising market providers allow for this?
Lol.
I want to express that I meant not to defend the idea that this technology exists, merely that it is plausible. Actually, I think my point was that it's absurd to replace specialized hardware with generic software and expect a lower cost. Or something.
I think I drink too much. :)
just one little point:
Hell, MS would be interested in doing it non-virtualized. Be a cool selling point of a new Windows if you didn't need a GPU anymore.
DirectX has a software mode implementation (the Reference Rasterizer) that is included with the SDK. It is just as fast as one might expect (read: horribly horribly slow) but does the entire shebang in software. If you threw enough computing power at it, you could conceptually match GPU performance. However, this begs the question as to how much computing power they can afford to throw at it while keeping costs down enough to, at least, break even (a curse word to investors).
there's also the "throw money at it" solution, which (when possible) involves, you know, paying for a closed license. People tend to like money, and many GPL projects owners are happy to multi-license when money becomes involved.