I pay for bandwidth and connection time, so your ad directly costs me money, and it should be illegal for that reason.
Funny, by blocking ads and still visiting the site you are costing the content provider money. You don't seem to have a problem with that.
If the ads bother you that much, the solution is much simpler than using adblocking software. Just don't visit that site.
The fact is, the majority of the population favors keeping drugs illegal. If you want to change the law, all you have to do is convince people that drugs should be legalized. Few politicians are willing to bring up the topic of legalization because they know they will be voted out of office if they do.
That would indeed be the correct course of action, were it not for the fact that the government has a rather spotted history of providing the public with good research on the dangers of drugs. The perception of the public that drugs are dangerous is based, for a large part, on government funded research, and the government seems to be rather keen on finding something wrong with the drugs they're actively trying to ban.
As public policy expert Mark Kleiman once said: "There is a very, very heavy cost to the process of devaluing information that comes from the government. Lincoln was right. Government trust is a precious resource and there's a question about how much of it we want to squander in telling kids not to use drugs."
Did your cat calm down? Thanks...... You are the cheapest therapist I have ever seen. I think that is a typical Eric comment, I am glad you can see past the shroud. Have a great day!
In this file I noticed a message that, in hindsight, is especially morbid:
Good morning. I haven't heard from you in a while. I'll try one more time and I suppose I will take the hint if you don't page me back. Have a good day. Todd
I think drawing any conclusions based 51 exploit-kit using hackers, from which only 15 IP addresses and browsers could be determined using a forged referer field, is a prime example of bogus methodology;)
I don't think any conclusions based on such a small sample group can be called representative, it's not specifically something either in favour or against Opera.
The fact that people who run drive-by exploit sites use Opera or Firefox didn't surprise me much, I just wish they'd picked a larger sample group:)
Internet Radio will morph into P2P streaming and offshore stations. It's not going anywhere.
And this is where you are horribly wrong.
The streams/companies that you claim will morph into P2P streaming and offshore stations are the companies that weren't affected by the current rates (let alone the royalty rate hike) anyway. They were happily streaming their stuff, not paying any licensing fees for their broadcasts.
Many of the companies that pay the fees and will therefor most definitely be affected by the royalty rate hike are the kind of companies that don't entirely see it as feasible to move their entire business offshore or disappear from the legal market.
There are legal precedents where it is established that as long as a broadcaster is serving listeners in the USA, regardless of where from, that broadcaster is liable for that audience.
Apart from that you'd have to move your business to a country that actually provides affordable bandwidth with enough capacity to cater the (at times rather large) US customer base. However you twist or turn it, you'll need at least some of the infrastructure in the USA.
Last but not least: plenty of the broadcasters do not believe that moving out of their own country should be something they have to do in order to stay in business.
Nothing as I can see it. It's still perfectly legal to link to copyright violating material in Sweden.
Actually, that's not true.
The Supreme Court in Sweden has, in a judgement of June 15, 2000, in criminal case against Tommy Olsson, stated that publication of links to already existing music files must be regarded as an act of performance or contribution to such act.
The situation with The Pirate Bay is of course different, since they're linking to the.torrent files and not directly to complete files.
We have several broadcasters here in Europe that think those nifty black bars above and below the shows are to be used for subtitling and the displaying of annoying animated logos.
It gets even more annoying if those subtitles are halfway in and halfway out of the bottom black bar.
Personally I'd say that this sort of behaviour is a lot more annoying (to me at least) than people watching 4:3 content in 16:9.
Or do you think 4:3 Ally McBeal content does not look disproportionate when viewed in the right aspect ratio?
On a sidenote: instead of the folks at Google adding new functionality of doubtful usefulness (autoresponders are the root of all evil in the corporate environment, right up there with running MS Exchange servers), can't they please finally let me delete or archive more than 100 messages at a time?
Awesome - and at the same time you are also wasting your internet provider's bandwidth.
If you and I are sharing the same internet provider and enough people at this provider join SpamVampire, you are doing a great job of costing both your provider more money as well as slowing down my internet connection.
Where did you get the right to play vigilante with my internet connection?
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know if it will ever match the speed of Safari considering they don't have access to the private API's that Apple does
Actually, there's a video showing it to be quite a bit faster than Safari in a side-by-side comparison.
I pay for bandwidth and connection time, so your ad directly costs me money, and it should be illegal for that reason.
Funny, by blocking ads and still visiting the site you are costing the content provider money. You don't seem to have a problem with that. If the ads bother you that much, the solution is much simpler than using adblocking software. Just don't visit that site.
The fact is, the majority of the population favors keeping drugs illegal. If you want to change the law, all you have to do is convince people that drugs should be legalized. Few politicians are willing to bring up the topic of legalization because they know they will be voted out of office if they do.
That would indeed be the correct course of action, were it not for the fact that the government has a rather spotted history of providing the public with good research on the dangers of drugs. The perception of the public that drugs are dangerous is based, for a large part, on government funded research, and the government seems to be rather keen on finding something wrong with the drugs they're actively trying to ban.
As public policy expert Mark Kleiman once said: "There is a very, very heavy cost to the process of devaluing information that comes from the government. Lincoln was right. Government trust is a precious resource and there's a question about how much of it we want to squander in telling kids not to use drugs."
True, but that doesn't make the pager message less chilling
However tempted it may have been, that actually wasn't a RickRoll for a change ;)
Apparently they figured the release was important enough for a full-blown trailer as well ;-)
I think drawing any conclusions based 51 exploit-kit using hackers, from which only 15 IP addresses and browsers could be determined using a forged referer field, is a prime example of bogus methodology ;)
I don't think any conclusions based on such a small sample group can be called representative, it's not specifically something either in favour or against Opera.
:)
The fact that people who run drive-by exploit sites use Opera or Firefox didn't surprise me much, I just wish they'd picked a larger sample group
Just for the record: "1 in 4 hackers use Opera" story is based on total global sample of 15 hackers... :-)
There is however a small problem with suggesting sites like Mininova: they don't have their own trackers.
I wonder if that's worth a pwnie award as well :P
Same here, tried a bunch of machines but no dice.
I was with you all the way on your comment until you said that.
Removing the article (or the video) won't make this go away, a clear warning however might at least stop some people from getting hurt.
The streams/companies that you claim will morph into P2P streaming and offshore stations are the companies that weren't affected by the current rates (let alone the royalty rate hike) anyway. They were happily streaming their stuff, not paying any licensing fees for their broadcasts.
Many of the companies that pay the fees and will therefor most definitely be affected by the royalty rate hike are the kind of companies that don't entirely see it as feasible to move their entire business offshore or disappear from the legal market.
There are legal precedents where it is established that as long as a broadcaster is serving listeners in the USA, regardless of where from, that broadcaster is liable for that audience.
Apart from that you'd have to move your business to a country that actually provides affordable bandwidth with enough capacity to cater the (at times rather large) US customer base. However you twist or turn it, you'll need at least some of the infrastructure in the USA.
Last but not least: plenty of the broadcasters do not believe that moving out of their own country should be something they have to do in order to stay in business.
IANAL, nor do I play one on
Which proves that things in Sweden are confusing to say the least
Actually, that's not true.
The Supreme Court in Sweden has, in a judgement of June 15, 2000, in criminal case against Tommy Olsson, stated that publication of links to already existing music files must be regarded as an act of performance or contribution to such act.
The situation with The Pirate Bay is of course different, since they're linking to the
Ah, so that's what that spaming is that he was charged with!
We have several broadcasters here in Europe that think those nifty black bars above and below the shows are to be used for subtitling and the displaying of annoying animated logos.
It gets even more annoying if those subtitles are halfway in and halfway out of the bottom black bar.
Personally I'd say that this sort of behaviour is a lot more annoying (to me at least) than people watching 4:3 content in 16:9.
Or do you think 4:3 Ally McBeal content does not look disproportionate when viewed in the right aspect ratio?
Under settings there is an option to change this:
Maximum page size: show 25/50/100 conversations per page.
Slashdot: News for Nerds, Stuff that Happened About 4 Days Ago?
On a sidenote: instead of the folks at Google adding new functionality of doubtful usefulness (autoresponders are the root of all evil in the corporate environment, right up there with running MS Exchange servers), can't they please finally let me delete or archive more than 100 messages at a time?
Awesome - and at the same time you are also wasting your internet provider's bandwidth.
If you and I are sharing the same internet provider and enough people at this provider join SpamVampire, you are doing a great job of costing both your provider more money as well as slowing down my internet connection.
Where did you get the right to play vigilante with my internet connection?