And there's no bigger turn-off as far as the opposite sex is concerned.
Judging by your username, I'll assume you mean "woman" when you say "opposite sex". And I'd have to say you're dead wrong. Walking around downtown Minneapolis during the day now that it's summer, I've lost count of how many tattoos I've seen on the ladies. I doubt they consider tattoos on men a turnoff. I know I (a man) don't find them a turnoff (on women). In fact, I rather prefer them.
As for the "uglies"... yeah there are a few, just like non-tattooed, clothes-wearing people. Do they think those clothes really make them less disagreeable to look at? Sometimes I think their fashion selections are making things worse. Can we outlaw Zubaz already? Or at least put a weight limit in effect?
I think you sound like an anti-tattoo bigot more than anything. Especially with remarks about "civilised" persons. Did you ever consider that getting and having tattoos is fun? If you don't think so, fine. But do you extend that anti-"mutilation" prejudice to women with pierced earlobes? How about men who shave their faces? Mental health problems? Some tattooed people might have them. I know plenty of non-tattooed people with mental health problems, too.
As to the original "Ask" question: get tattoos in places you can cover them up. If you're male, that's pretty much everywhere below the neck except the hands. I think it's reasonable for employers to expect you to look professional if you have public contact (i.e. you are physically representing the company) during your workday. But when you're not at work, I don't think they have any more right to govern your appearance than they do your church attendance, musical tastes, or what TV shows you watch.
No kidding! I particularly suggest checking out the prices for two of the Beatles anthology albums, the red and green ones with the years as part of title. I went to Sam Goody to see about picking up the red one and the price was $36! For an album that's already sold millions and millions of copies and is over 25 years old? And is itself just a collection of tracks from other albums that have sold millions of copies themselves? Forget that. I borrowed it from the library, and, uh, taped it.:)
I'm with you. I hope the RIAA continues to do things that will hopefully piss off their customers. Maybe then we'll see more attention to fixing the dismal state of the music world.
I am not disagreeing with the notion that P2P actually boosts album sales by allowing sampling. Nor am I disputing that $20 is a bit outrageous. It is perfectly possible to find cases where a movie soundtrack on CD costs as much or more than the DVD containing the actual movie. That's a sure indicator that something is wrong. My post is specifically related to the idea that the RIAA puts out "crappy" music. If that's the case, why is everyone in a rush to share it?
Ugh. The character, as drawn, was okay, but even the female characters in Advance Wars on GBA are more fun to look at, imho. But they're cute cartoons as opposed to virtual RealDolls. And no matter how nice Lara might have looked, that game played like garbage-- a severely mitigating factor if you ask me (which I you didn't, but I'm saying it anyway *grin*).
Allow me to amend, please: I wasn't trying to flame so bad and most of that is not direct at JWW, but at the others who share and listen to nothing but RIAA tunes, then turn around and complain about the RIAA's quality and prices.
re #3... if the music is so crappy, why is everybody sharing so much of it? RIAA members have a monopoly on music now? You can't go to the store and buy your own instruments, write and perform your own music? This isn't like the frivolous lawsuits against Negativland, who were arguably using other's music in a Fair Use context. This is a legitimate use of the law and in perfect keeping with the common lament on Slashdot that the RIAA should go after individual users rather than the service providers.
That's fine, but you're wrong. Section 2 concerns the license, not distribution. If you give the modified software to the government and they don't give it to anyone else, then whether others are licensed to use it is irrelevant if they don't have a copy. 2b doesn't say you have to give it to anyone who asks, it says that you can't give to the gov't but stipulate that anyone the gov't gives it to must pay a licensing fee. The salient portion of the GPL that applies here is Section 3, which states that if you distribute the binary and the source at the same time that your obligation is met.
Great. I've accidentally used "there" instead of "their" in my third sentence. Apparently reading all these online boards where no one can spell is making it harder for me to spell myself.
Why go to all that trouble? If SCO wants to claim infringement it is up to them to prove that a) there is duplicate code and b) that the flow of code was from SCO into Linux and not vice versa (or from some pre-existing code base into both SCO code and Linux). So far, they've been very reluctant to even say which pieces of Linux are infringing. They don't have to show anyone there own code base to do that. And if they aren't going to at least say which parts of Linux are in violation, I think the best thing to do (unless maybe you are part of the IBM legal defense team) is ignore them until they do.
Seems to me it would be pretty hard to lose SpiderMan as a trademark. In fact, I'm not sure what trade or service it is the mark of. Usually trademarks are the name of a company or a brand. How is a character's name a brand? That seems like an end-run around the theoretical expiration of copyright to me. It's already copyright infringement to make derivative works, so how this is even a trademark issue, I just don't get.
And that's why I don't buy this defense of their act on the grounds that they had to in order to protect Spidey et al. I do buy it on the grounds that Marvel may feel it cuts into their market for officially licensed games. But in general I think going after your fans is a bad move.
I don't use 'em, except at work. And even there I do my best to steer away from them. Not because I hate them, but I don't find their quality to be real high in many cases. Indeed, I generally agree with allowing them to write their software however they want and letting the market decide (although it's clear they've manipulated that market).
But you can force someone to use standards. We have all kinds of them: building codes, safety codes, labor codes, drug laws, etc etc. Since they are providing core pieces of our national communications infrastructure, I think the tools they provide don't just get to hide behind "free speech" as an excuse for quirky behavior or sloppy workmanship.
I think the problem here is that Marvel would like to license its characters and stories to video game developers and sees these unlicensed Marvel-themed games as competition.
Not that I agree with Marvel's actions. I certainly found the tone of their letter disturbing. I certainly won't buy their stuff now (not that I bought a lot of it before, but now I won't even consider it).
That would be fine if the GNOME2 session saver wasn't completely off it's rocker-- at least in my experience it is. Every now and then I had it saving multiple instances of stuff in the session file and when I restarted GNOME it'd open them all up. Or it would write stuff to the session file that I had closed and that would open back up on a restart. *sigh*
Better to go into GConf2 (? -- the config manager anyway) and change the default window manager. Or maybe you can simply start sawfish in your ~/.xinitrc before you do exec gnome-session.
Uh, if MS wants to do business in SA, they will comply with SA laws.
Further, it's unfair to a company to force them to comply with standard? Ooookay. Never mind that government regulates the heck out of every business except software.
That's the stupidest thing SCO's said so far, and they've been tossing out some whoppers. I mean, how the hell could he check any contribution to Linux against SCO's code when they aren't even sharing that code in the first place? Doesn't he kind of have to trust contributors to contribute legal code? In any case, how stupid can SCO be, the very nature of the process is what would make it easy to track down copyright/trade secret infringements... patents, well, why would any sane person want to spend their life vetting their every little piece of code against the entire catalog of valid patents?
Personally I almost prefer the situation where the GPL has some force. This means that we aren't wasting a lot of time reverse engineering the software or worrying that the next guy downstream will give out only binaries without making some sort of offer of source code. Copyright is not a bad thing. In fact, it's a great thing-- when kept in check in terms of both length of time and scope of what constitutes infringement.
You have contradicted yourself. Either "there is no lasting value in life" or "the only lasting value in life is the joy we derive from life". Take your pick, but you can only pick one. Personally I prefer the first option because in so choosing I find a terrible burden is lifted off my shoulders. I no longer feel compelled to work for my own joy or anyone else's. Knowing that nothing lasts is a very liberating sensation. Trying to squeeze the most out of every moment (the hedonism you mention) is like trying grip water by tightening it within one's fist-- and please no picky-picky about how if you froze the water you could probably grab it without too much trouble.;)
What I'd really like to see is "Zen Meditation: The Video Game". That would allow me to engage in "deep" contemplation and mindless distraction at the same time.
Given the vast amounts of packaging for mail-order, fast food, not-so-fast food, frozen dinners, plastic soda bottles, excessive packaging on just about any item from a major retailer, disposable diapers, and the ever-increasing popularity of inefficient motor vehicles, do you really think there's a persuasive tree-hugger lobby out there that would be able to mount any serious campaign against disposable CDs? We're talking about something that you probably wouldn't go through more than 100 of, per person, in any given year after all.
Not that I'm in favor, but this argument is specious. We have bigger ecological issues than disposable DVDs and/or CDs, so I sure hope the Green types are not going to pay particular attention to this case.
I like a little bit of both. Personally I much prefer games like Driver2 or the F1 series where the cars can get damaged or wear out-- but the more open nature of a game like Driver is nice, I agree. That's my biggest complaint with Gran Turismo, full contact racing should beat the car into unusability. Anyway... with F1 you do have the freedom to turn the car around and drive the wrong way-- try barreling head-on into 30 oncoming cars all going 200 mph in real life someday.;)
Slashdot Mirror
And there's no bigger turn-off as far as the opposite sex is concerned.
Judging by your username, I'll assume you mean "woman" when you say "opposite sex". And I'd have to say you're dead wrong. Walking around downtown Minneapolis during the day now that it's summer, I've lost count of how many tattoos I've seen on the ladies. I doubt they consider tattoos on men a turnoff. I know I (a man) don't find them a turnoff (on women). In fact, I rather prefer them.
As for the "uglies"... yeah there are a few, just like non-tattooed, clothes-wearing people. Do they think those clothes really make them less disagreeable to look at? Sometimes I think their fashion selections are making things worse. Can we outlaw Zubaz already? Or at least put a weight limit in effect?
I think you sound like an anti-tattoo bigot more than anything. Especially with remarks about "civilised" persons. Did you ever consider that getting and having tattoos is fun? If you don't think so, fine. But do you extend that anti-"mutilation" prejudice to women with pierced earlobes? How about men who shave their faces? Mental health problems? Some tattooed people might have them. I know plenty of non-tattooed people with mental health problems, too.
As to the original "Ask" question: get tattoos in places you can cover them up. If you're male, that's pretty much everywhere below the neck except the hands. I think it's reasonable for employers to expect you to look professional if you have public contact (i.e. you are physically representing the company) during your workday. But when you're not at work, I don't think they have any more right to govern your appearance than they do your church attendance, musical tastes, or what TV shows you watch.
No kidding! I particularly suggest checking out the prices for two of the Beatles anthology albums, the red and green ones with the years as part of title. I went to Sam Goody to see about picking up the red one and the price was $36! For an album that's already sold millions and millions of copies and is over 25 years old? And is itself just a collection of tracks from other albums that have sold millions of copies themselves? Forget that. I borrowed it from the library, and, uh, taped it. :)
I'm with you. I hope the RIAA continues to do things that will hopefully piss off their customers. Maybe then we'll see more attention to fixing the dismal state of the music world.
I am not disagreeing with the notion that P2P actually boosts album sales by allowing sampling. Nor am I disputing that $20 is a bit outrageous. It is perfectly possible to find cases where a movie soundtrack on CD costs as much or more than the DVD containing the actual movie. That's a sure indicator that something is wrong. My post is specifically related to the idea that the RIAA puts out "crappy" music. If that's the case, why is everyone in a rush to share it?
Ugh. The character, as drawn, was okay, but even the female characters in Advance Wars on GBA are more fun to look at, imho. But they're cute cartoons as opposed to virtual RealDolls. And no matter how nice Lara might have looked, that game played like garbage-- a severely mitigating factor if you ask me (which I you didn't, but I'm saying it anyway *grin*).
The whole Pac-Family had a show.
Allow me to amend, please: I wasn't trying to flame so bad and most of that is not direct at JWW, but at the others who share and listen to nothing but RIAA tunes, then turn around and complain about the RIAA's quality and prices.
re #3... if the music is so crappy, why is everybody sharing so much of it? RIAA members have a monopoly on music now? You can't go to the store and buy your own instruments, write and perform your own music? This isn't like the frivolous lawsuits against Negativland, who were arguably using other's music in a Fair Use context. This is a legitimate use of the law and in perfect keeping with the common lament on Slashdot that the RIAA should go after individual users rather than the service providers.
The Senator is selling CDs through his Senate web site? Prove it. That's a major ethics violation.
That's fine, but you're wrong. Section 2 concerns the license, not distribution. If you give the modified software to the government and they don't give it to anyone else, then whether others are licensed to use it is irrelevant if they don't have a copy. 2b doesn't say you have to give it to anyone who asks, it says that you can't give to the gov't but stipulate that anyone the gov't gives it to must pay a licensing fee. The salient portion of the GPL that applies here is Section 3, which states that if you distribute the binary and the source at the same time that your obligation is met.
Isn't that supposed to be you're?
Great. I've accidentally used "there" instead of "their" in my third sentence. Apparently reading all these online boards where no one can spell is making it harder for me to spell myself.
Why go to all that trouble? If SCO wants to claim infringement it is up to them to prove that a) there is duplicate code and b) that the flow of code was from SCO into Linux and not vice versa (or from some pre-existing code base into both SCO code and Linux). So far, they've been very reluctant to even say which pieces of Linux are infringing. They don't have to show anyone there own code base to do that. And if they aren't going to at least say which parts of Linux are in violation, I think the best thing to do (unless maybe you are part of the IBM legal defense team) is ignore them until they do.
I mentioned gconftool dumbass, just not by the exact command line needed.
Seems to me it would be pretty hard to lose SpiderMan as a trademark. In fact, I'm not sure what trade or service it is the mark of. Usually trademarks are the name of a company or a brand. How is a character's name a brand? That seems like an end-run around the theoretical expiration of copyright to me. It's already copyright infringement to make derivative works, so how this is even a trademark issue, I just don't get.
And that's why I don't buy this defense of their act on the grounds that they had to in order to protect Spidey et al. I do buy it on the grounds that Marvel may feel it cuts into their market for officially licensed games. But in general I think going after your fans is a bad move.
If you hate them so much, don't use 'em
I don't use 'em, except at work. And even there I do my best to steer away from them. Not because I hate them, but I don't find their quality to be real high in many cases. Indeed, I generally agree with allowing them to write their software however they want and letting the market decide (although it's clear they've manipulated that market).
But you can force someone to use standards. We have all kinds of them: building codes, safety codes, labor codes, drug laws, etc etc. Since they are providing core pieces of our national communications infrastructure, I think the tools they provide don't just get to hide behind "free speech" as an excuse for quirky behavior or sloppy workmanship.
I think the problem here is that Marvel would like to license its characters and stories to video game developers and sees these unlicensed Marvel-themed games as competition.
Not that I agree with Marvel's actions. I certainly found the tone of their letter disturbing. I certainly won't buy their stuff now (not that I bought a lot of it before, but now I won't even consider it).
That would be fine if the GNOME2 session saver wasn't completely off it's rocker-- at least in my experience it is. Every now and then I had it saving multiple instances of stuff in the session file and when I restarted GNOME it'd open them all up. Or it would write stuff to the session file that I had closed and that would open back up on a restart. *sigh*
Better to go into GConf2 (? -- the config manager anyway) and change the default window manager. Or maybe you can simply start sawfish in your ~/.xinitrc before you do exec gnome-session.
Uh, if MS wants to do business in SA, they will comply with SA laws.
Further, it's unfair to a company to force them to comply with standard? Ooookay. Never mind that government regulates the heck out of every business except software.
That's the stupidest thing SCO's said so far, and they've been tossing out some whoppers. I mean, how the hell could he check any contribution to Linux against SCO's code when they aren't even sharing that code in the first place? Doesn't he kind of have to trust contributors to contribute legal code? In any case, how stupid can SCO be, the very nature of the process is what would make it easy to track down copyright/trade secret infringements... patents, well, why would any sane person want to spend their life vetting their every little piece of code against the entire catalog of valid patents?
Personally I almost prefer the situation where the GPL has some force. This means that we aren't wasting a lot of time reverse engineering the software or worrying that the next guy downstream will give out only binaries without making some sort of offer of source code. Copyright is not a bad thing. In fact, it's a great thing-- when kept in check in terms of both length of time and scope of what constitutes infringement.
Thank you! I will give this a try.
they are criticizing linus torvalds for not being keen on intellectual property rights when he is one of the biggest proponents of open source?
Since when is Linus one of the biggest proponents of open source? He's always seemed to be decidely lukewarm on that topic to me.
You have contradicted yourself. Either "there is no lasting value in life" or "the only lasting value in life is the joy we derive from life". Take your pick, but you can only pick one. Personally I prefer the first option because in so choosing I find a terrible burden is lifted off my shoulders. I no longer feel compelled to work for my own joy or anyone else's. Knowing that nothing lasts is a very liberating sensation. Trying to squeeze the most out of every moment (the hedonism you mention) is like trying grip water by tightening it within one's fist-- and please no picky-picky about how if you froze the water you could probably grab it without too much trouble. ;)
What I'd really like to see is "Zen Meditation: The Video Game". That would allow me to engage in "deep" contemplation and mindless distraction at the same time.
Given the vast amounts of packaging for mail-order, fast food, not-so-fast food, frozen dinners, plastic soda bottles, excessive packaging on just about any item from a major retailer, disposable diapers, and the ever-increasing popularity of inefficient motor vehicles, do you really think there's a persuasive tree-hugger lobby out there that would be able to mount any serious campaign against disposable CDs? We're talking about something that you probably wouldn't go through more than 100 of, per person, in any given year after all.
Not that I'm in favor, but this argument is specious. We have bigger ecological issues than disposable DVDs and/or CDs, so I sure hope the Green types are not going to pay particular attention to this case.
I like a little bit of both. Personally I much prefer games like Driver2 or the F1 series where the cars can get damaged or wear out-- but the more open nature of a game like Driver is nice, I agree. That's my biggest complaint with Gran Turismo, full contact racing should beat the car into unusability. Anyway... with F1 you do have the freedom to turn the car around and drive the wrong way-- try barreling head-on into 30 oncoming cars all going 200 mph in real life someday. ;)