Okay, now they only have to check the server does have it's clock in sync, otherwise those 5 minute clips of logs won't be very useful..:)
Incorrect. Fyodor's clock can read 1988, and the logs would still be useful. The spooks can sync his logs up with the 'real time' by comparing his network activities with other servers, and what THEIR clocks said in THEIR logs. For instance, the probes that THEY were doing to his server, would be logged, as well as when they did the probes.
The ceasar of Rome ruled a republic (most of the time).
Indeed. Then came the fall of the republic. The average citizen still thought he was still living in a republic, when in fact, the fix was in. The purportedly free country was in fact an empire, ruled by the Caesars, but the poor schmuck citizens still went about thinking they were living in a republic.
'Czar'? Weren't czar's, like, emperors who had ultimate rule in a non-free society?
Is that what it's come down to in 21st century America? 'Czar's?
At least the US gubment is going out in the open about it. No more of this pussy footing about the real intent here: screw freedom. Drug Czars, IP Czars, what next?
Just because something isn't used as much anymore by the majority of the people as it used to be, doesn't necessarily mean it's dead.
I think you are clinging to one of the many meanings of the word 'dead'.
For example, consider the concept of 'dead languages'. Latin, for example, is a 'dead language' but people still use it, and even though it is still in use it is perfectly correct to call latin 'dead'.
Dead, in that sense, means that it is no longer used as a primary language. That could be said for VHS. VHS would be nobody's 1st choice these days, but it still has its uses.
It's too bad you are such an anal opening and no one knows that it was you, only some anonymous luser. But then that would have required a potential karma sacrifice; karma being too precious to even consider risking, due to the powerful homoerotic benefits of being able to 'use' mod points them like a 'tool' on all your 'friends'. Very, very latently gay, in other words.
But posting as AC for something as infantile as FP is understandable; the shame of having been exposed as having been so shallow and simple-minded would have probably twisted your piss ant meaningless little conformist "me too!" world-view into something you're not ready to handle.
Let's say they lose 5 percent, maybe 10 percent, of overall marketshare. They have 80% of the world's machines running Windows. That's not a big enough dent to worry about.
Yes, it is, to Microsoft.
Back a couple of years ago, when they had a 95%+ share of the browser markets (and only 'weirdos' used anything but IE) there were LOTS of sites which would work ONLY with IE.
Now that Firefox/Mozilla has become more mainstream, and "normal" people are using it, there are MUCH fewer sites which _require_ IE. All it took was 5 or 10 percentage points to make supporting other browsers necessary for ecommerce.
Please, moderators, remove this story... It's wrong, and if you agree they should know that's how you feel.
Ay carrumba. Where to start.
This is a news site. One of the purposes of 'news' is to educate the readers about things going on in their community. That is why this story is relevant.
The way things are changed for the better is not by hiding ugly realities, but by exposing them and holding them up for discussion, be they ugly or beautiful. You, on the other hand, seem to believe that we can make the world more beautiful by hiding ugly things rather than exposing them to the light of day.
Are you sure? Or do you just wish that were so? Assuming the premise that there are such things as 'good' and 'heroism' I'm not sure how, rationally, those things can be arbitrarily removed from an action simply because a death is involved.
I'd be hard pressed to think of more 'good' or 'heroic thing than, say, having had the opportunity to kill Hitler and thereby saving millions of lives.
That's it! The Maxwell Smart shoe camera phone! Perfect for those upskirt pictures
Jeezus H. Christ if I ever degenerated to the level where I was aiming to take 'upskirt pictures' I'd have to step in front of a truck to rid myself of the personal shame and disgrace and remove myself from the company of civilized men.
With the rise of SSRIs, people won't get enough. They'll just go on with life and 'not worry' about their rights being taken away.
I doubt it. I've been on Prozac for about a year, and I've never been more pleasantly furious about the state of society. Just look at my posting history;^]
SSRI's have enabled me to be HAPPY about being UNHAPPY with things. That sounds like a joke or a contradiction, but it's the truth. I now gleefully go about in iconoclastic, anti-social ways, happily slicing and dicing simpletons with my rapier wit, all the while singing a happy tune. I now can get all righteously indignant and enjoying it as if it were a walk in the park on a sunny day, rather than before, when I would find the whole thing, well, depressing.
Contrary to what you imply, the drug has made me a happy, contented misfit and has helped kick me out of society's patterns. I am, at the same time, more discontented with society, more vocal, more active in political causes, more independent, and pleased as punch about the whole situation.
So it sounds like you really aren't pissed they are closing the commercial loophole on the TiVo as much as there isn't a big enough market to pay to get around watching them.
So I ask again, why are you pissed off they want to remove the capability of freeloading from your Tivo?
Because there are times I want to, say, see a golf tournament, and the only way I can see it is on TV. I would GLADLY pay for the ability to watch it, but I can't. But I'll be fucked if I'll watch their commercials. That's why I'm pissed. Because their revenue model is so lame, and if Congress gets their way, they'll never change, and will continue to peddle ads rather than solicit fees from subscribers. That's why I'm pissed, because Congress is about to enforce an outmoded means of funding media, rather than moving to the 21st century, and having the consumers actually pay for it rather than be submitted to brainwashing via advertisement. That's why I'm pissed.
But this, I tell you: when they make it a law that you have to watch the commercials in order to watch the content, then I'll stop watching their content. Simple as that. I never said I would pirate the signal, or hack it, or anything. All I'm saying is, today, it's perfectly legal and moral not to watch the commercials.
And tomorrow, we'll see. They'll probably make it illegal. But their content is not good enough that I would be willing to watch their fuckwit commercials to see pretty much anything they have to offer.
I've bought probably 50 cd's last year at almost $20 per.
I've got cable for about $35 a month.
I went to two plays last year; about $100.
My TiVo subscription is $12 a month.
I bought probably $500 worth of books.
$100 worth of magazines.
Probably 5 movies in theaters. $50.
Couple concerts. 80$
That's about $2370 I spent on IP last year.
But I don't watch commercials. So I'm a freeloader. Guess so.
As you can see, I happily pay for content. And I said it before, I'll say it again. If TV wants to go to a paid mode, I'll support it. But I won't feel guilty about skipping their idiotic, insulting commercials. And I won't buy any hardware which enforces some legislature's idea of what I should watch.
So you are using TiVo to bypass the commercials, and then getting pissed off because the law might prevent you from doing that. I mean, would you use that feature for anything else?
You seem to be of the opinion that, because I tap the airwaves, I _must_ watch their commercials. That does not follow. There is no such requirement, either legally or morally.
Sure, the networks have based their businesses on selling airtime to advertisers, but whose fault is that? They have an archaic business plan, one which is going the way of the buggy whip.
TV is, in fact, broken. It is absolutly UNUSABLE without using things like VCRs and TiVos. They'll need to start charging for their content, and I look forward to supporting them with my dollars rather than have to be witness, or avoid, their asenine adverts.
You accept as your god given right to consume what someone else produces...
No, for fucks sake, no I did not. I never claimed it was my 'right' to consume. All I am bitching about is the government potentially mandating how my hardware functions. If some schmuck wants to broadcast on the public airwaves, and I choose to rig up some hardware to tap into the public airwaves, that is my right. I did not make any 'deal' with the media. They put it up and out, and I tap into it, and the government has no business mandating how my passive hardware functions.
but then staunchly demand you shouldn't have to pay for it.
No, again. I'd GLADLY pay for what I watch, and would pay in cash. WITH PLEASURE. What I WON'T do is sit through a bunch of insulting, mindless, badly produced commercials. That I WILL NOT do, that is TOO HIGH a price to pay for TV, and, like I said, if forced to watch commercials, I would unplug the damned thing.
You guys voted in these people who had recieved A LOT of campaigning money from large companies
No, I didn't. I voted third-party. I am now suffering from the tyranny of the majority, or at least, the tyranny of the representatives that the majority elected.
Democracy (ok, ok, "Representative Democracy") is overrated. Sure, it's better than most of the other systems, but it still sucks. Ultimatly, in this supposedly enlightened age, people are STILL telling me what to do, when, and how to do it, even when what I want to do (or NOT to do) has no effect on any one else. I don't give a rats ass if it IS the law, or if it IS democracy, or whatever, it is still tyranny to me, me being a sovereign individual.
But then again, we really aren't that evolved as a species or as a society, and these things are to be expected.
Your TiVo doesn't automatically skip commercials, which is what would be disallowed by this law. It's not forcing you to play commercials, or even stopping you from manually skipping them.
Maybe, but the article wasn't clear about that. It said, However, under the proposed law, skipping any commercials or promotional announcements would be prohibited. The article said nothing about whether the skipping was automatic or user-initiated.
The technology certainly is there to prevent us from skipping commercials, for example, on DVDs, the hardware can be prevented from fast forwarding through content they don't want us to skip. I had to assume this was what they wanted to do for future TiVos.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, man, that is the WORST attempt at flamebait I have EVER seen, and I have seen alot.
You fail it. Better luck next time.
Okay, now they only have to check the server does have it's clock in sync, otherwise those 5 minute clips of logs won't be very useful.. :)
Incorrect. Fyodor's clock can read 1988, and the logs would still be useful. The spooks can sync his logs up with the 'real time' by comparing his network activities with other servers, and what THEIR clocks said in THEIR logs. For instance, the probes that THEY were doing to his server, would be logged, as well as when they did the probes.
The ceasar of Rome ruled a republic (most of the time).
Indeed. Then came the fall of the republic. The average citizen still thought he was still living in a republic, when in fact, the fix was in. The purportedly free country was in fact an empire, ruled by the Caesars, but the poor schmuck citizens still went about thinking they were living in a republic.
'Czar'? Weren't czar's, like, emperors who had ultimate rule in a non-free society?
Is that what it's come down to in 21st century America? 'Czar's?
At least the US gubment is going out in the open about it. No more of this pussy footing about the real intent here: screw freedom. Drug Czars, IP Czars, what next?
Just because something isn't used as much anymore by the majority of the people as it used to be, doesn't necessarily mean it's dead.
I think you are clinging to one of the many meanings of the word 'dead'.
For example, consider the concept of 'dead languages'. Latin, for example, is a 'dead language' but people still use it, and even though it is still in use it is perfectly correct to call latin 'dead'.
Dead, in that sense, means that it is no longer used as a primary language. That could be said for VHS. VHS would be nobody's 1st choice these days, but it still has its uses.
It's too bad you are such an anal opening and no one knows that it was you, only some anonymous luser. But then that would have required a potential karma sacrifice; karma being too precious to even consider risking, due to the powerful homoerotic benefits of being able to 'use' mod points them like a 'tool' on all your 'friends'. Very, very latently gay, in other words.
But posting as AC for something as infantile as FP is understandable; the shame of having been exposed as having been so shallow and simple-minded would have probably twisted your piss ant meaningless little conformist "me too!" world-view into something you're not ready to handle.
Let's say they lose 5 percent, maybe 10 percent, of overall marketshare. They have 80% of the world's machines running Windows. That's not a big enough dent to worry about.
Yes, it is, to Microsoft.
Back a couple of years ago, when they had a 95%+ share of the browser markets (and only 'weirdos' used anything but IE) there were LOTS of sites which would work ONLY with IE.
Now that Firefox/Mozilla has become more mainstream, and "normal" people are using it, there are MUCH fewer sites which _require_ IE. All it took was 5 or 10 percentage points to make supporting other browsers necessary for ecommerce.
Please, moderators, remove this story... It's wrong, and if you agree they should know that's how you feel.
Ay carrumba. Where to start.
This is a news site. One of the purposes of 'news' is to educate the readers about things going on in their community. That is why this story is relevant.
The way things are changed for the better is not by hiding ugly realities, but by exposing them and holding them up for discussion, be they ugly or beautiful. You, on the other hand, seem to believe that we can make the world more beautiful by hiding ugly things rather than exposing them to the light of day.
Someone got killed on the way to your dad's house?
That's what the man said. What are you, like, dyslexic, or have tourettes, or something?
there is no good or "heroic" killing
Are you sure? Or do you just wish that were so? Assuming the premise that there are such things as 'good' and 'heroism' I'm not sure how, rationally, those things can be arbitrarily removed from an action simply because a death is involved.
I'd be hard pressed to think of more 'good' or 'heroic thing than, say, having had the opportunity to kill Hitler and thereby saving millions of lives.
Slashdot is so bias. Never is there anything saying that bush did anything right.
Maybe that's because he really is that bad.
It's like the N word.
The N word? What are you, like, a T.V. anchorman? Or my Mom? This is FUCKIN' SLASHDOT, not a meeting of the PTA, man!
Misusing the ellipsis since... I dunno.. the mid 80s at least...
According to who? Your 6th grade grammar teacher, back in 1935?
In modern usage (i.e. since at least the invention of the telephone), the ellipsis has can serve several uses, including indicating a pause.
Put on your Tin foil hats.
Nobody interested in you and where you go.
Only criminals would need to worry.
Get over yourself.
Get a life.
That's it! The Maxwell Smart shoe camera phone! Perfect for those upskirt pictures
Jeezus H. Christ if I ever degenerated to the level where I was aiming to take 'upskirt pictures' I'd have to step in front of a truck to rid myself of the personal shame and disgrace and remove myself from the company of civilized men.
With the rise of SSRIs, people won't get enough. They'll just go on with life and 'not worry' about their rights being taken away.
;^]
I doubt it. I've been on Prozac for about a year, and I've never been more pleasantly furious about the state of society. Just look at my posting history
SSRI's have enabled me to be HAPPY about being UNHAPPY with things. That sounds like a joke or a contradiction, but it's the truth. I now gleefully go about in iconoclastic, anti-social ways, happily slicing and dicing simpletons with my rapier wit, all the while singing a happy tune. I now can get all righteously indignant and enjoying it as if it were a walk in the park on a sunny day, rather than before, when I would find the whole thing, well, depressing.
Contrary to what you imply, the drug has made me a happy, contented misfit and has helped kick me out of society's patterns. I am, at the same time, more discontented with society, more vocal, more active in political causes, more independent, and pleased as punch about the whole situation.
So it sounds like you really aren't pissed they are closing the commercial loophole on the TiVo as much as there isn't a big enough market to pay to get around watching them.
Zackly. Nuff sed. Kirk out.
So I ask again, why are you pissed off they want to remove the capability of freeloading from your Tivo?
Because there are times I want to, say, see a golf tournament, and the only way I can see it is on TV. I would GLADLY pay for the ability to watch it, but I can't. But I'll be fucked if I'll watch their commercials. That's why I'm pissed. Because their revenue model is so lame, and if Congress gets their way, they'll never change, and will continue to peddle ads rather than solicit fees from subscribers. That's why I'm pissed, because Congress is about to enforce an outmoded means of funding media, rather than moving to the 21st century, and having the consumers actually pay for it rather than be submitted to brainwashing via advertisement. That's why I'm pissed.
But this, I tell you: when they make it a law that you have to watch the commercials in order to watch the content, then I'll stop watching their content. Simple as that. I never said I would pirate the signal, or hack it, or anything. All I'm saying is, today, it's perfectly legal and moral not to watch the commercials.
And tomorrow, we'll see. They'll probably make it illegal. But their content is not good enough that I would be willing to watch their fuckwit commercials to see pretty much anything they have to offer.
Lemme do some quick numbers here.
I've bought probably 50 cd's last year at almost $20 per.
I've got cable for about $35 a month.
I went to two plays last year; about $100.
My TiVo subscription is $12 a month.
I bought probably $500 worth of books.
$100 worth of magazines.
Probably 5 movies in theaters. $50.
Couple concerts. 80$
That's about $2370 I spent on IP last year.
But I don't watch commercials. So I'm a freeloader. Guess so.
As you can see, I happily pay for content. And I said it before, I'll say it again. If TV wants to go to a paid mode, I'll support it. But I won't feel guilty about skipping their idiotic, insulting commercials. And I won't buy any hardware which enforces some legislature's idea of what I should watch.
So you are using TiVo to bypass the commercials, and then getting pissed off because the law might prevent you from doing that. I mean, would you use that feature for anything else?
You seem to be of the opinion that, because I tap the airwaves, I _must_ watch their commercials. That does not follow. There is no such requirement, either legally or morally.
Sure, the networks have based their businesses on selling airtime to advertisers, but whose fault is that? They have an archaic business plan, one which is going the way of the buggy whip.
TV is, in fact, broken. It is absolutly UNUSABLE without using things like VCRs and TiVos. They'll need to start charging for their content, and I look forward to supporting them with my dollars rather than have to be witness, or avoid, their asenine adverts.
Fuck you. You have no idea.
You accept as your god given right to consume what someone else produces...
No, for fucks sake, no I did not. I never claimed it was my 'right' to consume. All I am bitching about is the government potentially mandating how my hardware functions. If some schmuck wants to broadcast on the public airwaves, and I choose to rig up some hardware to tap into the public airwaves, that is my right. I did not make any 'deal' with the media. They put it up and out, and I tap into it, and the government has no business mandating how my passive hardware functions.
but then staunchly demand you shouldn't have to pay for it.
No, again. I'd GLADLY pay for what I watch, and would pay in cash. WITH PLEASURE. What I WON'T do is sit through a bunch of insulting, mindless, badly produced commercials. That I WILL NOT do, that is TOO HIGH a price to pay for TV, and, like I said, if forced to watch commercials, I would unplug the damned thing.
...attract attention it is an old advertising trick "Tie things to sex and people will pay more attention to it."
Exactly. Like this plainly looks like a uterus to me. But I must be crazy, because no REAL man would have a stylized logo of a uterus on his truck.
You guys voted in these people who had recieved A LOT of campaigning money from large companies
No, I didn't. I voted third-party. I am now suffering from the tyranny of the majority, or at least, the tyranny of the representatives that the majority elected.
Democracy (ok, ok, "Representative Democracy") is overrated. Sure, it's better than most of the other systems, but it still sucks. Ultimatly, in this supposedly enlightened age, people are STILL telling me what to do, when, and how to do it, even when what I want to do (or NOT to do) has no effect on any one else. I don't give a rats ass if it IS the law, or if it IS democracy, or whatever, it is still tyranny to me, me being a sovereign individual.
But then again, we really aren't that evolved as a species or as a society, and these things are to be expected.
Your TiVo doesn't automatically skip commercials, which is what would be disallowed by this law. It's not forcing you to play commercials, or even stopping you from manually skipping them.
Maybe, but the article wasn't clear about that. It said, However, under the proposed law, skipping any commercials or promotional announcements would be prohibited. The article said nothing about whether the skipping was automatic or user-initiated.
The technology certainly is there to prevent us from skipping commercials, for example, on DVDs, the hardware can be prevented from fast forwarding through content they don't want us to skip. I had to assume this was what they wanted to do for future TiVos.