Absolutely. Anyone who doesn't go there in their American made SUVs is clearly a terrorist.
Re:How to make sure your data is not readable
on
Online Revenge
·
· Score: 1
Simply writing several gigabyte files of random data to fill up space should deal with this adequately, especially since the person retriving the data is only going to use standard software tools to get the data off. When the cache fills up the data will be written to disk.
Looking at comments, the main criticisms of the language seem to be:
1. It's made by MS, and MS are inherently evil
2. We like open standards that work cross platform. VB isn't one.
3. We're C programmers (or Java programmers or whatever) and don't know it therefore it must be bad.
4. Early versions of VB were buggy and inconsistent. People believe this to be true of the later version too.
5. experience with lots of bad code written in VB.
6. Technical, well researched reasons that seem minor but actually make the language less practical than other candidates.
Of course, #6 is always legitimate. #2 can be legitimate, but some software doesn't need to switch platform. If it will run on a low power PC running an old version of Windows, and typically there will be a single machine dedicated to running the application, then there's no need to port to a different platform. The others are just FUD and hysteria.
Yes, but I want the highly marketted crap that the record industry tells me I have to have! If I want a Backstreet Boys CD, I'm not going to accept an alternative. It's not the same! It's a different product. The marketting is part of what I'm paying for. It's designed to make me feel good buying the product. As a result, I feel good buying the product. If I switched over to independent music, I'd be changing what I was buying entirely. I might as well switch to buying books. Books are great. I like them more than music. But books and music are not exactly interchangable.
But I'm not confusing the free market with my demands. If it was a free market, we'd see Backstreat Boys with DRM. Backstreat Boys without DRM, Indie Rock with and without DRM, Backstreet Boys songs performed by other artists, and lots more, and then the ones that didn't sell would stop being available. There is clearly a demand for non-DRM mainstream music. Why doesn't the market provide it?
Claiming that the market has decided that DRM is acceptable is not an example of free-market economics. It's a demonstration that people will tolerate a flawed product over no product at all. This is simply a demonstration of the power of a monopoly.
If they waited a year, all that Blu-Ray technology will go down in price, and be more reliable. They'd also have been able to have slightly more powerful graphics chips and CPUs for the same price, and market penetration of HDTV would have been higher, making a high def console more of a must-have.
Presumably they have reasons for the timing they chose. We'll have to see if they were good reasons.
Don't keep bitching about the fucking price because all that shows is that you want the PS3 but are too poor to afford one.
There are other reasons to be concerned about the price.
It's not always that we can't afford them. If other people can't afford them we still have a problem. Nobody is going to write games for it because there's no market. If we want one, its in our interests to see that it's a success.
It may not be the best thing to say, but I find that it will most likely be true when David Reeves, the SCEE CEO said: "We have built up a certain brand equity over time since the launch of PlayStation in 1995 and PS2 in 2000 that the first five million are going to buy it, whatever it is, even it didn't have games".
I think this is a little over optimistic. Wasn't the Playstation the most succesful console in that generation? Even though it was competing with a console from Sega - the company that had the highly succesful Master System and Megadrive uner its belt.
Gamers don't have a lot of brand loyalty. Brand recognition counts for something but unless you have the games for it, and the right price, people are not going to buy it.
Surely the ISP's part of the internet is a private network. They can - should they choose - decide on any arbitrary means to allow other people's packets through. They do already to a minor extent - many of them will block spam. They don't have a two tier internet because until recently there hasn't been any perceived need.
Have you tried to buy non-drm'd chart music? Have you asked Sony to sell it to you? i'm sure they would, at a much higher price.
Do you think they would? I guess I could ask, but I'd imagine other people have in the past. For some reason none seems to be available. I wonder why. There must be a market for it. There is for non-chart stuff after all. Or do you mean in the sense of charging a ludicrously high licencing fee? Because that hardly means there's free competition between DRM and non-DRM formats.
If you want a CD you can play in anything we consider this a larger distribution ring for you to use so we'll charge you 16.
No. They'll charge me 99 cents from iTunes plus any compensation they get from blank CD sales, plus the time taken to burn from iTunes to a CD. I believe iTunes still allows you to copy to CD.
If you want non-drm'd music that you can burn and give(which is essentially selling after all since your friends feel indebted to return the favor later in trade) we will charge you a licensing fee but you can go ahead and burn it.
No... I just want to play it on my mp3 player and my DVD player. Why do you think I want to give copies to my friends? I don't think that would be legal.
But all this is beside the point. What you're describing is an economy where the prices are determined by an organisation that has the power to control the market due to a government monopoly. This is not a free market economy.
Non DRM music does exist, all of you slashdotters just need to start making it more popular.
But it's not the music people want to buy.
As is said hundreds of times a day. VOTE WITH YOUR DOLLAR!
Yeah, because if I decide I want the latest Eminem song, I'll buy something completely different from eMusic.com
Yes, that's because it's their market. They created the content, they can choose how to distribute it.
I never said it wasn't. I just said it wasn't a free market. It's controlled by the record industry. This invalidates the argument that this is just basic free-market economics.
You can buy DRM music or not buy DRM music. You have a choice and know what you are buying.
Yes... That is not a free choice. it is a oimited choice. I cannot buy non-DRM chart music.
Artists can distribute music themselves or through a label. They have a choice.
The labels are a cartel controlling the industry. This is contrary to a free market.
If the artists distribute it themselves, they can protect it with DRM or not protect it with DRM.
Yes... But the artists don't distribute themselves. Furthermore, nobody is allowed to distribute without DRM without their permission which means the market is not free.
4. If the artist goes with a label, the label can choose to protect the music with drm or not protect it with drm
Yes... But nobody is allowed to distribute without DRM without their permission which means the market is not free.
Nowhere is there force and nowhere is there fraud.
But the market is not governed by free choices.
Furthermore, artists don't HAVE to sign with a label. Especially with the Internet, they can distribute music without one. If an artist chooses to sign with a label and the label insists on DRM, that is a choice made in a free market.
It is not a free market. The fact that there is a government granted monopoly prevents this from being the case. The fact that there is a cartel of publishers with effective control over the market also prevents it from being a free market.
YOUR argument is that the market is not free because YOU want to buy/download non-drm music
No it isn't. My argument is that the market is not free because nobody is allowed to sell non-drm copies of many titles.
Clearly, despite DRM's widely discussed inadequacies and regular aggravations, more than a few consumers are willing to put up with it when the price is right. That's just basic free-market economics.
This is not a free market! The record industry controls how music is allowed to be released. They restrict the market. If there was a choice between DRM and non-DRM music, everyone would go for the non-DRM stuff. It would allow them choice over which mp3 player to buy, not restrict them to an arbitrarty number of copies, allow them to play them on many types of DVD player, and give them all the flexibility that CDs give.
Yes, I agree that it would reduce the number of participants. I just disagree with the suggestion that it would eliminate open source. It would certainly eliminate a lot of the smaller vendors, but that would include both open and closed source developers.
When you decide to travel to another country you intrinsically accept to abide by their Rules/Regulations and Laws.
True. But this doesn't stop the regulations and laws from being unfair.
If you can't accept this do NOT travel.
It's the lesser of two evils. Not travelling is more of a problem than giving these details. Giving these details is still a problem.
If the EU does not overturn this Ruling (quite possible) then Europeans will likely have to queue at Embassies Visa section before any travel to the USA is contemplated.
Perhaps. But this will reduce travel to the US considerably. And the impact on terrorism will be negligible.
Take, for example, a completely unregulated developer, outside the U.S., in Finland who decides to create an Operating System called Linux. It strikes me that any regulations here on Operating Systems would prevent many businesses from deploying it, and thus limiting its adoption (particularly on servers) significantly.
In this case, I'd suspect a US company, possibly called RedHat, would audit the source, make sure it complies with the regulations and sell it. The thing a lot of open source advocates seem to forget is that there is a commercial side to open source. Apart from the Linux vendors, many large companies such as IBM and Sun Microsystems use a considerable amount of open source software. Regulation will not keep them out.
Slashdot Mirror
Which means that the original premise is invalid since the legality of one site would have no bearing on the legality of another.
The logic is inconsistent.
The argument was that if google.se is legal under Swedish law, then The Pirate Bay must also be legal.
According to this logic, if google.com is legal under US law, any US torrent hosting site must also be legal.
Is hosting torrent files legal in the US then?
Seriously - of course the pirate bay will rise again - what they were doing was not illegal under Swedish law.
What makes you believe this?
Absolutely. Anyone who doesn't go there in their American made SUVs is clearly a terrorist.
Simply writing several gigabyte files of random data to fill up space should deal with this adequately, especially since the person retriving the data is only going to use standard software tools to get the data off. When the cache fills up the data will be written to disk.
Looking at comments, the main criticisms of the language seem to be:
1. It's made by MS, and MS are inherently evil
2. We like open standards that work cross platform. VB isn't one.
3. We're C programmers (or Java programmers or whatever) and don't know it therefore it must be bad.
4. Early versions of VB were buggy and inconsistent. People believe this to be true of the later version too.
5. experience with lots of bad code written in VB.
6. Technical, well researched reasons that seem minor but actually make the language less practical than other candidates.
Of course, #6 is always legitimate. #2 can be legitimate, but some software doesn't need to switch platform. If it will run on a low power PC running an old version of Windows, and typically there will be a single machine dedicated to running the application, then there's no need to port to a different platform. The others are just FUD and hysteria.
Isn't this one of those bad ideas? Joel Spolsky seems to think so, and while he isn't an oracle, his opinion is worth something.
Suggest not rewriting the software and simply going through and improving where needed.
Yes, but I want the highly marketted crap that the record industry tells me I have to have! If I want a Backstreet Boys CD, I'm not going to accept an alternative. It's not the same! It's a different product. The marketting is part of what I'm paying for. It's designed to make me feel good buying the product. As a result, I feel good buying the product. If I switched over to independent music, I'd be changing what I was buying entirely. I might as well switch to buying books. Books are great. I like them more than music. But books and music are not exactly interchangable.
But I'm not confusing the free market with my demands. If it was a free market, we'd see Backstreat Boys with DRM. Backstreat Boys without DRM, Indie Rock with and without DRM, Backstreet Boys songs performed by other artists, and lots more, and then the ones that didn't sell would stop being available. There is clearly a demand for non-DRM mainstream music. Why doesn't the market provide it?
Claiming that the market has decided that DRM is acceptable is not an example of free-market economics. It's a demonstration that people will tolerate a flawed product over no product at all. This is simply a demonstration of the power of a monopoly.
If they waited a year, all that Blu-Ray technology will go down in price, and be more reliable. They'd also have been able to have slightly more powerful graphics chips and CPUs for the same price, and market penetration of HDTV would have been higher, making a high def console more of a must-have.
Presumably they have reasons for the timing they chose. We'll have to see if they were good reasons.
Don't keep bitching about the fucking price because all that shows is that you want the PS3 but are too poor to afford one.
There are other reasons to be concerned about the price.
It's not always that we can't afford them. If other people can't afford them we still have a problem. Nobody is going to write games for it because there's no market. If we want one, its in our interests to see that it's a success.
It may not be the best thing to say, but I find that it will most likely be true when David Reeves, the SCEE CEO said: "We have built up a certain brand equity over time since the launch of PlayStation in 1995 and PS2 in 2000 that the first five million are going to buy it, whatever it is, even it didn't have games".
I think this is a little over optimistic. Wasn't the Playstation the most succesful console in that generation? Even though it was competing with a console from Sega - the company that had the highly succesful Master System and Megadrive uner its belt.
Gamers don't have a lot of brand loyalty. Brand recognition counts for something but unless you have the games for it, and the right price, people are not going to buy it.
Surely the ISP's part of the internet is a private network. They can - should they choose - decide on any arbitrary means to allow other people's packets through. They do already to a minor extent - many of them will block spam. They don't have a two tier internet because until recently there hasn't been any perceived need.
Have you tried to buy non-drm'd chart music? Have you asked Sony to sell it to you? i'm sure they would, at a much higher price.
Do you think they would? I guess I could ask, but I'd imagine other people have in the past. For some reason none seems to be available. I wonder why. There must be a market for it. There is for non-chart stuff after all. Or do you mean in the sense of charging a ludicrously high licencing fee? Because that hardly means there's free competition between DRM and non-DRM formats.
If you want a CD you can play in anything we consider this a larger distribution ring for you to use so we'll charge you 16.
No. They'll charge me 99 cents from iTunes plus any compensation they get from blank CD sales, plus the time taken to burn from iTunes to a CD. I believe iTunes still allows you to copy to CD.
If you want non-drm'd music that you can burn and give(which is essentially selling after all since your friends feel indebted to return the favor later in trade) we will charge you a licensing fee but you can go ahead and burn it.
No... I just want to play it on my mp3 player and my DVD player. Why do you think I want to give copies to my friends? I don't think that would be legal.
But all this is beside the point. What you're describing is an economy where the prices are determined by an organisation that has the power to control the market due to a government monopoly. This is not a free market economy.
Non DRM music does exist, all of you slashdotters just need to start making it more popular.
But it's not the music people want to buy.
As is said hundreds of times a day. VOTE WITH YOUR DOLLAR!
Yeah, because if I decide I want the latest Eminem song, I'll buy something completely different from eMusic.com
Yes, that's because it's their market. They created the content, they can choose how to distribute it.
I never said it wasn't. I just said it wasn't a free market. It's controlled by the record industry. This invalidates the argument that this is just basic free-market economics.
You can buy DRM music or not buy DRM music. You have a choice and know what you are buying.
Yes... That is not a free choice. it is a oimited choice. I cannot buy non-DRM chart music.
Artists can distribute music themselves or through a label. They have a choice.
The labels are a cartel controlling the industry. This is contrary to a free market.
If the artists distribute it themselves, they can protect it with DRM or not protect it with DRM.
Yes... But the artists don't distribute themselves. Furthermore, nobody is allowed to distribute without DRM without their permission which means the market is not free.
4. If the artist goes with a label, the label can choose to protect the music with drm or not protect it with drm
Yes... But nobody is allowed to distribute without DRM without their permission which means the market is not free.
Nowhere is there force and nowhere is there fraud.
But the market is not governed by free choices.
Furthermore, artists don't HAVE to sign with a label. Especially with the Internet, they can distribute music without one. If an artist chooses to sign with a label and the label insists on DRM, that is a choice made in a free market.
It is not a free market. The fact that there is a government granted monopoly prevents this from being the case. The fact that there is a cartel of publishers with effective control over the market also prevents it from being a free market.
YOUR argument is that the market is not free because YOU want to buy/download non-drm music
No it isn't. My argument is that the market is not free because nobody is allowed to sell non-drm copies of many titles.
Clearly, despite DRM's widely discussed inadequacies and regular aggravations, more than a few consumers are willing to put up with it when the price is right. That's just basic free-market economics.
This is not a free market! The record industry controls how music is allowed to be released. They restrict the market. If there was a choice between DRM and non-DRM music, everyone would go for the non-DRM stuff. It would allow them choice over which mp3 player to buy, not restrict them to an arbitrarty number of copies, allow them to play them on many types of DVD player, and give them all the flexibility that CDs give.
Would anyone really consider educational software that starts by butchering the language with an ugly marketing hybrid word like "edutainment"?
Nonono, officer.... I recorded it off television... I just haven't quite got round to taping over it yet.
1. I'd quite like a legal version with decent quality
2. I'd like for everyone else to see it as well.
Yes, I agree that it would reduce the number of participants. I just disagree with the suggestion that it would eliminate open source. It would certainly eliminate a lot of the smaller vendors, but that would include both open and closed source developers.
I'd like to see the Channel 4 (UK) made documentary from years back? It was really rather good and I still have it on VHS.
When you decide to travel to another country you intrinsically accept to abide by their Rules/Regulations and Laws.
True. But this doesn't stop the regulations and laws from being unfair.
If you can't accept this do NOT travel.
It's the lesser of two evils. Not travelling is more of a problem than giving these details. Giving these details is still a problem.
If the EU does not overturn this Ruling (quite possible) then Europeans will likely have to queue at Embassies Visa section before any travel to the USA is contemplated.
Perhaps. But this will reduce travel to the US considerably. And the impact on terrorism will be negligible.
Take, for example, a completely unregulated developer, outside the U.S., in Finland who decides to create an Operating System called Linux. It strikes me that any regulations here on Operating Systems would prevent many businesses from deploying it, and thus limiting its adoption (particularly on servers) significantly.
In this case, I'd suspect a US company, possibly called RedHat, would audit the source, make sure it complies with the regulations and sell it. The thing a lot of open source advocates seem to forget is that there is a commercial side to open source. Apart from the Linux vendors, many large companies such as IBM and Sun Microsystems use a considerable amount of open source software. Regulation will not keep them out.
Ov corse people can't spell. The skools ar taking all there time spying on students and not enuff time teeching.