Basically if you have the option of only picking the stations you want to watch, many good networks are going to disappear because people dont routinely watch them, and only watch them when they have specials on.
You misunderstand. It's not going to be what stations you watch, but rather what stations you pay for.
If i were to ask you to list all the channels you would pay for, would you forget one that you like but only occasionally watch?
Not if I can get flags for TV shows, actors, wrtiers, and production houses.
"SciFi, The History Channel, Comedy Central, Cartoon Network, a news channel or two, and the channels that show Enterprise, Smallville, and whatever Joss Whedon does next" should be a valid choice.
If Mr Bozell wasn't such an ignorant jerk he'd know that Hugh Hefner is anything but a sleazy pornographer
Correction. Hugh Hefner is "more than just a sleazy pornographer." He is very much a sleazy pornographer, it's just that he and the other guy (The one played by Woody Harelson in that movie...) did it and successfully argued that they had a RIGHT to be sleazy bastards.
Oh, and it isn't all right to "shun marriage, kids, and the picket fence." It's possible to be happy and "normal" without them, but it's just plain assholish to be sexually active while SHUNING family and children.
And, while I repsect your right to not want children or a family, if you're having sex with someone and NOT thinking that you're in a relationship, you deserve every STD out there, plain and simple.
That's impossible. A strong password is one for which there is no shortcut to brute force attacks. Once compromised, a password is no longer strong, even if it's immune to dictionary attacks.
Which is why a tech should be forced to vett password changes. Thirty minutes checking some websites in the user's history (and that respond to a search for the user's name) for the password should be enough to see if he uses it.
(Oh, and there's always a shortcut to brute force attacks--kidnap the user and beat or bribe the password out of them.;) )
Meanwhile, a fission plant requires active control to suppress the reaction from getting out of control. In other words, a fusion plant cannot experience a runaway reaction; it is "fail-safe".
Note that not all fission plants can meltdown. "Pellet based" reactors simply stop working if you remove the water, for example.
Why should everyone have to be assigned a password just because some lady can't make up her mind?
Because the best passwords are Strong Passwords, and if you leave it up to people to choose strong passwords, THEY WON'T!
And just because you're assigned a password doesn't mean you have to keep it. You can always get your password changed, just come up with a Strong Password and get the techs to vett it as strong.
The problem isn't with passwords. The problem is with the 40 year old women in the office who use their kids names over and over with different numbers at the end of the password
(Why the slam on 40 year olds?)
Anyway. The problem is with passwords--the fact that you're forcing someone who really doesn't want to and shouldn't be made to into picking a password. You should just randomly assign one, give it to the person, and tell them that this is THEIR password until it gets compromised.
The 40-year old woman remembers her PIN, her SSN, and her street address. She can remember a "Strong Passsword"--she just can't choose one.
What you are thinking of (customer loyalty, PR value, etc) is calculated, and has nothing to do with altruism.
You're a classic half-empty-glass cynic.
Enlightened self-interest is still "enlightened." By and large, companies that are "good corporate citizens" calculate on the macroeconomic level, and let their rank-and-file be geniunely altruistic.
If it were not for the altruism of companies, the United Way would not exist--and my employer not only exists, they compete in a relatively lucrative field.
This series jumped the shark on the pilot episode.
*sigh*
Let me say this again--you probably missed the last four or five times I said it on/.
Enterprise is NOT a prequel to the other four Treks. It's the series that is latest in the timeline, we're just seeing it from a faulty perspective. The Federation won, conquered every threat they had, and achieved time travel--and we're seeing their latest conflict from a POV that we can better emphasize with.
I can sum up the current conflict for you, with oodles of spoilers, and you can tell me how creative you think it is.
A race of aliens, similiar to the wormhole entities of DS9, are using a network of spheres to alter our reality. The far-future Federation was more than capable of defeating these aliens, so the aliens have convinced a five-species "race" known as the Xindi that Earth is a threat, so that the Federation can be undone by a historical cascade.
To counter the Xindi, the temporal Federation alters the timeline by having the NX-01 not be destroyed, but rather explore the galaxy earlier than had otherwise happened.
As for your other complaints--Romulan Cloaking Devices have, IIRC, always existed as far as the canon cares (a few novels notwithstanding), the Klingons have always looked they way they look (a non-canon explanation from Star Fleet Battles is that the Klingons TV-Kirk fought were human/klingon hybrids), and the Borg were logical effects of the assault from First Contact.
Time Travel isn't an afterthought for Enterprise or a gimick. It's essential to the metaplot of the series, and it's easily as creative as TNG, DS9, or Voyager. (Moreso, even, considering that no one else has ever done quite this setup on TV.)
I mean, heck, they have the guy from Quantum Leap as captain--you don't think that's a little bit of a clue that time travel is important to the show?
God, no. I think I'd rather let my pathetic native-blood hampered facial hair grow out than shave with a @%!$#!#ing four-bladed razor. Tossed my disposable for an electric razor, and haven't looked back.
(And I'm certainly not "gellin." Feet were made to adapt to harsh terrain, darnit!)
If that sounds cynical, I'm sorry. But it's true: corporations work for profit, and as far as I can see the only reason a corporation would want to recycle PCs is to get new ones out on the market. NO OTHER REASON.
"wrong."
Every manager worth my salary (which is really setting the bar low) knows the axiom "it takes a lifetime to win a customer, a second to lose one." By doing things that are altruistic and aware of what their customers value, corporations can avoid protests and boycotts--and even "I'll go with your competitor, they anger me less."
There is a certain dollar cost that we subconciously attribute to our values, and if a corportation offends our values, we'll look for an alternative whose cost of switching is less than the cost of our values.
A great theoretical example of this is cars. Many imports sell for about $2,000 less than American cars--but the American cars still sell, because "buy American" has a value cost of more than $2,000 for a lot of people. (Not to mention a slew of other reasons that I'm purposefully glossing over.)
They don't make money NOW, with the prototype. They expect to in the future, once they scale.
Your quote, with a different emphasis.
Is moneythe plant economically viable? The plant is still in the startup phase, but we expect to meet our revenue projections when the plant is operating at capacity. We are counting on legislative assistance in the form of production tax credits, which stimulated other new technology innovation such as wind power. In addition, looking forward, the next generation of plants will be larger, giving us economies of scale and other economic enefits.
usually software EULAs are (as the name suggests) usage licenses - as opposed to distribution licenses like the GPL - and have nothing to do with copyright and everything with contract law.
Nope. They both alter the default allocation of rights ("you can't copy or distribute this copywritten work") to achieve a new distrubtion of rights ("You can copy this work if you pay me money and don't give it to anyone else"), which uses contract law--but it's based on copyright law.
Or, in geek-speak: The EULA program works using the CONTRACT language on top of the COPYRIGHT layer.
And remember, copyright does not come into play on this as contract law (ie the agreement between you and Apple governing your purchase of songs) supersedes copyright law in this case.
Nope. (IANAL-RU?)
the iTunes EULA--heck, every EULA from MS Windows to Kazaa to the GPL--relies upon copyright law as its foundation. The license is "merely" a means whereby the rights-holder agrees to let others make copies in exchange for something--be it "share and share alike" or simply money in their pocket.
If you violate the iTunes EULA, you might render the contract void--which means that you have to delete and destroy your copies of the songs, and Apple owes you refunds for them, and one or the other of you owes the other some renumeration for breach of contract.
Finally, I agree with previous posters- an Open Source website is no place to ask random support questions for a closed source OS./. is a geek news site. Not a F/OSS site.
And we have people who check stories for appropriateness for the site. They're called editors, and they all work with (or are) the folks who originally made the site.
Why would producers of legitimate software, e.g. Kazaa, Weatherbug, etc. bundle their stuff with known spamware, ad-serving crap, and general spyware bullshit?
Because they're not legitimate software, of course.
Kazaa, for example, makes a dubiously legal P2P app that it distribute(d) for the express purpose of getting a free-to-use grid to run various programs on.
And, unfortuantely, it'll be awhile before the Flynn effect makes all of us smart enough not to use spyware.
In such a vast network of billions upon billions of bits, all interconnected, would we see an AI emerge such as Jane in Orson Scott Card's Ender Series?
No.
What we would need for accidental AI evolution is a sufficiently large system with not only billions and billions of bits, but the ability for each individual node in that system to modify the nodes around it.
The internet will actually be useful for EVERYTHING far before it ever sprouts an AI.
The cool thing is that the STi is about $32k. Add $3600 for a new engine, about $1200 for a larger turbo, and some more money for engine management, and you're suddenly much faster than a Z06 (until it gets its own upgrades).
I wouldn't be too sure about that. Oh, I'm ready to admit the possibility, but until we see some real numbers (accelleartion, top speed, etc.), I wouldn't put any money down.
Of course, building that STi and running it on the drag strip would be a sin - these cars are built for chewing through dirt tracks that tend to eat cars for lunch. There's something cool about races like the Dakar Rally, where even finishing is an achievement.
There is. But I wouldn't race a sports car on them. Maybe an SUV or a rebuilt sports car with a higher suspension, but definitly not a sports car designed as a sports car. The nature of Dakar is such that it really is an SUV race, not a sports-car or speed race.
It's cheaper to keep your car for 10 years (or more) than it is to get a new one every two.
Yes, it is. But if you're not satisfied with your current car, "trading it in" is perfectly acceptable.
If you were really dead-set on saving money, you'd buy low mileage used cars and keep them maintained yourself. Most people don't have the facilities or the time to do that, though.
Yes, that's not something to sneeze at. It's a car designed to be sporty by the professionals.
However, I wouldn't put it against a Chevrolet Corvette Z06 with a similar ammount of adjustments. Well, maybe for the quarter mile--but not much after that.
He said that there would be a diesel version in two years, and he was going to buy that one because he could save money on gas. It was incredibly difficult to not just start laughing at him.
You obviously have no idea how car sales work.
Two years is about the average time for a lease--and if he purchased the Hummer right, he'll have paid no more than a lesee after the two years. He can give the non-disel Hummer to the dealer, spend only about two more years of payments, and get a great fuel cost reduction--oh, and two more years of warranty et al.
Pray [to] god you never run into a tweaked out Subaru (or even a Honda). Your 5.0 is 20 years old - a lot has happened in the meantime.
Such as stickers that add horsepower?;)
There hasn't been THAT much change in the last twenty years. "Ricers" are a phenomenon that didn't exist up in the 80s, but by and large the additional performance isn't enough to close the gap between a commuter car and a sports car designed to be a sports car.
If you really want speed, the places to go are European sports races, professional (certified) drag races, and world speed record tests.
As others said: spend the same ammount of money on the Mustang, and you'll spank any upgraded commuter car.
When I was a kid I lived near one of Toyota's factories, and the same transportation fees applied at the nearby dealership than at the one near me here in Los Angeles.
Did you buy a car from THAT factory, though?
And did you actually compare rates? Remember that if the dealer's close enough to get its car via truck (rather than ship-then-truck), the only differnece in transportation will be the actual mileage it takes to drive the longer distance.
I assume you're talking about laws denying minorities their basic human rights (like slavery). In that case I'd say that they are unfortunate examples of un-democratic actions taken by a democratic government due to the fallibilities of human nature.
You'd be wrong.
Democracy IS rule by the majority. The only thing that keeps it from being a tyranny of the majority--which would still be preferable to anarchy--is a dedication to liberty and equality.
I am discussing an abstract. It would require godlike powers of persuasion to achieve a sufficient majority to roll back anyone's civil rights--but if said godlike politician were to appear and were to achieve the necessary will, then it would be undemocratic to deny it outright. (The checks against tyranny of the majority, btw, are the extreme majority necessary to chagne some laws, such as amending the constitution or overriding a veto.)
Oh, and for what it's worth, I do not find gays marring to be offensive. It really doesn't matter to me if they call it a marriage or not, though if it were up to me I would call it a "civil union." (What offends me is the state of uncertainty and promiscuity that those who are in homosexual relationships are forced to endure.)
Slashdot Mirror
Basically if you have the option of only picking the stations you want to watch, many good networks are going to disappear because people dont routinely watch them, and only watch them when they have specials on.
You misunderstand. It's not going to be what stations you watch, but rather what stations you pay for.
If i were to ask you to list all the channels you would pay for, would you forget one that you like but only occasionally watch?
Not if I can get flags for TV shows, actors, wrtiers, and production houses.
"SciFi, The History Channel, Comedy Central, Cartoon Network, a news channel or two, and the channels that show Enterprise, Smallville, and whatever Joss Whedon does next" should be a valid choice.
If Mr Bozell wasn't such an ignorant jerk he'd know that Hugh Hefner is anything but a sleazy pornographer
Correction. Hugh Hefner is "more than just a sleazy pornographer." He is very much a sleazy pornographer, it's just that he and the other guy (The one played by Woody Harelson in that movie...) did it and successfully argued that they had a RIGHT to be sleazy bastards.
Oh, and it isn't all right to "shun marriage, kids, and the picket fence." It's possible to be happy and "normal" without them, but it's just plain assholish to be sexually active while SHUNING family and children.
And, while I repsect your right to not want children or a family, if you're having sex with someone and NOT thinking that you're in a relationship, you deserve every STD out there, plain and simple.
That's impossible. A strong password is one for which there is no shortcut to brute force attacks. Once compromised, a password is no longer strong, even if it's immune to dictionary attacks.
;) )
Which is why a tech should be forced to vett password changes. Thirty minutes checking some websites in the user's history (and that respond to a search for the user's name) for the password should be enough to see if he uses it.
(Oh, and there's always a shortcut to brute force attacks--kidnap the user and beat or bribe the password out of them.
Meanwhile, a fission plant requires active control to suppress the reaction from getting out of control. In other words, a fusion plant cannot experience a runaway reaction; it is "fail-safe".
Note that not all fission plants can meltdown. "Pellet based" reactors simply stop working if you remove the water, for example.
Why should everyone have to be assigned a password just because some lady can't make up her mind?
Because the best passwords are Strong Passwords, and if you leave it up to people to choose strong passwords, THEY WON'T!
And just because you're assigned a password doesn't mean you have to keep it. You can always get your password changed, just come up with a Strong Password and get the techs to vett it as strong.
The problem isn't with passwords. The problem is with the 40 year old women in the office who use their kids names over and over with different numbers at the end of the password
(Why the slam on 40 year olds?)
Anyway. The problem is with passwords--the fact that you're forcing someone who really doesn't want to and shouldn't be made to into picking a password. You should just randomly assign one, give it to the person, and tell them that this is THEIR password until it gets compromised.
The 40-year old woman remembers her PIN, her SSN, and her street address. She can remember a "Strong Passsword"--she just can't choose one.
What you are thinking of (customer loyalty, PR value, etc) is calculated, and has nothing to do with altruism.
You're a classic half-empty-glass cynic.
Enlightened self-interest is still "enlightened." By and large, companies that are "good corporate citizens" calculate on the macroeconomic level, and let their rank-and-file be geniunely altruistic.
If it were not for the altruism of companies, the United Way would not exist--and my employer not only exists, they compete in a relatively lucrative field.
This series jumped the shark on the pilot episode.
/.
*sigh*
Let me say this again--you probably missed the last four or five times I said it on
Enterprise is NOT a prequel to the other four Treks. It's the series that is latest in the timeline, we're just seeing it from a faulty perspective. The Federation won, conquered every threat they had, and achieved time travel--and we're seeing their latest conflict from a POV that we can better emphasize with.
I can sum up the current conflict for you, with oodles of spoilers, and you can tell me how creative you think it is.
A race of aliens, similiar to the wormhole entities of DS9, are using a network of spheres to alter our reality. The far-future Federation was more than capable of defeating these aliens, so the aliens have convinced a five-species "race" known as the Xindi that Earth is a threat, so that the Federation can be undone by a historical cascade.
To counter the Xindi, the temporal Federation alters the timeline by having the NX-01 not be destroyed, but rather explore the galaxy earlier than had otherwise happened.
As for your other complaints--Romulan Cloaking Devices have, IIRC, always existed as far as the canon cares (a few novels notwithstanding), the Klingons have always looked they way they look (a non-canon explanation from Star Fleet Battles is that the Klingons TV-Kirk fought were human/klingon hybrids), and the Borg were logical effects of the assault from First Contact.
Time Travel isn't an afterthought for Enterprise or a gimick. It's essential to the metaplot of the series, and it's easily as creative as TNG, DS9, or Voyager. (Moreso, even, considering that no one else has ever done quite this setup on TV.)
I mean, heck, they have the guy from Quantum Leap as captain--you don't think that's a little bit of a clue that time travel is important to the show?
God, no. I think I'd rather let my pathetic native-blood hampered facial hair grow out than shave with a @%!$#!#ing four-bladed razor. Tossed my disposable for an electric razor, and haven't looked back.
(And I'm certainly not "gellin." Feet were made to adapt to harsh terrain, darnit!)
If that sounds cynical, I'm sorry. But it's true: corporations work for profit, and as far as I can see the only reason a corporation would want to recycle PCs is to get new ones out on the market. NO OTHER REASON.
"wrong."
Every manager worth my salary (which is really setting the bar low) knows the axiom "it takes a lifetime to win a customer, a second to lose one." By doing things that are altruistic and aware of what their customers value, corporations can avoid protests and boycotts--and even "I'll go with your competitor, they anger me less."
There is a certain dollar cost that we subconciously attribute to our values, and if a corportation offends our values, we'll look for an alternative whose cost of switching is less than the cost of our values.
A great theoretical example of this is cars. Many imports sell for about $2,000 less than American cars--but the American cars still sell, because "buy American" has a value cost of more than $2,000 for a lot of people. (Not to mention a slew of other reasons that I'm purposefully glossing over.)
Your quote, with a different emphasis.
usually software EULAs are (as the name suggests) usage licenses - as opposed to distribution licenses like the GPL - and have nothing to do with copyright and everything with contract law.
Nope. They both alter the default allocation of rights ("you can't copy or distribute this copywritten work") to achieve a new distrubtion of rights ("You can copy this work if you pay me money and don't give it to anyone else"), which uses contract law--but it's based on copyright law.
Or, in geek-speak: The EULA program works using the CONTRACT language on top of the COPYRIGHT layer.
And remember, copyright does not come into play on this as contract law (ie the agreement between you and Apple governing your purchase of songs) supersedes copyright law in this case.
Nope. (IANAL-RU?)
the iTunes EULA--heck, every EULA from MS Windows to Kazaa to the GPL--relies upon copyright law as its foundation. The license is "merely" a means whereby the rights-holder agrees to let others make copies in exchange for something--be it "share and share alike" or simply money in their pocket.
If you violate the iTunes EULA, you might render the contract void--which means that you have to delete and destroy your copies of the songs, and Apple owes you refunds for them, and one or the other of you owes the other some renumeration for breach of contract.
Finally, I agree with previous posters- an Open Source website is no place to ask random support questions for a closed source OS. /. is a geek news site. Not a F/OSS site.
And we have people who check stories for appropriateness for the site. They're called editors, and they all work with (or are) the folks who originally made the site.
Why would producers of legitimate software, e.g. Kazaa, Weatherbug, etc. bundle their stuff with known spamware, ad-serving crap, and general spyware bullshit?
Because they're not legitimate software, of course.
Kazaa, for example, makes a dubiously legal P2P app that it distribute(d) for the express purpose of getting a free-to-use grid to run various programs on.
And, unfortuantely, it'll be awhile before the Flynn effect makes all of us smart enough not to use spyware.
In such a vast network of billions upon billions of bits, all interconnected, would we see an AI emerge such as Jane in Orson Scott Card's Ender Series?
No.
What we would need for accidental AI evolution is a sufficiently large system with not only billions and billions of bits, but the ability for each individual node in that system to modify the nodes around it.
The internet will actually be useful for EVERYTHING far before it ever sprouts an AI.
The cool thing is that the STi is about $32k. Add $3600 for a new engine, about $1200 for a larger turbo, and some more money for engine management, and you're suddenly much faster than a Z06 (until it gets its own upgrades).
I wouldn't be too sure about that. Oh, I'm ready to admit the possibility, but until we see some real numbers (accelleartion, top speed, etc.), I wouldn't put any money down.
Of course, building that STi and running it on the drag strip would be a sin - these cars are built for chewing through dirt tracks that tend to eat cars for lunch. There's something cool about races like the Dakar Rally, where even finishing is an achievement.
There is. But I wouldn't race a sports car on them. Maybe an SUV or a rebuilt sports car with a higher suspension, but definitly not a sports car designed as a sports car. The nature of Dakar is such that it really is an SUV race, not a sports-car or speed race.
It's cheaper to keep your car for 10 years (or more) than it is to get a new one every two.
Yes, it is. But if you're not satisfied with your current car, "trading it in" is perfectly acceptable.
If you were really dead-set on saving money, you'd buy low mileage used cars and keep them maintained yourself. Most people don't have the facilities or the time to do that, though.
You mean a Subaru WRX STI SEDAN, built up from an additional 150 horsepower?
Yes, that's not something to sneeze at. It's a car designed to be sporty by the professionals.
However, I wouldn't put it against a Chevrolet Corvette Z06 with a similar ammount of adjustments. Well, maybe for the quarter mile--but not much after that.
He said that there would be a diesel version in two years, and he was going to buy that one because he could save money on gas. It was incredibly difficult to not just start laughing at him.
You obviously have no idea how car sales work.
Two years is about the average time for a lease--and if he purchased the Hummer right, he'll have paid no more than a lesee after the two years. He can give the non-disel Hummer to the dealer, spend only about two more years of payments, and get a great fuel cost reduction--oh, and two more years of warranty et al.
Pray [to] god you never run into a tweaked out Subaru (or even a Honda). Your 5.0 is 20 years old - a lot has happened in the meantime.
;)
Such as stickers that add horsepower?
There hasn't been THAT much change in the last twenty years. "Ricers" are a phenomenon that didn't exist up in the 80s, but by and large the additional performance isn't enough to close the gap between a commuter car and a sports car designed to be a sports car.
If you really want speed, the places to go are European sports races, professional (certified) drag races, and world speed record tests.
As others said: spend the same ammount of money on the Mustang, and you'll spank any upgraded commuter car.
When I was a kid I lived near one of Toyota's factories, and the same transportation fees applied at the nearby dealership than at the one near me here in Los Angeles.
Did you buy a car from THAT factory, though?
And did you actually compare rates? Remember that if the dealer's close enough to get its car via truck (rather than ship-then-truck), the only differnece in transportation will be the actual mileage it takes to drive the longer distance.
woo hoo! We have safe power! :)
I assume you're talking about laws denying minorities their basic human rights (like slavery). In that case I'd say that they are unfortunate examples of un-democratic actions taken by a democratic government due to the fallibilities of human nature.
You'd be wrong.
Democracy IS rule by the majority. The only thing that keeps it from being a tyranny of the majority--which would still be preferable to anarchy--is a dedication to liberty and equality.
I am discussing an abstract. It would require godlike powers of persuasion to achieve a sufficient majority to roll back anyone's civil rights--but if said godlike politician were to appear and were to achieve the necessary will, then it would be undemocratic to deny it outright. (The checks against tyranny of the majority, btw, are the extreme majority necessary to chagne some laws, such as amending the constitution or overriding a veto.)
Oh, and for what it's worth, I do not find gays marring to be offensive. It really doesn't matter to me if they call it a marriage or not, though if it were up to me I would call it a "civil union." (What offends me is the state of uncertainty and promiscuity that those who are in homosexual relationships are forced to endure.)
To compare it to women's suffrage, what if women were granted the ability to "select" but not to "vote"?
If they counted the same, no one would care.