But GNOME Shell already broke minimize when they removed the taskbar. Now, minimized windows just vanish, and it's not at all obvious how to get them back. Given that minimize doesn't make sense with GNOME Shell's model, removing the minimize button is, precisely, fixing something that's broken.
I would think only the first of these would be particularly controversial. Jake Lloyd was an averagely annoying child-actor, while Hayden Christensen was a complete black-whole of charisma, removing any possibility of drama from any scene he was in; this explains the third and fourth point, too, although I think the script has to take a fair amount of blame for them, too ("You're smooth, not like sand").
The British ratings body, the BBFC, doesn't quite take the quantitative approach you suggest here, but it does provide quite detailed breakdowns of the elements that led to a particular classification for a given work. I'm surprised the MPAA doesn't do something similar.
Does Nokia rely on their platform for their market share, though? Do people really buy Nokia phones because of Symbian or, even more so, because of whatever Nokia's feature-phone platform is called? Nokia's market share, I think, is largely due to their reputation for well-designed phones (a reputation they've been squandering for years), not because of their platform.
They're not doing either of those things, though. They're using their own window manager and panel program by default, instead of the new GNOME window manager and panel program, and they're thinking about maybe moving to a new display backend which is being developed by a number of prominent X developers and is supported by other major Linux distributions, at some point in the future (at which point it will still include an X compatibility layer).
The intent is clearly to make stuff up about Tolkien and give the impression that at least some of it is "historical."
I don't see where you get that from. Obviously, some of what the book includes will be historical; there'd be no point including Tolkien as a character if the character didn't have some things in common with the real Tolkien. But I don't see anything about the book that depends on the reader believing any of the specific events narrated in the book are real. In most historical fiction, the general setting is real, but the specific events (with the occasional exception of particularly famous historical events) in the work are not, so I think most readers of this novel would assume the same is true in this case.
The right way to do that is in an essay, actually critiquing "the (perceived) lack of female characters in Tolkien's works" not by making things up about the person.
Why? Why isn't fiction a legitimate way to explore real issues and put forward a critique? Should Tolkein have written an essay critiquing historical developments since the middle ages, rather than writing the Lord of the Rings?
Mixing fact and fiction is quaintly known in civilized societies as lying.
I'm not sure if you're joking; your argument would make all fiction mere "lying," because all fiction "mixes fact and fiction." Most fiction involves real places, and almost all involves a real species, i.e., human beings. A huge amount of fiction involves real people in one way or another, too, so readers will be familiar with the idea that claims made about real people in a work of fiction may not be true. It's only lying if you say things that are untrue with the intent that someone reading them believes them to be true, and that will not be true of anything which specifically calls itself "fiction."
Does online voting necessarily preclude a paper trail, or is there an electronic equivalent of a paper trail? What you want is something independent of the vote counting machines, which can be reasonably secured to prevent tampering, can be used at a later date to perform a recount if necessary, and which doesn't allow anyone to prove which way an individual voted (in order to ensure the secrecy of the ballot). I don't think you can do this with paper with an online ballot; you can't, for example, have people print out a record of their vote, unless you figure out a way in which a) the validity of these paper records can be validated in the case of a recount and b) individuals can verify that the paper record accurately reflects their vote, without allowing this record to be used to prove to a third-party that they voted in a particular way. I can't think of any way to do these two things, but perhaps there is some sort of cryptographic magic that could be used.
I'm not sure about Netflix, but the DRM that Hulu and BBC's iPlayer use, RTMPE, was broken a long time ago. However, while it's possible to find programs for saving the streams from these services, but there don't seem to be widely distributed, user friendly programs to do so. I don't see why the situation would necessarily be any different if there were no DRM at all. People seem sufficiently happy with the service Hulu and iPlayer provide that they're not going to the trouble of downloading software to get round the services terms and conditions.
It paid homage to the pages but it really did not translate well
Indeed - and, in a way, that ends up making the "homage" more of a caricature. There are a number of shots in the film that look exactly like panels in the comic, but that just shows that Zack Snyder doesn't understand films or comics. Panels in a comic work aren't just static images to be enjoyed in isolation, but work in part because of the pacing that is set up by the relationship between different panels. Likewise, images in films work through the relationship between the movement of the image and the action they convey. Snyder's obsession with the visuals of the comic prevented him from seeing how those images worked in the context of the comic, and prevented him from making a film that worked as a film.
So, this guy wants to run a program on an untrusted machine, which will report back to a website on whether or not the machine should be trusted? Presumably he also thinks banks should employ people to stand at the front door and ask "are you a bankrobber?" rather than employing security guards.
I agree with you that there are leftist libertarians, indeed the term "libertarian" was originally a synonym for anarchist, and anarchism is a branch of socialism. But these left libertarians didn't have much influence on today's American libertarians. Left libertarians would be people like Bakunin or, today, Chomsky, who have had little influence on contemporary American libertarians; today's American libertarians are much more influenced by the classical liberal tradition descending from people like Locke. Some libertarians do draw on the American anarchist tradition of people like Tucker and Spooner, who considered themselves leftist and socialist, but even these were on the right wing of anarchism globally speaking.
I think this is related to the way in which brands don't just sell us products, they sell us identities. So the underlying worry is that, if our consumption habits are really just data that marketers can aggregate, then the brand of jeans we buy and the music we listen to and the films we watch don't actually make us the special snowflake we would like to imagine.
Without autorun at least you have the option to look at the disk before it blindly runs whatever is on there.
But this article is about exploiting bugs in the file manager, that is, the software that you would probably use to "look at the disk." It's not really about autorun at all - the same vulnerabilities would occur if you manually mounted the USB disk and manually opened the file manager.
If you want that type of reciprocation, you use CC-BY-SA. If you don't want that type of reciprocation, you use CC-BY.
As I understand it, the "share-alike" clause only applies to derivative works. Does combining a photo with a text story make the whole thing a "derivative work" of the photo? I'm not sure, although a quick look at Wikipedia suggests it might do.
Statutory damages, probably. "The basic level of damages is between $750 and $30,000 per work," but "statutory damages are only available in the United States for works that were registered with the Copyright Office prior to infringement." If they can't claim statutory damages, they would probably only be able to claim either lost earnings, or whatever profit Google made from the infringing distribution, neither of which are likely to add up to very much.
Expose the users without telling them that they're going to do it
How exactly is a big button marked "Do you want to share your home address and phone number with this application" not telling users what they're doing?
The rules haven't changed. Your number and address are still private and shared only with people you authorize. The only difference is that the people you authorize can now include "developers of apps" as well as "friends."
Seriously. I just switched back to Firefox after using Chrome for a while, and one of the main reasons was how much better the Awesomebar is that Chrome's address completion. Why is it quicker for Chromw to get me search suggestions from Google than URLs from my own history? Why does Chrome randomly seem to find URLs from my history, then lose them, then find them again?
Uh, it's very likely that WebM infringes on patents, so saying it's unencumbered is wrong.
Well, Google says it doesn't, and they've studied WebM in some detail. So either they're stupid, or they have some kind of plan whereby, somehow, patents on WebM won't cause them problems. I can't think what such a plan would be, but if you have any suggestions, I'd be interested to hear them.
NULL is defined to be integer 0 in C++, so you have to do these workarounds when you use NULL, as well; indeed, one of the advantages of using 0 is that it serves as a bit of a reminder that you need to keep these workarounds in mind.
For instance, someone who read your comment might think that Feyerabend thought that Galileo was wrong, and that the church at the time was right, and so decide to ignore Feyerabend because he holds such obviously wrong views. But to do so would be a mistake, because someone who actually went and studied what Feyerabend wrote would discover that that is not what he meant. Feyerabend didn't think that Galileo was wrong and the church right; rather, he thought that if you tried to formulate an overarching philosophical theory about the scientific method, that philosophical theory would likely support the church rather than Galileo.
Feyerabend's position is in many ways pro-science, and certainly pro-scientist, because he thinks that the actual practice of scientists is more important than the theories of philosophers which would try and set rules on what scientists ought to do.
Slashdot Mirror
But GNOME Shell already broke minimize when they removed the taskbar. Now, minimized windows just vanish, and it's not at all obvious how to get them back. Given that minimize doesn't make sense with GNOME Shell's model, removing the minimize button is, precisely, fixing something that's broken.
I would think only the first of these would be particularly controversial. Jake Lloyd was an averagely annoying child-actor, while Hayden Christensen was a complete black-whole of charisma, removing any possibility of drama from any scene he was in; this explains the third and fourth point, too, although I think the script has to take a fair amount of blame for them, too ("You're smooth, not like sand").
The British ratings body, the BBFC, doesn't quite take the quantitative approach you suggest here, but it does provide quite detailed breakdowns of the elements that led to a particular classification for a given work. I'm surprised the MPAA doesn't do something similar.
Does Nokia rely on their platform for their market share, though? Do people really buy Nokia phones because of Symbian or, even more so, because of whatever Nokia's feature-phone platform is called? Nokia's market share, I think, is largely due to their reputation for well-designed phones (a reputation they've been squandering for years), not because of their platform.
I have no idea how you can call it least original.
It always struck me as taking a lot of its general style from Lexx, but with much less of the kink and weirdness that made Lexx interesting.
They're not doing either of those things, though. They're using their own window manager and panel program by default, instead of the new GNOME window manager and panel program, and they're thinking about maybe moving to a new display backend which is being developed by a number of prominent X developers and is supported by other major Linux distributions, at some point in the future (at which point it will still include an X compatibility layer).
The intent is clearly to make stuff up about Tolkien and give the impression that at least some of it is "historical."
I don't see where you get that from. Obviously, some of what the book includes will be historical; there'd be no point including Tolkien as a character if the character didn't have some things in common with the real Tolkien. But I don't see anything about the book that depends on the reader believing any of the specific events narrated in the book are real. In most historical fiction, the general setting is real, but the specific events (with the occasional exception of particularly famous historical events) in the work are not, so I think most readers of this novel would assume the same is true in this case.
The right way to do that is in an essay, actually critiquing "the (perceived) lack of female characters in Tolkien's works" not by making things up about the person.
Why? Why isn't fiction a legitimate way to explore real issues and put forward a critique? Should Tolkein have written an essay critiquing historical developments since the middle ages, rather than writing the Lord of the Rings?
Mixing fact and fiction is quaintly known in civilized societies as lying.
I'm not sure if you're joking; your argument would make all fiction mere "lying," because all fiction "mixes fact and fiction." Most fiction involves real places, and almost all involves a real species, i.e., human beings. A huge amount of fiction involves real people in one way or another, too, so readers will be familiar with the idea that claims made about real people in a work of fiction may not be true. It's only lying if you say things that are untrue with the intent that someone reading them believes them to be true, and that will not be true of anything which specifically calls itself "fiction."
Does online voting necessarily preclude a paper trail, or is there an electronic equivalent of a paper trail? What you want is something independent of the vote counting machines, which can be reasonably secured to prevent tampering, can be used at a later date to perform a recount if necessary, and which doesn't allow anyone to prove which way an individual voted (in order to ensure the secrecy of the ballot). I don't think you can do this with paper with an online ballot; you can't, for example, have people print out a record of their vote, unless you figure out a way in which a) the validity of these paper records can be validated in the case of a recount and b) individuals can verify that the paper record accurately reflects their vote, without allowing this record to be used to prove to a third-party that they voted in a particular way. I can't think of any way to do these two things, but perhaps there is some sort of cryptographic magic that could be used.
I'm not sure about Netflix, but the DRM that Hulu and BBC's iPlayer use, RTMPE, was broken a long time ago. However, while it's possible to find programs for saving the streams from these services, but there don't seem to be widely distributed, user friendly programs to do so. I don't see why the situation would necessarily be any different if there were no DRM at all. People seem sufficiently happy with the service Hulu and iPlayer provide that they're not going to the trouble of downloading software to get round the services terms and conditions.
It paid homage to the pages but it really did not translate well
Indeed - and, in a way, that ends up making the "homage" more of a caricature. There are a number of shots in the film that look exactly like panels in the comic, but that just shows that Zack Snyder doesn't understand films or comics. Panels in a comic work aren't just static images to be enjoyed in isolation, but work in part because of the pacing that is set up by the relationship between different panels. Likewise, images in films work through the relationship between the movement of the image and the action they convey. Snyder's obsession with the visuals of the comic prevented him from seeing how those images worked in the context of the comic, and prevented him from making a film that worked as a film.
So, this guy wants to run a program on an untrusted machine, which will report back to a website on whether or not the machine should be trusted? Presumably he also thinks banks should employ people to stand at the front door and ask "are you a bankrobber?" rather than employing security guards.
I agree with you that there are leftist libertarians, indeed the term "libertarian" was originally a synonym for anarchist, and anarchism is a branch of socialism. But these left libertarians didn't have much influence on today's American libertarians. Left libertarians would be people like Bakunin or, today, Chomsky, who have had little influence on contemporary American libertarians; today's American libertarians are much more influenced by the classical liberal tradition descending from people like Locke. Some libertarians do draw on the American anarchist tradition of people like Tucker and Spooner, who considered themselves leftist and socialist, but even these were on the right wing of anarchism globally speaking.
I think this is related to the way in which brands don't just sell us products, they sell us identities. So the underlying worry is that, if our consumption habits are really just data that marketers can aggregate, then the brand of jeans we buy and the music we listen to and the films we watch don't actually make us the special snowflake we would like to imagine.
The parent doesn't need fixing; the definite article doesn't have separate singular and plural forms in English.
Without autorun at least you have the option to look at the disk before it blindly runs whatever is on there.
But this article is about exploiting bugs in the file manager, that is, the software that you would probably use to "look at the disk." It's not really about autorun at all - the same vulnerabilities would occur if you manually mounted the USB disk and manually opened the file manager.
If you want that type of reciprocation, you use CC-BY-SA. If you don't want that type of reciprocation, you use CC-BY.
As I understand it, the "share-alike" clause only applies to derivative works. Does combining a photo with a text story make the whole thing a "derivative work" of the photo? I'm not sure, although a quick look at Wikipedia suggests it might do.
Statutory damages, probably. "The basic level of damages is between $750 and $30,000 per work," but "statutory damages are only available in the United States for works that were registered with the Copyright Office prior to infringement." If they can't claim statutory damages, they would probably only be able to claim either lost earnings, or whatever profit Google made from the infringing distribution, neither of which are likely to add up to very much.
Expose the users without telling them that they're going to do it
How exactly is a big button marked "Do you want to share your home address and phone number with this application" not telling users what they're doing?
The rules haven't changed. Your number and address are still private and shared only with people you authorize. The only difference is that the people you authorize can now include "developers of apps" as well as "friends."
Seriously. I just switched back to Firefox after using Chrome for a while, and one of the main reasons was how much better the Awesomebar is that Chrome's address completion. Why is it quicker for Chromw to get me search suggestions from Google than URLs from my own history? Why does Chrome randomly seem to find URLs from my history, then lose them, then find them again?
Uh, it's very likely that WebM infringes on patents, so saying it's unencumbered is wrong.
Well, Google says it doesn't, and they've studied WebM in some detail. So either they're stupid, or they have some kind of plan whereby, somehow, patents on WebM won't cause them problems. I can't think what such a plan would be, but if you have any suggestions, I'd be interested to hear them.
NULL is defined to be integer 0 in C++, so you have to do these workarounds when you use NULL, as well; indeed, one of the advantages of using 0 is that it serves as a bit of a reminder that you need to keep these workarounds in mind.
For instance, someone who read your comment might think that Feyerabend thought that Galileo was wrong, and that the church at the time was right, and so decide to ignore Feyerabend because he holds such obviously wrong views. But to do so would be a mistake, because someone who actually went and studied what Feyerabend wrote would discover that that is not what he meant. Feyerabend didn't think that Galileo was wrong and the church right; rather, he thought that if you tried to formulate an overarching philosophical theory about the scientific method, that philosophical theory would likely support the church rather than Galileo.
Feyerabend's position is in many ways pro-science, and certainly pro-scientist, because he thinks that the actual practice of scientists is more important than the theories of philosophers which would try and set rules on what scientists ought to do.