Yep, that was my first thought, too. What's more, I can't see any reason why a telemarketing firm couldn't use this company's services (or if not them, a competitor, or do it themselves depending on how open the technology for it is) to blast out voicemails to 1,000,000 people at one time. Say hello to voice mail spam, the next iteration in annoying advertising.
The problem with ignoring Chinese (or Indian) pollution today because of American or European pollution 50 to 100 years ago is, they should've learned from us. When the West went through industrialization, we were trail blazers, and made a lot of mistakes. If Chinese leaders had any sense in them, they'd learn from our mistakes and avoid making the same ones. They're not, which is just a shame.
And how does that work for something like Quicken, which is designed specifically for home users? And what company is going to need 1,000 licenses of Halo?
Software has the license chosen for it by the producer of that software. You either abide by the license the creator has chosen, or you use something else. It's not rocket science.
Exactly right. It makes sense for high level decision makers (especially since these are older guys and gals, not in the primes of their lives) to have a certain level of comfort while traveling. Enabling them and their staffs to do work while traveling, even better. But they don't need high end and expensive leather swivel chairs while they're in the air, that's just overboard.
Too be fair, you're not paying OpenDNS to access their servers already. So when they redirect bad requests to a search page, it's not quite as bad. I'm curious if their for-pay DNS service redirects, as well.
Well, I did a google search, and in a few moments found such work.
Great, I can't wait to follow the link to read what you found. This should be highly informative.
<scan remainder of post, fail to find any links>
Shoot, guess none of that actually exists. I'll just stick to my previously held perceptions then, as there's nothing here to make me want to change them.
You're assuming that Ubisoft did anything wrong by taking an illegal modification to their program and publishing it as their own. They're the original copyright holders, and if the license under which they published their game doesn't allow for cracks like this (which it almost assuredly doesn't), they've done nothing wrong in taking the code and repurposing it.
It's especially laughable for someone (the crackers) who broke someone else's copyright protection to complain that someone is now "abusing" their rights. IP rights either exist, or they don't. If they do, the crackers should've done what they did in the first place. If they don't, then Ubisoft isn't doing anything wrong by taking someone's else software as their own. You don't get to have it both ways.
Tell ya what, troll, go explain your theories to the network admin in San Francisco who was arrested last week for not turning over the passwords to the Cisco routers he was responsible for. I'm sure he'd love to get a visitor while he's in county lockup, and would be very interested in your innovative legal theories. They'll give him something else to think about while his roommate is raping him later that night.
He'll be fine, as long as he wears shower shoes and sprays his feet with Tinactin afterwards. Though some of the fungi in military showers can be pretty tough.
A password is a key; if your employer gave you a key to front door and demanded it back, you would have no right to refuse that demand, and demanding they pay you to return their property would not go over well in any court. Especially since, as I've pointed out before, passwords are typically covered specifically in IP contracts. You would have absolutely no grounds to deny their request.
Last post on this very off topic thread: I think Kennedy's point (with which I agree) is that "evolving standards" dictate what is "cruel and unusual". Just because the founders wouldn't have viewed the death penalty for child rapists as c&u, doesn't mean we are eternally beholden to an 18th century view of justice and morality. On those grounds, the law did not meet the standards required by the constitution.
I realize this opens a potentially dangerous door, in that society could at some future time decide that hacking off hands for stealing bread isn't cruel or unusual. But I still think the argument has merit and was a just application of the Court's power to overturn bad laws.
Anyone got FMV versions of these videos? I don't have Quicktime installed on my work (Windows) laptop, and would rather not jump through all those hoops just to view what sounds like an interesting vid.
(Alternatively, I can wait until I get home from work and use Gplayer.)
The prohibition against "cruel and unusual punishment" is mandated by the Eighth Amendment, and enforced on the states by the Fourteenth Amendment. That was the basis for the Court's decision against the death penalty for child molesters. Thank you for playing.
Good thing: enabling people to install these devices voluntarily to defend themselves against false claims of speeding or reckless driving.
Bad thing: having the government mandate their installation, and at some later time mandating that the data be uploaded to a central processing facility.
The GP might be a bit emotional about this, but keep in mind he was in an erotica newsgroup. Whatever picture he saw was clearly not simply a "naked 7 year old" if someone, somewhere, considered it erotica.
It's called grand standing. The ISPs get to have their names published along with a noted organization that certain people trust to keep their kids safe; those same people will now assume, by extension, that using those ISPs will keep their kids safe. Ergo, good press (and potentially more customers) for the ISPs.
Obviously, it will do nothing of the kind, and will simply make pedophiles slip deeper into the woodwork. If anything, this will make it HARDER to find people exploiting children, as they will be forced away from the more easily accessible fora where they previously traded their filth. That's some police work, there, NCMEC.
Yet another (potential) example that the Law of Unintended Consequences has not been repealed.
I thought the definition of a pedophile was someone who was attracted to children who are not sexually mature? You're describing being attracted to pubescent girls; that hardly seems like much of a perversion. It wouldn't be socially acceptable for you to form any sort of relationship with girls that young, but you're not sick for feeling attraction to them.
Now, if you found yourself attracted to pre-pubescent girls (or boys), that would be entirely different, and you should consider psychological help. It's not healthy for a sexual creature to be attracted to an asexual one, for either of you (IMO, YMMV, etc etc).
You ain't kiddin', brother. In my Intro to Civil and Criminal Procedures class a few weeks ago, the professor started a discussion about the Supreme Court decision overturning the death penalty for child molesters. Almost every single one of those future lawyers (at least one of whom is a cop!) starting shouting about "protecting the children". I don't think I've seen anything like it. These are people training to someday work with the law (OK, not all of them will go on to law school, or pass the bar if they do, but still you'd think they're all thinking adults), and they immediately jumped to "for the children".
I felt like a lone voice calling out for restraint in not wanting to give the state ever more reasons to execute its citizens. It's easy to forget that not everyone in our society is able to think calmly and dispassionately about things like this.
And for the record, I have kids, and absolutely want them protected from the predations of child molesters. I also want them protected from the predations of the government; balancing those two isn't easy, but nothing worthwhile ever is.
Slashdot Mirror
Yep, that was my first thought, too. What's more, I can't see any reason why a telemarketing firm couldn't use this company's services (or if not them, a competitor, or do it themselves depending on how open the technology for it is) to blast out voicemails to 1,000,000 people at one time. Say hello to voice mail spam, the next iteration in annoying advertising.
The problem with ignoring Chinese (or Indian) pollution today because of American or European pollution 50 to 100 years ago is, they should've learned from us. When the West went through industrialization, we were trail blazers, and made a lot of mistakes. If Chinese leaders had any sense in them, they'd learn from our mistakes and avoid making the same ones. They're not, which is just a shame.
Like the old saying: anyone can quit smoking; it takes a real man to face cancer.
Its 20 light years away, which if you could get a probe up to say .5 c could be done in 40 years.
I love it when a "what if" scenario lists the reason why the scenario can never happen within itself.
And how does that work for something like Quicken, which is designed specifically for home users? And what company is going to need 1,000 licenses of Halo?
Software has the license chosen for it by the producer of that software. You either abide by the license the creator has chosen, or you use something else. It's not rocket science.
Just wait until they start outsourcing prisons to China. Won't that be all kinds of fun?
God, I wish I were joking.
Exactly right. It makes sense for high level decision makers (especially since these are older guys and gals, not in the primes of their lives) to have a certain level of comfort while traveling. Enabling them and their staffs to do work while traveling, even better. But they don't need high end and expensive leather swivel chairs while they're in the air, that's just overboard.
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Snarkyness
Too be fair, you're not paying OpenDNS to access their servers already. So when they redirect bad requests to a search page, it's not quite as bad. I'm curious if their for-pay DNS service redirects, as well.
An asshat from Philadelphia? That's unbelievable!
Well, I did a google search, and in a few moments found such work.
Great, I can't wait to follow the link to read what you found. This should be highly informative.
<scan remainder of post, fail to find any links>
Shoot, guess none of that actually exists. I'll just stick to my previously held perceptions then, as there's nothing here to make me want to change them.
You're assuming that Ubisoft did anything wrong by taking an illegal modification to their program and publishing it as their own. They're the original copyright holders, and if the license under which they published their game doesn't allow for cracks like this (which it almost assuredly doesn't), they've done nothing wrong in taking the code and repurposing it.
It's especially laughable for someone (the crackers) who broke someone else's copyright protection to complain that someone is now "abusing" their rights. IP rights either exist, or they don't. If they do, the crackers should've done what they did in the first place. If they don't, then Ubisoft isn't doing anything wrong by taking someone's else software as their own. You don't get to have it both ways.
Tell ya what, troll, go explain your theories to the network admin in San Francisco who was arrested last week for not turning over the passwords to the Cisco routers he was responsible for. I'm sure he'd love to get a visitor while he's in county lockup, and would be very interested in your innovative legal theories. They'll give him something else to think about while his roommate is raping him later that night.
And he might want to stay away from the showers.
He'll be fine, as long as he wears shower shoes and sprays his feet with Tinactin afterwards. Though some of the fungi in military showers can be pretty tough.
A password is a key; if your employer gave you a key to front door and demanded it back, you would have no right to refuse that demand, and demanding they pay you to return their property would not go over well in any court. Especially since, as I've pointed out before, passwords are typically covered specifically in IP contracts. You would have absolutely no grounds to deny their request.
Fortunately for them, they have a massive marketing team and extensive manufacturing facilities, both of which AMD lack.
OMG! Someone on Slashdot praised a company's marketing team, if only in part, as the reason for their success. Heretic! /sarcasm
Last post on this very off topic thread: I think Kennedy's point (with which I agree) is that "evolving standards" dictate what is "cruel and unusual". Just because the founders wouldn't have viewed the death penalty for child rapists as c&u, doesn't mean we are eternally beholden to an 18th century view of justice and morality. On those grounds, the law did not meet the standards required by the constitution.
I realize this opens a potentially dangerous door, in that society could at some future time decide that hacking off hands for stealing bread isn't cruel or unusual. But I still think the argument has merit and was a just application of the Court's power to overturn bad laws.
Anyone got FMV versions of these videos? I don't have Quicktime installed on my work (Windows) laptop, and would rather not jump through all those hoops just to view what sounds like an interesting vid.
(Alternatively, I can wait until I get home from work and use Gplayer.)
The prohibition against "cruel and unusual punishment" is mandated by the Eighth Amendment, and enforced on the states by the Fourteenth Amendment. That was the basis for the Court's decision against the death penalty for child molesters. Thank you for playing.
Good thing: enabling people to install these devices voluntarily to defend themselves against false claims of speeding or reckless driving.
Bad thing: having the government mandate their installation, and at some later time mandating that the data be uploaded to a central processing facility.
No it isn't, Alanis.
The GP might be a bit emotional about this, but keep in mind he was in an erotica newsgroup. Whatever picture he saw was clearly not simply a "naked 7 year old" if someone, somewhere, considered it erotica.
It's called grand standing. The ISPs get to have their names published along with a noted organization that certain people trust to keep their kids safe; those same people will now assume, by extension, that using those ISPs will keep their kids safe. Ergo, good press (and potentially more customers) for the ISPs.
Obviously, it will do nothing of the kind, and will simply make pedophiles slip deeper into the woodwork. If anything, this will make it HARDER to find people exploiting children, as they will be forced away from the more easily accessible fora where they previously traded their filth. That's some police work, there, NCMEC.
Yet another (potential) example that the Law of Unintended Consequences has not been repealed.
I thought the definition of a pedophile was someone who was attracted to children who are not sexually mature? You're describing being attracted to pubescent girls; that hardly seems like much of a perversion. It wouldn't be socially acceptable for you to form any sort of relationship with girls that young, but you're not sick for feeling attraction to them.
Now, if you found yourself attracted to pre-pubescent girls (or boys), that would be entirely different, and you should consider psychological help. It's not healthy for a sexual creature to be attracted to an asexual one, for either of you (IMO, YMMV, etc etc).
You ain't kiddin', brother. In my Intro to Civil and Criminal Procedures class a few weeks ago, the professor started a discussion about the Supreme Court decision overturning the death penalty for child molesters. Almost every single one of those future lawyers (at least one of whom is a cop!) starting shouting about "protecting the children". I don't think I've seen anything like it. These are people training to someday work with the law (OK, not all of them will go on to law school, or pass the bar if they do, but still you'd think they're all thinking adults), and they immediately jumped to "for the children".
I felt like a lone voice calling out for restraint in not wanting to give the state ever more reasons to execute its citizens. It's easy to forget that not everyone in our society is able to think calmly and dispassionately about things like this.
And for the record, I have kids, and absolutely want them protected from the predations of child molesters. I also want them protected from the predations of the government; balancing those two isn't easy, but nothing worthwhile ever is.