I don't get your second bit. I use firefox and it is exactly how you say it is for Mozilla: edit->preferences and the managers under "Tools" (though it doesn't say "Manager").
Under Windows it's in the Tools menu. You must be using *nix or a Mac, which has it under Edit. I would rather have it under Edit as well, but if a small menu re-arrangement will help adoption and movement away from IE, I'm all for it.
It is not a 'magic cloak,' however, because it will not work for the full range of visible light and needs to be adjusted precisely for the shape of the object. However, the concept could find an application in stealth technology.
What kind of application would involve a fized object of known shape? How about a camera and it's controls/batteries/wireless? Use it as fake merchandise on a top shelf at a convenience store. Or books on a top shelf of an office. For that matter, a "invisibility" that could project a faked image (hologram or objects behind/around the camera) would be another good concealment method. I know there are already fake things with cameras in them, but something that could change appearance would be quite handy...
i just hoped it was something i could watch outside a tiny window.
In the player window, right click on the video image and select "Play in RealPlayer Theater Mode". Fullscreen. Not better resolution, but fullscreen or windowed normal RealPlayer. Hit escape to go to a normal window.
Yes you can. I had one rental for three months. Not a peep or complaint from them - I did pay my usual monthly charge though. This is major benefit of the Netflix business model. They did the accounting and see that if I pay the monthly fee, who cares how long I have the movie. I can only have three at a time, but if I want to hold onto one until I want to see it I can.
I know TFA is about pirated content, but with the amount of public TV in the UK, it doesn't surprise me that they feel more of an "ownership" to what's broadcasted. Sadly, no matter how much time/money I dontate to PBS here in the US, they will probably never do what the BBC is doing with their old shows. Though I must admit, with new content PBS is on the righttrack.
I personally hope downloads become more of a broadcast medium. Sure, throw some commercials in that 320x240 video! I'll watch them to watch decent News/Information/Entertainment. If I could subscribe to the Daily Show and scrap cable, I would. Even for like $10-$20 a month. I grab legal stuff from some places like Archive.org and play it on my PDA. There's some good content online both streaming and to download, but the models for getting to it (subscribe al la iFilm/Real, finesse google syntax, pray) suck when compared to downloading a file that I can convert into any format for any player I wish from the pirate channels. This, like other entertainment IP problems, comes down to convenience for a lot of folks. Listen up Networks!
Jeez... you people. Maybe if you actually used the systems you bitch about you wouldn't be so far off base all the time.
That's my point though. I don't use MSN messenger. If there were an option for it at install, I wouldn't have installed it. So here I am learning about a patch for a peice of software that I never use, but have installed whether I like it or not (and the occasional Windows patch or Service Pack will re-install it).
Use Microsoft's simple instructions to remove messenger. Glad they made it so point-and-click for those end users!</sarcasm>They obfuscated it because Messenger is such an important part of the lock-i... er operating system. Never mind that editing your registry may void your tech support, destroy your install, burn your clothes, hit your dog. I guess I'll be getting more calls from my family if disabling Messenger gets recommended in the press. Whenever they see that "Warning If you use Registry Editor incorrectly, you may cause serious problems that may require you to reinstall your operating system. Microsoft cannot guarantee that you can solve problems that result from using Registry Editor incorrectly. Use Registry Editor at your own risk." they ask me to fix it. I guess I should put together a.reg and a.vbs file for them now.
Has there yet been a judgement in a RIAA case? Or has everyone settled or otherwise had the case dropped?
Everyone has settled. The last case I heard of was this one from August 2003, but the outcome was never announced (probably settled). In looking it all up, I found this nice listing of cases from the EFF.
Probably for the exact same reason you can't legally use a DirecTV decoder; even though you may have never agreed to their terms of service, and even though their signal is being broadcast onto your property.
In his example, he was monitoring the traffic of friends with their consent. In your DirectTV example, you're monitoring the traffic without their consent (you only have consent to use the decoder, not look at the traffic directly). There's a big difference there legally. The DMCA was meant to curb sniffing, snooping or copying unauthorized content via electronic means. You're right that this is where the DMCA get's prickly (especially compared to the EULA example) because it theoretically prohibits "circumvention" regardless of who owns the content according to some folks.
The truth of the matter is that someone with legal rights to the content must call you on your actions. DirectTV will get mad at you and friends won't. Regardless, the folks who made the transport/protocol that carries the traffic (if they are a third party) legally still don't have any means to attack you (unless they make you out to be a national threat, but that's a whole other political discussion). You can legally observe any network traffic as long as you have permission to view it's contents. In a controlled environment, that's not hard to do - but on public networks it's near impossible. The Samba folks used a controlled environment to avoid legal complications.
I'm really curious to see the content for the "Wind Power and its Risks" session given at the "Cautionary Tales: Rethinking Environmental Decision Making and Risk Assessment" Scientific Alliance seminar from November 2004. What the hell are the risks of wind power? "Don't stand in the propeller blade's path" or something? Geez!
If we could give dogs the brains of humans (uplift-them, David Brin style[1]), why shouldn't we?
This hardly sounds like "uplifting" (from the article):
Scientists feel that, the more humanlike the animal, the better research model it makes for testing drugs or possibly growing "spare parts," such as livers, to transplant into humans.
Frankly, I don't trust us not to be cruel, selfish and oppressive. We are not mature enough as a species to reproduce like this (if it's possible to mature to that point). We're considering these cousins we're creating disposable. A little RTFA would have answered "Why shouldn't that line be crossed?".
Imagine all of the bad geek jokes that will go around the IT staff of the production. I'd hate to be anywhere near that render farm! "If you tell one more cluster joke, I'm wiping the drives!"
1. Stop WMDs.
2. Break another support structure for Al Qaeda
3. Liberate the Iraqi people from a brutal, evil monster.
As I said, Cite them. Show me where Bush publicly announced those as the reasons. Come on, the speech transcripts are everywhere. Show me one spot where these three are in the same Bush speech. Your 66% formulation doesn't work if Bush spent 80% of his time on #1. #1 we agree upon. #2 has yet to be proven. The 9/11 commission couldn't even find a direct Al Queda/Saddam link. #3 is almost never mentioned. I'm not trying to troll you as much as hope that you will cite real sources rather than the blanket "media wants you to believe" rhetoric being regurgitated. Thanks.
No, the media spin given over and over was that WMD was the reason America attacked Iraq.
I'm calling your bluff. Cite the other reasons. In fact, here's a link to the transcript from January 29, 2003. I gave you the benefit of the doubt and tried to look, but all I found was stuff like:
The dictator of Iraq is not disarming. To the contrary, he is deceiving.
From intelligence sources, we know, for instance, that thousands of Iraqi security personnel are at work hiding documents and materials from the U.N. inspectors, sanitizing inspection sites and monitoring the inspectors themselves.
Iraqi officials accompany the inspectors in order to intimidate witnesses. Iraq is blocking U-2 surveillance flights requested by the United Nations.
Iraqi intelligence officers are posing as the scientists inspectors are supposed to interview. Real scientists have been coached by Iraqi officials on what to say.
Intelligence sources indicate that Saddam Hussein has ordered that scientists who cooperate with U.N. inspectors in disarming Iraq will be killed, along with their families.
Year after year, Saddam Hussein has gone to elaborate lengths, spent enormous sums, taken great risks to build and keep weapons of mass destruction. But why?
The only possible explanation, the only possible use he could have for those weapons, is to dominate, intimidate or attack.
Where, pray tell, is the spin if not from Bush himself? Do I have the wrong State of the Union? If so, please point out which one and the parts of the transcript you refer to. Give me facts if you want me to believe in blaming the media for this.
From the resounding number of posts from people rushing to recommend it (at this moment 0 of 2 comments ten minutes after/.'s posting), I say it's a definite no. Without any geeks/gurus recommending it - in fact bashing it - they won't gather momentum even if they shove it down user's throats via Windows Update.
If you take Middleware today for example, it's undeniable that despite great alternatives (JBoss, LAMP things, even Zope) IBM makes a fortune in software revenues from WebSphere.
You bring up a very good point. Especially in light of the middleware marketing campaign. I'm going to give the whole shebang more thought, but I hope deep down that the OSS middleware products catch up. Either way, this will be the company to watch as it's starting to innovate the business model itself. Thanks again for the insightful points.
For sure we can all forsee a future where OSes and large areas of middleware are commoditized and OSS versions are dominant, but I don't for a moment think IBM's intention is to wind up its Software Group, with its n labs round the world and strong links to research.
I actually agree with you. My point is more that it will stop making software part of it's revenue stream. No hardware company can get out of software altogether. IBM is learning how to be a participant in the OSS community before any of the other big players. I feel that they will eventually stop charging for the software they create and see development as part of doing business elsewhere - they are already on the way to that in my view. The grandparent I replied to saw them as throwning money away and I see them as getting ahead of evolution and being in a great position to do so. Thanks for prompting me to clarify that some.
Responsible investing in companies that improve society, sure... but irrationally throwing away your money?
You're thinking of IBM as a software company like MS. IBM has a huge hardware and consulting business. If you think of how open source is growing more robust, getting out of the sofware market might be a good idea. Even laymen are aware of open/free software now. I think IBM is looking 20 years ahead and seeing a huge library of OSS code that the public will itself build upon. Think of all of the libraries in your average *nix system that would have been considered completely legacy and abandoned a long time ago by proprietary companies. Some of that code will be around in the years to come. In this light, proprietary companied are reinventing the wheel from their own code libraries rather than the vast sea of open source. It makes great long term sense for IBM to migrate their business to the things the average person is incapable of: creating complex hardware and consulting for complex solutions. Don't forget that they charge top dollar for both;)
Slashdot Mirror
Oh yeah... 30 years went by. That explains it.
Could be someone spoofing ANI from a land line as well. It's trivial to spoof with the right soft/hardware. I guess I read too much 2600...
I personally hope downloads become more of a broadcast medium. Sure, throw some commercials in that 320x240 video! I'll watch them to watch decent News/Information/Entertainment. If I could subscribe to the Daily Show and scrap cable, I would. Even for like $10-$20 a month. I grab legal stuff from some places like Archive.org and play it on my PDA. There's some good content online both streaming and to download, but the models for getting to it (subscribe al la iFilm/Real, finesse google syntax, pray) suck when compared to downloading a file that I can convert into any format for any player I wish from the pirate channels. This, like other entertainment IP problems, comes down to convenience for a lot of folks. Listen up Networks!
Use Microsoft's simple instructions to remove messenger. Glad they made it so point-and-click for those end users!</sarcasm>They obfuscated it because Messenger is such an important part of the lock-i... er operating system. Never mind that editing your registry may void your tech support, destroy your install, burn your clothes, hit your dog. I guess I'll be getting more calls from my family if disabling Messenger gets recommended in the press. Whenever they see that "Warning If you use Registry Editor incorrectly, you may cause serious problems that may require you to reinstall your operating system. Microsoft cannot guarantee that you can solve problems that result from using Registry Editor incorrectly. Use Registry Editor at your own risk." they ask me to fix it. I guess I should put together a .reg and a.vbs file for them now.
The truth of the matter is that someone with legal rights to the content must call you on your actions. DirectTV will get mad at you and friends won't. Regardless, the folks who made the transport/protocol that carries the traffic (if they are a third party) legally still don't have any means to attack you (unless they make you out to be a national threat, but that's a whole other political discussion). You can legally observe any network traffic as long as you have permission to view it's contents. In a controlled environment, that's not hard to do - but on public networks it's near impossible. The Samba folks used a controlled environment to avoid legal complications.
I'm really curious to see the content for the "Wind Power and its Risks" session given at the "Cautionary Tales: Rethinking Environmental Decision Making and Risk Assessment" Scientific Alliance seminar from November 2004. What the hell are the risks of wind power? "Don't stand in the propeller blade's path" or something? Geez!
Imagine all of the bad geek jokes that will go around the IT staff of the production. I'd hate to be anywhere near that render farm! "If you tell one more cluster joke, I'm wiping the drives!"
Good tip! Thanks!
Makes me want to build a new firewall/ssh server. Now what interesting thing to mount it in...